Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory
Pathlights ^ | Staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; evolutionisbunk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 581-595 next last
To: e p1uribus unum

That's OK, It's Brit Hume time


461 posted on 01/19/2005 2:58:08 PM PST by metacognative (follow the gravy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Love it.


462 posted on 01/19/2005 4:57:39 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Thankfully, You are sooooooooooooo wrong.

I doubt anyone could list all the benefits wrought by creationist scientists of the Christian and Jewish faiths.

Has been so for centuries.

Still is so.


463 posted on 01/19/2005 4:59:14 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

GREAT! THANKS.


464 posted on 01/19/2005 5:04:05 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I guess you've stayed up many nights to find such a character!

Incredible.


465 posted on 01/19/2005 5:16:06 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Went on a bit of a rant today. :-)

Great profile page by the way. I don't get a chance to agree with Mormon Bishops very often. He sounds like a good friend.

It reminds me that everyone starts off in the sycamore tree. Someone lovingly invited themselves into my life. Now it's my turn to emulate our Lord.
466 posted on 01/19/2005 6:47:00 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

You can copy your rants to me any day. THX.

BTW, I hope there's no misunderstanding . . .

I'm NOT

any kind of Mormon and certainly not a bishop. My PhD Dissertation Committee Chairman was a very brilliant Mormon Bishop.

I agree about the Sycamore tree!

LUB


467 posted on 01/19/2005 7:34:23 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I admit that I spent over forty years duped by the "theory" of evolution... I tried for a minor in anthropology. My professors and even most of nuns who taught us in high school were reverent in their defense of evolution. In essence the theory itself does not entirely preclude a biblical creation (day = eons). But, to almost everyone with a "scientific" mind evolution is religion.
I'm not a literalist but what I've read objectively on the subject has certainly made me sceptical (same with global warming and radical environmentalism). The most
impressive argument concerned future paleontologists digging up the fossilized skeletons of modern day dog breeds. Surely they would conclude that a Saint Bernard and a Yorky were different species based on the evidence but we know that they are examples of the same species with far more differences than birds cataloged by Darwin with only the most minor of differences between "species".
Scientists ignore any logical arguments along these lines as ignorant but offer their own theories without proof at all.


468 posted on 01/19/2005 7:57:14 PM PST by hford02 (I have to rig my quota of black box voting machines for the 2006 midterms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I'm NOT

any kind of Mormon and certainly not a bishop. My PhD Dissertation Committee Chairman was a very brilliant Mormon Bishop.

That was clear on your profile page.

P.S. I almost went to UCSD on a golf scholarship. Alas, I wasn't good enough to get enough. I did meet with the coach who let me tour the campus. Great place. :-)

469 posted on 01/19/2005 8:06:50 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

WHITE SPACE

every 7-12 lines or so . . . are a welcome and needed micro-rest for tired eyes--especially older tired eyes used to FREEPING many hours a day.

Paragraphs are friends.

Short paragraphs are better friends.


470 posted on 01/19/2005 8:12:10 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Congrats!


471 posted on 01/19/2005 8:13:59 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Here's the real joke. A big part of the creationist "no evidence" mantra is "no transitional forms." But because more and more of the world is coming under the "pickaxes and shovels" of the paleontologists, the last 20 years have been huge for long-predicted transitional forms, especially land animals to whales [theretofore missing] and dinosaurs to birds [missing with the spectacular exception of archaeopteryx]. Other finds in the same time frame included important hominids, a legged sirenian ancestor, and additions to the fish-to-amphibian and reptile-to-mammal series.

Sorry, but no sale, at least not here. All the great advances in bulldozers and backhoes were in place at the beginning of WW-II; the idea that we've just been able to dig up all the important fossils in the last 20 years after 140 years or so of abject failure simply rings hollow. I have a much easier time believing that evolutionists have simply gotten better at propaganda in the last 20 years.

472 posted on 01/19/2005 8:29:57 PM PST by judywillow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
That's aside from any questions about evolutionists' motivations of course...


473 posted on 01/19/2005 9:06:16 PM PST by judywillow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Continued failure to name a single achievement of modern creation science noted.

Don't be silly. The formulated laws of motion are intimately tied to all modern achievements.

You could go back to canoeing down a river for rapid transportation if you like.

In an earlier a post I specified that I was asking for a technical achievement in the last 20-30 years of modern creation science. You know perfectly well that Newton was not a creationist in the modern sense. Newton died before Lyell or Darwin published and that arguing that he was exposes the bankruptcy of the case for rejecting ToE.

Continued failure to name a single achievement of modern creation science noted.

474 posted on 01/20/2005 1:09:31 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Some questions cannot be answered because they are either absurd or based on a false premise.

Abiogenisis is based on a false premise.
475 posted on 01/20/2005 1:19:33 AM PST by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Continued failure to name a single technical achievement of modern creation science noted.

Persistent use of fallacious "Great dead scientists who were creationists" argument noted.

476 posted on 01/20/2005 2:06:42 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: judywillow

Can you explain the signficance of the picture of a flamingo please, I don't get it.


477 posted on 01/20/2005 2:16:27 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: judywillow
I have a much easier time believing that evolutionists have simply gotten better at propaganda in the last 20 years.

Fortunately, the ease with which JudyWillow can believe things isn't what science is about.

478 posted on 01/20/2005 2:17:39 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Others have done some of the first.

Your continued failure to convincingly explain the brilliant folks support of Creationism is noted.


479 posted on 01/20/2005 2:31:22 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Others have done some of the first.

Apologies, I missed the post where that happened (a specific technical achievement of modern creation science). Please can you direct me to the post.

Your continued failure to convincingly explain the brilliant folks support of Creationism is noted.

The fallacy of holding up people like Newton as creationists as if that were some kind of argument against ToE has been pointed out so many times that it is truly boring to repeat the rebuttal. Have you guys got amnesia?

Newton was a great man of his time. Newton had no opportunity to support or believe in the theory of evolution because he died long before it was proposed. Therefore to put people like Newton and Galileo on lists of "Great Creationist Scientists" as if that were an argument against ToE is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Everyone was a creationist then. Can you not see how feeble that makes your arguments look?

480 posted on 01/20/2005 2:40:14 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 581-595 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson