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 ...
But your arguements are no more enlightening.
What these evolutionists basically state is that evolutionary theory is still a hole-ridden theory. Sorry.
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.
Yeah. Makes you wonder if perhaps the quotes haven't been taken out of context or aren't horribly misrepresented.
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.
>>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.
Hmmm...Are they insecure over their precious evolutionary theory?
Yes, there are many recent quotes.
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.
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?
"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?
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?
Have you noticed that creationists are becoming more brazenly dishonest lately? Interesting.
You wouldn't believe it if he did.
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
>>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.
How shocking. A scientists insist that scientific explanations be limited to that which is scientific. Such a condemnation.
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.