Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes. They all had to mutate to become something else.

No, this is not true. And that is not how speciation occurs. Natural selection works on populations, not individuals. 1/3 of a population can gain an advantageous mutation that the rest don't, for instance. And for that 1/3, it gets passed on, while the other 2/3ds don't have the trait to pass on to their offspring. One single individual is simply too low a number to make a difference.

As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.

That's right, because if you did transition to a bunny, that would not only refute evolution, but all of science. Good luck with that, because that is not what evolution is about.




But then, no one in the scientific community is saying that monkey's transitioned into humans. Monkey's are not our direct descendants. And by the way, we are not descended from modern apes, either. Modern apes and humans are descended from an ape ancestor. Humans are, whether or not you care to accept it, apes. So it isn't simply a matter of being descended from an ape. We ARE apes. The anatomy and genetics are unmistakable.



There is truth to the fact that mating among siblings cause genetic problems. It is also true that siblings have mated throughout the history of life on this planet.

Evolution suggests they should be able to mate and produce favorable mutations that go on to become the fittest of their species.
Where are all the unfavorable mutated fossils stemming from the population of simple organisms? There should be substantial mutant fossil record for every species' lineage.

You cannot expect every species that ever lived to be represented in the fossil record. The nature of fossilization is such that that will never be the case. There, however many examples of mutations in the fossil record.

Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite. Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along. A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.

Nonsense. Not every unfavorable mutation is always fatal. Moreover, not every unfavorable mutation is a dominant trait in every individual that has it. The mutation can be recessive in one individual and dominant in other. And it is true that favorable mutations are anomalous. They are, after all, mutations. But being anomalous is not equivalent to being fatal. Einstein's brain was likely anomalous. And yet his was the most brilliant mind of the 20th century.

Why do we have more genetic disorders popping up over benefits from mutations ?

We are at around 6,000 genetic disorders. how many beneficial mutations can you document ?

 

[orogenicman]

Maybe you should do more research.


CSC Header Graphic
CSC - About CSC CSC - Contact CSC - Search CSC - Links CSC - Home
Printer Friendly Version
Dotted Line
A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs� Proposed �Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law�
By: David DeWolf & John West
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006

Ha! The Discovery Institute was one of the plaintiffs in the case. They had their hat handed to them by a conservative judge. One would think that if they still had a prayer in the matter, that they would have appealed to the Supreme Court. That fact is that they didn't because they knew they would lose. End of story.

You are full of crap buddy. Did you click on the link showing you the closing statements from the Aclu and that activist Judge ? By the way what was your point because the Judge was appointed by Reagan ?

I am dealing with another Ideologue, biased in his opinions,got it!

OMG! What part of the judge's conclusions (of which I posted a link to the entire finding) did you not understand? If I posted it from a different source, it would say THE EXACT SAME THING. Get over it. The courts have handed you guys your friggin hats. The fact is that creationism is nothing more than a freak religious belief held by a very few radical fundamentalists. The fact is that ID is creationism's twisted step-child.

 

[orogenicman]

Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes. They all had to mutate to become something else.

No, this is not true. And that is not how speciation occurs. Natural selection works on populations, not individuals. 1/3 of a population can gain an advantageous mutation that the rest don't, for instance. And for that 1/3, it gets passed on, while the other 2/3ds don't have the trait to pass on to their offspring. One single individual is simply too low a number to make a difference.






That's right, because if you did transition to a bunny, that would not only refute evolution, but all of science. Good luck with that, because that is not what evolution is about.




But then, no one in the scientific community is saying that monkey's transitioned into humans. Monkey's are not our direct descendants. And by the way, we are not descended from modern apes, either. Modern apes and humans are descended from an ape ancestor. Humans are, whether or not you care to accept it, apes. So it isn't simply a matter of being descended from an ape. We ARE apes. The anatomy and genetics are unmistakable.



There is truth to the fact that mating among siblings cause genetic problems. It is also true that siblings have mated throughout the history of life on this planet.



You cannot expect every species that ever lived to be represented in the fossil record. The nature of fossilization is such that that will never be the case. There, however many examples of mutations in the fossil record.

Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite. Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along. A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.

Nonsense. Not every unfavorable mutation is always fatal. Moreover, not every unfavorable mutation is a dominant trait in every individual that has it. The mutation can be recessive in one individual and dominant in other. And it is true that favorable mutations are anomalous. They are, after all, mutations. But being anomalous is not equivalent to being fatal. Einstein's brain was likely anomalous. And yet his was the most brilliant mind of the 20th century.

