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 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 581-595 next last
To: Junior

Old news. You bring that one up from time to time and it's been refuted and run its course.

You also forgot to mention "four footed" insects.8^>


521 posted on 01/20/2005 9:40:57 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Are you by any chance referring to the bogus refutation of the "rabbit chewing cud" error that is debunked here?
522 posted on 01/20/2005 9:42:50 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

New translations of the old writings. That is not "re-written." It is "re-translated." Does one find significant discrepencies in the sentence meanings? And can a "Bible" make it on the list becuase someone just goes out and makes one?

Keep in mind that the holy spirit confirms the word. The Bible does not depend on the seal of approval of some human organization. God's ways are not mans ways, but he does seem to want to accomodate us even with the limitations of our bodies and this reality.


523 posted on 01/20/2005 9:44:30 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
No, it hasn't. It HAS been compiled,

And when it was compiled (for the umpteenth time) and "books" were tossed out, it was because those original books were not the word of God.

524 posted on 01/20/2005 9:50:28 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

>>Are you by any chance referring to the bogus refutation of the "rabbit chewing cud" error that is debunked here?<<

No.


525 posted on 01/20/2005 10:01:55 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

I'm way past the 200 post limit I set for myself on these threads.

Bye.


526 posted on 01/20/2005 10:02:54 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Given that you define ALL science as creation science "All real world science is creation science" (your post #413 on this thread), then by definition, all scientific achievements have to be made by creation scientists.

It kind of looks tautological, eh? Not very informative.


Just so you realize that 2000 years ago God knew that the Theory of Evolution would come about. He was prepared ahead of time.

Romans 1:18-25
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (emphasis added)
527 posted on 01/20/2005 10:04:41 AM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
That is not "re-written."

It IS re-written when the KJV contains passages that were NOT in earlier versions.

528 posted on 01/20/2005 10:07:35 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4
Unfortunately, the system YOU advocate has politicized the school system in America. If evolutionary theory wasn't being crammed down the throats of students who don't want to hear it, and if parents had a voice over what was being taught concerning evolutionary theory we wouldn't be in this mess. YOU evidently favor teachers having more power than parents. Sorry, the control over what a child hears ultimately resides with the parents, not the schools or the teachers. You are the one who evidently insists in students hearing what you want them to hear a one sided view on evolution. Sorry that isn't what America is all about. America is about fairness, and putting that fairness into law. That isn't fundamentalism. That's Freedom. The Bill Of Rights codify Americans rights into law. And parents and students have no right to an alternative view concerning evolution right now in the public school system, and that is totally against what America is all about. You apparently are anti American yet try to brand me as the one who is authoritarian.

Don't call me something I am not. I am not a state worshiper. You evidently want students to hear the side of evolutionary theory that you want them to hear. You evidently don't care how the parents feel who don't want a one-sided approach to evolutionary theory, or don't want it taught at all to their children. I do care about how they feel. You evidently don't or you would have taken their feelings into consideration. How did you come about being this way?

You want what you want. That is clear. You want a one-sided approach.


Many parents don't want their students to have to sit and listen to evolutionary theory being taught as if it is more than a theory. No student should have to go through that, and that is the essence of Laissez-Faire. Freedom. The freedom to hear more than one side being crammed down one throat.

Please, don't make statements about me that are unfounded. Statements like I approve of the use of violence and threatened violence. That is a lie.

What is wrong with reading a statement that evolutiinoaryt theory is an unproven theory? Tell me, what is wrong with that. I would like an answer rather than accusations from you, ok?

You say that it is communism to make teachers read a statement that they don't believe in? Funny how you say nothing about how students feel, or how parents feel.

You talk about forcing a teacher to read something they do not believe in. What about a child being forced to hear what they don't want to hear? What about parent s being forced into their children having to hear what they don't want them to hear. You care more for the teachers than the pupils or parents. We can see who you care about and put first.

Look, the students and the parents come first not the teachers.

Answer me, what is more important. Having the freedom to hear both sides, or having a crammed-down-your-throat, one sided approach? We have passed laws to guarantee freedom before. The U.S. Constitution is a gigantic example of that.

We can also pass a law that guarantees freedom to hear more than just one side o the topic of evolutionary theory.

So, what do you favor, the law-backed freedom to hear more than one side, or the teacher-pushed, 'who cares what the students and parents want' approach that you evidently espouse.

Yes, I do believe in freedom. I am Laissez-Faire(especially when it comes to capitalism), am I not? I believe in the freedom to hear more than one side when it comes to evolution. You obviously don't believe in freedom. I want a system that guarantees that students don't have a one sided approach of evolution crammed down their throat. And that guarantee is brought about by law. A law that will put the parents and students rights first. Do you believe in students and parents rights being first over teachers and scientists? I don't believe you do. You apparently only care about how the teachers and scientists feel.

