Oh, puh-leaze.... Even if true, so what? And if so, it's trivially true -- for lack of any naturalistic explanations, *everyone* was a creationist back then.
All that would show is that a belief in creation doesn't *necessarily* interfere with the ability of certain geniuses to recognize scientific principles when they discover them. And none of the scientists in the list you borrowed from endless creationist pamphlets made their discoveries *because* of their alleged creationist beliefs. Note that all their discoveries were *naturalistic* theories of science, they did not include God as part of their workings.
Furthermore, you can hardly claim that none of those pre-Darwin scientists wouldn't have accepted the truth of evolutionary science if it had been proposed in their time. They were creationists by default, not by analysis.
Now let's take a look at selected inanities from the long-winded screed which you reposted without modification from a 1999 FR post, despite the fact that there were many refutations and corrections pointed out to you at that time.
I believe in creation, not evolution. I believe either system must be accepted by faith, for neither fits the scientific model.
Wrong. Evolution is a scientific model by any measure.
For either to be a theory, they must be repeatable events, observable events. Creation as taught in the Bible was only observed by God and His angels. Evolution by definition, happened when no one was around, and then continued so slowly that no one would be able to discern that evolution occurred, therefore it is also a non-observable event.
This goofy misunderstanding of scientific methods is common among creationists, but it's quite simply a straw man. Physical *events* need not be repeatable, scientific *confirmations* need to be repeatable/verifiable, which is a different thing entirely.
Evolution I define as the random gathering of individual molecules and elements that by random, chance accumulation formed the material world,
For about the 500th time, evolution does *not* deal with the formation of the cosmos. Evolution is a biological science.
If evolution is true, then there is no objective standard to follow at any time.
Horse manure. Objectivity still exists even without a big guy in the sky with a gray beard to hand down stone tablets.
Morals become relative and, humanity becomes hypocritical when it comes to obeying laws.
Again, this is nonsense.
A new moral standard will arise someday and put out the old out-moded one.
Probably so, but that hardly makes humanity "hypocritical". Furthermore, I'd like to point out that "new moral standards" have arisen multiple times throughout history even when most everyone believed in a godly creator -- people just kept disagreeing about what He might have said when and to whom, and how He should be followed.
Life itself would lose all important meaning with only instant gratification the driving force.
Total bull manure. Many, perhaps most atheists are as interested in living their lives for a greater cause than just their own "instant gratification", and are as well aware of the emptiness and pitfalls of "instant gratification" as any True Believer. And there are certainly plenty of selfish hedonists among Christians as well.
Any logic-based system of morality would have no feet to stand on, for it would be based only on argument, not divine revelation.
Again, utter nonsense. You could just as (il)logically claim that "any system of mathematics would have no feet to stand on, for it would be based only on argument, not divine revelation". And yet, oddly enough, 2 plus 2 still equals 4.
These evolutionary and racist descriptions of cultural growth influenced Europe up to the time of Adolph Hitler, who used evolution to explain the differences and abnormalities of the 'inferior' races such as Jews, Gypsies, and Negroes. This type of thinking was also present in the United States where it was concentrated in the area of perpetuating our own apartheid system in the south.
Do I really need to point out all the times that religious arguments were used to "justify" slavery and similar atrocities?
These events happened because people listened to the authority figures instead of their own conscience.
...and historically, oftentimes those "authority figures" leading the populace astray have been the clergy. Science holds no monopoly on misuse by demagogues with an agenda.
Almost all evidence for human evolution is extremely questionable.
This is, to put it kindly, an extremely ignorant and incorrect statement.
Scientists theorize that we evolved from quadrepedal ape like creatures, (hominoids), into bi-pedal erect walking ape like creatures, (hominids), to eventually become ourselves. Many fossils have been found that are claimed to represent the various stages of evolution from quadruped to biped, yet there are 'missing links' between these forms.