Why do we have more genetic disorders popping up over benefits from mutations ?

We are at around 6,000 genetic disorders. how many beneficial mutations can you document ?

No doubt, you can list all 6,000, right? I won't say that I know how many beneficial mutations that human beings have, but I can cite a few. One is our large brain, and associated intelligence. Another is our binocular vision. Another is our five digited extremities with opposable thumbs. Another is our bipedalism. Shall I continue?

 

[orogenicman]

Cheers my butt you are doing the same thing people in that video eots posted are doing. This also shows your ignorance of evolution.

What? You mean presenting the evidence that was asked for? Yeah, what an evil thing for me to do.

Dr. Theobald showed speciation or microadaptations and tried passing it off as macro evolution, it didn't change kinds so how is this macroevolution.

Typical bate and switch tactics.

That is because "kinds" is not a scientific term.

"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution.

What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level."

Speciation has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab, in the field, and in the fossil record.

The relatedness of all life on this planet has been described in minute detail via genetic analysis, and is ongoing. For anyone to deny these findings, you'd have to be completely scientifically illiterate.

I hate to embarrass you but Speciation is not macroevolution

I hate to break it to you, but by definition, it is. Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales, and that's your problem because your religion says that it can't be true because it doesn't fit in with your young Earth nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Geology and paleontology are not prerequisites for medical school. Here is the problem. Almost every one of your so-called experts are not experts in the fields that matter. Sure I can probably find an engineer who thinks that neurosurgery is the path to the devil, but then, he isn't an expert on neurosurgery, is he?

And whether or not your so-called doctor took any of these courses is irrelevant to whether or not he passed them, and certainly not relevant to whether or not he is qualified to claim scientific expertize on these matters.

I on the other hand, am a published geologist, someone who worked in the field for over 20 years before becoming medically disabled. Contrary to what you believe, it actually matters what experts you rally to your argument.

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists ?



Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.

A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Free online book: Evolution Exposed: Biology

Check out this free online book that reveals and refutes every instance of evolution in America’s most popular biology textbooks, or purchase a copy.

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

What? You mean presenting the evidence that was asked for? Yeah, what an evil thing for me to do.



That is because "kinds" is not a scientific term.

"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution.

What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level."

Speciation has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab, in the field, and in the fossil record.

The relatedness of all life on this planet has been described in minute detail via genetic analysis, and is ongoing. For anyone to deny these findings, you'd have to be completely scientifically illiterate.

I hate to embarrass you but Speciation is not macroevolution

I hate to break it to you, but by definition, it is. Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales, and that's your problem because your religion says that it can't be true because it doesn't fit in with your young Earth nonsense.

You're completely wrong run off to talk origins and try to spin the meaning of the two terms.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

And that is the classic god of the gaps argument. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up. Congratulations. When you can list professional bibliographies for these guys, then we'll have more to talk about.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists?

Actually, the fact of the matter is that there are many more Christians who support the theory of evolution than oppose it. I know that must chafe your arse, but live with it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, this is not true. And that is not how speciation occurs. Natural selection works on populations, not individuals. 1/3 of a population can gain an advantageous mutation that the rest don't, for instance. And for that 1/3, it gets passed on, while the other 2/3ds don't have the trait to pass on to their offspring. One single individual is simply too low a number to make a difference.






That's right, because if you did transition to a bunny, that would not only refute evolution, but all of science. Good luck with that, because that is not what evolution is about.




But then, no one in the scientific community is saying that monkey's transitioned into humans. Monkey's are not our direct descendants. And by the way, we are not descended from modern apes, either. Modern apes and humans are descended from an ape ancestor. Humans are, whether or not you care to accept it, apes. So it isn't simply a matter of being descended from an ape. We ARE apes. The anatomy and genetics are unmistakable.



There is truth to the fact that mating among siblings cause genetic problems. It is also true that siblings have mated throughout the history of life on this planet.



You cannot expect every species that ever lived to be represented in the fossil record. The nature of fossilization is such that that will never be the case. There, however many examples of mutations in the fossil record.



Nonsense. Not every unfavorable mutation is always fatal. Moreover, not every unfavorable mutation is a dominant trait in every individual that has it. The mutation can be recessive in one individual and dominant in other. And it is true that favorable mutations are anomalous. They are, after all, mutations. But being anomalous is not equivalent to being fatal. Einstein's brain was likely anomalous. And yet his was the most brilliant mind of the 20th century.

Why do we have more genetic disorders popping up over benefits from mutations ?

We are at around 6,000 genetic disorders. how many beneficial mutations can you document ?

