How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

No I do not believe in the theory of evolution.

I believe that many changes have occured in animals, plants, fish, fowl, and humans. But these things happened it is not a theory.

Yes, I will join your silly discussion. Why is it not OT for you to come into my thread and ask me to input my view on something I have no clue, no reference, and in fact no idea of.

Biologists believe things they think are facts based on evidence.

2. irreducible complexity - Micheal Behe. The only argument against this that I have read is that this just can't be true. Behe isn't a real scientist. Damage his character so you don't have to face the facts.

Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.

*If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water.

This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this.

Uniformitarian assumption.

when you say that, this is what I was talking about. To dismiss out of hand based on what is accepted today as the rational. Remember the leading scientists of the days years ago thought the world was flat until shown other wise,

there was only so many elements of The Periodic Table of Elements, until found otherwise ( Bromine (Br) atomic number 35 for instance ) and those were all facts in there days.

The funny thing about the issue is that both ToE and ID start at the same unknown problem ( HOW did it start ).

both sides face serious problems in my opinon. notice the
4) Interpret data and draw conclusions

So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in same the boat. No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions. No eyewitnesses...

Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with nature for consistency.

Notice too, that good theories are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution ... How can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!". Is this science or something else?

there was only so many elements of The Periodic Table of Elements, until found otherwise ( Bromine (Br) atomic number 35 for instance ) and those were all facts in there days.

I would agree that over 50% ( but not over 65% ) of scientists believe in ToE and don't believe in a creator of any kind,

... and then there is a % that believe in a creator and in Creation. ( and that number is growing )

While at the same being the catalyst for such fun ideas as Communism.

After all, Hitler was only helping Evolution along by destroying the weaker sub classes of human beings.

The science and maths become contradictive and illogical here.

Can you explain what science applies in speciation, based on a finite universe: at what point was this triggered?
Obviously, it would have reached fruition on this planet, as opposed the period between BB and this solar system - else life would be pervasive and commonplace. If on this planet, it would include the inanimate and inorganic emerging as animate and organic: is this action part of the evolution process - or a causative factor? Here, the issue of infinity becomes implausable, by virtue of the time factor between BB and this solar system, and the absence of the same action process elsewhere. If it is thus based on a finite universe, then the ToE factors cannot apply: it ceases becoming a generic process but a process germaine to one intergrated area of the solar system.A scientifically described process is defined by its repeatable, ongoing and observable actions any and every place; eg gravity. We find instead, that ToE is based on its own inherent workings as per Darwin - while this becomes a contradiction if it is reliant solely on one particular area's environment. So correct me - ToE appears not just a process exclusive to life forms only - after they have already emerged and established [as opposed a cause], it is also a non-universal phenomenon. IOW - ToE is a scientific anomoly in the universe, which is not a constant, and which cannot prevail in a finite described universe? Here, I also put to you, that the aspect of an infinite universe - which clearly is not the case - is derived back to front - to suit a preferred end factor, culminating from a scientific contradiction!Is it still science? Still think a preamble is not vital here?! Have you considered the faith of any scientist going against the grain of ToE: he is black listed with no future in that career, and barred from any R&D grants: fact!

I'm not sure why so many scientists condone ToE.

The backlash against religions emerged first in Europe around Darwin's time - assuring a favoured backing without adequate investigation, and this is a continueing trend. Rejecting one belief, should not be the vindication of another automatically - but this appears a common factor. I'm also aware there are prominent scentists which refute ToE on numerous levels, and there have been new controversial theories such as ID and MV which have been fiercely rejected - again affording it no investigation or adequate protocol, regardless if one believes these new theories are not adequate.
My position is that ToE does not pass the scientific or logic test when its positions are examined objectively and without fear of ridicule - a big problem for a fair go to scientists, and which will, IMHO, become more pronounced and louder. I don't believe a biologist has the freedom to voice an anti view of ToE today - its today's equivalence of the old heresy charge.I have given some reasons why ToE has big problems, in a forum which appears to treat ToE in a religious, Talibanic mode, and these are not the only problems with ToE. The notion of external, environmental impacts as the triggering factor for growth and speciation, for example, totally disregards the role of the 'seed' (or offspring) and the parent host - this accounts for at least 99% of all growth and offspring transmissions, including dna imprints, rendering ToE superflous - yet not factored in by Darwin. Does an egg develop and evolve by external impacts - or from the inherent wirings inside it? And if the latter is the case - why is it seen as different when it comes to ToE?The other error is in darwin's specie categorising, whereby he fails to acknowledge that humans are different from all other life forms, not by skeletal and biological dna imprints which are common to all life - but via 'SPEECH'. Speech is not a result of evolutionary processes, and we cannot expect dogs and zebras to talk in the next million years - they have not attained this attribute after many millions of years of apparent evolution, and this fact stands as a powerful opposer of ToE. Not factored by Darwin. In the big picture, the correct differentials must first be made on the hovering, transcendent variations between life forms, namely as GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMS. The criteria used by darwin represents sub-set variations, which is an ongoing process, and which can extend in levels even within each sub-set. The correct division between life forms is the source which introduced Evolution: Genesis 1/1, which recording predates darwin by 1000s of years. But this is a taboo factor today - regardless of its blatant scientific veracity and vindication today.Of coz, the fear of redicule is very real in any arguement against ToE, and one can imagine the plight of disagreeing scientists here. But this syndrome is not condusive to good debate and further advancements. We will never know, if we are not allowed to know.