Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

UNCOMMON DESCENT ^ | July 27, 2009 | Cornelius Hunter, Ph.D.

[Jaime2099]

You do realize that Judge John Edward Jones III is a lifelong Republican and an active member of the Lutheran church who was appointed by George W Bush, just like John H Marbuger III? So you are saying that George W. Bush is an evolutionist?

This debate has nothing to do with Repulicans or Democarates it is about Evolution vs Creation in Biology. I didn't say George Bush was an Evolutionist, I said John H. Marburger III was an Evolutionist. You Evo's never stick to the subject matter and always make accusations about things that have nothing to do with the topic. It is truly remarkable.

"You are using your misunderstanding of science to set up straw man arguments too knock down."

Empty words that mean nothing.

"Using the Scientific Method you can never prove anything; you can only disprove, or in other words falsify the theory. This is something that is taught in Jr. High Science class."

You just stated my case for me! I wrote that science can conduct studies on Creation and they would all show that it is a solid scientific theory because all the studies would be unable to disprove it. These same studies would also disprove (or seriously discredit it) Evolution of the species from one. The reason studies on natural Evolution using current species and partial collision are never conducted is because they will yield horrible results and make Evolutionists look like buffoons.

With each post you are making it more and more obvious that you do not understand Science, or the Scientific Method. Perhaps it would be a good idea to take some time to understand a topic before you attempt to present an argument against it

You cannot mock me with your philosophical rubbish and succeed, only with science. Studies can be done on Creation to disprove it, it is science and a million childish insults from you about my knowledge of the scientific method will never change that.

[Ira_Louvin]

“science can conduct studies on Creation and they would all show that it is a solid scientific theory because all the studies would be unable to disprove it. These same studies would also disprove (or seriously discredit it) Evolution of the species from one.”

If this is true then why don’t they publish their work, and go and pick up their Noble Prizes?

As far as Evolution using current species, are you not aware of Darwin and his finches or the 20-year study on E Coli bacteria. That study documented evolutionary changes within the species over 40,000 generations?

[Jaime2099]

"If this is true then why don’t they publish their work, and go and pick up their Noble Prizes?"

An excellent question. One possible answer would be there is no funding for the research since the majority in the scientific community would frown on any research that could have negative results in regards to Evolution's scientific standing. Many of them depend on this theory for their jobs, lives, and reputations.

"As far as Evolution using current species, are you not aware of Darwin and his finches or the 20-year study on E Coli bacteria."

Darwin observed finches which were all finches, they just had smaller and larger beaks. I do not dispute (who does?) that there are changes and variations within a species, the dispute comes from the origin of species from one species. Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos Islands has nothing to do with that scientifically. His observations were about variations, they have no scientific merit whatsoever to say that these birds evolved from something that was nothing like them.

"That study documented evolutionary changes within the species over 40,000 generations?"

I assume you mean the study at Michigan State, but since you did not say I cannot be certain. What they have observed at Michigan State is the same thing Darwin observed only in a more extreme case. Bacteria acts much differently than birds do. The behavior of the Ecoli only show the beauty and wonder of bacteria and how incredible they are and what they are capable of. It is an observation of bacteria and bacteria alone and does not scientifically contribute to the theory of Evolution from one species. In order for it show evidence for this theory, the bacteria must evolve into a new species that is undisputedly different than bacteria. Until that study produces these results, it does not further the cause of the theory of Evolution from a single species.