Non-Biased site or credible source that refutes Evolution?

Anyone know of any?Every site I go to announces their "Christian" agenda, and then brags about an absense of bias.I am not saying that Evolutionist sites aren't biased.
Maybe it can be argued that no one would take the time to put together a site nor source that addresses the issues unless they are well-motivated on those issues, hence ... "bias".[Lesson 1,121 under "Life is Irony".]But Moving beyond that,
Must there not be a site or credible source that refutes any or all basic componants of evolutionary theory WITHOUT doing so to honor their God.-Maybe some rogue scientist or research group or janitor with some clout.-I can't find it.And so, as I consider all of the potentially solid and true creationist scientific points, and...
As I notice the evolutionist counter-point for each point ....DO I really have to go get a PHD in a related field before I qualify to comment?
And Who can I find that already HAS ONE and isn't an evolutionist?------------------
Religion is the way in which we relate to the Universe; Usually as it pertains to a belief in or about God.

quote:

---

Every site I go to announces their "Christian" agenda, and then brags about an absense of bias.

​

I am not saying that Evolutionist sites aren't biased.

---

Hmm, what kind of bias to science-based sites have, that you wouldn't want to have anyway?I mean, "bias in favor of the evidence" would seem to be a good bias, no?

quote:

---

Maybe it can be argued that no one would take the time to put together a site nor source that addresses the issues unless they are well-motivated on those issues, hence ... "bias".

​

[Lesson 1,121 under "Life is Irony".]

​

But Moving beyond that,
Must there not be a site or credible source that refutes any or all basic componants of evolutionary theory WITHOUT doing so to honor their God.

---

Um, I doubt it. The only groups which oppose the ToE are religious in nature.Just as there are no credible sites refuting any or all of the basic components to the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, there are no credible sites which refute the Theory of Evolution.

quote:

---

-Maybe some rogue scientist or research group or janitor with some clout.

​

-I can't find it.

---

The rogue scientists are all in the Creationist camp.

quote:

---

And so, as I consider all of the potentially solid and true creationist scientific points, and...
As I notice the evolutionist counter-point for each point ....

​

DO I really have to go get a PHD in a related field before I qualify to comment?

---

Of course you don't need a PhD to comment. You just need to learn as much science as you can.TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyThe above is a great site that's brimming with good evolution related science written for the non-pro.

quote:

---

And Who can I find that already HAS ONE and isn't an evolutionist?

---

Check the Humanities department.

If you want to find those who most attack all points of evolutionary theory that have any weaknesses and who do a good job of it then the evolutionary theorists are the ones to talk to.That's why you get arguments inside the camp. Lot of them. That's true of all the sciences. If there is a weakness it is jumped on by some fraction of the practioners.Notice the controversy that's been going on about the origins of humans. You won't find any suggestion that we didn't evolve over the last few million years. There just isn't any way that anyone has found to attach that.However, you find arguments over the path taken, an argument each time a new fossil is discovered. There has been an on going fight about the final origin of H. sapiens. Did we evolve in africa and move out or move out and then evolve in more than one place?The new H. sapiens italda (spelling? ) is a brick used to throw in that little war.The basics just don't have any room left to fight over, it has been battled out over the last century.When I'm trying to understand an area that I don't have all the tools or the smarts to really make my own decision about I look for these fights. I try to read something by the proponents of both sides and when it is there the rebuttals. From this you can often get enough to try to pick the side you think has the best story. Then you follow along till it settles down to a consensus.Anyway, it's at the edge of the field that the uncertain things are and the fun battles are fought.

""bias in favor of the evidence" would seem to be a good bias, no?"Contextually, per modern and common usage,
the term "bias", here, could be reasonably understood to indicate some pull toward trying to prove something and 'then' considering the facts.
-not always the best order to do things in.And there is a lot of that on all sides of these issues.Seperately,
I tried to be fair in my post, and I am sure that it should at least be hard to tell which side of the issue I am on here.
-Or at least I was aiming for that.I suppose I should rethink my request a bit and say that I just want to know if there are any neutral or atheistic scientists that reject the theory of evolution;With or without endorsing creationism.But I suppose you are right;
I doubt I shall find any raised voices against evolution except for those that are singing praises to a/The god/God 'while doing it'.Heck, I'd be happy to find someone that could keep it all at least seperate; Only refering to "facts" that don't depend on the Bible as their "proof" (though I have nothing against the Bible).And then, sure, follow it up with an endorsement of ID.
No prob.
But I really don't want to hear about a/the "spirit" nor about voices nor the "heart".Those things are not observable nor objective.
They are subjective.
And can't be "proof" of anything except, perhaps, to the person that experienced it.It's fine to speak of it; Just not in a "proof" discussion.I have indeed heard many fine anti-evolutionist and pro-creationist points that are just as valid no matter who they come from.
But then they always go and ad something stupid that defeats thier whole credability.And I have heard some very interesting evolutionist thoughts as well.
And to be fair, they always seem to add in some bull plop as well.-It ALL looks like trail mix to me.
-bits of good and bad.
One bite goes down easy,
and then I can't swallow the bite afterAnd my request still stands.Where are all the non-evolutionist scientists that don't add some version of "... and God wants me to tell you...
?I'll count your response as a definite vote for
"No; There's none".And if that is the case, then the creationists should all get together one time, put all of their respective thoughts in one place for all to see.
Then go read or preach or garden or whatever,
and then let time resolve the issues.If the athiest evolutionists are right:
We will all just die.
And probly sooner than later.
Thermal Neuclear war,
the destruction of our ecosystem,
germ warfare,
Toxic Chemical genocide,
etc..Tick TockAnd if any of the creationist people are right,
...then they get last laugh.But for now, let's pass some time waiting to see who dies...
By arguing some more.But it might be more fun if we found some non-prophet non-evolutionists to quote.If anyone can find one anyways, please let me know.
thx[And please pardon the typos]

