E
Eve777
Guest
100,000 sperm to choose from, and you two were the fastest? I'll bet you both have low voices 
: :
: :Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Behold, the Big..... Bloom?
- Thread starter Vic C.
- Start date
S
SyntaxVorlon
Guest
I don't know about bop but I get my antagonist nature from my mother. So there eve 
Barbarian
Member
Darwin's theory was not that evolution occured (many scientists had realized that). His theory explained why it happened.
Actually, Wallace independently discovered natural selection, shortly after Darwin did. A mutual friend pointed this out to both of them, after which Wallace amicably agreed that Darwin had priority in time. Darwin then published his findings with Wallace's blessings. Darwin freely acknowledged Wallace's discovery, and they remained friends thereafter.
Darwin's theory was never about genetics. It did not become part of evolutionary theory until after the Modern Synthesis.
Darwin freely acknowledged the impact Malthus had on his thinking. So did Newton. He likened it to standing on the shoulders of giants, and being able to see a little farther thereby. That's how science works.
Actually, Darwin and Spencer were both influenced by Malthus. Darwin's ideas were never Spencer's.
You're thinking of "Social Darwinism", which is not Darwinism at all. The "nature, red in tooth and claw" stuff is not what Darwin meant by "competition."
Science depends on making conclusions from hypotheses by evaluationg the evidence. His book is a classic of scientific methodology, taking a phenomenon, suggesting explanations, and then gathering evidence to see what it says. The book has evidence in mind-numbing detail.
His great discovery was how it happened. Previous scientists were aware that it happened, but could not explain why.
Well, not war. But species compete in various ways. More are born than can live, and something has to happen. Natural selection is what happens. The vast majority of species on this Earth have been exterminated. Extinction is the fate of all species.
So the ones best at finding food tend to live, and the ones that don't, die? How is this not deadly compitition?
That's how a lot of Darwinian selection happens. You've been misled about his theory.
You're thinking of the Cartoon Theory of Evolution, not Darwin's.
E
Eve777
Guest
The point here is that we don't know what life is, and no evolutionists can tell you when during the evolutionary process we became alive. However, they will tell you tales of how we all decended from from monkeys,, or a little pool of primordial ooze that somewhere along the line was struck by lightning, and poof! This amoeba was mystically whisked into the realm of the living. After hearing this from one of my friends, I couldn't help but smile. What incredible faith he had in evolution. 
S
SyntaxVorlon
Guest
Go to google and put these words into the search bar "logic Sorites Argument." Your point here is a dilemma that relates to that specific fallacy.Eve777 said:
More of the cartoon, actually try to learn about the subject matter you are making claims about.
Barbarian
Member
Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. You've gotten the Cartoon Theory confused with the real one.
Cartoon theory, again. The real one does not say we evolved from monkeys.
Cartoon theory, again.
And another Cartoon...
He sounds no more informed than you are.
E
Eve777
Guest
Out of the mouths of your very own.....
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see Order Sheet), only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."â€â€*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."â€â€*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."â€â€*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."â€â€*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "â€â€Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."â€â€*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "â€â€*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."â€â€J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."â€â€*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."â€â€*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"â€â€*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."â€â€*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."â€â€*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."â€â€*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."â€â€*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."â€â€*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."â€â€*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."â€â€*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchâ€â€paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyâ€â€has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deityâ€â€omnipotent chance."â€â€*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."â€â€*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructsâ€â€as has been repeatedly shownâ€â€the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."â€â€*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."â€â€*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."â€â€*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."â€â€Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."â€â€*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."â€â€*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."â€â€*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "â€â€*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."â€â€*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenâ€â€belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."â€â€*Arthur N. Field.
Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."â€â€*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."â€â€*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."â€â€*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."â€â€*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."â€â€*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter endâ€â€no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."â€â€I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."â€â€*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."â€â€*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "â€â€*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."â€â€*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."â€â€L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."â€â€*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."â€â€L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."â€â€*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."â€â€*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."â€â€*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."â€â€*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."â€â€*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."â€â€*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingâ€â€or at least they are not science."â€â€*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."â€â€*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."â€â€*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchâ€â€paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyâ€â€has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."â€â€*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the oly aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see Order Sheet), only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."â€â€*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."â€â€*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."â€â€*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."â€â€*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "â€â€Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."â€â€*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "â€â€*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."â€â€J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."â€â€*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."â€â€*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"â€â€*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."â€â€*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."â€â€*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."â€â€*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."â€â€*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."â€â€*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."â€â€*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."â€â€*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchâ€â€paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyâ€â€has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deityâ€â€omnipotent chance."â€â€*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."â€â€*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructsâ€â€as has been repeatedly shownâ€â€the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."â€â€*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."â€â€*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."â€â€*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."â€â€Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."â€â€*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."â€â€*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."â€â€*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "â€â€*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."â€â€*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenâ€â€belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."â€â€*Arthur N. Field.
Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."â€â€*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."â€â€*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."â€â€*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."â€â€*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."â€â€*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter endâ€â€no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."â€â€I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."â€â€*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."â€â€*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "â€â€*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."â€â€*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."â€â€L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."â€â€*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."â€â€L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."â€â€*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."â€â€*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."â€â€*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."â€â€*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."â€â€*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."â€â€*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingâ€â€or at least they are not science."â€â€*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."â€â€*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."â€â€*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchâ€â€paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyâ€â€has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."â€â€*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the oly aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."â€â€*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
S
SyntaxVorlon
Guest
Eve, I see you've learned how to use the copy and paste function. Why not make an argument yourself with supporting arguments from others instead of just posting the invalid arguments of others?
This is a lot of quotes taken vastly out of context. And since you make no real statements before or after, you have no argument.
Please try again eve.
This is a lot of quotes taken vastly out of context. And since you make no real statements before or after, you have no argument.
Please try again eve.
Barbarian
Member
Almost all quotes like this are either the words of creationists, or of scientists whose statements have been carefully edited to make it appear that they think what they do not.
And there's this one:
""I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
This is a disorder that sometimes affects PhDs; they think that being a PhD makes them knowledgable in everything. In this instance, Lipson is merely ignorant. Allometry quite adequately explains the early increases in neck length seen in giraffes and their relatives, and natural selection easily explains further growth among the true giraffes. (details on request). I wonder what Doc Lippard would think if a biologist told him that electrical circuit theories couldn't explain light bulbs. That would be no more silly than his statement.
Gould's statement was edited out of a section on the question of whether or not evolutionary theory is, in principle, falsible, i.e. truly science. Gould is merely saying that there are things, that if true, could falsify evolutionary theory.
I'm not saying Eve777 is guilty of that. The odds are, she (like hordes of other honest Christians) was fed that quote from some dishonest person's website.
Eve, it's discouraging, I know, to learn that not everyone who claims to be a Christian tells the truth. You should avoid those people and never submit a quote unless you've read the entire article yourself.
Because there is so much of this dishonesty on the web, many people assume anyone who posts it is deliberately lying. Post facts and evidence, and you won't be one of them.
If you like, we can go though you list and see how many of them hold up. Would you like to do that?
And there's this one:
""I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."â€â€*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
This is a disorder that sometimes affects PhDs; they think that being a PhD makes them knowledgable in everything. In this instance, Lipson is merely ignorant. Allometry quite adequately explains the early increases in neck length seen in giraffes and their relatives, and natural selection easily explains further growth among the true giraffes. (details on request). I wonder what Doc Lippard would think if a biologist told him that electrical circuit theories couldn't explain light bulbs. That would be no more silly than his statement.
Gould's statement was edited out of a section on the question of whether or not evolutionary theory is, in principle, falsible, i.e. truly science. Gould is merely saying that there are things, that if true, could falsify evolutionary theory.
I'm not saying Eve777 is guilty of that. The odds are, she (like hordes of other honest Christians) was fed that quote from some dishonest person's website.
Eve, it's discouraging, I know, to learn that not everyone who claims to be a Christian tells the truth. You should avoid those people and never submit a quote unless you've read the entire article yourself.
Because there is so much of this dishonesty on the web, many people assume anyone who posts it is deliberately lying. Post facts and evidence, and you won't be one of them.
If you like, we can go though you list and see how many of them hold up. Would you like to do that?
E
Eve777
Guest
You're kidding me :o There are dishonest Christians? Bet it follows then, that there are dishonest Athesists....or maybe some of the stuff on their web sites could be called into question?....
We all think we have proof but in actual fact when it comes to Creation and the vast unknown.....the truth has a way of changing all the time....
We all think we have proof but in actual fact when it comes to Creation and the vast unknown.....the truth has a way of changing all the time....
E
Eve777
Guest
I am not well educated to tell you the truth ( did I hear a gasp?) and I have to depend on the kindness of strangers on other web sites to help me defend my position. As for copying and pasting, I learned that at my DH's knee a long time ago when we first got a computer in 1997.
You are all so much better at expressing yourself than I am and I know you know how to present an argument much better but one thing I know......I was born a sinner and I will die a Christian...I am convinced beyond anything that there is a God and he alone, created this world.
Now I think I will go play in another sand box for a while...
I haven't checked out too many of the other forums yet....I bet I can get in as much trouble there... :angel:
You are all so much better at expressing yourself than I am and I know you know how to present an argument much better but one thing I know......I was born a sinner and I will die a Christian...I am convinced beyond anything that there is a God and he alone, created this world.
Now I think I will go play in another sand box for a while...
