Famous Chemist Drops Bomb on Evolution - Page 1

Behind closed doors, more and more scientists will admit that evolution is not a matter of fact and cannot possibly explain the origin of life. When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.

Dr. James Tour

As a well-known chemist and professor at Rice University, Dr. James Tour specializes in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Authoring over 500 research publications over the past 30 years, Dr. Tour has received awards and recognition from the American Chemical Society, Thomas Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others. He has also been recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today”¹

Even with his many scientific accolades, Dr. Tour readily admits evolution holds no fact-filled answer as to mankind’s origin. Shouldn’t a famous chemist of this caliber be able to understand the science behind the claims of evolution?

In this video from 2012, Tour explains his experience with making molecules.

I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist, if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules.

And yet, Dr. James Tour cannot understand how evolution can explain the origin of life.

About seven or eight years ago I posted on my website that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution. And I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something and then I will ask you to clarify — Nobody has come forth.

Clearly, the world-renowned chemist is not the only one with this conundrum, though few possess the courage to publicly agree.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’ Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’ And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

Nearly 900 scientists, including Tour, have currently signed, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which expresses skepticism in the claims of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Despite this overwhelming testimonial evidence, many will continue to proclaim evolution as dogmatic truth. Yet, those who are honest have no other option than to admit that, “the emperor truly has no clothes!”

Now all we need is for Dr. Tour to become a Young Earth Creationist! Why don’t you pray for this with us.

http://creationtoday.org/famous-chemist-drops-bomb-on-evolution/

do you read what you post?

 

EVOLUTION ADRESSES THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE

 

the origin of life has zero to do with the subject of evolution, you can not possibly still not know that, you are posting lies again and making a fool of yourself

 

tour is not a biologists, he is no more an expert on evolution than lady gaga is.

 

his is nothing more than a layman's opinion on the subject, do you reaalise there are different branches of science, the best physicist is a layman in biology, why is thaat so hard for you.

 

you are just using his credentials as a chemist, to falsely claim his opinion has some weight iin an area he has no expertise in, fraud.

 

tour's words;

"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context."

how much does shtal like being made a fool of, his dissent against darwin letter signed by scientists lol;

from wikipedia

Expertise relevance[edit]

The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized,^[1][12] with many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology.^[38]

In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999.^[39] Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times.^[12] Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.^[21] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".^[22]

The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.^[11][12]

Other criticisms[edit]

Critics have also noted that the wording and advertising of the original statement was, and remains, misleading,^[11] and that a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs.^[12] Robert T. Pennock notes that rather than being a "broad dissent", the statement's wording is "very narrow, omitting any mention of the evolutionary thesis of common descent, human evolution or any of the elements of evolutionary theory except for the Darwinian mechanism, and even that was mentioned in a very limited and rather vague manner." He concludes that it is not in fact a "radical statement".^[40]

The claims made for the importance of the list have also been called intellectually dishonest because it represents only a small fraction of the scientific community, and includes an even smaller number of relevant experts.^[41] The Discovery Institute has responded to some of these criticisms.^[42][43]

Affiliations and credentials[edit]

Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading.^[1]

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.^[1]

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists have called him "Dr. d'Abrera".^{[citation needed]} The Discovery Institute currently recruits people with PhDs to sign the Dissent petition.^[44]

At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science. Additionally, at least seven signatories have their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences" that are currently being recruited: Ronald R. Crawford has his Ed.D. in Science Education, David Berlinski has his PhD in Philosophy, Tom McMullen has his PhD in the History & Philosophy of Science, Angus Menuge has his PhD in the Philosophy of Psychology, and Stephen C. Meyer has his PhD in the Philosophy of Science; and at least six, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Ricardo León Borquez (incorrectly listed as "Ricardo Leon"), Gage Blackstone, Daniel Galassini, Mary A. Brown and Thomas C. Majerus, have professional doctorates (such as an MD, DVM or PharmD), rather than holding a research doctorate (such as a PhD).^{[citation needed]}

Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate.^[2] At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in a peer-review controversy. Later versions of the list mention Sternberg's affiliation with Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University.^[38] At present Sternberg is a Staff Scientist with GenBank, the genetic database at the National Institutes of Health.^[45]

Critics also say the Discovery Institute inflates the academic credentials and affiliations of signatories such as Henry F. Schaefer. The institute prominently and frequently asserts that Schaefer has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.^[2][46] Barbara Forrest and others allege that the Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" despite that Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years^[1] and there being about 250-300 nominations per prize per year.^[47]

