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 ...
Look, you ask for evidence, yet your posts show that you know nothing about evolution, so I suggest the following for you and other creationoids who are scientifically ignorant, especially in this area.
1. Read Darwin. Start with the Beagle, then the Origin of Species and thenb the Descent of Man.
2. After you thoroughly understand that read Senor Patrick Henry's List o' links (he's a pretty good guy, generally speaking and won't try to obfuscate the points). Understand them.
Then come back and we can have a discussion, amicable and interesting. I won't hold my breath and I really think I'll die of old age before this happens.
I encurage all creationists to genuinely study the subject and prove evolution did not occur using the scientific tools available. I.E. show that modern fossils actually occur in old fields, or any of the other evidence that might show that Evolution did not happen.
But the fact is that it's been tried, and failed. Over and over. Sorry.
But don't let that stop you. If you can actually prove that Evolution did not occur, you will win Nobel prizes and scientific grants for the rest of your life. Go for it if you really believe you're right.
Yes. The Catholic church now accepts science and evolution, unlike the "old" days.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "current speciation in the biosphere." Could you explain further?
Great idea. Expose the kids to evolutionary theory from grade 1 through 12 instead of the few hours they now get in high school. That way they will have enough information to make an informed decision, unlike now.
No, I'm not. Scientists used to care about the "how" question. But around the 50's and 60's, when new theories were starting to be developed around quantum hypotheses, scientists started banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out "how" these things could possibly happen. The theories continued to be developed and successfully tested, and the "how" question was never answered. Eventually came the realization, how didn't matter. The science was just as valid without the "how", and I think now that most serious-minded scientists have accepted that while "how" is comforting, it is not a part of science.
[*creationist mode*]: It's amazing. Not one single text, journal, or article ever published on evolutionary biology. Ever. Nothing. Nada. Zip. (At least nothing that I've ever seen, not that I've actually looked). Goes right along with the complete lack of evidence for evolution. Makes you wonder just what the heck all those biologists, archaeologists, geologists, etc. are actually studying. We just don't know, because they never even bother putting anything in writing!
ps: Arguments that conclusively demonstrate the proponent's ignorance and utter lack of curiosity generally lack persuasive power.
Dimensio: And, in typical dishonest creationist fashion, the quote is cut short. Darwin was -- as he did often -- asking a question prior to answering it.
Yes, Darwin often introduced a topic with a rhetorical question, basically anticipating a point in opposition. These are often cited by dishonest people as proof that he did not really believe his own ideas, or thought there was no evidence for them, etc.
The worst thing I know about creationism is not that it is false, but that it is a lie.
"There are no creationists with integrity. The only question is whether and when any given one knows he's lying and when he's so bullet-proof delusional he can't tell." -- VadeRetro
That no evidence which runs counter to evolution will be considered sufficiently valid...
Not true. ANY SCIENTIFIC evidence which runs counter to evolution either disproves evolution or requires that the theory be recognized as only a partial explanation for the operation of the universe, just as Newtons laws do not apply when objects approach the speed of light.
ANY evidentiary deficiency within the realm of evolutionary "science" will not be considered as valid reason to scuttle the teaching of evolution.
Also, not true. There are evidentiary deficiencies for many accepted scientific theories. That's no reason to 'scuttle' them when there is overwhelming scientific evidence that supports them. Many of these theories are used to produce things you use in your everyday life. The supporting evidence is enough for many companies to invest billions of dollars producing things these theories imply can be produced.
Ah, yes, when evolutionists state within academic journals quotes which run counter to evolution then it is an ad hominem attack.
When the evolutionists are engaging in the scientific process of constantly questioning the evidence, the implications of a theory, and the details of the theory, it is (as I said, kind of) because the people quoted are not making the statements in an attempt to persuade anyone that evolution should be 'scuttled'. Quotes taken completely out of context and that appear to make someone appear to believe something contrary to or other than what they actually believe are what Michael Moore did in Fahrenheit 911.
Then, IMO, they have become Mathematicians and Engineers
"Fred Hoyle"
The same Fred Hoyle that thought that life on earth originated with space-born bacteria and viruses?
There are no such things as missing links. We might as well quit looking for them."
-- Dr. Austin Clark, biologist at Smithsonian Institue in Washington
What are we to make of this quote? I see many creationists use it, but I never see any references to where it originally came from, thus preventing anyone from checking it out. Without any idea about the context in which it appeared, it's impossible for us to seriously evaluate it - especially when one considers how often creationists take quotes out of context an distort their original meaning.
It should also be noted here that the quote implies that Austin Clark is a biologist at the Smithsonian Institute - but that isn't true. Clark was a curator at the Smithsonian Institute during the first half of the twentieth century. He's been dead for nearly 50 years now. Another common tactic of creationists is to cite scientific sources from 50 or 100 years ago without noting their age and without apparently understanding that science actually progresses - thus, the personal opinions of scientists from those many decades ago don't necessarily hold true today.
There are no continuous fossil sequences. You have been misled.
That's a terrible accusation at Isaac Newton!
> There are no continuous fossil sequences.
And nor are there any continuous film sequences (there is a big, fat gap between every frame and the next one). However, they are continuous *enough* to draw conclusions.
My, what a strong, blanket statement. And of a negative, yet!
You're a liar or a fool. Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.
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.