Sigh -- creationists are fixated on "missing links". Yes, there will *always* be "missing links", because not every single creature that ever lived gets fossilized (and even those rare ones which did get fossilized do not all get discovered). What creationists fail to understand is that the "gaps" in the fossil record keep getting filled in as more fossils are unearthed, and while there will *always* be gaps, the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller, making for a more and more complete record of the complete lineage. And yet, even though we've now discovered the "missing" proto-whale with legs which creationists snottily declared "missing" for so many years (until it turned up, along with its ancestors and descendants), now they're refusing to admit that the found "link" means anything at all (although they earlier claimed that its absence was Highly Significant), and now they're griping about the (much smaller) fossil gaps just before and just after the newly found fossils. It's a neverending game of "moving the goalposts".
Creationists are also famous for fixating on fossils exclusively and failing to address the many *other* lines of evidence that very clearly show common ancestry.
What does Charles Darwin say about missing links? " [snip] The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record." (The Origin Of The Species, chap. 10).
Chapter 9, actually.
Here, Darwin states that if evolution is true, then there must be numberless intermediate links between species.
He *also* correctly states that the intermediate links will be far fewer in number and more localized than the resulting species, causing the transitional forms to be far rarer and harder to find. Sort of "forgot" to mention that, eh?
Yet, Darwin himself admits that there are NO finely graduated links between these species that have been discovered.
No, he does *not*. In fact, he specifically says the opposite. In chapter 10, he states, "If we may trust the observations of Philippi in Sicily, the successive changes in the marine inhabitants of that island have been many and most gradual." In chapter 6, "Look at the family of squirrels; here we have the finest gradation from animals with their tails only slightly flattened, and from others, as Sir J. Richardson has remarked, with the posterior part of their bodies rather wide and with the skin on their flanks rather full, to the so-called flying squirrels; and flying squirrels have their limbs and even the base of the tail united by a broad expanse of skin, which serves as a parachute and allows them to glide through the air to an astonishing distance from tree to tree." In other works Darwin wrote of many other examples.
You are misreading his writing. While it's somewhat stilted in a 19th century Victorian manner, it's not *that* hard to comprehend properly, especially if you bother to read the rest of the work and consider it in context. When he writes:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain(emphasis mine), he is not saying that there are no finely graduated sequences to be found anywhere, as you claim, instead he is saying that the fossil record does not match the notion of such a finely graduated chain of ancestral evidence that *every* formation and *every* stratum clearly records every minute transitional change for every species which appears there.
And, as he goes on to explain, it would be unreasonable for us to expect it to be a 100% complete record, for several reasons.
He then goes on to say that the geologic record is hiding these transitional forms from us.
Are you just making this up as you go along? No, he does *not* go on to say that. What he actually does "go on to say" is to spend the next two chapters explaining why the fossil record is necessarily intermittent and incomplete in many respects -- something that paleontologists have long known. Darwin's point is that although the fossil record will provide us with many transitional forms (and had already done so even in Darwin's day), it won't be able to provide examples of *all* transitional forms which have ever existed (nor even all species).
Compare Darwin's actual summary of what he "went on to say" with your own misleading summary of it:
Summary of the preceding and present Chapters: I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation; that, owing to subsidence being necessary for the accumulation of fossiliferous deposits thick enough to resist future degradation, enormous intervals of time have elapsed between the successive formations; that there has probably been more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the record will have been least perfectly kept; that each single formation has not been continuously deposited; that the duration of each formation is, perhaps, short compared with the average duration of specific forms; that migration has played an important part in the first appearance of new forms in any one area and formation; that widely ranging species are those which have varied most, and have oftenest given rise to new species; and that varieties have at first often been local. All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.There now, that's quite a bit different from your version, isn't it?
How could a belief system, based on unobserved events with no proof to back it up, become so prevalent in society?
Because contrary to your misprepresentations, evidence *was* available even in Darwin's time, and has only become more overwhelming with each passing year since 1859.
In the 100 years that have passed since Darwin, we have more than quadrupled the number of fossil species that we have found and these links still have yet to be announced.
Are you daft? Here are a few hundred for you, and there are plenty more where those came from.
