It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!


canadafreepress.com

A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause.


I have no words to describe my incredulity right now. No words at all. If this isn't a sign that modern civilization is crumbling under the weight of insanity and pure ignorance, I don't know what could be.

canadafreepress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
So what?
Evolution is still accepted theory, this article changes nothing.
It's simply a religious blog that as usual, equates evolution with "atheism" implying some sort of Godless plot.
Nonsense! There are plenty of scientist of various religions that can practice their faith and still see the facts of evolution.
Why do fundamentalist feel so compelled to rant constantly on this subject? Believe whatever you wish, but don't call it science!



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If you use critical thinking darwin rubbish will surely not even exist.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Who produced this story?

Isn't it eerily similar to the "1000 engineers regarding 9/11" story?

Just change some of the pronouns and contextual rhetoric...

What the hell is going on here?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
This is nice to see. I would not consider myself a creationist but there has always been a lot wrong with evolution. The effect Darwin's doctrine has had on modern science has been to limit possibilities. Perhaps with a new vocal minority a new perfected theory may emerge.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I always kind laugh at these stories.

To show just how little this number is, the National Centre for Science Education has there Project Steve, a kind of fun way to show the ridiculousness of these types of stories.


Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.


They are up to 1138 Steve's as of march 30/10.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by GAOTU789]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!


Yay! - Yet another example of how 'scientists' and the internet can prove pigs fly... Err sorry creationism this time, pigs next week.

Man I swear if every supposed scientist, engineer or other convent expert were to manifest them selves in the real life realm all the continents would sink beneath the waves under the weight.


Evolutionists believe that most mutations are harmful while others believe they are all harmful or neutral.” Evolutionists must claim that some mutations are helpful because basically, all evolution rests upon that premise.


Yes all of evolution is solely down to mutation :bash:
- nothing at all to do with adaptation, nothing at all to do with learnt skills and behaviours among the 'higher species', nothing at all to do with the massive complexity and chaotic interactions that are simply way beyond any possibility of understanding or even prediction with massive computational power.

Nothing to do with simple luck and statistics - statistically life should be - somewhere, and the fact that that life can reflect on it's own existence - and the 1:1 static that if you are reflecting on life simply put you are alive.

No, lets spout damaging and pointless argument, the theory of evolution is not complete, it has gaps... Is that a good reason to to get a soap box and set the human race back a peg???


I hope all creationists get one of these antibiotic super-bugs that didn't evolve at all over the generations of bacteria that adapt to the antibiotics introduced into their little world, it's Gods will of course and they have not changed one bit since day one, they were there the day Adam eyed up that hot piece of woman Eve...

Creationists are idiots.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


About the source:

D.E.M., may I respectfully suggest that you investigate who Dr. Don Boys (the author) is and what sort of beliefs he preaches. In this context, his opinion here is hardly a surprise.

About the content:

Science is not an absolute thing, it is a process, and for every theory the are proponents and dissenters. I realize that evolution drives christian fundamentalists like Dr. Boys crazier, and there is a scattering of scientist who may even agree with him, but that won't change evolutionary science. Not that challenging established doctrine is a bad thing mind you, for that is how our understanding progresses ... but no matter how one looks at it, the "god of the gaps" premise upon which so much of creationist reasoning depends on, is a well established logical and scientific fallacy.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
These thousand scientists are so "major" that the BLOG does not even list them.

Try again when you can use a real source containing real journalism.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
What type of scientists?

For instance, Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist, however he was stumped by geology.

Just as I wouldn't ask him about Anything to ith geology, I wouldn't ask, say, a astronomer about biologic evolution.

A scientist is someone working in a specific field of science, and they can give opinions of their field of science.
it doesn't make them correct, however.
And trying to give a opinion outside of your specialty is as must a guess as what anyone else would give.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Adam eyed up that hot piece of woman Eve...

Creationists are idiots.


Do you not think creationists have some critical thinking?

Oh no.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Now_Then
Adam eyed up that hot piece of woman Eve...

Creationists are idiots.


Do you not think creationists have some critical thinking?

Oh no.


 



Originally posted by andy1033
If you use critical thinking darwin rubbish will surely not even exist.



Care to add a little more to the thread?

Or do we have a real live creationist in the house? - Someone who reacts with gusto at any argument other than their own, but with very little substance, and (for a while at least) amusing results?

edit for this wiki quote... - God I love wiki



Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness. In contemporary usage "critical" has the connotation of expressing disapproval,[3] which is not always true of critical thinking. A critical evaluation of an argument, for example, might conclude that it is valid. Thinking is often casual and informal, whereas critical thinking deliberately evaluates the quality of thinking. In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser writes that the ability to think critically involves three things:[4]



[edit on 3/5/2010 by Now_Then]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
Do you not think creationists have some critical thinking?


Creationists think?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
...edited out tasteless joke,don't want to offend anyone.

I suppose the apparent infinity of both time and space that we reside in leaves any possibility open to reality.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by lernmore]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


So, 1000 scientists do not accept Darwin. Big deal. I've been to science lectures/conventions where there were 1,000 plus people in one room.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Now I am of the opinion that "the theory of evolution" aka TTOE. Is so full of holes that it makes swiss cheese envious.

However I do think it's a start in the right direction. I'm pretty convinced that what we don't know far outstrips what we do know when it comes to how biologically diverse this planet has been in the past.

It's like looking through a keyhole and only seeing that much of something that was so incredibly huge that we can't possibly comprehend the whole picture.

TTOE needs more work before I'm fully convinced of it's validity.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
And how many scientists agree with Darwin?

How mant scientists are there in the world and what would thos work out as an overall percentage?

I suspect that the dissenters would be most vocal as well.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you use critical thinking darwin rubbish will surely not even exist.


If YOU use critical thinking you might realise that life has more to offer than bitterness. I don't mean to upset you, just drawing your attention to how many unhappy and negative posts you write. There must be *something* in this world that gives you an inkling of positivity? Find something happy and post about it! Seriously and sincerely, ATS would applaud an Andy1033 post that described something fun


----------------------------------------------------------

OT. These guys seeking to use innuendo to suggest science is somehow dishonest or inaccurate are guilty of intellectual dishonesty. In over a hundred years, the general theme of these anti-evolution (or Creationist) criticisms haven't changed. Their position remains static...stagnant imo. Conversely, science is constantly changing and adapting to new evidence.

It's hard to see what the reluctance is all about. Even bastions of Christian faith like the Vatican have agreed evolution, natural selection, species drift are the best explanations of the processes of life.


“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Link and T he Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

@ the OP. Although some posters have missed your point entirely...most of us haven't. Flagged out of interest



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


I'm not sure why, but "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" came to mind.
I'm probably just confusing all my various sins.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join