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 ...
Proof?
Show me a record of 'graduated evolution' of a species.
2 million comedians out of work and you are trying (and failing at it) to be funny.
Grow up.
See post 22.
What would be even more valuable would be to find some quotes/evidence that lifts evolution out of the realm of fairy tales.
It means that the scientific principles that led to the development of your computer are merely the current best models to fit the facts, and not indisputably proven facts.
How many condemning quotes does it take to reach the threshold of "devastating"?
If we were to find an equal number of quotes from religious people who suggest that the creation stories are not to be taken literally, but rather represent man's attempt to find meaning in this world, would you consider that "devastating" to creationism?
|
Please!
This is hogwash.
'Gaps of 20,000 to 80,000 years' with no resultant fossil record?
What did they do? Turn to dust.
Even the species sited are not consistant in the 'theoretical evolutionary cyle'.
The socalled 'proof' is nothing more than a hyposthesis of what they 'think' has happened between specie manisfestations and they even admit that:
"Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals."
And even the ones discovered can not be considered 'conclusive' based on the 'gaps' in the fossil records.
Quotations and Misquotations.What Anti-evolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution
Online resources documenting anti- evolutionist misquotations. Dishonest, bogus, and out-of-context quotes.
The Quote Mine Project. Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines.
The Revised Quote Book. Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists.
> How many condemning quotes does it take to reach the threshold of "devastating"?
How many quotes from Muslims saying that Christianity is bunk does it take?
Hey....you're asking him to read all that stuff at those links? The very idea! Next thing you'll do is tell him to go to a major natural history museum. How far will you go, eh? [grin]
Nonsense. All of science is debate; debate and peer review. But if we're going to start treating the book of Genesis as a viable scientific alternative, then we're also going to have to consider the idea that the universe started when the word "Om!" was first uttered.
If you let one religion start explaining everything, then you'd best be prepared for it to be debated against all other religions. And, the last time I looked, that sort of thing tends to descend into Holy Wars real damn quick.
To cut to the chase---What should be done, is for teachers from the lowest levels of school all the way to the collegiate level to be required to state before discussing evolutionary THEORY that it is an unproven theory and be required by law to give statements from scientists that are counter to the theory of evolution...give both sides, and let the students decide for themselves.
This would be the best and proper route to take in America.
Try your local library. Assuming they haven't burned the science books, of course...
Fine, but I demand equal time for flat-earthers in Geography class.
> give both sides
Both sides? Woudl they be THESE two sides?
1) Evolutionists
2) Raelians
Or maybe these two:
1) Evolutionists
2) Muslim Creationists
Or maybe ...
3) Hindu Creationists
4) Norse Creationists
5) Sumerian Creationists
6) Lamarkians
7) Theosophists
8) Scientologists
9) Urantians
10)...
So, which two sides?
I still haven't seen any quotes posted on here that remotely come close to proving that evolution is anything more than a hole-ridden theory.
The silence by you pro-evolutionary theory guys on here is defeaning.
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.