and what...exactly....does this prove?

so you have a handful of scientists that don't believe in natural selection?
Show me, peered reviewed journals disproving natural selection. Then I'll be more willing to listen. A list from teh discovery institute...means absolutely nothing.... AND...even IF.... darwin was wrong..completely...this would not automatically mean...ID ID ID ID GOD GOD GOD GOD...... did it.. which is the sole argument the Discovery institute has.... discredit science, and then.... reduce the argument to God...it's a PR trick. Little lists....like this prove nothing....and I don't think you are sticking with your word about pushing an agenda. Come wiht a real argument...a tangible argument...then we can debate...little lists like this, my friend, prove nothing.....It is no wonder that the Discovery INstitute has been slaughtered in the courts...this is all they have??? lists, names? hahahahahahahaha....
how bout they compile a list of scientists who actually DO believe in Darwinian evolution....it's quite pathetic that they would spend so much time on compiling a list of "scientists" to prove their case...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

746 scientists named "Steve" support evolution

Put it this way, the reputable scientific community is unified on Evolution.

Should there be a point to where we look at the lies used to brainwash us into evolution, a fully complete evolutionary tree and the fossil record to prove it (debunked by the Cambrian explosion and absense of transitional forms), Embryonic Drawings that were not done scientifically (the specimens were specifically chosen b/c they most resemble each other, the period of developement of the drawing was carefully chosen... they develop diff. and look less similar before and after the time of the drawings, and some of the drawings were actually forged to look right---this was known for a hundred years and it was still in the textbooks when I was in school, the Peppered Moth fiasco (yes adaptation happens, but this was a flawed experiment... moths released during the day when they would be hiding under leaves and then glued to the trunks of trees for photos--- if you are going to teach me science... do it with a little bit of ethical standard), The Miller Experiment that says "see, living material is easy to make" (even though we aren't told that the environment they used was the wrong atmosphere of the early earth, and when the experiment is done in the right atmosphere we get "organic" molecules like cyanide.), Homology is still a mystery (even though they show us pictures of different animal legs, flippers and hands, genetics has shown that different genes account for the same traits in different species sometimes and a lot of times the similar gene gives rise to completely different features... take the eye gene from a mouse and put it in a fruit fly and the fruit fly will still develop the compound eye as it normally would. --- common developemental pathways fails, it is a mystery if homologies can really say anything about evolution, but we are taught the "fact" that they do), archaeopteryx is a bird... not a reptile bird. (it has all the traits of a bird... there are birds alive today that have claws on their wings that help them hang on to branches... and going on the evolutionary "evidence" of homologies suggests the reptiles who were to turn into birds appear millions of years after archaeopteryx which is a bird. You have a bird millions of years before reptiles were evolving into a bird. Archaeopteryx is an extinct bird... not a transitional fossil, but we are taught that anyway.), Human Evolution... Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature wrote in 1999, "The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." Each fossil is "an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." He said that all the fossil evidence for human evolution "between ten and five million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted into a small box." (so much for the wealth of evidence) The conventional picture of human evolution is "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (New York: The Free Press, 1999) the fossils of humans vary about the same as if we compared skeletons of different races alive today, the horse evolution begins with a species that (as far as evolution goes) could be just as good of a ancestor to the rhino... (but the illustrations paint a cute little horse). Too much of this stinks of propaganda. The major evidences for evolution are failing, and new scientific discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, etc. are painting a picture with irreducible complexity, life existing through the laws of nature on a razors edge, the incredible positioning of our planet to our sun with our moon in our galaxy--- even the type of galaxy we live in, etc. that presents evolution as a weak explanation for our present with a lack of supporting empirical evidence. Evolution ran its course... and failed.

Look... I'm not attacking evolution merely on some theistic creationist ranting agenda. All I'm saying is that if there is so much great evidence that "everyone knows," then why are we force fed out dated, unproven, borderline fraud examples to shape our mind onto an evolutionary track??? I understand we don't want to cripple science by just "giving up." But listen... I can say that I don't believe dinosaurs existed, but the fossils were created through an advanced process by which a black hole forms by various methods of quantom physics ( I haven't completely worked out the equations yet) under the surface of the earth and a complex operation of fusion occurs due to the immence energy that comes from a black hole forming in such an environment. This fusion streaks through the layers of dirt and creates dino fossils. I know I don't have a lot of empirical evidence to support my theory right now, but I don't want to give up on it b/c I know that future evidence will prove it true.

There has to be a time where we stop brain washing kids and ourselves and start seeking other options. A time where we stop making up new "theories" and speculations trying to undergird an out dated and unsupported theory. A time of real scientific honesty. But it seems that so many of us are so brainwashed we'll defend evolution as if were our savior. As if it were our religion, our very identity. We'll defend it with the latest "black hole fossil creator" speculation found in our "group think" operated "scientific" journals.