You may find a few scientists who have alternative views.But in general they are plugging their pet theories which have even bigger problems. I don't think that you could call them "unbiased"
Gert Korthof's "Was Darwin Wrong?" site (http://www.wasdarwinwrong.com)
reviews some books by such people.

By "creationist", are you including theories about abiogenesis? The origin of life is not commonly considered an aspect of evolution (except by anti-evolutionists), but there's a number of writers who propose some non-naturalist model of abiogenesis. Isn't that what "Darwin's Black Box" is supposed to be about? (Haven't picked that one up, myself.)The ID movement is supposed to be all about strict science and no recourse to the supernatural. Whether they succeed or not is up for grabs, I think.

Their personal credability may be shot to heck but if the points have any validity they should still be examined on their own. What you shouldn't take from someone with low creditibility is the raw data. They may not be telling the truth about it. But given that the logic and reasoning can be examined on it's own without the author's credibility being too much of an issue. I guess I wouldn't be sensitive enough to the bs on that side and tend to miss it. Could you give some examples of the most egregious cases?

Might be woirth looking at som Buddhist thought for these purposes. A lot of people see Buddhism as being essentially atheistic (I am not among these people, but anyway) and yet based on a spiritual analysis. They ahve some interesting things to say for both theists and atheists.

The thing is, there are plenty of scientists who believe in God who also believe in the ToE, the Big Bang, etc.My point about "good" bias being "bias in favor of evidence" was meant to show you that being human, we are extremely prone to bias. The scientific method is designed to compensate for what we want or wish or expect to be true (bias) to get us closer to what is actually true.So, in effect, scientists are left with a bias in favor of evidence.I certainly understand that the common usage of the word "bias" is a negative one, but we have all kinds of biases that generally serve us well. We have a bias against eating food that appears to be spoiled. We have a bias towards people who do not lie to us. Having a bias means gravitating towards the reliable. And that's what science does.

I'm not sure I agree with all of the "necessary implications" of atheist science you listed (or any of them, for that matter), but if you want an evolutionary biologist who takes to task a great deal about modern evolutionary theory and provides a "quasi-spiritual" theory in place of the NDT, then check out Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock's "Gaia Hypothesis". You may find exactly what you're looking for. And not a biblical or even theist note in sight...

Keep in mind that all sites which refute creationism are biased towards evolution. Science isn't supposed to be biased, but then again, evolution isn't a science, it's a religion which provides a false escape from God.

"...evolution isn't a science, it's a religion which provides a false escape from God."Wrong, wrong, wrong! Evolution is science. Only those who fail to look at the evidence would think anything else.[This message has been edited by kjsimons, 06-17-2003]

Actually, as Schraf likes to point out, science is supposed to be biased in favor of the evidence.Anyway, rejecting models that contradict the data we find is not bias (in the sense that you're using it), it's the scientific method. We reject creationism because creationism is wrong. That's science. Well, for one thing, god doesn't exist, so I don't know how you could escape from him. And religion is revelatory - religious knowledge is granted to prophets who write books like the bible. The rest of us have to take their word for it, even though they could be lying.Science is not revelatory; anyone can do science. Anyone can analyze the data and come up with explanitory models. It's much, much better than religion because it's so much more inclusive. Anyone can be a scientist, but you can't go to school to be a prophet. (Of course, you could just lie and say you were one, which is what I suspect happens every time.)Go on. Do some science. I dare you.

FFGFollower writes:

quote:

---

evolution isn't a science, it's a religion which provides a false escape from God.

---

What? Even the Pope?Pope Pius XII back in 1950 and Pope John Paul II again in 1996 stated that there is no contradiction between evolution and faith.So are you saying the Pope is trying to escape from god? The Pope is an atheist? The Pope doesn't believe in god?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Heres a site that refutes creationism, but doesn’t hold evolutionary ideas at all. Page not found - RAEL.ORG It directly attacks creationism (by god). I think their ideas are bit more logical than creationists lol, but still a little hard to support.