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 ...
"Wabbit season!"
>>Ah, quote mining. The last refuge of those without real arguments.<<
True. If it IS, indeed, the "last refuge."
Then again. Why re-invent the wheel?
Quote mining is what Rush Limbaugh uses to effectively destroy liberal opponents. I think you do not give it enough credit.
I'm a Shameless liar? Please, let off of the personal attacks. The shame that I see is the end of your post #88 concerning what you said about Christianity and Jews.
Like I said, people can see on here the ones who are into the personal attacks and who aren't, like your comparing me to Michael Moore and all, and the name calling. Is this how you build a name for pro-evolutionists?
Looks like you are more akin to Michael Moore than I.
You evolutionists are doing nothing more than hurting yourself with your cute remarks and cut downs which started even at the beginnning of this thread.
The theory of gravity is easily tested to a high degree of certainty. It effectively predicts behavior, a couple of pioneer satellites notwithstanding... 8^>
Lots more quotes at the website. Many recent ones. Just click on the URL and do some digging.
1. You start a thread that is deceitful (quote mining) in hopes of duping some unlearned readers.
2. When confronted about your wilful deceit, you demand evidence for the validity of Evolution - while letting everyone know what you will reject any evidence before reviewing it.
3. Instead of apologizing for your behavior, you make statements such as "Apparently what we have are the "foxes guarding the hen house" when it comes to having the whole tale told on evolutionary theory."
4. You fill the thread with accusations of, HAHAHA, DISHONESTY AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Impressive stuff, ALS.
And there is also no scientific evidence to prove evolution, either. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism.
The only plausible explanation for its very existence is ID. Evolution True Believers are still trying to come up with some naturalistic explanation involving RNA but are, to date, coming up hopelessly empty handed.
The only explanation for the mere existence of DNA so far is that someone designed it.
And no, you don't seem smug at all. It is the "usual suspects" that I simply refuse to do much discussion with any more that I was talking about. Sorry.
Problem is, no definitive proof has been given by you or he, and all you are resorting to is typical evasion and spin.
You missed showing how my argument is somehow a straw-man. Argument by assertion is not an argument, my friend. In fact, I'd say your attacks on my arguments better fit your own argumentative style, looking at the other threads here, especially since you have an inability to learn anything from the knowledgeable people who have responded to you, and you continue to repeat things that you have been shown to be completely untrue.
>>DNA sequence comparisons massively support common descent through the phylogenetic tree. What was that about DNA supporting creationism?<<
No they don't. They support that the life forms were designed by the same designer to live within the same planets broad ecosystem.
In fact, I would EXPECT such evidence if there was a designer.
From the lack of responsiveness to my repeated queries, it clear that those who support creationism as an alternate to evolution cannot effectively present data or explanations of their own viewpoint. You've convinced me that the alternative
to evolution does not exist and, if it does it is undefensible.
>>I respectfully ask you to explain how DNA supports creationism.<<
The only logical explanation, so far, is that someone designed it. Of course, I am using creationism and ID synonimously here (as I know you would like).
Yeah, right, including near-perfect duplication of sequencing errors in near relations, including near-perfect duplication of junk DNA in near relations. (remember, to the designer, there is no such thing as a "relation")
Why does the designer keep throwing away all the old designs and creating new ones that are really similar to the old ones?
Well, now I have to ask exactly what you mean by "evolution." Does it ever take place? Of course it does. Heck, look at the new Mustang and tell me it didn't evolve from last years Mustang. 8^>
Actually you couldn't because the assumption in the last phrase of the last sentence is a massive non sequitor.
There are a few, but only a very few scientists who devote any time at all to monitoring creationists/iders, much less consider them (viable) "opponents". Most scientists don't pay any attention at all, for much the same reason they don't pore over that unsolicited missive from the guy building a flying saucer in the garage, describing the craft's anti-gravity drive system. They don't have the time or inclination. They're too busy and engaged in doing science.
Creationists are sort of like France. They think they're important, or should be, but most sensible people mostly ignore them.
"The theory of gravity is easily tested to a high degree of certainty. It effectively predicts behavior, a couple of pioneer satellites notwithstanding"
The theory of evolution is also easily tested to a high degree of certainty.
It has successfully predicted fossil finds and their characteristics. It has also successfully predicted genetic homologies, that needn't exist if it wasn't for common descent
Surely, you can't be serious.
It's usually a good idea to stay out of these threads once they get over about 200.
They become a mamoth waste of time. ;^>
True. There are quite a few scientists who believe in God and that He created the world. Because they aren't sensationalist media whores, you don't hear about them. They're quietly doing their research, and figuring out the fabric of the universe and the stuff of life. I've asked scientists here on this board before if they knew people like I described. They answered in the affirmative.
The creation science demogogues aren't the best and brightest of Christian scientists, but they're the ones that people listen to. They repeat outdated, flawed arguments.
There are issues that evolution has a hard time explaining, that leads me to at least a theistic evolution or creationist viewpoint. I find it staggeringly difficult to believe that the biochemical precision that is required in the enzymes required for life could arise by pure chance. But too many of the arguments creationists use are fundamentally flawed.
Ultimately, what I believe about the origin of life and the origin of man is something I believe because of religion, not science. Science really can't answer fundamental questions of faith. It does poorly when it tries.
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.