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 ...
1.)How is providing quotes, that are hidden within academic journals and rarely ever make it to light, which are from evolutionists that undermine evolution deceitful?
No doubt it wouldn't be deceitful in your universe if you thought these quotes supported evolution.
2.)Willful deceit? The reason it is deceit to you is no doubt that the quotes from evolutionists run counter to evolution. If they supported it, you most likely would not be saying what you are. That is apparent.
What I see from you and others is an attempt to brand quotes from evolutionits that run counter to evolution as deceitful. That is low. Most likely if these quotes supported evolution you(and others on here)would be giving them high praise right now.
3.) Not quite as impressive as what I see from you. Really impressive stuff, ALS squared.
>>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.<<
Scientifically, most definitely. Then again, read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis.
Remember, all the rules of scientific discovery and analysis are made by man. The Creator feels no requirement to play by our rules. His ways are above ours. One may choose not to believe, but that does not make it false.
But then I am getting into where the designer may actually communicate with his creation, and that has been labelled "religion," and off limits by these flawed human rules.
Like I've said, you can be the smartest ant on the ant hill...
Evolution is descent with modification.
And yet, try to put a sticker on a book that says evolution is a theory and should be studied critically with an open mind, and watch all hell break loose.
That's fine in politics. And in environmental issues, because there's almost no reality in environmental issues since it's the second biggest religion in the country.
But quote mining to "prove" evolution, or disprove it, is meaningless to real science.
Faith can answer the why question.
Science can answer the how question
Scientists do not try to answer both the why and how.
Old quote- " ‘The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” Cardinal Baronius 1598
You're absolutely correct. And remember, everything you know about the creator, you learned from man.
No. The fact of gravity is easily tested. The theory or theories of gravity try to explain why gravity does what it does. The same goes for evolution. That populations of organisms change over time is not in dispute. The Theory of Evolution, attempts to describe and explain why that change occurs.
And there is also no scientific evidence to prove evolution, either. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism.
And in rebuttal, a quote from you again:
Hmmmm...Sounds like the typical circular, non-definitive, non-conclusionary arguments which evolutionists use.
Please note this demonstration of the efficacy of quotations in determining the legitimacy of the theory of evolution.
In logic, this is known as the fallacy of Appeal to Numbers.
The factuality of a statement cannot be demonstrated simply by the number of people who subscribe to it. If that were so, the true religion on the Earth would be Hinduism, the correct form of government Communism, and the best language on the planet Chinese.
>>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")<<
I disagree. After all, have you ever noticed just how much a Chrysler LeBaron has in common with a Chrysler Minivan of the same vintage?
BTW, they both had bad valve seals in their V6 engines in the early nineties.
I see all of creation as biological machines and I most defintitely believe in evolution. But I call it De-evolution. The matching junk is not enough evidence, since the near relations could be what is causing the de-evolution of the dna resulting in "junk."
It is like saying a red mustang and a red Yugo both had common ancestry becuase their paint oxidizes differently than blue cars. When in fact we know it is because sunlight is harder on red than blue because it absorbes more of the damaging radiation.
So far, the various "common ancestry" theories are still just stabs in the dark and miss the bigger point. But I am all for studying the similarities. It leads to all sorts of hard discoveries of ways to treat genetically related illnesses, etc. And it is just plain interesting to reverse engineer life.
All you're doing is throwing around meaningless one liners. That might work if you were in the echo chamber over at the Discovery Institute. But I, for one, am unimpressed.
It's all just meaningless, carefully worded insults.
Yes you can.
No I can't.
Yes you did.
No I didn't.
If it was funny, this all might be worthwile. But it's not even funny. It's boring.
A circular argument in response to a circular argument from you. I guess you have found me guilty of tit for tat.
I don't think you understand the Creationist mindset as well as you think you do.
You didn't even come close to mine. I agree with some of your points in that post though. I think most of the evolution scientists are more interested in discovery and less interested in trying to prove some theory. They seem to leave that to the more religious of the evolutionists.
In this one instance, though.
bttt
I think Creationists are no more dishonest than they were before.
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.