100 Top Scientists Who Don't Believe in Evolution

How can a real scientist believe creationism over evolution? Some people are way too afraid of what happens after death that they just choose to ignore the obvious. It's really going to suck when you've avoided all of the fun things in life just to find out you're just going to be turned off like a switch.

If there were a vendor here selling popcorn and cold drinks, it would be just as entertaining as a bad movie, and it would be free ! ! !

Say everybody, does examining each other (our personalities, character, or inadequacies)
somehow relate to this thread?

I'd rather go examine these 100 scientists... and their actual assertion that:

Waaaaiiiit . . . . They are specifically saying:
1) Mutation and selection are not the whole story.
2) We should study Darwinian Theory even more.

Sounds like a plea to extend and broaden evolutionary theory ... to fill in any gaps or additional mechanisms that contribute to complex life forms.

Looking to enrichen a theory may lead to a more complex systems point of view, within a global context, rather than a simple theory that relies on only two factors. This sounds like ongoing, good science!

1) Could an asteroid or earthquake magnify the complexity of life?
2) Could invasive viruses induce select mutations, beyond just the random mutations?
3) What about cosmic rays? Do they induce random or certain patterns of mutation, leading to complexity?
4) What about chemical tendencies for certain mutations to occur more than others?
5) When does natural selection actually fail, and some other force overide it?
(Cultural forces, social forces, tribal or family forces? Conscious planning by the great hand of Good hunters?)

Etc, etc... Just what other factors could possibly add to the complexity of life?

I don't see anything mentioned about Creationism, do you?
What I see is a plea for people to think more. Is that controversial in some way?

"How can a real scientist believe creationism over evolution?"


Simple - they don't.

I have the same feeling as you, goodfielder.

Though I am a strong supporter for evolution, I don't think evolutionists can persuade creationists.
Snake and other evolution debaters are basically not on a same logical basis. Always I see Snake wages a war and waves of evolutionists launch the counter-attack.....

A propaganda war, at least.

So, gunga, what do you think of your list of top scientists now? Or are you going to ignore my cursory analysis and move on to what you hope are greener pastures?

Perhaps he will be wise enough to remove the qualifier "top" from the title . . . although i doubt it . . .

And the wildly innacurate claim to "nobel laureats" {sic} (plural), as opposed to Nobel nominee (singular).

Did they have the date of the nomination? They keep nominations secret for fifty years, after all.

Wasn't aware of that. No date -- there's no information on anybody except their appointment or degree and their institution.

I think you're trying to argue by nitpicking. The list of people who signed that thing IS impressive and I doubt there are more than a half dozen people with similar credentials posting on A2K, if that.

Nitpicking is the creationist way. That's the gist of anti-darwin movement.

Rather than present a proposal falsifiable ID hypothesis, the Creationist/ID collective looks for perceived faults in an already established scientific theory and assumes that that is the whole spectrum of the scientific method.

Oh, and if you ever bother to read "On the Origin of Species" you'd realize that: 1) it is highly readable; 2) old Charlie D presented most of the modern Creationist/ID criticisms of his theory in his own thesis (other than the Biblical Inerrancy strawman).

Rap

Nitpicking? You are the one who posted this list as proof that the jury was out on evolution.

You posited "100 Top Scientists," and then misreported the credentials of the people on the list. Your attempt was to appeal to their authority, which you either didn't take the care to examine, or blatantly lied about. Now you backtrack and accuse me of nitpicking. Not a surprise, since you can't actually defend your claims.

Honestly, I was surprised that this was not a better list of people. Surely it would have been possible to at least find 100 fully tenured, active researchers in the relevant sciences -- biology, geology, genetics -- to put together a list. This is just shoddy work. Clearly the aim of the sponsoring organization was just to have a list that they could publish, secure in the knowledge that nobody who might be swayed by it would actually, you know, look at the names. Five people from BIOLA? Come on -- I'm all for democracy, but there have to be better people out there who would sign such a petition, especially as the wording of the petition doesn't even require Creationism or ID as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Hell, even I think there are major puzzle pieces missing from the evolutionary picture. Were it not for the source of the thing, I'd sign the petition myself (and when I've got my DVM I will be every bit as qualified as, say, the PhDs in psychology on that list to make a comment). Thing is, you don't throw out a powerful working model until you have a better model to replace it.

To have characterized this as "nitpicking" shows the feebleness of the argument. The alleged scientists listed are not all of them scientists whose field of expertise would qualify their contention as a statement from authority. Further, as this group cannot reasonably be characterized as "top" scientists (a sufficiently murky term on the face of it), the authority with which members of that group speak is lessened to an even greater degree.

When someone advances an argument from authority, questioning the credentials of the authority alluded to is not nitpicking, it's good sense.

Just saw this thread as Im getting to drive home, well, I can leave later

CODEBORG is on point. The scientists on that list include the entire spectrum of workers that range from'

"lets study alternatives much closer and evaluate how genetic diversity is fundamental to evolution"

all the way to
"The concept of Intelligent Design is my science book"

I know 3 of the aforementioned scientists , and only Sternbergh is a commited IDer. The others s are being specific in their objections to gradualism and genic diversity within a population. They are not Creationists or IDers. Im curious how this will play out since the Discovery Project has a reputation of this kind of phony testimonial and misquoting. Im sure that some grad student will track down the context of all this.

