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 ...
What are the data you use to support creationism?
If people value their childrens faith, then that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
The very instant the subject of evolution vs Genesis comes up the question will become "is there proof of God". This will happen in a government run school away from parents and church leaders. Its guaranteed that some, perhaps many, young skulls full of mush will decide at a teachers direction that God doesn't exist.
Like trying to convince a child that has figured out Santa Claus that he really does live at the North Pole. Trying to restore the faith of a child after they "get it" will never happen.
Leave science to scientists. Leave discussions on the meaning of Genesis in church.
I don't suppose it would help to point out that the theory of evolution does not encompass abiogenesis.
> You act as if all scientists believe in evolution. Nothing could be further from the case.
You did not answer the question: which "two sides?"
Ah, your apparent attempt at trying to give Junior a way out of having to provide some definitive and conclusive proof is noted.
They recognize the futility of arguing with a closed mind.
Millions of transitional forms
If the evolution view is correct then millions of
transitional forms once existed for each lineage, but should
we expect to find them in the fossil record as Dr. Gish and
Gary Parker claim? Consider the evolution of the modern
horse from eohippus, which is thought to have taken about 60
million years. If we assume a generation time of 3 years,
that's 20 million generations. Let us further assume that
it takes 1 foot of sediment to bury a horse (probably not
enough for the larger more recent horses, but more than
enough for the dog-sized early ancestors, so 1 foot is a
reasonable average). For a really complete series of
transitional forms, we would require at least 1 specimen
from each generation. But, if every three years, a river
flood buries one horse or horse ancestor under 1 foot of
sediment, that's 20 million feet of sediment! Which
translates into 3,788 miles of sediments, a figure almost
equal to the radius of the earth! Even if erosion and
mountain building went on at such a rapid pace, we would
rapidly exhaust the supply of rock; and we've only
considered the Tertiary Period!
One could endlessly modify the above simpleminded
assumptions to make the calculations more realistic and
perhaps reduce somewhat the amount of sediments required,
but the fundamental point remains. To bury and fossilize
millions of different transitional forms (from millions of
different time horizons) requires millions of feet of
sediments. The total thickness of the Tertiary sediments in
western North America that contain the fossil equids is a
bit under 10,000 feet. Coincidently, G. G. Simpson reports
that there are about 10,000 or more equid fossils, but most
are fragments, especially teeth; there are less than 100
complete skeletons. And these are not from equidistant time
horizons, nor from the entire spacial range of the horses in
North America, South America and Eurasia. For example there
are no Eocene deposits from the Great Plains area, and those
from the other periods present a much smaller total
thickness (about 2000 feet.) Yet, as fossil records go,
this is an amazingly good one and Simpson considers that
these specimens provide a sufficiently complete record with
only one or two small gaps.
Similar arguments would apply to any other lineage and
geological time period. There's no way we could expect
anywhere near a complete fossil record of any lineage. At
best it can only be fragmentary. Although many millions of
transitional forms existed, we cannot expect any but a tiny
fraction to have been preserved. Contrary to Dr. Gish's
assertion, many in that tiny fraction have been found and
are documented in the paleontological literature. (See
references listed under movie 4).Gee...two qoutes, one a quarter of a century old, the other three quarters.
>>What are the data you use to support creationism?<<
I give you DNA, for starters. Then again, check my tag line.
DNA? It's existence supports creationism? Hogwash!
Science is actually not about "how". Science doesn't care "how". Science cares about "what", "where", and "when". "How" is speculative.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Not at all.
I was simply demonstrating that your ignorance is self-imposed.
Dude, the science and evidence have moved light years beyond what those folks knew when they made their quotes. Science isn't religion, where the older the citation, the more revered it becomes. Science is about the latest-and-greatest, and those quotes ain't either.
Won't help. This is one of those topics where otherwise stalwart conservatives become mush-minded liberals, insisting that we should "let the children decide." They're apparently unfamiliar with "Lord of the Flies."
And, if someone posted a quote from some guy a millennia ago saying the Earth was flat, that would have scientific validity too?
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.