No doubt, you can list all 6,000, right? I won't say that I know how many beneficial mutations that human beings have, but I can cite a few. One is our large brain, and associated intelligence. Another is our binocular vision. Another is our five digited extremities with opposable thumbs. Another is our bipedalism. Shall I continue?

Do you doubt the real scientists that have made the claim ?


Hope Through Knowledge

There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders

Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge

So explain mutation fixation to me and why so many harmful mutations exist in the gene pool and would have a negative affect on evolution ?

If evolution easily spreads through the gene pool why do we not all have the same genetic disorders ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

And that is the classic god of the gaps argument. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up. Congratulations. When you can list professional bibliographies for these guys, then we'll have more to talk about.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists?

Actually, the fact of the matter is that there are many more Christians who support the theory of evolution than oppose it. I know that must chafe your arse, but live with it.

Only foolish ones.

 

[orogenicman]

I hate to embarrass you but Speciation is not macroevolution

I hate to break it to you, but by definition, it is. Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales, and that's your problem because your religion says that it can't be true because it doesn't fit in with your young Earth nonsense.

You're completely wrong run off to talk origins and try to spin the meaning of the two terms.

I can cite from a hundred different sources and they will all tell you the same thing. See, this is your problem. You don't understand even the most basic concepts of the theory. So to suggest to any of us that you know what you are talking about is just pure horse manure.

So, do you want to talk about the age of the Earth? I can spend hours talking about it, so let's have at it, grasshopper, if you dare.

 

[orogenicman]

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

And that is the classic god of the gaps argument. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up. Congratulations. When you can list professional bibliographies for these guys, then we'll have more to talk about.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists?

Actually, the fact of the matter is that there are many more Christians who support the theory of evolution than oppose it. I know that must chafe your arse, but live with it.

Only foolish ones.

Right, so every Christian denomination except radical evangelicals got it wrong. Oh my. Talk about being biased!

 

[Hollie]

Maybe you should do more research.


CSC Header Graphic
CSC - About CSC CSC - Contact CSC - Search CSC - Links CSC - Home
Printer Friendly Version
Dotted Line
A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs� Proposed �Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law�
By: David DeWolf & John West
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006

Ha! The Discovery Institute was one of the plaintiffs in the case. They had their hat handed to them by a conservative judge. One would think that if they still had a prayer in the matter, that they would have appealed to the Supreme Court. That fact is that they didn't because they knew they would lose. End of story.

You are full of crap buddy. Did you click on the link showing you the closing statements from the Aclu and that activist Judge ? By the way what was your point because the Judge was appointed by Reagan ?

I am dealing with another Ideologue, biased in his opinions,got it!

You are intellectually and emotionally unprepared to accept the reality that creationism (under whatever label), is a religious claim. Previously, creationists made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was (as you may recall) originally called "Biblical Creationism". Faced with a drubbing in the courts, and the correct legal decision that it was merely religion in disguise, creationists regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references.That scam fooled no one. When that met an equally embarrassing Bums Rush out of court, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more desperate and more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further toward hurling bible verses. But how does that help them?

 

[Hollie]

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists ?



Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.

A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Free online book: Evolution Exposed: Biology

Check out this free online book that reveals and refutes every instance of evolution in America’s most popular biology textbooks, or purchase a copy.

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

Oh good lord. AIG. What a joke.

Attached is a link to their "statement of faith".

It reads like a propaganda statement for a cult initiation.


The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hate to break it to you, but by definition, it is. Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales, and that's your problem because your religion says that it can't be true because it doesn't fit in with your young Earth nonsense.

You're completely wrong run off to talk origins and try to spin the meaning of the two terms.

I can cite from a hundred different sources and they will all tell you the same thing. See, this is your problem. You don't understand even the most basic concepts of the theory. So to suggest to any of us that you know what you are talking about is just pure horse manure.

So, do you want to talk about the age of the Earth? I can spend hours talking about it, so let's have at it, grasshopper, if you dare.

I spent a lot of money on this education spare me the B.S. Hell they can't even produce macroevolution using Bioengineering,that is replacing genes. Can you explain why they can't ? and why do they hide it from the public ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists ?



Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.

A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Free online book: Evolution Exposed: Biology

Check out this free online book that reveals and refutes every instance of evolution in America’s most popular biology textbooks, or purchase a copy.

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

Oh good lord. AIG. What a joke.

Attached is a link to their "statement of faith".

It reads like a propaganda statement for a cult initiation.


The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Just about the only thing you have gotten right today. The LORD is good.

