[_ Old Earth _] Quotes about Evolution and Creation

[caseypayne1980]

“The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.â€Ââ€â€James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241.


“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 instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?â€Ââ€â€*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

“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€Ââ€â€*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,†Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138

"Although neither the book of Genesis nor any other part of the Bible is used in the Cruncher as scientific evidence, we should note that those Christians who choose to embrace evolutionary theory deny the reality of the Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood. If we cannot trust Genesis, what can we trust?" evolution-facts.org

 

[caseypayne1980]

"Substantial and convincing evidence that much of what is taken for granted and presented to the public as "fact" by evolutionary minded scientist is not in the slightest bit scientific, but is a mass of erroneous conjectures based on a mistaken philosophic predisposition known as the doctrine of Uniformitarianism, which doctrine Darwin inculcated into his Origin for the explanation of formation of past geologic strata and of fossils. This is a doctrine demonstrably without a mote of scientific validity, yet it has been one of bulwarks of evolutionary theory for over a century."

 

[Quath]

I bet you could argue for the flat Earth and for the immovable Earth as well with your same arguments.

 

[Barbarian]

I'd be pleased to see one of those uber-YEers come here and have a go at me.

I've suggested this many times, on many boards, and only once has one of them actually tried it.

It didn't go well for him.

If you've got a favorite one, ask him to come and discuss with me. My guess is you'll never get one to show.

 

[jwu]

“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 instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?â€Ââ€â€*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

Quite outdated. Tons of transitionals have been found, and species isn't as well defined as Darwin thought himself. Are you familiar with the concept of ring species?

In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate.

The reason being that public debates are about rhetorics, not evidence.
Why is it that creationists usually refuse to engage in written debates, where the actual evidence counts more than fancy wordplay?

 

[caseypayne1980]

I bet you could argue for the flat Earth and for the immovable Earth as well with your same arguments.

Fragment of a thought, please explain. But yea in the bible the sun gave light longer then usual and with God this would be possible by slowing the the spin of the earth by pulling the moon near to force a gravitational pull.

Your thinking well this would cause world destruction, however, if this is done by God and he controls the balance of the Universe then I can see this taking place.

 

[caseypayne1980]

I'd be pleased to see one of those uber-YEers come here and have a go at me.

I've suggested this many times, on many boards, and only once has one of them actually tried it.

It didn't go well for him.

If you've got a favorite one, ask him to come and discuss with me. My guess is you'll never get one to show.

What are you crying about? You posted without a complete thought too. Are you talking about someone challenging you on items that Evolutionist now back away from in debates? I guess you think your high and mighty then eh? Evolutionist will back away but not me. Perhaps someone is a know-it-all.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Quite outdated. Tons of transitionals have been found, and species isn't as well defined as Darwin thought himself. Are you familiar with the concept of ring species?

Who cares if it's outdated. What a fall out comment. No they haven't found transitionals of any nature, Unless you consider crayon findings.

 

[Solo]

Only morons believe in evolution. The facts of creation are clear, and the evidence is in the corner of the young earth creationists. Fables and myths are the nighttime stories read to those who require other than God as the origin of life and author of science.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Quite outdated. Tons of transitionals have been found, and species isn't as well defined as Darwin thought himself. Are you familiar with the concept of ring species?

Who cares if it's outdated. What a fall out comment. No they haven't found transitionals of any nature, Unless you consider crayon findings.

The reason being that public debates are about rhetorics, not evidence.
Why is it that creationists usually refuse to engage in written debates, where the actual evidence counts more than fancy wordplay?

Supporting people you don't even know personally when they are proved wrong. Thats pretty funny. Well Well debating and challenging each other in conversation and examples isn't scientific. I believe it is, it is sharing of Hypothesis and theories and finding which is more sound.


Evolution science finals believes in a worldly destructive event that killed lots of animals at once. Those scientist refuse to add God in the picture by accepting "The Flood." Which makes perfect since in every since of the word for fossils, canyons, and mountains. The Flood while killing off dinosaurs and humans also created canyons, and mountains.

