God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Alive said:

Human nature and environmental exposure.

 

“Support your position” means explain or provide evidence. It does not mean “continue to add vague comments”.

[Alive]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

“Support your position” means explain or provide evidence. It does not mean “continue to add vague comments”.

Are you a member of the scientific community with peer reviewed papers and all of that stuff?

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, Alive said:

Are you a member of the scientific community with peer reviewed papers and all of that stuff?

I’m not sure how it is relevant to your unwillingness to back up your comment.

[Alive]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

I’m not sure how it is relevant to your unwillingness to back up your comment.

I thought it might help to know what/who I am addressing.

I will say that you will not change my mind.

[one.opinion]

21 minutes ago, Alive said:

I thought it might help to know what/who I am addressing.

I will say that you will not change my mind.

It doesn’t matter much to me if your mind is changed. I just wanted to point out that your negative attitude toward scientists is senseless since you are either unable or unwilling to explain why you have it.

[Alive]

Anyone with an open mind and a sense of the history of science knows very well that the 'community' has been wrong very often.

Within that community there is a great deal of peer pressure particularly as it regards things viewed as 'anti-God'.

This is a fact and cannot be disputed.

There is also a great deal of pressure within the 'community' that is driven by university positions and dollars.

Education in our universities is very much biased and the take off studies are influenced by this.

If you wanna put a roadblock to a career in the 'community' then rock the boat.

Such has been the case since the beginning and can't be refuted.

Are you a proponent of what is currently referred to as Neo-darwinism?

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Alive said:

Anyone with an open mind and a sense of the history of science knows very well that the 'community' has been wrong very often.

Sure, there have been instances in which the scientific community have been wrong, but how do you quantify "very often"? In the last 50 years, can you make a list of things that the scientific community has been wrong about?

2 hours ago, Alive said:

Within that community there is a great deal of peer pressure particularly as it regards things viewed as 'anti-God'.

That is a misconception. The scientific community, outside of a few highly vocal individuals, is not "anti-God". The scientific community, in my opinion, relies so heavily on methodological naturalism (the self-limiting of science to physical explanations) that it often spills over into philosophical naturalism (the belief that the only reality is the physical one), but the proportion of individuals that are "anti-God" is fairly small, in my experience.

2 hours ago, Alive said:

This is a fact and cannot be disputed.

Claiming something is a fact does not make it a fact. Yes, I have earned a PhD in Biology, have a publication record, and have participated in funded research. I never encountered anyone during my PhD education, either in my lab or in other labs, that was openly hostile to my Christianity. I have taught Biology at two Christian universities over the past 20 years and have never had any hostile interactions at numerous meetings and conferences. What experience do you base your "undisputed fact" on?

To be clear, there have been incidents in which Christians in science were indeed treated unfairly. However, I would argue that those incidents are exceptions to the norm.

2 hours ago, Alive said:

There is also a great deal of pressure within the 'community' that is driven by university positions and dollars.

Education in our universities is very much biased and the take off studies are influenced by this.

If you wanna put a roadblock to a career in the 'community' then rock the boat.

Such has been the case since the beginning and can't be refuted.

Again, there absolutely incidents in which Christians have been treated unfairly. However, there are also prominent scientists that are very vocal about their Christian faith. Dr. Francis Collins was appointed head of the Human Genome Project and is currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). His vocal devotion to Jesus Christ has certainly not hurt his career.

2 hours ago, Alive said:

Are you a proponent of what is currently referred to as Neo-darwinism?

Neo-darwinism was in vogue for a couple of decades after some pivotal work in the mid-1900s. It is now outdated, with the establishment of neutral theory and discovery of the prevalence of newly-discovered (relatively) mechanisms for genomic change, such as horizontal gene transfer.

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

I still need to see the examples and do some reading before I can offer a reasonable response.

They are facts.   If even the most famous proponent of Darwinian theory willingly takes on a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate, then it's very clear that one can be a YE creationist and obtain a PhD.    As Gould once remarked, "all that really counts is ability."

 

 

[The Barbarian]

18 hours ago, Alive said:

Anyone with an open mind and a sense of the history of science knows very well that the 'community' has been wrong very often.

Anyone with an open mind and a knowledge of the history of science (I happen to have taught that subject) knows very well that nothing man can do works better for finding out about the physical universe.

18 hours ago, Alive said:

Within that community there is a great deal of peer pressure particularly as it regards things viewed as 'anti-God'.

No.  That's a common creationist superstition, but it's completely false.   When even a hard atheist like Dawkins admits that science can't rule out God, it's obvious you've been misled about that.   Since many of the greatest scientists of our time believe in God, that is a particularly risible error.

 

18 hours ago, Alive said:

There is also a great deal of pressure within the 'community' that is driven by university positions and dollars.

If you think university professors are rich, you're really, really wrong.   And given that there are tenured YE creationists in universities, that story doesn't hold up, either.   No point in denying the reality.

20 hours ago, Alive said:

Are you a proponent of what is currently referred to as Neo-darwinism?

Evolutionary theory today is generally called "the Modern Synthesis", involving Darwinism, Genetics, and a few things like neutralist theories, punctuated equilibrium and so on.   "Neo-Darwinian" is an outdated term.

[omega2xx]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Demonstrably wrong.    Stephen Gould was willing to accept a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate.   So there is that.   Gerald Aardsma, for example, is a very competent PhD who happens to be a YE creationist.  Kurt Wise is a PhD. paleontologist who is a YE creationist.   Dr. Harold Coffin is another, primarily a geologist.     Dr. Todd Wood is a biologist and biochemist.  

I took my first course in immunology from a gentleman who was a PhD bacteriologist, and a YE creationist.   You've been very, very badly misled about this issue."

You can name YEC till the cows come home, but that is not evidence the other things they believe are right.  I can name just a many, that disagree with them  and with you who are also Phd's.  I am not basically a YEC.  The Bible doesn't give the age of the earth, so, for me it is irrelevant.  The only important question is how did it get here.

"small changes over many years"  is just evo rhetoric.  It can't be proved.

You can parrot all of the usual, unproved, evo rhetoric, but until you can explain how  a specie remaining the exact same species, you are just blowing smoke.

Unless you can prove what you believe and or disprove what I believe, it is you who has  been very badly misled about this issue.