By analysing the data for 34 British, or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list, the anti-creationist British Centre for Science Education raised doubts about the claimed affiliations and relevant expertise of those on the list.^[48]

Defections and disagreements[edit]

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.^[11][49] It wrote to all of them asking whether they thought living things shared common ancestors and whether humans and apes shared common ancestors. According to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, a few of the signatories replied saying that they did accept these principles but did not think that natural selection could explain the origins of life. However, the replies ceased when, according to Scott, the Discovery Institute found out and advised signatories not to respond. She concluded from this that "at least some of the more knowledgeable scientists did not interpret this statement the way that it was intended [by the Discovery Institute] to be interpreted by the general public."^[40]

For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, "I signed it in irritation", and said that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas. He said that "They deserve to be prodded, as it were. It was my way of thumbing my nose at them", but was unconvinced by intelligent design and concluded "From my point of view, it's a plague on both your houses".^[12]

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."^[50]

Counter-petitions

Responding in the form of a humorous parody, the National Center for Science Education launched Project Steve, a list of scientists named "Steve", or its equivalent (such as "Stephanie" or "Esteban"), who had signed a pro-evolution statement.^[51] As of 17 October 2013^[update], the Steve-o-meter registered 1,281 Steves.^[52] A Discovery Institute spokesperson responded that "if Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies – that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution".^[53]

After the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, a counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7,733 signatures from scientists in four days.^[54]

As of 4 July 2012^[update], the Clergy Letter Project^[55] has collected signatures of 12,813 American Christian clergy who "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist." Over 400 Jewish clergy have signed a similar "Rabbi Letter".^[56] The Clergy Letter Project has also circulated an "Imam Letter" affirming that "the timeless truths of the Qur'an may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science."^[57]

here are the credential of people starting with A

 

