Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And that is why there are more Christian scientists today than there were?Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
We know they do.
How sad for the fundies that there is no affirmative evidence available to support belief in gawds. The fundies are left to hopeless and failed attacks on science in vain hopes of placating their amazing, shrinking gawds.
“Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.”
Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination from primitive humans.
Possible ?
No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
There's no reason to believe that is true.
I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars… I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
“Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.”
There's no reason to believe that is true.
I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
There's no reason to believe that is true.
I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
[/i]
Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
Don't confuse real scientists buying into pseudoscience with Real Science, which has proven evolution exists, and now merely seeks to better understand it.
I can agree that some scientists do not believe the facts supporting evolution. That was confirmed in the link I supplied. I can also agree that the number of scientists, (especially those in the life sciences fields), rejecting evolutionary fact is exceedingly small. That is confirmed in the link I pasted and in your link.There's no reason to believe that is true.
I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?
Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
Some Animals are gay. Were they sexually abused when thy were little? Nope. Correlation does not imply causation, even if I were to accept your anecdotal evidence, which I don't for a second.
Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
I'm gay and I don't know anyone who's been abused as a child. Well, actually I do, but she's not gay.
So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? Was it god? No? Then wtf?
Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
No. I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today. In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet. The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?
No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking. So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Absurd.
As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?
No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking. So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Absurd.
Really??? Darwin had no clue about the information contained in DNA or the magnificent molecular machines that populate the inner workings of the cell.
No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking. So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance. So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1...
There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
Not trying to be rude,just being honest with you. I once was branwashed as many are today by the school system.
No not really. You retorted with 6000 harmful mutations. I showed you two plus links to more.
There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
Am I? Thus far I do not see it. I only see arrogance.
No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Absurd.
There's no reason to believe that is true.
I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
[/i]
Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
Don't confuse real scientists buying into pseudoscience with Real Science, which has proven evolution exists, and now merely seeks to better understand it.
after what I have pointed out to some of you that is the pot calling the kettle black. That is nothing more then a childish attack that your side resorts to when they have nothing of substance to respond with.No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking. So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance. So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.
Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia.
Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.
Absurd.
Really??? Darwin had no clue about the information contained in DNA or the magnificent molecular machines that populate the inner workings of the cell.
Yes; Really.
While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance. So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.
Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia.
Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.
You're are correct I was certainly wrong in comparing the chances of winning the lottery by random chance vs the odds of random chance producing the precision in the cell which the odds would make it impossible.
