I've joined this thread rather late, but I'll put in my two cents' worth, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
Evolution is a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.
No, it's not. Evolution is a process by which living organisms change. It has nothing to do with how life began. That is no part of evolutionary theory.
[b] [QUOTE]
Physicists did not lose their jobs because of Einstein? That is because Einstein's theory did not completely debunk Newtonian physics, but simply led it in a different direction. If someone came along and showed that Newton and Einstein were both wrong and that physics cannot explain the basic properties of the physical universe, then a lot of physicists would loose their jobs? No? I think that your naive views of human nature would break down at this point and the "scientists" would act in self-preservation. An example of this would be the recent PBS miniseries on Evolution. The highly-biased views of the producers and scientists involved were evident in the way they mangled the creationist arguments.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I see no basis at all for your assertion. No matter what sciences where turned on their head by new discoveries, scientists would not lose their jobs - as 'normal' physicists didn't when quantum physics came along. They would merely change their opinion (when swayed by evidence) and support the new position (or, in some cases, no doubt, refuse to believe the new position, in which case they woudl slowly fade into obscurity). There is certainly no basis to think that biologists promote evolution just because it keeps them their jobs. As has been pointed out before, the biologist who managed to DISprove evolution would doubtless get a Nobel Prize and have the world of science at their feet.
And YOU say that a certain TV series 'mangled' the creationist arguments...no offence, but being a creationist, you would say that. The fact of the matter that any objectively scientific exercise that examines evolution and creationism might appear (to a creationist) to be 'mangling' creationist arguments...because creationism has no scientific support whatsoever.
[b] [QUOTE]The problem, Allison, is that I see no (copious) evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I am asking you for evidence which you are steadfastly denying me!
[/b][/QUOTE]
If you truly see no evidence for the theory of evolution, i can only assume you have read nothing in the field (I don't mean creationist books, I mean REAL science books). To ask for evidence of evolution in a thread like this is nonsensical...you expect someone to distill a century of scientific research for you in a forum like this? Do some research. Read about biology. Even popular authors like Gould and Dawkins. Read, for example, some of Dawkins' works, and then come back and argue that none of them contain any evidence for evolution. Then, at least, your statement would have some credibility.
[/B][/QUOTE]
[b] [QUOTE]Finally, Your quotation of Steve Allen is not very appropriate. There have been many scientists both Evolutionists and non-Evolutionist who are not creationists - as well as scientists who are creationists - who have harshly criticized evolutionary theory. Since I am going to quote many others later on I will give you one as an example:
[/b][/QUOTE]
There is a vast difference between 'harshly criticising' something and demonstrating it to be wrong. I have many times harshly criticised christianity as a doctrine; I do not pretend that I can prove it wrong.
[b] [QUOTE]
Evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury writes:
Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4E1000 different forms. Using a little algebra we can see that 4E1000 = 10E600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure "1" followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.
-Article entitled, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher.
His point is that life is far too complex to be explained by the overly simplistic model that synthetic evolution provides.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I'm glad you point out what his 'point' is - since it's a point he doesn't make anywhere in the quote given. Nor can it be inferred from what he did say. All he said, in essence, is that life is more complex than we realise. So it is. So is a bridge game. The number of possible bridge hands is also a number so large as to be completely beyond our comprehension. Does that mean nobody can play bridge?
[b] [QUOTE]
Here are facts, Allison, disproving Evolution! Where are all your high-minded scientists jumping around and congratulating him on his proof?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Umm....where? What facts disproving evolution? You haven't provided any. Actually, apart from one ambiguous quote, all you've provided are opinions. And Salisbury's quote is not a 'proof' of anything - as I'm sure even he would agree. No offense, but your thinking it is suggests you don't know what a scientific 'proof' (there is really no such thing - in science, 'proof' just means the preponderance of evidence) even is.
[b] [QUOTE]
Since Darwin many scientists have remained skeptical about the validity of evolution, and they have even occasionally voiced their opinions aloud. Your quotation of Steve Allen, Allison, could legitimately be applied to you - because you refuse to hear their voices!
[/b][/QUOTE]
Yes, they have. The problem - and the reason they are not heard - is that none of them has based their skepticism on the scientific method. If they did, and could substantiate reasons for that skepticism based on the scientific method...Nobel Prize on its way, rather than getting laughed at, like Mr Behe, with his Black Box.
™ Version 4.2