K
kendemyer
Guest
Bioscience is peer reviewed science journal that is well respected in the scientific community. The January 30th, 1980 issue of Bioscience had this statement, “Why do creationists seem to be the consistent winners in public debates with evolutionists?â€Â
Here is one websites commentary:
I think the reason is clear. Despite their best efforts biologist have never witnessed macroevolution. The fruit fly experiments have been going on for about a hundred years and here is the result: Fruit flies remain fruit flies. I think writer Norman Macbeth summed up things nicely regarding the fruit fly experiments: "Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33. ).
So the biology supports the idea that the different kinds of animals are completely resistent to changing to into different kinds of animals. Fruit flies remained fruit flies. Of course, this confirms creationism.
Here is an excellent article on this subject:
Once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
Also, the fossil record has not been kind to macroevolutionist especially in the case of the "missing link". Here is what the senior science writer of Britain's most respected science journal wrote: "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,†Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. Britain's emininent paleoanthropologist Sir Solly Zuckerman concurrs. Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleoanthropologist of Birmingham University in England wrote: "…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1971, p. 64 ). Clearly, this is not compelling science.
Paleoanthropology is not the only achilles heel for the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Here is what a prominent evolutionist admitted regarding the fossil record: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ).
So the fossil record shows different kinds of animals with big gaps between them. Of course, this confirms creationism.
Since debates commonly require evidence for your position plus the ability to deflect criticisms of your position it is no surprise that the macroevolutionary position consistently loses the university debates.
Now the macroevolutionist might argue well the creationists pepper evolutionists with questions and the macroevolutionist do not have the time to respond to questions. I think this is a poor excuse. Clearly, the macroevolutionists can ask questions of the creationists. The macroevolutionist can claim it is just because the creationists are more eloquent. Do not macroevolutionists write books, give lectures, etc? The macroevolutionist certainly has no shortages of spokespersons who are eloquent. In short, excuses are not replacements for evidence nor are they a substitute for a position that has the ability to withstand objections.
Here is one websites commentary:
I think the reason is clear. Despite their best efforts biologist have never witnessed macroevolution. The fruit fly experiments have been going on for about a hundred years and here is the result: Fruit flies remain fruit flies. I think writer Norman Macbeth summed up things nicely regarding the fruit fly experiments: "Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33. ).
So the biology supports the idea that the different kinds of animals are completely resistent to changing to into different kinds of animals. Fruit flies remained fruit flies. Of course, this confirms creationism.
Here is an excellent article on this subject:
Once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
Also, the fossil record has not been kind to macroevolutionist especially in the case of the "missing link". Here is what the senior science writer of Britain's most respected science journal wrote: "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,†Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. Britain's emininent paleoanthropologist Sir Solly Zuckerman concurrs. Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleoanthropologist of Birmingham University in England wrote: "…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1971, p. 64 ). Clearly, this is not compelling science.
Paleoanthropology is not the only achilles heel for the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Here is what a prominent evolutionist admitted regarding the fossil record: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ).
So the fossil record shows different kinds of animals with big gaps between them. Of course, this confirms creationism.
Since debates commonly require evidence for your position plus the ability to deflect criticisms of your position it is no surprise that the macroevolutionary position consistently loses the university debates.
Now the macroevolutionist might argue well the creationists pepper evolutionists with questions and the macroevolutionist do not have the time to respond to questions. I think this is a poor excuse. Clearly, the macroevolutionists can ask questions of the creationists. The macroevolutionist can claim it is just because the creationists are more eloquent. Do not macroevolutionists write books, give lectures, etc? The macroevolutionist certainly has no shortages of spokespersons who are eloquent. In short, excuses are not replacements for evidence nor are they a substitute for a position that has the ability to withstand objections.