Students have a right to a biology class, and one where evolution isn't being crammed down their throats. One where they can hear both sides.Evidently you want a classroom where there is no disclaimer about evolution being an unproven theory. Do you want children to think that evolution is a fact, and not just mere theory?

You say that there is no demand on the part of teachers and scientists to teach anything else. There you go again, leaving students and parents out of the equation. You must learn that students and parents come before teachers and scientists in the schools. That is the way it works. But all you seem to care about is how teachers and scientists feel, and that is really sad.
529 posted on 01/20/2005 10:14:35 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Do tell what your refutation of the "rabbit cud chewing" is then please? Or direct us to a suitable URL.


530 posted on 01/20/2005 10:34:40 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Hate to say this, but all your talk about "feeeelings" and "for the children" and "the right to be heard" and "the right not to be offended" and the "the right not to hear what you don't want to hear" and even your tortured use of "putting fairness into law" kind of reeks of liberal, multi-cultural pap.

It's all very sensitive, very Oprah, but science is ultimately unconcerned with the "feeeelings" of those who don't want to hear that 2+2=4.


531 posted on 01/20/2005 10:46:30 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

You said that scientists should consider that it is a possibility because it has not been disproven. If ID is not science, then there is no reason for scientists to consider it a possibility.


532 posted on 01/20/2005 11:01:31 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
America is not about "fairness". The parents are out of line on insisting that science curriculum be changed. Dedication to the pursuit of truth is more important than feelings being hurt.

What is this "cramming down people's throats"? How can one cram down someone's throat the only the accepted theory in the biological sciences? There is no other theory and there is no evidence for such a theory that can be used to explain the complexity of life. From a scientific point of view, there is no "other side" to hear. This isn't a debating club. Science isn't a democracy. That is not the fault of teachers or scientists. If ID is to be taught, it should be done in a philosophy class. Philosophy is a subject that deals with "other sides of an issue" and morality, ethics, the meaning of life, and the issues of existance.

If you wish to enter a field of study, it is up to the person entering the field to adapt to those already in that field. Not the other way around. But you advocate forcing teachers and scientists to teach something they do not believe in. What presumptive arrogance to demand that the experts in a field accomodate you and your feelings! You do NOT have that right. You do not have the right to avoid having your feelings hurt. Either transfer to another school or don't take the class. Getting the government to force the change you want to make makes you a state worshipper. And your advocacy of "fairness" makes me question your laissez-faire label. You sound like a socialist when you sprout such leftist egalitarian nonsense. Don't be upset with my claim about violence. For all government action is inherently based on violence and the threat of violence. When you involve the coercive power of the state, you are threatening violence.

You do not have a "right" to have a biology course that does not include the theory of evolution. You do not have a "right" to enforce "fairness" upon a field and to force the experts in a field to say something they do not wish to say. But you do have the right to form your own school that teaches biology without evolutionary theory. If you can find the teachers to work there and the students willing to attend based upon the voluntary principles of a free market, a laissez-faire market, that would be fine and would be consistent with moral principles. You create ill will from scientists and teachers because of the threat of force. Forming your own school would create no such ill will.

533 posted on 01/20/2005 11:05:56 AM PST by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Actually you are wrong, as usual.

None of what I espouse reeks of multicultural liberalism. Multicultural liberalism would insist that one have a liberal multiculralistic viewpoint crammed down peoples throat's. What I espouse is the reverse of that, the right to NOT have something crammed down a persons throat. What I espouse is far from what you say it is. What I espouse is the right to NOT have evolution be rammed down a students throat and that the student be notified that this theory is an unproven theory, and only a theory.


The liberals are the ones who are insisting that pupils and parents voices not be heard. The liberals are the ones who are fighting the right of students to be made aware of the FACT that evolution is but an unproven theory, nothing more.

Lets see, do you think that a student has the right to be notified in class that evolution is an unproven theory? We'll see how much you care about the rights of students and parents.

We'll see just how much you care about the freedom to be notified about that fact.

This discussion has nothing to do with mathematics, or 2+2 equaling four. This discussion deals with the unproven theory of evolution. This discussion deals with, evidently, another in the line of those who seem to care only about teachers and scientists and nothing at all about the simple right to be notified that evolution is nothing more than a theory. That does seem to describe you adequately.

Obviously you have a problem with students being notified that evolution is an unproven theory. It seems that evolutionists want students to think that evolution is more than just an unproven theory. Surely you wouldn't fall into that group.

Why is it such a bad thing for a student to be notified that evolution is nothing more than an unproven theory, atlaw?
534 posted on 01/20/2005 11:14:57 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4
America is about freedom. That is what America is about, plain and simple. Always has been. Always? will be. Like the Freedom to be notified that evolution is an unproven theory. Surely you aren't against freedom? You would be if you weren't in favor of students being notified that evolution is an unproven theory.

