Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory

Pathlights ^ | Staff

[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.

[Thatcherite]

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

More thoughts on this ludicrous creationist non-argument:

Presumably quantum theory and atomic theory and genetic theory are also untrue because Newton and Galileo didn't believe in those things either. (in fact Einstein didn't support quantum theory and it was proposed when he was alive, I guess according to creationists either Einstein was right about quantum theory or he wasn't a great scientist) That is the logical level of this particular creationist argument.

[Quix]

It's not remotely a priority for me to go back over the thread and search out the posts that mentioned current achievements of note of Creationists. Besides that, you are not likely to be influenced by facts in the matter.

Facts are against the dogma of the RELIGION OF SCIENCE--that only altar at which you bow. So, you are obligated to ignore them.

[Quix]

You are sooooooooooooooooo funny.

Do you have a life outside of rants regarding the RELIGIOUS DOGMA OF THE RIGID DOCTRINES OF THE INQUISITIONAL RELIGION OF SCIENCE?

[Thatcherite]

It's not remotely a priority for me to go back over the thread and search out the posts that mentioned current achievements of note of Creationists. Besides that, you are not likely to be influenced by facts in the matter.

As you cannot back up your assertion I will assume that you were making it up, as is normal for those on your side of the argument.

If modern creationists had any achievements to point at that ran counter to mainstream science they'd be shouting them from the rooftops.

[Stultis]

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.

Heck, by that standard Darwin himself could be considered a "great (or at least significant) creation scientist". He was still a creationist at the time, for instance, that developed and published an innovative and correct theory of the formation of coral reefs and atolls.

[Thatcherite]

You are sooooooooooooooooo funny. Do you have a life outside of rants regarding the RELIGIOUS DOGMA OF THE RIGID DOCTRINES OF THE INQUISITIONAL RELIGION OF SCIENCE?

Failure to response sensibly to my points noted. Technique of "argument by CAPS-LOCK" noted.

[Quix]

Oh, it's quite clear

that your habitual, chronic, highly distorted and otherwise questionable

ASSUMING

is in great form.

[Quix]

CAPS LOCK

is preferable to

RELIGION OF SCIENCE BRAIN LOCK

any day.

[Thatcherite]

Post #483 is really funny, isn't it. Have you noticed, when creationists have their noses rubbed in their fallacies and errors they eventually seem to do one of three things:

1. Disappear from the thread (usually to reappear in another thread some time later repeating the same already refuted arguments, or for the slightly cleverer ones different arguments from the same website (will they ever learn?))

2. Change the subject immediately with a different argument from the same website as the one that has just been thoroughly refuted. (will they ever learn?)

3. Go into insane non sequitur ranting (sometimes CAPSLOCK) (sometimes quoting the bible) mode.

I wonder what the lurkers make of posts like #483. I doubt that it brings many people to the Lord.

[Thatcherite]

Oh, it's quite clear that your habitual, chronic, highly distorted and otherwise questionable ASSUMING is in great form.

It is standard form in such debates to require people to back up their assertions. Everyone has the right to draw whatever conclusions they see fit from your failure to do so.

Point out the specific achievement of modern creation science named in this thread if you don't wish people to draw the conclusion that you are unable to.

[Stultis]

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.

Ignore? If you ever did look at a career in anthropology at any time, and ever did read any amount of paleontological literature, you have to know your statement is bogus. Arguments and analysis regarding whether morphological variation in fossil material represents differences between or variations within species is frequent and constant within the literature.

Also it is highly unlikely that future paleontologists would experience the problem you describe with breeds of domestic dogs. You seem to be unaware of it, but domesticated animals are marked by many characteristics that are preserved in skeletal material. For example neotonization (sp? that is the retention in adults of juvenile characters) is always present in domesticated animals. Paleontologists have little problem discriminating between wild and domesticated cattle, for instance, even though the marks of domestication in that case are less pronounced than in the case of canines.

[Quix]

Help yourself to your assumptions.

You clearly are in the habit of assuming long lists of things beinc such a dyed-in-the-wool devotee to the RELIGION OF SCIENCE AND

THE RELIGION OF THE SUB-CULT OF EVOLUTION.

I am my own steward of my own time and energy and I'll do on these threads what suits me--not particularly what suits you!

Assume what you will. And be wrong, as usual.

I have my own fun for my own reasons.

I have absolutely NO need or desire to conform to your rules of the game nor to necessarily try much at all to disuade you from all your assumptions. What a fuitle exercise that would be.

If you want to find the posts above about the current Creationist scholar's achievements--help yourself. But I suspect that you are blind enough on the topic that it would be a major breakthrough achievement for you to succeed at finding the posts.

hehe.

[Thatcherite]

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

Ability to rant noted. Possession of CAPS-LOCK key noted.

[Bellflower]

ping

[orionblamblam]

> Abiogenisis is based on a false premise.

That being?

[Theo]

So your criteria is that if you can find one person supporting a position who is "wrong," then that entire position is wrong. I imagine I can find at least one atheist evolutionist who is wrong.

Have you noticed all the highly respected scientists on that list?

The problem is that noting all these scientists (on either side) is logically irrelevant, an "appeal to authority"....

[atlaw]

Yeah, I know. I apologized for that post. It was a bad formatting day.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Evidently you like the current system which requires public schools to teach evolution with no disclaimer that it is an unproven theory. Evidently you like the current system which requires in public schools that only one side be given on the topic of evolutionary theory.

And you are dead wrong on comparing me to the likes of Stalin. The system he helped create forced people in Soviet Socialist Russia to hear only one side of evolutionary theory, THE ONE IN FAVOR OF IT. Not having both sides is what is authoritarian and dictatorial. My approach ensures that there will be no one sided approach to evolution.

You evidently have no problem with the public school system being required by law to teach only one side on evolutionary theory.

You see, my approach gives people choices. My approach is the one that lets the people have a voice in what their children are taught, that says that fairness, balance, and equity will be required by law, instead of the one you evidently favor that requires by law that only one side be given on the topic of evolutionary theory. You favor the authoritarian approach, and try and spin it around to make it look like I am the one who favors that approach. Please, you are the one who sounds most like the authoritarian Muslim Fundamentalist.

[bondserv]

And again, pick any modern achievement. The achievement cannot avoid riding on the back of a great creation scientists inspired brilliance.

The achievements today are only made because the understanding of the physical laws that technology is based were overwhelmingly formulated by Creationists.

As Bill O'Reilly asked the scientist opposed to evolutionary disclaimers and including ID theory in classrooms, "What if God really did create the world?" he asked. "Wouldn’t that be science?"

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

This will be my last post on this thread topic. I have no desire to post any more on this one. I just wanted to make the information at this site available for mass consumption.

As well, when the evolutionists state stuff like "quote mining.", what they are engaged in could be termed "quote avoidance."

Saying "quote mining" is just an attempt by the evo's to avoid quotes given by evolutionists themselves who are having serious doubts about evolutionary theory. Within these quotes evolutionists themselves are stating, in their own words, that the THEORY of evolution is still a hole-riddled theory.

And don't fall for that line of "you are taking that quote out of context." The quotes say what they say, but to an evolutionist, the quotes evidently require their translation of it, or most surely it will be taken "out of context."

Finally, the evo's might state that many of the quotes at the site have nothing to do with evolution. See the quotes for yourself. Do a little digging at the site. You will see that the quotes have alot to do with the hole-riddled theory of evolution.
I can guarantee you that if the quotes at this site gave information that the evo's agreed with, they most certainly would have sang its praises.