A

• S. Thomas Abraham, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Campbell University School of Pharmacy (a religious university). Now Associate professor. Has some publications in unrelated fields.
• Bernard d'Abrera, Visiting Scholar, "Department of Entomology, British Museum" (the listed affiliation is, quite simply, a lie; d'Abrera is associated with the Natural History Museum, which has not been part of the British Museum for several decades). d’Abrera is not a scientist by training and does not hold a Ph.D,^[15] but is nevertheless a fellow of the pro-intelligent design organization International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. He has described the theory of evolution as “viscid, asphyxiating baggage” that requires “blind religious faith,” since, according to this particular PRATT, it is unfalsifiable. Arthur Shapiro aptly described d’Abrera as “profoundly anti-scientific – not unscientific, but hostile to science.”^[16]
• Gary Achtemeier, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University. Currently works with the USDA Forest Service, doing (genuine) research on smoke management and air quality. Has dedicated himself to “removing stumbling blocks that keep God's people from coming before his throne,”^[17] and written a book, “Cultural Espionage”, on the “evolution-creation controversy”.^[18]
• Joel Adams, Professor of Computer Science, Calvin College. Has some publications, mostly on curriculum development.
• Marshall Adams, Ph.D. Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Currently Director of the Biological Indicators research program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Does have a decent publication record that may not be entirely unrelated – much of it assuming evolution, and none of it apparently offering anything but support.
• Neal Adrian, Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Oklahoma. Owner of Adrian Environmental LLC (improving indoor air quality) and certified mold remediator. Has apparently done some research, but in unrelated fields.
• Domingo Aerden, Professor of Geology, Universidad de Granada. Does research in unrelated fields.
• Rafi Ahmed, Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Florida. Consulting Member at Oracle. No peer-reviewed research publications found.
• Mauricio Alcocer, Director of Graduate Studies, Autonomous University of Guadalajara. Apparently sympathetic to the idea that the creation myths of Mexico are evidence for the Christian God and Trinity.^[19] Has some podcasts attacking evolution.^[20] Has a few older publications on plant physiology (in the journal Weed Technology), but nothing from the last 15 years found.
• Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina, Wilmington. Has a decent publication record in an unrelated field, interleaved with plenty of publications in places such as “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith”. Apparently thinks that evolution is unfalsifiable.
• Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of British Columbia. Has claimed that he tried systematically to indoctrinate students with evolution for 33 years before he discovered and was converted to Intelligent Design.^[21] Did some research, in anthropology, in the 1970s, but his work from the last 30 years seem primarily to be concerned with ID apologies published through non-scientific venues.
• Wesley Allen, Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia. The university website lists him as Associate Professor of Chemistry. Does real research, however, though in an unrelated field.
• Gail H. Allwine, Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired), Gonzaga University. No research publications found.
• Jesus Ambriz, Professor of Medicine, Autonomous University of Guadalajara. No research record found.
• Yoshiyuki Amemiya, Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics, The University of Tokyo. Appears to be a real scientist, in an unrelated field.
• Changhyuk An, Ph.D. Physics, University of Tennessee. No research or current affiliation found.
• Richard Anderson, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, Duke University. Real researcher, unrelated field.
• Todd A. Anderson, Ph.D. Computer Science, U. of Kentucky. May have some (unrelated) research; no updated information found.
• Mark Apkarian, Ph.D. Exercise Physiology, University of New Mexico. No current affiliation, research, or information found.
• João Jorge Ribeiro Soares Gonçalves de Araújo, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, Open University (Portugal). Appears to have some publications in unrelated fields.
• Janice Arion, Ph.D. Animal Science, Cornell University. Currently at Coram Deo Academy (a private Christian school; appears to be an elementary school designed to supplement homeschooling). No research found since her student days.
• William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University. Has publications in apparently unrelated fields. Also a global warming denialist and signatory to the Oregon Petition.
• Neil Armitage, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town. Has a decent research record in an unrelated field.
• D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University. Currently at Perry Institute for Marine Science. Appears to be involved in real research, though in unrelated fields.
• Eduardo Arroyo, Professor of Forensics, Complutense U. Appears to do some research, unrelated to the question at hand.
• Eugene C. Ashby, Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology. Hardcore creationist who cherish all the standard misunderstandings and untruths that reveal the thorough lack of understanding of evolution you’d expect^[22] who supported the infamous disclaimer stickers in Cobb County, GA, put on biology textbooks proclaiming that evolution is “a theory, not a fact”. Used to be a respectable scientist, but does not appear to have been involved in scientific research for the last 25 years.
• Paul Ashby, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard U. Currently at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Does research in an unrelated field.
• Michael Atchison, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Vet. School. Appears to do real research; also associated with the Christian Leadership Ministries. Was the guy who was responsible for “peer reviewing” Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”; at least Behe has claimed that Atchison’s 10 minute phone communication about book with Behe counted as peer review.^[23]
• Joseph Atkinson, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, Massachusets Institute of Technology. Google returns no affiliation, research, or information
• Gregory A. Ator, Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, U. of Kansas Medical Center. Does research in unrelated fields.
• Richard Austin, Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences, Piedmont College. Also Republican member of the Georgia State House of Representatives (10th district) between 2009 and 2011. Currently Habersham County Commissioner. Has some not entirely irrelevant publications, but these appear to assume and/or support evolution rather than provide any challenges.
• Douglas Axe,^[24] Director, Biologic Institute. Has published real, peer-reviewed papers in real journals, which are hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views, despite the fact that the papers, even according to Axe, provide no evidence for Intelligent Design.^[25] Seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would be correct,^[26] which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design creationism is not a scientific theory and thus not even in the running. Struggles with basic notions of biology.^[27]

[edit] B

Vk4 if you can't explain to me how evolution had started or in other words origin of life if you are still assuming evolution is true. I will remind you something more reasonable with my old post:

You can read again:

Understanding "cause and effect" in scientific terms.

I would like to share some information on the subject what is scientific? And so with my introduction what is basically classic scientific “cause and effect” reasoning. If ever there was scientific law, is law of cause and effect - which states for the every effect there must be adequate cause and that no effect can be greater than its cause and effect maybe lesser than its cause and but never can effect be greater than it’s cause and for every effect there must be adequate cause. All of science is based on that single axiomatic law being true; if cause and effect relationship and this law - is not true then there is no such thing as science, the scientific method would be impossible to employ. If you don’t believe in cause and effect relationship – how could you ever run an experiment? It is accepted as axiomatically this is true scientifically - because if it isn’t then there is any science talk about, it’s that fundamental. So using scientific law of cause and effect we can go through logical syllogism here, first point universe including time itself be shown would have had a beginning! Even in evolutionist group, yep, it had a beginning.
 
Secondly, it is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. The Universe therefore requires a cause; nothing illogical so far in my thread.
 
The evolutionist nonverbally says yeah but where did God come from? And that of course illogical question, already talked about before in other thread. When anybody asks that question like that they don’t understand the definition of words they are using. God the creator by the definition is an infinite eternal spirit without beginning, without end, NOT bound by time, creator of time, therefore transcending any need for beginning. So God as creator of time is outside of time, since therefore he has no beginning in time. Remember dear readers ONLY something that has a beginning requires a cause to explain its existence. God by the definition had no beginning, will have no end; is eternal, and it’s nothing illogical for something being eternal. It is illogical thou for something have a beginning like a Universe and NOT have an adequate cause…they “evolutionist” can say something else was eternal that caused it, but let see what there other eternal God is they like to invoked. But since he had no beginning in time – he always existed so he does not need a cause to explain his origin, he had no origin – therefore no causes required.
 