Until you can explain how a teacher notifying students that evolution is an unproven theory is a lie, and tramples on a persons rights, then you have no case against students being notified that evolution is an unproven theory.

What you advocate is a system where students are kept in the dark, where students aren't notified that evolution is an unproven theory. You advocate a system where the teachers who don't want to notify students that evolution is an unproven theory get their way. Again, you advocate a system where the teachers, who for some reason don't want to notify the students that evolution is an unproven theory, get their way.

You talk about the pursuit of truth? If you were really concerned about the truth, then you would have no problem with the truth being told - that evolution is an unproven theory.

So you are evidently the one who cares nothing about the truth. I do though. That is evident. I want students to be notified about the truth. I want them to be notified about the truth that evolution is an unproven theory.

The theory o evolution is an unproven theory. That is why those scientists who can show the holes in evolutionary theory must have their voice heard in the classroom. To do any less would be to deny the students the WHOLE truth, which as i have previously shown in this post you are unconcerned with.

You say that I advocate forcing teachers and scvientists to teach something they do not believe in? Do teachers and scientists advocate students not being notified that evolution is an unproven theory? Then if so, they would advocate students not hearing the truth, as you obviously do.

If teachers and scientists think that the theory of evolution is more than an unproven theory then they lie to themselves, and how can they teach the truth when they are themselves deceived?

I am not calling for my feelings being advocated. I am not arrogant or presumptive. The presumptive and arrogant ones are the ones who don't want students to be notified that evolution is an unproven theory. This has nothing to do about feelings. It has to do with being told the whole truth, one of which is students being told that evolution is an unproven theory.

If teachers feel that evolution is not an unproven theory, that it is anything more than that than they have no business teaching in a biology class.

First you call me a muslim fundamentalist, now I'm a socialist. What next? A Democrat? Seeing you resort to name calling only shows your inherent desire to fall in line with those who repeatedly called Bush a fascist, a liar, etc...You are just like them.

No, a state worshiper would be the one who wants to keep the state enforced system of students not being notified that evolution is an unproven theory. You advocate that system. You are the state worshiper, not me. I advocate the exact opposite of what the 'state' currently mandates, and I desire a return of power over this issue back to the parents and students, which is as far from being a state worshiper as one can get.

Apparently you don't care about parents rights or students rights. Apparently you only care about those teachers and scientists who don't want students to be notified that evolution is an unproven theory.

The system we have now states that students must be taught the theory of evolution in the public schools without being notified that evolution is an unproven theory, so your system, by your own admission, would also advocate violence and the threat of violence.

Are you saying that the 'experts' in the field of evolution do not want to say that evolution is an unproven theory? Evidently you are. This would mean that the 'experts' don't care about the truth. They don't care about informing the students about the truth of evolution being an unproven theory. If they care not for the truth they have no business teaching, period.

The ill will that is being generated is from those teachers and scientists who don't want to notify students that evolution is an unproven theory.

You can bet on it, that when the parents of this country find out that the teachers who are objecting to notifying students of evolution being an unproven theory arevdoing so because they believe that the theory of evolution is more than an unproven theory, then we just might see a 'whole lotta shakin goin' on', as Jerry Lee would say.
535 posted on 01/20/2005 11:55:36 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; ValenB4

Is it your position is that evolution is an uproven theory, and that students should be told this?


536 posted on 01/20/2005 12:25:18 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; Laissez-faire capitalist

Yeah, great question. Is that what you are saying?


537 posted on 01/20/2005 12:31:33 PM PST by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

LOL.

Thanks for the emphasis added at the end of the post. I thought your copy of the Bible just got more strident as the passages went on.

As to your contention that Romans 1:23 reflects God's being "prepared" for the ToE, I would counter that part of that depends on the translation one uses. Your translation appears to come from the New King James, but read the passage in other translations.


The King James version reads:

23: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


The English Standard Version reads:

23: and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Young's literal translation reads:

23: and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles.

In this commentators humble opinion, it is clear that this passage is not discussing scientific theories that will arise in the future, but rather the appearance of the idols then being worshipped. In fact, some of the descriptions read an awful lot like that which was being worshipped in Egypt at the time.

Just a thought.


I looked at the same passage in


538 posted on 01/20/2005 3:43:56 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: dmz
It does cover a broad swath of anti-God dissension.

The "...worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." part most epitomizes the materialistic relativism that Darwinism fosters.

539 posted on 01/20/2005 5:28:22 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Your original quote: "Creationism/ID is no more scientific that pink elves dancing on the moon."

I am sorry. I read your post at least five times and I just don't see how it relates to the theory of evolution. Not trying to be cute here, I really don't see the point you are driving at.

Elitism.

One question:
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?"

540 posted on 01/20/2005 5:44:59 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 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