How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Of course, you made this rubbish up in your head, which is why you can't produce one shred of evidence for your delusions.And what's the point of you reciting this rubbish? Let me remind you once more.Yes, every creationist argument is rubbish, but that doesn't mean that everything that's rubbish is a creationist argument. Some rubbish is just rubbish. It's not even creationist rubbish, it's just rubbish.You are reciting ignorant trash and it doesn't even help prop up your fairytale about the talking snake. It's just ignorant trash.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let me explain something to you. You are a creationist. The halfwitted garbage that you recite when you argue for creationism is creationist propaganda.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, given that you have absolutely no evidence that scientists have covered up the truth, I'd say that the answer is no. Presumably you would claim that the answer is yes, despite your total inability to find evidence for this. You are, after all, a creationist.

That was a special report from whichever planet CTD lives on.And now, back to the real world, in which biologists know about biology and would realise if it conflicted with the ToE.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Now, let's think about why the theory of evolution is "banished" by the "scrutiny" of children but not by the scrutiny of scientists.Now I have a hypothesis here, which is that evolution is scientific and creationism is childish. That would explain why you can fool children into creationism, but not scientists. A child can be brainwashed by a Jack Chick tract --- a scientist comes face to face with the facts of nature on a daily basis, and would never fall for his ludicrous bullshit.You might also ponder why these children of whom you boast do not go on to become scientists. After all, you claim to have more than 50% of children on your side --- whereas we have 99.9% of scientists. It must therefore be preponderantly and overwhelmingly the case that the children who reject evolution are those who are incompetent in science or uninterested in it or in some other way incapable of pursuing a scientific career.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

One obvious problem with your fantasy is that if people really rejected the theory of evolution as a consequence of learning about it, as you pretend, then the people who reject it would know what it was. Instead, by an overwhelming majority, creationists get evolution confused with stupid creationist crap about "a monkey turning into a man" and "something coming from nothing" and "pure chance" and all the rest of it.Also, if learning about the theory caused people to reject it, then the creationist propagandists who come up with this rubbish wouldn't be so desperate to conceal what the theory of evolution is.If you really believed in your delusion, then your course would clear. You should campaign for more class time to be devoted to the study of evolution. But you're not going to.

Well, thanks for sharing your paranoid rhetoric.In the real world, the reason for the success of the ToE is that no-one can find a single fact that contradicts it, as is demonstrated by your posts.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, you've posted more windy rhetoric, and not one single fact that contradicts the ToE.Ah, yes ... creationism.

If you don't realise that this vacuous pseudophilosophical crap has nothing to do with the ToE, after you have been on this board for over a year, and having made 495 posts, I can only feel pity and bewilderment.If you want to argue against the ToE, couldn't you at least mention it? This is like asking how titanium can break the rule that no element has 22 protons.Or how elephants can break the rule that nothing is an elephant.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

True, not all biologists are evolutionists. Let's say 99.9%. Taz's point is, therefore, that these people who achieve these splendid things in biology are unlikely to be dunces at biology, and can probably assess the theory of evolution even better than you can. Perhaps this is because you are not 72 Nobel Prize winning American scientists. Let's hear from some people who are, shall we?"Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."--- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang. Well, of course not all science is based on evolution.However, all our knowledge of evolution is based on science, and is upheld by the people who know the science best, which I believe was Taz's point.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And I think I would not.Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism."99.9% do not agree with you. And yet you wanted to pretend that scientists don't believe in evolution. I provided my appeal to actual authorities in response to your appeal to imaginary authorities. That may be the craziest thing that anyone has ever said on these forums.If science cannot be based on scientific theories, on what can it be based?

And this brings us back to the topic in the OP.It's not just a "list of names", it's a list of America's top scientists.72 Nobel Prize winning American scientists think that you're wrong about science.You think that they're wrong about science.Who should I bet on?