Now that doesn’t sit well with my evolutionist on this forum lol, I think Christian’s folks already figured that out what we looked at.  
 
But let’s take a look at some classic cause and effect reasoning what we actually observed in the universe!
 
The First Cause of limitless space………………..Must be Infinite
The First Cause of endless Time…………............Must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless Energy…………….Must be omnipotent
The First Cause of universal interrelationships…..Must be omnipresent
The First Cause of supreme Complexity…………Must be omniscient (or all knowing)
The First Cause of Moral Values…………………Must be moral
The First Cause of Spiritual Values………………Must be spiritual
The First Cause of Human Responsibility………..Must be volitional (or having free will)
The First Cause of Human Integrity………………Must be truthful
The First Cause of Human Love………………….Must be loving
The First Cause of Life……………………………Must be living
 
Because no effect can be greater than its cause and every effect must have adequate cause. The conclusion is that the cause of all these phenomena we see in this universe must be a living, loving, truthful, volitional, spiritual, moral, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, infinite being. Is that sound familiar to anybody on this forum? Yeah! His written a book – it’s called the Bible; his love letter to man. And science shows this…that a God such the God revealed in the Bible must exist based on real science cause and effect relationships.
 
Now unfortunately for those who say we cannot allow divine foot in the door? Cause and effect goes out of window, the axiomatic, basic, pillar truth of science is thrown out because by all means we cannot allow divine foot into the door. And so nothing to them is preferable to God, nothing; you think I am kidding on this forum?
 
Alan H Guth & Paul K Steinhardt couple of this evolutionist they say this?
It is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.
 
You got to ask the question? Why is that so tempting? What is tempting about it? If everything came from nothing then what is it mean when asks the questions? Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? Where we came from? Nothing, I guess (we) worth nothing and we are not going to nothing; nothing is the answer, an all jeopardy questions, nothing…but it is tempting not because of science, not because of cause and effect law - but because of philosophical presumption of naturalism.
 
Edward Tryon said that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness.
 
Wow, that almost sounds eloquent; it’s not very logical thou because when you look up the definition of nothing, in an ecology dictionary, it reads something like this? That which does not exist…..so all of this allocution has told us that we all came from that which never existed and if you told believe that? Well then you are stupid and unscientific by the definition. Nobody would really accept that, what we have to point it out in reductio out of sort fashion to point out that there conclusion is logical absurd. From nothing comes nothing, from that - which does not exist, you can’t get everything that does exist, talk about inadequate cause for the effect, that which doesn’t exist creates everything that does exist because they wanted to be so…and similar like VK4, and they define it as science.
 
And with little research I have a quote from Paul Davies evolutionist he says?
This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.
 
Well, I guess you know my dear readers, I guess that would be the case, how can nothing violate anything since it doesn’t exist…I wouldn’t worry about laws of physics, you know I may not worry about anything, will all came from nothing, don’t worry it’s not worth it…it’s nothing.
 
Now I quote again the Paul Davies, the man that I just quote it; notice what he admits thou when he is pin to the wall. He says no theory can rule out divine creation. Scientific theories are simply proposals for how the world is, to be tested by observation. There is no logical impediment to God creating the universe five minutes ago in its present state, complete with human memories. In the end a theory stands or falls on whether human beings consider it reasonable.
 
I hope I pounded this issue home tonight in this thread, why is it such a battle over the word rational, reasonable and scientific; because ultimately what human beings consider to be rational, reasonable and scientific is what accepted as science, is it that interesting? My dear readers, if they “evolutionists” control the definition of what is reasonable and rational, they win. And that’s where the battle has been fought in recent years and on this forum as well. Thank you for reading. Shtal.

So Shtal, if you consider that evidence for overturning evolution, you are mistaken.  Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it deals with what happened afterward.  And if the above example proves what you say it proves, then it also proves there are no gods.

shtal why did you change the subject 

 

oh and your silly argument was completely wrong, most non-retarded people will se that, i would show you why it is wrong but i think you know and are just dishonest;

 

in mans LOVE LETTER to man you will also find this story, this is going to be fun;

 

2:Kings:2:24.

 

The cut and paste crew, oh my ....

I know exactley where we come from ! I saw the movie Prometheus!