That's cool. But from a historical perspective... evolutionists have been the ones to lie to me and feed me propaganda (computer animated documentaries of ancient animals... hello speculatory propaganda). Building a fake house of a theory and teaching it to me as fact with false illustrations and assuptions. And I'm not sifting through creation.com or whatever it is anymore. I'm reading Behe, Johnson, Strobel etc. Real evidence from real scientists (Yes I know that Johnson and Strobel aren't scientists... and they do too, and that is why they research for the best information from the best scientists of the latest discoveries, read up on them , interview them, and cross check their findings... their information is still scientific, up to date, and enlightening) who have the guts to say, "evolution is not a good scientific example anymore, and this is why." It isn't scientific to be closed minded to what science may be showing us with our new discoveries. What if science points to a God. We are going to be closed minded to it b/c it doesn't fit in with our dogma or what we want reality to be???

Letting go of an old scientific theory is not going to kill science. It will preserve it. To hold on to dogma is religious ferver and closed mindedness that doesn't belong in science. No body is going to destroy the walls of medical science b/c evolution is finally admittedly boo boo. Maybe the medical field will be more respected and honored as an awesome gift. Maybe all science will be. And we'll study harder and more to understand more and more about what is going on around us. Just like man - kind did before the Theory of Evolution poked its nose into history. I've heard this "we've never done it this way or thougth of it this way before" nonsense in churches who refused to attach to reality but found their identities in their self made religion. If that is our best reason for holding on to evolution, and we hold onto it for that... then science is dead and a new religion has reared its head.

However, what I'd really love you to do for us is tell us where exactly you have found about all that you are saying there... I have only given what has been accepted upon until now. To say that nothing is adaptable, well, against that I can prove you wrong at any moment, even (or especially) when I'm asleep. Evolution through various natural processes has also been agreed upon almost globally... that we don't agree on the whole evolution history, well, that's a different problem (scientists never claimed to know everything from the beginning). Also, I have said that mutation exists... which, for our sake, I hope you're not going to try and debate here.

Instead, I've got only claims and claims which are of no possible common sense and are not plain obvious for any of us... and that with absolutely no backup support. No text references (save for some writings, which we have almost no clue on where to start looking for, with some exceptions)...

Also, you seem to have quite a lot of mistaken cause-effect clauses in your last two posts, I'll outline just one:

By this time we know there are more than one (ours) solar systems. Perhaps we're not that advanced to observe them in detail, but we know of their existence.

Now tell me... which was the cause and which was the effect in your argument: the planet is like this, all the things are like this because WE are like this, or is it that WE are like this because of the incredible placement of our planet, and such...? No, nacker, what has been said by the others stinks FAR LESS of propaganda than what you said there...

Some extra:

More:

More:

And many more... I just don't have the time and patience to answer fully...

However, please do not name me or any of us brainwashed guys who've got no ethical standard when it comes to teaching science... I haven't tought you anything, and nweither have many around here, if not all !

In reply to Rigor,

I don't think that I said that nothing is adaptable. Nothing can't be adaptable. Nothing doesn't even exist and so it can't adapt... Just kidding...

Adaptation is a given. Microevolution is observed and measured and scientific. I didn't say that mutations don't exist either. There are plenty of multi winged or leg - headed fruit flies, five legged cows, and sickle cell anemnia cases to attest to mutations. But the scientific evidence does not point to random mutations being taken over by natural selection and producing the life patterns we have today. It falls way short. The fossil record, i.e. , the Cambrian Explosion blows gradual adaptation by natural selection for the creation of the species out of the water and Punctuated equilibrium falls way short too. Natural Selection is non - existant at at the level of chemical evolution so it cannot explain the origins. Natural selection needs self-replicating organisms. The better organisms passing on traits to their offspring. But to have reproduction you have to have cell division which presupposes the existence of DNA and proteins. But in chemical evolution those are the things we are trying to explain. And the viruses that use RNA to reproduce don't help the argument b/c they need information to function themselves. For RNA to replicate they need an identical RNA molecule close by... that just doesn't happen by chance. The main educational devices to teach evolution are scientifically shaky or forged. Yeah but, "Evolution is readily agreed upon." That is not a scientific argument. "Future finds will support our theory." Another way to say "Our theory sucks right now but I hope it won't later on."