Why was Darwin's theory accepted at all when by education he was not a scientist, but a theologian?
For the same reason that Einstein's theory of relativity was accepted when he was working in a patent office -- because their theories were so obviously correct and passed all verification tests they were put to.
If you're going to speculate about scientific history, why don't you learn some first?
Modem science has proven through the archaeological record that the geologic column does not contain these missing links or any evidence for gradual change via evolution.
If believing that fiction helps you sleep at night, go for it.
Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has introduced his theory to explain the gaps between species. 'Punctuated Equilibrium ' is the new theory that species remain the same for long periods of time, and then through sudden, short bursts of evolutionary lightning lasting maybe 500,000 years or so, then reappear as new, different species.
Gould popularized it and gave it a catchy name, but contrary to the beliefs of clueless creationists, it's hardly a "new theory". Darwin himself described it as an unavoidable consequence of evolutionary dynamics in 1859. Again, why don't you actually learn some scientific history before you attempt to critique it? 33333333333333
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)This is classic Punctuated Equilibrium -- from Charles Darwin in 1859.But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]
This theory explains the gaps in fossil record because there wouldn't be enough time for significant fossils to be formed in order for us to find them 5 million years later!
That's an amazingly grotesque misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium. Instead, PE says that transitional periods will be considerably shorter and more localized than periods of stasis in species. This is the expected result of evolutionary dynamics, and the accuracy of this model is confirmed by the patterns found in the fossil record.
Darwin said his fossils were there but we didn't find them yet.
No, he didn't.
Stephen Jay Gould says the fossils aren't there, that's why there are gaps in the fossil record.
No, he didn't.
If I told you I did my homework, but the dog ate it, would you believe me?
No, nor would I believe your gross misrepresentations of evolutionary science. If I thought there was any chance you understood the nature of your straw men, I'd call you a liar. But instead, I think it's pretty clear you're merely incredibly misinformed.
Once again, the proof, is that there is no proof.
Yet another load of manure. No scientist says this, that's just what creationists say when they want to bear false witness about what science actually entails.
One again, the proof is that there are *mountains* of evidence supporting evolution, along dozens of independent lines of evidence. You only reveal your ignorance when you make such ridiculous and transparently false claims. If you want to remedy that, you can get started here.
Evolution is such a fun theory, you can think up any zany idea from microbes on meteors to aliens with a mission to populate the universe and 'science' will back you up;
What exactly are you smoking?
but what happens if you say, " In the beginning, God......
Then people ask for evidence, and then you run away.
Neither creation or evolution has ever been witnessed by man. Both beliefs must be accepted by faith.
Nonsense. Evolution has indeed been witnessed by man, and evolution hardly "must" be accepted by "faith", it is accepted by verification and evidence.
Spontaneous generation has never been observed. This was proved by Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister in the 1800's when we discovered germs. Life only appears when life already existed. This is called the Law of Biogenesis.
This is without a doubt one of the stupidest arguments in the creationist quiver, and that's really saying something. The "law of biogenesis" only dealt with debunking the primitive belief that *complex* life doesn't arise *overnight* from nonliving material, such as mice appearing "out of nowhere" in spoiled grain. It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether *an extremely simple and primitive* spark of life could arise under the right conditions given vast amounts of time and an entire world in which to occur, and not even Pasteur or Lister would have claimed that it did. I'm embarrassed for creationists every time they make this goofy argument.
Another way to approach this argument is to refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Yawn. Evolution in no way violates any law of thermodynamics. Any attempt to "prove" that it does grossly misrepresents either thermodynamics, or evolution, or both. Get over it.
Over the long periods of time necessary for evolution to occur, these early chance chemical combinations would be bombarded by cosmic rays, radioactive enough to destroy whatever is exposed.
Early life originated in deep hydrothermal vents. No cosmic rays. Sorry.
Our first primordial cell would have no such mechanism built in yet to process ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, evolution cannot have occurred.
