• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Scientists against evolution

Heidi

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
3,249
Reaction score
1
Here is one of many links showing how many scientists are coming out against the theory of evolution.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do.while/sage/ or: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

They are acknowledging that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution and it was only a theory from the imaginations of men. But the tragedy is that when the public cannot think for themselves, but simply takes the word of scientists that things are true, then they can be very easily deceived about what is true and what is false. Contradictions can never be the truth. The truth can only be found in reality, not in the imaginations of men.
 
Poorly constructed creationist sites will never discredit evolution. Please insert $0.25 to play again.
 
They ruined thier argument on the first page when they try to debunk abiogensis. For the last time. I mean it I'm never saying it again.


evolution does not try to explain the beginnings of life

Edited: Do not use all caps
 
The page cannot be found on both sites :lol:


APPEAL TO THE MASSES One is commiting this fallacy when she tries to justify a belief or action by the support base behind that action. Saying that Sciencsits are coming out against evolution is an appeal to the masses. As with other logical fallacies, there is no logic behind this, just ignorance. Or you can say this could be appeal to authority, used when someone making an argument can't put any logical reasoning behind it. Instead of supporting an argument with evidence, the argument is supported by simply saying, "Because so-and-so said so."
 
Heidi said:
Here is one of many links showing how many scientists are coming out against the theory of evolution.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do.while/sage/ or: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

They are acknowledging that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution and it was only a theory from the imaginations of men. But the tragedy is that when the public cannot think for themselves, but simply takes the word of scientists that things are true, then they can be very easily deceived about what is true and what is false. Contradictions can never be the truth. The truth can only be found in reality, not in the imaginations of men.
Where is the list of scientists that is against evolution? The article makes a broad statement that science doesn't support evolution and the fact is that about 98% of scientists do accept evolution as fact. Heidi was that another attempt at deception?
 
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them."
(Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)

"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem."
(Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible."
(D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."
(Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..."
(Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics."
(Sir Fred Hoyle)
(These "mathematical miracles" that must have occurred are summarized in my paper "The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution")

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."
(Sir Fred Hoyle)

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle...
(Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..."
(Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
(Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."
(Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
(Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
 
Wow, I'm shocked. Tornado in junkyard comparisons, comments by philosophers, quotes from 1970. You have surely put us in our places Solo.

For what seems to be such a theory in crisis during the 1970's, I wonder why it was able to trudge on for the past 30 years and still remain the foundation of biology.
 
armed2010 said:
Wow, I'm shocked. Tornado in junkyard comparisons, comments by philosophers, quotes from 1970. You have surely put us in our places Solo.

For what seems to be such a theory in crisis during the 1970's, I wonder why it was able to trudge on for the past 30 years and still remain the foundation of biology.
You will find out one day. Either you will follow the blind leading the blind into the ditch, or you will wake up one day to the truth. Simple.

PS. Read all of the quotes, not just the first one.
 
Nice copy and paste Solo, I'm sure the late Stephen Jay Gould would have loved ignorant creationists taking his statements out of context.
 
SyntaxVorlon said:
Nice copy and paste Solo, I'm sure the late Stephen Jay Gould would have loved ignorant creationists taking his statements out of context.

It is much easier to copy and paste articles that express truth, and the quotes of individuals.

Perhaps you would be so kind to show the context of the statements that you are referring to so that your typical generalization of evolutionist trickery will not be faulted in your direction.

By the way, if you are calling me ignorant, I am amazed at your unloving perspective on those of us that expound truth over lies. Tell me that you are not calling me ignorant so that I can escape from giving you a formal warning for flaming. I suggest you edit it, and I will follow by editing this.

Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.
 
According to some, evolutionary science is such nonsense, and flies in the face of things like logic, common sense and the second law of thermodynamics. These individuals would have you believe that evolution is the subject of considerable controversy in scientific arenas. Certainly, if evolution broke the laws of physics, wouldn't physicists have mentioned this to biologists some time ago.

How do these individuals explain that most major universities have entire departments dedicated to the study of evolution. Hundreds of scientists, millions of dollars in research, entire buildings, thousands of students. Wow. Are they all deluded? Are they all stupid? All these highly educated people?


Here is a brief list of some very hightly rated schools that have a "dept of evolution". How do you explain this without dismissing them all as "secular schools" (even though they all have theology departments as well), or by quoting scripture that says stuff like "professing themselves to be wise they became fools", or "many will be deceived in the end times by the Beast".

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University
http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/

Harvard University - Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/

Cornell universtiy Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu

Rice Universtiy Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eeb.rice.edu/

University of California, Irvine Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
ecoevo.bio.uci.edu

UCLA Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/



Yale Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
http://www.eeb.yale.edu

The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eebweb.arizona.edu/

Oxford, Evolutionary BIology Group
evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk

University of Tennessee, Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eeb.bio.utk.edu/

Tulane University Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.tulane.edu

Brown University Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/EEB/








:roll:
 
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
 
Many also claim that acceptance of the reality that is evolutionary theory flies in the face of christian sensebilities.

How then do they explain the following (without dismissing them all as "liberals", quoting Revelation or ranting on and on about homosexual marriages)

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
bullet 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
bullet 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
 
There are many false religions in the world today, and evolution is the religion of humanists. There is not any evidence that the origins of all life evolved from one small celled life form. NONE.

Try reading this information attributing evolution as being bad science:

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.html

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
 
Late_Cretaceous said:
Many also claim that acceptance of the reality that is evolutionary theory flies in the face of christian sensebilities.

How then do they explain the following (without dismissing them all as "liberals", quoting Revelation or ranting on and on about homosexual marriages)

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
bullet 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
bullet 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Jesus says the following:

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14
 
2ndLoT? It only applies to closed systems, and within these local fluctuations are possible.
 
Back
Top