When I talk about all the top scientists who reject evolution, why do you always demand that I "name one"?

Answer 1

Well, who is that scientist? Oh, I don't know. Who could it be? Hmm? could it be, SATAN?

Answer 2

There are scientists that will specifically study science with the sole purpose of trying to reject evolution. They will have their mind set on one thing and it does not change. They ignore all evidence placed in front of them and then come out with ridiculous claims.

These are not true scientists. These are pseudo-scientists.

Answer 3

Who chooses who are the "top scientists"?, Read the book "In six days" you will find 50 scientists from all fields (cosmology, biology, etc.) who explain why they believe in a literal six day creation. Most humanists scientists are biased to have a naturalistic world view. To believe in evolution requires more faith than a creationist.
Please read Michael Behe's description of how eyesight works, link: http://members.cox.net/wwcw/q-behe1.html
The extremely complex mechanisms that make up the human eye, cannot possibly have come from random mutations.

Answer 4

They need proof.
Scientist do not reject evolution. Scientist reject the PART of EVOLUTION that says we and apes come from the same ancestor.

Answer 5

Do you need some help with names?

1. Cotton, F.A. and Wilkinson, G., 1980. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry: a Comprehensive Text, 4th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, NY, p. 47.
2. Thiemann, W., ed., 1973. International Symposium on Generation and Amplification of Asymmetry in Chemical Systems, Jülich, Germany, pp 32–33, 1973; cited in: Wilder-Smith, A.E., 1981. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Master Books, CA.
3. Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p.150. .
4. Cohen, J., 1995. Getting all turned around over the origins of life on earth. Science, 267:1265–1266.
5. For example, Bada, J.L., Luyendyk, B.P. and Maynard, J.B., 1970. Marine sediments: Dating by racemization of amino acids. Science, 170:730–732.
6. Gish, D.T., 1975. The amino acid racemization dating method. Impact series #23, Institute for Creation Research.
7. Gish, D.T., 1970. Peptide synthesis. In: Needleman, S.B., 1970. Protein Sequence Determination, Springer–Verlag, New York. .
8. Brown, J.M. and Davies, S.G., 1989. Chemical asymmetric synthesis. Nature, 342(6250):631–636.
9. This is an example of a dissymmetric molecule that is quite symmetrical. It belongs to the symmetry group D3, meaning it has one three-fold rotational symmetry axis and three perpendicular two-fold axes.
10. Cotton and Wilkinson, Ref. 1, p.669–676. Return to text.
11. Belavoine, G., Moradpour, A. and Kagan, H.B., 1974. Preparation of Chiral Compounds with High Optical Purity by Irradiation with Circularly Polarised Light. J Amer. Chem. Soc., 96:5152–58, 1974.
12. Thiemann, Ref. 2, pp. 222—223.
13. Bailey, J., et al. 1998. Circular polarization in star-formation regions: implications for biomolecular homochirality. Science, 281(5377):672–674; Perspective by Irion, R. Did twisty starlight set stage for life? Same issue, pp. 626–627.
14. Cited in Hecht, J., 1998. Inner circles. A strange light from space may account for life’s love of the left. New Scientist, 159(2146):11.
15. Bonner, W.A., 1991. Origins of Life, 21:59–111, 1991. Cited in: Chyba, C.F. 1997. A Left-handed solar system. Nature, 389:234–235.
16. The first appears to be Ulbricht, T.L.V., 1957, Quart. Rev., 13:48–6. Cited in: Garay, A.S. and Ahlgren-Beckendorf, J.A., 1990. Differential interaction of chiral ß-particles with enantiomers. Nature, 346(6283):451–453.
17. As stated by Cohen, Ref. 4.
18. Meiring, W.J., 1987. Nuclear ß-decay and the origin of biomolecular chirality. Nature, 329(6141):712–714.
19. Bada, J.L., 1995. Origins of homochirality. Nature, 374(6523):594–595.
20. The stable form below 573°C is a-quartz, the space groups of which are C312 and C322. That is, they have a three-fold screw axis and three perpendicular two-fold axes, but no improper rotational axis.
21. Amariglio, A and Amariglio, H. in: R. Buvet and C. Ponnamperuma, eds., 1971. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London.
22. Youatt, B. and Brown R.D., 1981. Origins of chirality in nature: A reassessment of the postulated role of bentonite. Science, 212:1145–46.
23. Pasteur, L., 1848. Annales de Chimie Physique, 24:442–59.
24. Brooks, J. and Shaw, G., 1973. Origins and Development of Living Systems. Academic Press, London and New York, 1973, p. 359: ‘If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like; or in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth.’ (emphasis added).
25. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. and Olsen, W.L, 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Philosophical Library Inc., New York.
26. Joyce, G.F., Visser, G.M., van Boeckel, C.A.A., van Boom, J.H., Orgel, L.E. and van Westrenen, J., 1984. Chiral selection in poly(C)-directed synthesis of oligo(G). Nature, 310:602–4.
27. Doolittle, R., 1983. Probability and the origin of life. In: Godfrey, L.R., ed., 1983. Scientists Confront Creationism, W.W. Norton, NY.
28. Lewin, R., 1981. Science, 214:638.
29. Bradley, D., 1994. A new twist in the tale of nature’s asymmetry. Science, 264:908.
30. Clery, D and Bradley, D., 1994. Underhanded ‘breakthrough’ revealed. Science, 265:21.
31. Morrison and Boyd, Ref. 3, p.157.

How's that... Jim

Answer 6

you just answered your own question...or did you read this in the National Inquirer next to the story about Bigfoot and the UFO and Nessy monster? top scientists are always saying something stupid..it is the way they get attention...so what?

Answer 7

How about Stephen C. Meyer?

And Jonathan Wells?

Two! Ha Ha Ha

Answer 8

Because,you are so stubborn on "proving" on something you already "know" you need to justify it,maybe your trying to make friends hmmm or find some companionship? no matter what true facts and knowledge we give you,you will always have an opposite opinion and "proof" to deny it

Answer 9

Classic.

Answer 10

It is just a question to see or declare your credibility, because anyone can say anything and nothing matters except credibility of the spouter.

Answer 11

For the same reason we ask all the people who claim to have proof of God to cough it up. You'd be surprised at how many of them say, "I have proof of God, but I'm not going to tell you."