If evolution science accepts the Flood it will delete evolution. Can you read what I just said and understand that? IF science accepts the Flood< which logocially explains its self to the world that it did take place, and countries having historical writing of the flood outside the bible, then science would have to throw out Evolution. And I'm telling you without a shadow of a doubt I believe scientist know how the flood did this and CHOOSE to deny it. Arrogance and pride in there work is to strong to back down. But they can preach there false doctrines to the weak minded. I won't be listening.

You fellows have fun researching The Flood and how it was possible and how there are sea shells on top of the highest mountains and how those mountains were formed by "The Flood." and not millions of years of plate movement because, THEY ERODE faster then they get pushed up. Hence it isn't possible for the mountains to just suddenly grow after millions of years because erosion would prevent it. Then read about how by accepting the Flood will kill evolution and we just can't have that now can we.

 

[Solo]

SURVIVAL OF THE FAKEST
SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE
OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF
EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?
-- JONATHAN WELLS

Read about the lies of evolution published in textbooks as facts at http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... Fakest.pdf

 

[Solo]

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological
Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
November 30, 2005

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categoriesâ€Â, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
117(2):213-239. 2004

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
Stephen C. Meyer

 

[Solo]

Comments concerning the book,
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong
by Jonathan Wells.

• "Jonathan Wells demonstrates with stunning clarity that the textbook examples Darwinists themselves chose as the pillars of their theory are false or misleading. What does this imply about their scientific standards? Why should anyone now believe any of their other examples?"

• 
  
  - Dr. Michael Behe, Author of Darwin's Black Box
  and Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
  
  "Jonathan Wells has done us all - the scientific community, educators, and the wider public - a great service. In Icons of Evolution he has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades, in spite of contrary evidence. these claims have been so often repeated that they seem unassailable - that is, until one reads Wells's book."
  
  - Dean H. Kenyon, Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University,
  and Co-Author of Biomedical Predestination
  
  "This is one of the most important books ever written about the evolution controversy. It shows how devotion to the ideology of Darwinism has led to textbooks which are full of misinformation."
  
  Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley,
  and author of Darwin on Trial and the Wedge of Truth

Jonathan Wells is a post-doctoral biologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and holds Ph.D.s from both Yale University and the University of California at Berkeley. He is a member of several scientific associations and has been published widely in academic journals. He lives with his family near Seattle, Washington.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian hearing that evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists, offers to have a professional creationist come and debate him)

What are you crying about?

Um, you seem to have completely misread my post. I'm offering to take you up on the challenge. See if you can find any of the professional creationists to come here and debate me. Very unlikely. They've learned that it's a big mistake to take on scientists in a written debate where ever claim can be carefully examined.

You posted without a complete thought too. Are you talking about someone challenging you on items that Evolutionist now back away from in debates?

I'll put no limits on what your guy can use. He trots out his evidence; I bring out mine, and we let people decide. If your guys need a little help, then we can talk about it.

I guess you think your high and mighty then eh?

Nope. I'm just better than they are.

Evolutionist will back away but not me.

Well, we can test that, if any of your guys has the backbone to show.

Perhaps someone is a know-it-all.

I know a secret for appearing to know it all; only talk about things you know. Let us know if you find any major creationists with the backbone to debate here.

Not likely.

 

[Barbarian]

Wells credibility took a major hit after he admitted that he had a mission from Rev. Moon of the Unification Church to "destroy evolution." The realization that Wells is actually proslytizing for Moon's cult has led many to re-examine his claims.

His credibility took a much greater hit when it was revealed that he lied about the evidence for industrial melanism in his book "Icons of Evolution."

He claimed that the studies were dishonest, because moths never hide on tree trunks. But the very studies he cited show data that moths do exactly that.
(evidence on request)

 

[Quath]

Only morons believe in evolution. The facts of creation are clear, and the evidence is in the corner of the young earth creationists. Fables and myths are the nighttime stories read to those who require other than God as the origin of life and author of science.

So you believe that 95% of scientists are morons. Very interesting.... Very telling....

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, if you limit it to scientists who actually have training in biology, it's about 99.7%.

 

[jwu]

Who cares if it's outdated. What a fall out comment. No they haven't found transitionals of any nature, Unless you consider crayon findings.

You can't be serious..."outdated" means "no longer reflecting the actual situation".

In terms of transitionals...some entries from TalkOrigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... ml#primate

* Though there are only four species now, hyaenids were once very common and have an abundant fossil record. There is a main stem of generally small to medium-sized civet-like forms, showing a general trend toward an increase in size (Werdelin & Solounias, 1991):
* Herpestes antiquus (early Miocene) -- A viverrid thought to be the ancestor of the hyenid family.
* Protictitherium crassum (& 5 closely related species) (early Miocene, 17-18 Ma) -- Fox-sized, civet-like animals with hyena-like teeth. Transitional between the early civet-like viverrids and all the hyenids. Split into three lines, one of which led to the aardwolf. Another line eventually led to modern hyenas:
* Plioviverrops orbignyi (& 3 closely related species)
* Tungurictis spocki, a mid-Miocene fox-sized hyenid. Truly hyena-like ear capsule.
* Ictitherium viverrinum (& 6 closely related species)
* Thalassictis robusta (& 5 other spp.)
* Hyaenotherium wongii
* Miohyaenotherium bessarabicum
* Hyaenictitherium hyaenoides (& 3 other spp.)
* Palinhyaena reperta
* Ikelohyaena abronia
* Belbus beaumonti
* Leecyaena lycyaenoides (& 1 other) We're now in the Pliocene.
* Parahyaena brunnea
* Hyaena hyaena. Pliocrocuta (below) split off from Hyaena via cladogenesis. Hyaena itself continued on mostly unchanged as the modern striped hyena, with one more recent offshoot, the brown hyena,
* Hyaena brunnea.
* Pliocrocuta perrieri
* Pachycrocuta brevirostris (& 1 other)
* Adcrocuta eximia, which split into: Crocuta crocuta (the modern spotted hyena), C. sivalensis, and C. dietrichi.



* Cynodictis (see above)
* Hesperocyon (see above)
* Ursavus elmensis (mid-Oligocene) -- A small, heavy doglike animal, intermediate between arctoids and bears. Still had slicing carnassials & all its premolars, but molars were becoming squarer. Later specimens of Ursavus became larger, with squarer, more bear-like, molars.
* Protursus simpsoni (Pliocene; also "Indarctos") -- Sheepdog-sized. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, shorter tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
* Ursus minimus (Pliocene) -- First little bear, with very bearlike molars, but still had the first premolars and slender canines. Shows gradual tooth changes and increase in body size as the ice age approached. Gave rise to the modern black bears (U. americanus & U. thibetanus), which haven't changed much since the Pliocene, and also smoothly evolved to the next species, U. etruscus:
* Ursus etruscus (late Pliocene) -- A larger bear, similar to our brown bear but with more primitive dentition. Molars big & square. First premolars small, and got smaller over time. Canines stouter. In Europe, gradually evolved into:
* Ursus savini (late Pleistocene, 1 Ma) -- Very similar to the brown bear. Some individuals didn't have the first premolars at all, while others had little vestigial premolars. Tendency toward domed forehead. Slowly split into a European population and an Asian population.
* U. spelaeus (late Pleistocene) -- The recently extinct giant cave bear, with a highly domed forehead. Clearly derived from the European population of U. savini, in a smooth transition. The species boundary is arbitrarily set at about 300,000 years ago.
* U. arctos (late Pleistocene) -- The brown ("grizzly") bear, clearly derived from the Asian population of U. savini about 800,000 years ago.. Spread into the Europe, & to the New World.
* U. maritimus (late Pleistocene) -- The polar bear. Very similar to a local population of brown bear, U. arctos beringianus that lived in Kamchatka about 500,000 years ago (Kurten 1964).


* Radinskya yupingae (late Paleocene, China) -- A recently discovered perissodactyl-like condylarth. (McKenna et al., in Prothero & Schoch, 1989.)
* Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma; previously "Eohippus") -- The famous "dawn horse", a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout. 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Compared to Tetraclaenodon, has longer toes, interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps. Probably evolved from Tetra. in about 4-5 my, perhaps via an Asian species like Radinskya. Note that Hyrac. differed from other early perissodactyls (such as tapir/rhino ancestors) only by small changes in tooth cusps and in body size.
* Hyracotherium vassacciense (early Eocene) -- The particular species that probably gave rise to the equids.
* Orohippus (mid-Eocene, ~50 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests.
* Epihippus (late Eocene, ~45 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser.
* Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- A later subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth.
* Mesohippus celer (latest Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Three-toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
* Mesohippus westoni (early Oligocene) -- A slightly later, more advanced species.
* Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running.
* Kalobatippus (late Oligocene) -- Three-toed browser w/foot intermediate between Mio. & Para.
* Parahippus (early Miocene, 23 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot". Permanent establishment of the extra crest that was so variable in Miohippus. Stronger tooth crests & slightly taller tooth crowns.
* 'Parahippus' leonensis (mid-Miocene, ~20 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer with the emphasis on grazer. Developing spring-foot & high-crowned teeth.
* 'Merychippus' gunteri (mid-Miocene, ~18 Ma) -- Three-toed grazer, fully spring-footed with high-crowned teeth.
* Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, ~17 Ma) -- Slightly more advanced.
* Merychippus spp. of mid-late Miocene (16-15 Ma) -- 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony. Diversified into all available grazer niches, giving rise to at least 19 successful three-toed grazers. Side toes of varying sizes, very small in some lines. Horsey hoof develops, leg bones fuse. Fully high-crowned teeth with thick cement & same crests as Parahippus. The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines". Crystal clear, right?

How many more would you like?

Supporting people you don't even know personally when they are proved wrong. Thats pretty funny.

Actually i have read many transcripts and seen videos of the debates.

Well Well debating and challenging each other in conversation and examples isn't scientific. I believe it is, it is sharing of Hypothesis and theories and finding which is more sound.

And how is this supposed to work if the subject is extremely complicated and requires many cross references and so on?
Why don't leading creationists engage in written debates? When it comes to the actual evidence, these should be superior to spoken debates, right`?

Those scientist refuse to add God in the picture by accepting "The Flood." Which makes perfect since in every since of the word for fossils, canyons, and mountains. The Flood while killing off dinosaurs and humans also created canyons, and mountains.

I've asked you before...which particular strate were laid down by the supposed flood? It were Christian geologists of the 19th century who went outside looking for the evidence of a global deluge - at that time the accepted theory - and found nothing of that sort, but many things which could not have formed in the middle of a global flood.

IF science accepts the Flood< which logocially explains its self to the world that it did take place, and countries having historical writing of the flood outside the bible, then science would have to throw out Evolution.

Then what evidence is there for a global flood? Let's discuss it! With our own words, not just mass pasting articles.

I note that you still didn't address the need fo evolution on steroids to account for the current biodiversity after the supposed ark bottleneck.

You fellows have fun researching The Flood and how it was possible and how there are sea shells on top of the highest mountains and how those mountains were formed by "The Flood." and not millions of years of plate movement because, THEY ERODE faster then they get pushed up. Hence it isn't possible for the mountains to just suddenly grow after millions of years because erosion would prevent it.

Neither erosion nor the pushing happen at constant speeds.

 

[Solo]

So you believe that 95% of scientists are morons. Very interesting.... Very telling....

I believe that ALL scientists who believe in macro-evolution are morons.
In a loving sense, of course.

 

[Quath]

I believe that ALL scientists who believe in macro-evolution are morons.
In a loving sense, of course.

Heh. I am sure the feeling is mutual.