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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 581-595 next last
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
But your arguements are no more enlightening.
61
posted on
01/18/2005 10:49:32 AM PST
by
cosmicassassin
(Just give me what I came for, then I'm out the door again.)
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
What facts presented?
I pointed out that the two "example" quotes that the person who started this discussion provided are either out of context or not about evolution. I'd call it a fact that the two presented quotes were misrepresentations.
? I just wanted to have a debate on the validity of evolution.
Then we should start with facts, not out-of-context or irrelevant quotes. Citing the work of a physicist who says that he cannot understand how life emerged from non-life is not an honest criticism of evolution. It would be like attacking gravitational theory for not explaining the origin of all matter.
I just wanted to see some quotes that remotely even come close to proving evolution. Instead I get neither.
As has already been explained, science is not done through quotes and science is not about "proving". Science is about formulating the best explanation for collected data. To that end, scientists (biologists in particular) have come up with the theory of evolution and while a number of creationists have attempted to knock it down through misapplication of scientific principles that they apparently do not understand or even just dishonestly quote-mining scientists and presenting out-of-context statements, evolution has yet to be falsified.
What I get is cute remarks, cut downs and deafening silence by you pro-evolutionists here when it comes to providing ample, solid proof that absolutely proves that evolution is anything more than a hole-ridden theory.
When you actually have an argument against evolution that is based upon fact, let us know. Until then, the only response to the out of context quotes provided is an explanation that the creationist providing them is dishonestly misquoting scientists in an attempt to support their agenda through the use of lies.
Please prove that it is absolutely true and not just one of many hole-ridden theories.
No theory in science is "absolutely proven". Demanding that any theory -- evolution, gravity or atomic -- be "absolutely proven" implies either outright ignorance of science or brazen dishonesty of the highest order. As you have already been told that nothing in science is "absolutely proven", the fact that you continue to make this demand makes me strongly suspect that the implication for you is the latter, rather than the former.
62
posted on
01/18/2005 10:50:37 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: ml1954
What these evolutionists basically state is that evolutionary theory is still a hole-ridden theory. Sorry.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Have you noticed they are becoming more rabid lately?
Are you proposing evidence of evolution?
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
solid proof that absolutely proves
Please prove that it is absolutely true
Science doesn't deal in absolute truths or absolute proofs or absolute anythings.
65
posted on
01/18/2005 10:51:22 AM PST
by
ml1954
To: ml1954
Yeah. Makes you wonder if perhaps the quotes haven't been taken out of context or aren't horribly misrepresented.
66
posted on
01/18/2005 10:51:33 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
The Theory of Evolution is not absolutely true. The theory of atoms is not absolutely true. The theory of heat exchange is not absolutely true. Absolutely true is not a term that should ever be used in a science education. If we can't teach anything in a science classroom that is not "absolutely true", we can't teach anything.
What the three theories I mentioned have in common:
- They are strongly supported by predicted observations.
- There are no alternative theories that are as strongly supported by predicted observations.
These two traits combine to make what is called a "scientific fact". That is not a fact in the logical sense of the word, but is in fact defined by just these two traits. When someone says "scientific fact", that's what they mean. Sometimes deep in a scientific conversation the word "scientific" might get dropped and they will just be referred to as "facts". Perhaps that is where some confusion comes from.
To: Junior
>>Ping. Note the two quotes: One is from 72 years ago and the other from 25 years ago. Creationists definitely are not up-to-date on their research, are they?<<
Is this how all evolutionists handle evidence? If I show you a picture of a 75 year old car and a 26 year old car, neither of which can leave the earths gravitational field on their own power, do you assume that a "new" car can?
And how much evidence are you willing to evaluate. You chose only the quotes posted as "samples." A "thourough" study of the site will find more, and newer ones.
68
posted on
01/18/2005 10:51:52 AM PST
by
RobRoy
(Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Hmmm...Are they insecure over their precious evolutionary theory?
To: RobRoy
Yes, there are many recent quotes.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true.Based on this view, there are no valid scientific theories.
There have been no gravity waves observed to support General Relativity. Anomalies in spacecraft trajectories are still unpredicted and unexplained.
No folded up dimensions or new families of particles have been found to support string theory or m-brane theory.
Is there anything in quantum mechanics that can actually be explained? And only the simplest calculations can actually be performed.
No plate tectonic or geological theory explains the exact motions of the magma plumes coming up from the planet's core.
Chemists can't predict the result of any combination of chemicals that haven't already been combined.
Coronal heating in the sun is still unexplained.
High temperature superconducting ceramics continue to evade the latest theories.
I still have examples left, but I have to get to my meeting.
Luckily scientists don't fall for these rhetorical tricks.
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
As has been pointed out, the mined quotes are often out of context or misrepresneted (that is, not even addressing evolution). Why are you not commenting on the fact that the two "sample" quotes that you provided in your first posting don't even address matters within the scope of the theory of evolution? Are you hoping that we'll forget that you presented a quote regarding the ultimate origin of life (which has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever) and dishonestly pretended that it was a statement on the weakness of the theory of evolution?
72
posted on
01/18/2005 10:53:31 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
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 theory of evolution is supported by vast quantities of evidence that has been cataloged and analyzed in a veritable sea of scientific journals." Source: Me.
How's that?
73
posted on
01/18/2005 10:55:16 AM PST
by
atlaw
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Guess I can't get a straight forward answer to my straight forward and plain question to you.
What are the data you use to support creationism?
To put it into your words: Please defend creationism. Please prove that it is absolutely true and not just one of many hole-ridden theories.
Do you understand the question?
74
posted on
01/18/2005 10:56:18 AM PST
by
Rudder
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Have you noticed that creationists are becoming more brazenly dishonest lately? Interesting.
75
posted on
01/18/2005 10:57:26 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Please, Junior, give us proof on here that absolutely proves evolution to be an abolute fact, once and for all. You wouldn't believe it if he did.
76
posted on
01/18/2005 10:57:29 AM PST
by
narby
(If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.)
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
For example:
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Dr Scott C. Todd,
Immunologist at Kansas State University: Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999
77
posted on
01/18/2005 10:58:50 AM PST
by
RobRoy
(Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
>>Have you noticed they are becoming more rabid lately? Interesting.<<
Like political conservatives, I think the word is not "rabid," but "empowered."
Just as the Internet outed CBS and Kerry, it will "out" the charlatans on both sides of the evolution/ID debate.
This is a good thing.
78
posted on
01/18/2005 11:01:32 AM PST
by
RobRoy
(Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
To: Dimensio
A fact in your opinion. That only. You patently ignore the numerous quotes at the site which run counter to evolutionary thought.
Well, please prove that life did come from non-life. Give me and the rest on here some proof.
Well, then, please give us some proof on here that definitively and conclusively shows evolutionary theory being the best explanation for the origin of life.
Apparently what you don't like is the fact that there are a lot of quotes from evolutionists, which undermine evolutionary theory, that never make it to print for mass consumption.
Apparently what we have are the "foxes guarding the hen house" when it comes to having the whole tale told on evolutionary theory.
To: RobRoy
How shocking. A scientists insist that scientific explanations be limited to that which is scientific. Such a condemnation.
80
posted on
01/18/2005 11:05:28 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson