Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory

Pathlights ^ | Staff

[e p1uribus unum]

Scientists can no more "prove" evolution than they can "prove" relativity, gravity or the germ theory of disease.

All of these theories will only be around until a better one is produced.

They can only be disproved by scientific evidence.

So far there is no scientific evidence to disprove evolution.

ID simply represents a failure of imagination; "I can't figure out where eyes evolved from and it's too hard to learn enough biology to look it up, so it must be ID"

True Creationism is an article of Faith and does not resort to false arguments.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

I could just as well, and to a high degree of certainty, state that the evolutionists supposed "science", which supposedly "proves" evolutionary theory, is nothing more than pseudoscience used to score points with their opponents. Your site really proves nothing, and is just a counter-punch at best. I have seen that site before, and could just as easily say that it is "laughable."

Your Ad-Hominem laced diatribe is noted, as well as your use of the oft pulled out "straw man argument."

[Junior]

Ah, quote mining. The last refuge of those without real arguments.

[RobRoy]

>>The silence by you pro-evolutionary theory guys on here is defeaning.

They recognize the futility of arguing with a closed mind.<<

You've actually pretty much nailed my position, and why I don't spend much time on these threads any more. Also, it is the "superior smugness" of the evolutionists. It is almost comical. Some of them laugh at quotes over 25 years old yet the evolutionists contemporary with those quotes were just as smug back then. Maybe moreso.

And besides, so what if one of these evolutionists WAS the smartest ant in the anthill? It still does not make their theories and hypotheses remotely correct.

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." - Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway

[narby]

Ah, your apparent attempt at trying to give Junior a way out of having to provide some definitive and conclusive proof is noted.

As I said, you wouldn't accept any evidence provided. Glad you agree with me about your closed mind.

[Junior]

No, you can't. Proof is a mathematical concept. In science, you can state with a high degree of certainty, but you can never prove.

[atlaw]

Hmmmm...Sounds like the typical circular, non-definitive, non-conclusionary arguments which evolutionists use.

Unlike, say, an evidence free and out of context quote saying something like "evolution is not supported by the fossil record"?

[general_re]

No, that's completely different. Some kind of mens rea thing, I guess.

[Thatcherite]

Please cite the name of a non-religious scientist who does not believe that evolution has occurred. I'll wait.

[Rudder]

Sorry for the "smugness." It is just that I simply cannot follow what you meant by, "DNA," as proof of the validity of creationism. Please explain what you mean.

[sandviper]

Prove evolution this is a ploy so old and worn out it makes one wonder who would use it as an argument. 

Prove creationism this is equally ridiculous

Who is to say that god isn't involved in either theory and for doubters prove he isn't.

 

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

There is a flip-side to that coin. That no evidence which runs counter to evolution will be considered sufficiently valid, and that ANY evidentiary deficiency within the realm of evolutionary "science" will not be considered as valid reason to scuttle the teaching of evolution.

Ah, yes, when evolutionists state within academic journals quotes which run counter to evolution then it is an ad hominem attack.

[RobRoy]

>>DNA? It's existence supports creationism? Hogwash!<<

I respectfully disagree.

[Thatcherite]

DNA sequence comparisons massively support common descent through the phylogenetic tree. What was that about DNA supporting creationism?

[Rudder]

I respectfully ask you to explain how DNA supports creationism.

[RobRoy]

With that I agree. The problem is that the latest and greatest is awesome, until you get to evolution. Then It seems to be more and more brick wall. Don't get me wrong. There are lots of new discoveries being made and data analyzed. I am just tired of "experts" that insist on interpreting the data to try to squeeze it into their own pet hypotheses, and then ramming it down my throat as fact.

I would like them to simply admit what they don't know, and treat "evolution" as the speculation it is. For, as is the case with ID, evolution will most certainly not be proven in our lifetime.

[RobRoy]

Actually, in a broad sense, "what, where and when" are contained in "how." That is why I say "how."

[Junior]

Evolution is one of the most strongly-supported theories in science and forms the foundation of the modern biological sciences.

[narby]

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Yes I did.

No you didn't.

[Junior]

Just fighting against the forces of ignorance and scientific illiteracy.