Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at pathlights.com ...
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.
Ah, quote mining. The last refuge of those without real arguments.
>>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
As I said, you wouldn't accept any evidence provided. Glad you agree with me about your closed mind.
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.
Unlike, say, an evidence free and out of context quote saying something like "evolution is not supported by the fossil record"?
Please cite the name of a non-religious scientist who does not believe that evolution has occurred. I'll wait.
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.
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.
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.
>>DNA? It's existence supports creationism? Hogwash!<<
I respectfully disagree.
DNA sequence comparisons massively support common descent through the phylogenetic tree. What was that about DNA supporting creationism?
I respectfully ask you to explain how DNA supports creationism.
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.
Actually, in a broad sense, "what, where and when" are contained in "how." That is why I say "how."
Evolution is one of the most strongly-supported theories in science and forms the foundation of the modern biological sciences.
No I didn't.
Yes you did.
No I didn't.
Yes I did.
No you didn't.
Just fighting against the forces of ignorance and scientific illiteracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.