Ultraviolet does not penetrate to deep hydrothermal vents. Sorry.
Before the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere, cosmic rays would destroy all life forms on the planet, for it is oxygen that is Ozone, O3.
Cosmis rays do not penetrate to deep hydrothermal vents. Sorry.
If there was an oxygen atmosphere
At that time there wasn't, sorry.
If a life form did evolve, it would have to evolve with many existing functions the first time. A life form needs a mouth, a digestive system, a method of locomotion, and reproductive organs.
No it doesn't, sorry.
With who would this life form mate?
Sex arose much later, sorry.
Asexuality itself demands a complex system of operation, a complex series of commands to initiate.
Not in its simplest forms it doesn't, sorry.
What did it eat? Think, not only did this life form need a mechanism of ingesting material to be processed as energy, but that material had to be nearby. How could all these internal organs evolve by chance?
Simple metabolic chemical reactions do not require "internal organs", sorry.
Think, not only the internal organs evolved, but so did the nerve system that controls these organs along with the organism's brain along with the intelligence to operate these organs in a manner that allowed the organism to survive.
Unicellular organisms do not have "nerves" or "brains", sorry. And they get along just fine.
We call this excess material waste, and it is poisonous. How was this waste removed from the organism?
Diffusion.
How did it survive in it's primitive surroundings?
Passively.
How did any intelligent information get to these important functional systems in a manner that was beneficial to the organism? What type of brain and nervous system evolves by chance?
A simple one, to start with. But again, that came much later. Or not at all, in the case of plants, and they're doing just fine also.
If the organism didn't have eyes, how did it know when to open it's mouth when it was time to eat? How did hunger pains evolve?
Ask the plants.
All of these things speak of intelligence.
No they don't. Nor do your ill-conceived arguments, actually.
The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical.
Yes, actually, it is.
A dead body is dead; WHY? It has all the chemicals necessary to support life already existing in a complete form with nothing missing, right?
It's missing autocatalysis.
Mendels' law of genetics prove that variation can occur within a species, but cannot create a new species across phylum boundaries.
Mendel's laws "prove" no such thing, sorry.
Dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats.
And yet, both arose from their common ancestor, Cimolestes in the late Cretaceous. Something seems amiss with your notions.
Aargh, I'm up *way* too late. I'll stop here. I'll address the rest of your errors tomorrow when I get a chance.
For about the 500th time, evolution does *not* deal with the formation of the cosmos.
Well, maybe not yet. Given time the evos will attempt to have the universe spring from slime and lightning also. Do you have a theory regarding the universe's formation, or is the big bang pretty much it?
Evolution is a biological science.
I'll accept that to a point. What I have difficulty with is what, for lack of a better term, I'd call macro-evolution, ie, frogs to homo sapiens for example. I don't believe my ancestors were monkees, or frogs, or anything else. I could be wrong, but I don't believe science has been able to make that connection either ;^)
You're probably familiar with Albert Einstein's perceptions of God. It seems he was able on some level to accept the notion there may have been a God capable of creating the universe, amongst other things. He was bedazzled by the sheer beauty and symmetry of it all. He couldn't get his ample mind around it. His problem of course is he couldn't make the transition from God, who being fully capable of creating the universe, could also be fully capable as a personal God to us undeserving mortals....if He were sought. After all, if He were able to create all things, how much of a challenge would dealing with us one-on-one be?
Objectivity still exists even without a big guy in the sky with a gray beard to hand down stone tablets.
Forgive me if you've stated it, if so I've missed it, but I gather you don't believe God exists?
Creationists are also famous for fixating on fossils exclusively and failing to address the many *other* lines of evidence that very clearly show common ancestry.
ie, similar functions in similar species would share similar genes(parts)? To a layman, all that says is that there's no need to reinvent the wheel. IOW, if I were going to create a zoo here on this planet, why would I not use parts(genes) off the shelf? With a little tweaking here and there, I get a whole different animal(species). That's probably too simple, but...
Early life originated in deep hydrothermal vents.
Really?
FGS