What if science points to a creator? If He made science... wouldn't it point back to him??? Singularity declares the beginning of the universe with a Big Bang. This Big Bang didn't come from no where. There is a language at the heart of our DNA. There are no bonds known to man that explain the information stored in our DNA. (there is no reason for the adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine to line up the way they do) Genetisists don't know where this language came from. I only know one thing in nature that can write a language and it isn't natural selection. (and no i'm not saying, "Well hell... let's just stop studying and write it off to a creator" that isn't the point) We've seen that our planet is positioned precariously for life to exist in our universe, and positioned with a great view for study. I know that creationists use probability out the wazoo, but eventually we've got to take a step back and say that the probability of our perfect positioning of our planet, our moon, our solar system, etc. to make life possible, multiplied with the random mutations (positive ones that have never been observed) creating all of our organs --complex and simple, the suggested irreducibly complex flagellum (and other mechanisms), metamorphosis, blood clotting, etc... through natural selection that has so far only shown to preserve species... not to mention that evolution is virtually silent on the formation of the DNA language and the occurance of human consciousness, and Seriously... at some point to look at all of this and say, "In light of the absense of empirical evidence... is this an acceptable scientific theory?" And before you charge ahead and say, "Well what next??? God??? He sux and so do you for saying anything against science..." really forget about Him right now and look scientifically at that theory. The discussion at hand.

"Maybe we don't know everything about evolution but we can believe in it as we learn more b/c we are sure it will be proven." Ok... but does that sound like science??? Where is the evidence pointing... now??? Let's be rational about this.

(information about the unverse junk can be found in The Priveleged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards, for a look at some of the information with out an Intelligent Design slant you can read Press and Siever's textbook Earth, or Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth and marvel at our "sheer luck" and "rare chance happening." After all "...Somebody had to win the big lottery, and we were it." - Ward

This is a quote from that article...

'Behe said he had come up with his own ?broader? definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. ?The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,? he says.'

You misquoted him. He was using his definition of scientific theory as a rhetorical device demonstrating what "theory" seems to really mean to the scientific community... from his perspective. So it was advantageous to his cause to agree that astrology would fit in that def. That is how bad he feels scientific theories have gotten.

Rigor.

You see a big difference between pink flying unicorns and evolution. I don't.

What you have is speculation based on wishful thinking stemming from a reality that you want to see as real.

It would make me feel happy and comfortable... maybe even a little pretty if a pink flying unicorn existed.

It would make me feel happy and comfortable... maybe even a little important if this theory was true.

Scientific EVIDENCE is not supportive. Scientific hope is. Scientific speculation is. Can you could turn your critical eye away from god and toward this unsupported theory (Unsupported theory = pink flying unicorn)? What if you may be doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing. Believing in an imaginary thing with no basis of science. Empty. Irrational.

Where is the scientific evidence pointing? If your science is presupposed by a PHILOSOPHY of materialism/naturalism, then it is pointing to nowhere. The theory of evolution fails. Irreducible complexity undermines it by Darwin's own words. The lack of evidence to support it, and the fact that it requires one to "believe" in it, paints it as a religion instead of a science. And I feel that it is a religion vastly unsupported. At least the virgin birth claims eye witnesses. Evolution is speculation alone.

Listen to this for some insight as to the correct definitions:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=592&start=0

It is more accurate to say that Behe is the one who has abandoned science. Oh, and my definitions are NOT elaborate in the audio piece, it is for the layman.

Wimpy evidence? You mean the wimpy evidence posted in this very forum you still haven't found the time to address?

My opinion of Behe is based on the simple fact that the ideas he proffers are NOT science. This has been determined in a court of law. ID is NOT science, it is nothing more than dressed up creationism, and when a judge appointed by BushI can see that, I fail to see why you cannot.

You've obviously been pulled in by the Intelligent Design "Science". This is their newest tactic, where they basically make a bunch of scientific sounding statements in a field they have almost no backround in, and then spout it out to the general public trying to convince them that there is a major rift in the scientific community about the validity of the Theory of Evolution. There is no such rift, though some in the scientific community may disagree on some small mechanic in the process of evolution, the general theory among scientists that have legitimate backround in the subject is nearly unanimous. As far as I know it IS unanimous, but i put nearly in just because i don't know for a fact that it is completely unanimous. Suffice to say, there is definately no large rift. This tactic is, sadly, working. The public is more and more convinced of this imaginary rift and therefore more willing to take Intelligent Design as a legit theory. Quoting a 'scientist' doesn't make your answers to the questions intelligent. You have to do the work to come to a rational conclusion. Accepting what this Behe says as fact without following up with your own research is as bad and false, to me, as following a religion blindly. You must research the topic, this includes evolution, Intelligent design, and all the other theories. Only in this way can you come to your OWN rational conclusion to origins of man, and the universe. There is no other real way to do it. You can take the easy way out by just going with what one man says, or you can open your mind to all things and take what is the most factual, well-reasoned meaning for existance. For breaking into evolution, might I suggest some Dawkins, or Gould? Oh and before you state that evolution is not supported...do your research. Because, honestly I don't know what you're talking about. There's so much evidence for evolution it boggles the mind.