 

[orogenicman]

Why do we have more genetic disorders popping up over benefits from mutations ?

We are at around 6,000 genetic disorders. how many beneficial mutations can you document ?

No doubt, you can list all 6,000, right? I won't say that I know how many beneficial mutations that human beings have, but I can cite a few. One is our large brain, and associated intelligence. Another is our binocular vision. Another is our five digited extremities with opposable thumbs. Another is our bipedalism. Shall I continue?

Do you doubt the real scientists that have made the claim ?


Hope Through Knowledge

There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders

Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge

So explain mutation fixation to me and why so many harmful mutations exist in the gene pool and would have a negative affect on evolution ?

If evolution easily spreads through the gene pool why do we not all have the same genetic disorders ?

Because there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that each of us have had sex and babies with every other human being (in which case, damn), what's your point?

 

[orogenicman]

You're completely wrong run off to talk origins and try to spin the meaning of the two terms.

I can cite from a hundred different sources and they will all tell you the same thing. See, this is your problem. You don't understand even the most basic concepts of the theory. So to suggest to any of us that you know what you are talking about is just pure horse manure.

So, do you want to talk about the age of the Earth? I can spend hours talking about it, so let's have at it, grasshopper, if you dare.

I spent a lot of money on this education spare me the B.S. Hell they can't even produce macroevolution using Bioengineering,that is replacing genes. Can you explain why they can't ? and why do they hide it from the public ?

You keep resorting to the god of the gaps argument. You should ask your school for a refund, because, damn, dude.

 

[Hollie]

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists ?



Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.

A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Free online book: Evolution Exposed: Biology

Check out this free online book that reveals and refutes every instance of evolution in America’s most popular biology textbooks, or purchase a copy.

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

Oh good lord. AIG. What a joke.

Attached is a link to their "statement of faith".

It reads like a propaganda statement for a cult initiation.


The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Just about the only thing you have gotten right today. The LORD is good.

I fully expected you would bail. You have a habit of stuttering and mumbling your way past challenges to your specious opinions.

It Is actually quite interesting to see, coincidently, the double standards, lack of standards and self-serving biases that are embraced by religious extremists.

Taking a look at the “About” section of answers in genesis, we find the usual biased application of predefined conclusions used to press a specific religious agenda.

About Answers in Genesis

About Answers in Genesis - Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

Oh, cool. There’s no way to misinterpret that statement of faith as anything but cult indoctrination.

Then there’s this:

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology, anthropology, and astronomy.

Did anyone see that? Note the terms used:
”AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted.”

Of course, those “facts” must be interpreted by this particular group of flat earthers. It’s obvious that any interpretation is going to lead to a predefined conclusion. Why? It’s detailed in their next statement:

”For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust…”.

Would anyone like to explain to fundie zealots what ”presuppositional thrust” means and why it literally screams of amateur bias?

The simple truth is that taking as dishonest and biased approach as a ”presuppositional thrust” screams out an irreconcilable contradiction to finding any truth. This of course is not unique to christianity in particular. All religions believe that they are exclusively the “one true faith,” that deviation from certain precepts of their core beliefs will ultimately condemn the transgressor to an eternity of suffering in the fires of hell, (remember, god loves his children), and that all other faiths are either corrupted or false. Oh yeah, let’s remember that specific deviations from conformance to these doctrines will cause the transgressor to receive such punishments that are both arbitrary and unreasonable, (but, god loves his children).

Science doesn't carry the burden of being compelled to contrive data to support a ”presuppositional thrust”. Science doesn’t care what the end result is. Scientists strive to validate and falsify regardless of where the data leads.

 

[daws101]

Typical and predictable tactic. You really think a Dr. didn't take college science

Geology and paleontology are not prerequisites for medical school. Here is the problem. Almost every one of your so-called experts are not experts in the fields that matter. Sure I can probably find an engineer who thinks that neurosurgery is the path to the devil, but then, he isn't an expert on neurosurgery, is he?

And whether or not your so-called doctor took any of these courses is irrelevant to whether or not he passed them, and certainly not relevant to whether or not he is qualified to claim scientific expertize on these matters.

I on the other hand, am a published geologist, someone who worked in the field for over 20 years before becoming medically disabled. Contrary to what you believe, it actually matters what experts you rally to your argument.

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

another so what post..! religious epiphanies are not evidence no matter what the educational background.
like it or not fair or not .

your education might impress more people if your grammar was at college level.

 

[daws101]

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. theory]Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis[/url]

edited for pseudoscience nonsense...