I haven't checked out too many of the other forums yet....I bet I can get in as much trouble there... :angel:Featherbop
Member
Eve777 said:
Of course atheists are dishonest. They don't like God and His morals. They could easily lie to the entire world and They have no reason to have any qualms about it. So in their position, it could make perfect sense that since they hate God, they should lie to the world to make them think God is not real, and that atheistic evolution is truth.
And BTW, truth never changes.
S
SyntaxVorlon
Guest
There is one way to change that however. Get educated. Take a course in evolutionary biology or read a book. I would suggest something by Dawkins, Leakey, or Gould.
E
Eve777
Guest
I thought about that the minute I posted it....I should have said,,, the things scientists believe to be true.. keeps changing all the time. God's eternal truth never changes.
Featherbop
Member
Eve777 said:
Yeah, scientists will just keep changing what the "facts" are. In a couple hundred years, they'll change all the ideas into some new thing ideas about origins of life, or big bang, and all that stuff. ha ha
S
SyntaxVorlon
Guest
When have facts ever changed? The universe has always been the age it is, though in the past it has been younger, it's simply that there is more evidence to find. The fossil and genetic records are still the fossil and genetic records that were available in 1547, we simply didn't know they existed or no theories were in place to explain what people were seeing when they looked at 400 million year old skeletons.
Our knowledge of all those things is mutable, part of the strength of science, no dogma to bog down progress.
Our knowledge of all those things is mutable, part of the strength of science, no dogma to bog down progress.
E
Eve777
Guest
Oh Lucy, scientist have changed their facts alright.,,,
Man...Apes...Australopithecines...Each Uniquely Different ICR
For many years it has been the consensus among evolutionists that the australopithecines (various species within the genus Australopithecus) were intermediate between Man and the apes, indicating that this creature was on the direct evolutionary line between Man and the hypothetical common ancestor of apes and Man (see Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, D. T. Gish, pp. 72-112). The first specimen was discovered by Dr. Raymond Dart in 1924. Dr. Louis Leakey and his wife Mary in 1959 uncovered the skull of a creature they named Zinjanthropus bosei, which they claimed at the time was hitherto unknown and was an important link in man's evolution. Later research by others and by Leakey, himself, established that his Zinjanthropus ("East Africa Man") was simply another variety of Australopithecus ("Southern Ape"). Leakey even began to suggest the possibility that the australopithecines were outside of the direct line leading to man  a sterile sidebranch.
Year: Nov 1975 Author: Gish
Man...Apes...Australopithecines...Each Uniquely Different ICR
For many years it has been the consensus among evolutionists that the australopithecines (various species within the genus Australopithecus) were intermediate between Man and the apes, indicating that this creature was on the direct evolutionary line between Man and the hypothetical common ancestor of apes and Man (see Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, D. T. Gish, pp. 72-112). The first specimen was discovered by Dr. Raymond Dart in 1924. Dr. Louis Leakey and his wife Mary in 1959 uncovered the skull of a creature they named Zinjanthropus bosei, which they claimed at the time was hitherto unknown and was an important link in man's evolution. Later research by others and by Leakey, himself, established that his Zinjanthropus ("East Africa Man") was simply another variety of Australopithecus ("Southern Ape"). Leakey even began to suggest the possibility that the australopithecines were outside of the direct line leading to man  a sterile sidebranch.
Year: Nov 1975 Author: Gish
Featherbop
Member
Real truth never changes. "Facts" that wackos..er...scientists come up with have been changed and will continue to change.
We don't know some things for certain, so we consider some assumtions as facts.
Noone can show that humans evolved from any other creature(s), but many accept it as fact. If one simply accepts truth, they never have to worry about being wrong again. Another example of how human knowledge is and can easily be incorrect.
We don't know some things for certain, so we consider some assumtions as facts.
Noone can show that humans evolved from any other creature(s), but many accept it as fact. If one simply accepts truth, they never have to worry about being wrong again. Another example of how human knowledge is and can easily be incorrect.
Barbarian
Member
Actually, the particular Australopithecine originally called Zinjanthropus is on a sidebranch of human evolution. The "robust" australopithecines are clearly not ancestral to humans, but the gracile Australopithecines slowly became more and more manlike, to the point that it's difficult to say where Australopithecines stop and Homo begins.
Gish knows this of course. He's pretty extreme for a creationist, having once assured an audience that bullfrog proteins are more like human proteins than those of apes.
Completely false, of course. He promised to show his evidence, but even when urged by fellow creationists to do so, he would not.
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html
Gish knows this of course. He's pretty extreme for a creationist, having once assured an audience that bullfrog proteins are more like human proteins than those of apes.
Completely false, of course. He promised to show his evidence, but even when urged by fellow creationists to do so, he would not.
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html