Archeorap was a frud that was commited by the fossil hunters in the Ling Zhuan beds and , lately, (at least since the late 90's) when the 2 fakes were uncovered, The various Universities and the Smithsonian, have sent observers to document the fossil finds, its especially important since these beds are of similar makeup as the solnhofen formation, in which archeopteryx (all 8) were found.
When fossil hunters try to make money by doctoring a specimen, and a mueum "picker" gets fooled into buying it for the museum, I am mostly concerned about the lack of QA and careful inspections that are easily made (rock layering would be different, grain sizes would be different, mineralogy would nt match, the suture lines wouldnt match etc) all this could be found out relatively quickly (a few weeks of inspection with petrographic equip,)
Im more amazed at the incompetence rather than suspecting deceit. The fossil had traveled the rock show circuit to Tucson. I know that museums pick the Tucson show every year and something as important as a fossil with evolutionary significance must be carefully studied.
It reminds me of the stories associated with the silver collection owned by E I Dupont. Who, along with the "best" conservators of his day had ammased a collection of the best examp-les of US Colonial and Fedderalist Silverware. The only problem, over 85% of it was fake. It wasnt until a colleague of mine wanted to do some calibration of a new type Xray analyzer that could look at alloys as well as minerals. The instrument found that the silver in the ware was of such high quality that it could not have been Colonial.
**** HAPPENS and, unless I need to remind gunga, it was the Creationists who faked the picture of a dinosaur in ALtamira caves, and A creationist Father and son team that carved the human footprint in the dinosaur track beds of the Paluxy shale.
Theres lots more.
There may have been fraude involved with the archeorap but it was on the fossil hunter and (possibly) the picker. The pros at the Smithsonian should get thbeir paychecks docked for stupidity.

Rather as was the case with Piltdown man . . . oh damn, i just gave Gunga Din more ammo . . .



heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okseeyahbye

Hmmm - try the Turin Shroud, and the assiduous peddling of millions of pieces of the "true cross", virgin's milk, a veritable charnel house of bits of alleged saints, the sale of indulgences, not to mention sundry bits of salt damp, fencing posts, mould and other odd bits and pieces said to be manifesting bits of the trinity.

The history of the christian religion is scattered with so many frauds that, should a thousand scientists try for a hundred years they would be scrabbling to make a dent in the history of religious fraud.

Piltdown man and Nebraska man were both examples of stubborness in the face of undeniable evidence that the fossils were fake. Teilhard de Chardin had earned a decent reputation in paleoanthropology, he didnt need to become a champion of Piltdown (Eoanthropus). , but since he was such a field nut, and loved to get out an dig, he never suspected that his friend Charles Dawson would make a faked skull and mandible. Even when Teilhard was faced with the evidence that the mandible was "pre hardened" with a bichromate solution and didnt match the age of the skull, he never questioned the honesty of Dawson who was a country barrister and deacon of the church. Teilhard was fooled and was such a vocal sponsor of Eoanthropus that he , like Einstein in another field, became marginalized to his end days. even when he had made some fairly impoortant discoveries before WWII.
Teilhard, like the Smithsonian guys , shoulda known better.

DEB-When I went to Catholic school, we used to peddle shards of the "true

cross" at Easter time. I think we had a miraculous cross, because there was enough wood to construct a small village in Connecticut. I called attention to this apparent volumetric discrepency to one of my friends, who "ratted" me out to his religious fanatic mother, who turned me in to the Monsenior(Catholics were like little Nazis). I was almost expelled for disbelieving the obvious "miracle". That whole experience started my long road of skepticism surrounding anything religious and faith related.

There is a great book written in 1952 by Herbert Wendt called Ich Suchte Adam . "I search for Adam". It was a good yarn about the science and fakery that surrounded the search for hominid ancestors. This book preceeded Leaky and Johannsen , so it occupies its pinnacle species of pre Sapiens as the Neanderthals . Most of the other Homo species were not even discovered yet so the book has ample time to discuss the fallacies of "THE FLOOD" and Homo DEluvii Testis, which was a fossil found by Buffon and so named because it was thought to be a man drowned in Noahs Flood. It was, really , a Mosasaur, which, if youre familiar with Mosasaurs, their fossils dont look anything like a human, what with the long grasping teeth with non hominid dentition and a long snout.
The pursuit of scientific explanations is loaded with wrong turns, outright deception, and lots of pure stupidity (Like the Museum of Natural history , for years, had its "Bronto" with its skull mounted on its tail section).
We do try to weed this out, the sooner the better.

.

For the benefit of anybody trying to figure out why evolutionites cling so stubbornly to obviously fraudulant fossils, I'll explain it for you:

Charles Darwin's gradualistric version of evolution requires that the vast bulk of all fossils be clear intermediates, i.e. that our biosphere should be in a constant state of flux.

Nonetheless, the actual fossil record does not offer a single case of a clear intermediate:



Darwin admitted that the lack of transitional fossils was a severe problem for his theory but he blamed the lack on the state of earth-moving equipment of his day, claiming that more and more intermediate fossils would be found as man got progressively better at manufacturing bulldozers and backhoes.

Nonetheless, 140 years and ten or twenty generations of bulldozers and backhoes later, they still haven't turned up a single intermediate fossil.

This puts evolutionists into the positon of the prince on the Benny Hill show, riding around the countryside looking for the girl who fits the glass bra. Naturally enough in such a totally lost endeavor, the people involved are willing to move heaven and earth to find that one intermediate fossil and, being convinced they have found it, are tremendously reluctant to give it up even when the guy who created the fraud fossil is standing right there laughing about taking their money and reporters are interviewing him.

Again, the theory demands that the vast majority of ALL fossils be intermediates and they've never found the first one in 140 years. What does that tell you about the people who won't give it up under such circumstances?