"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." *J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933). p. 95
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me. but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimenatl evidence supports it." * H. Lipton, "A Physiscist Looks at Evolution." Physics Bulletin. 31 (1980). p. 138
Interesting!!!
I thought that some would find the quotations of many leading evolutionists, at the link, to be enlightening... to say the least.
Valuable to use in arguing with evolutionists.
ping
This quote from Darwin himself, says a lot!
""As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139."
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?
Science, by its very nature, involves conflicting views. Cherry-picking scientists expressing views outside their disciplines is no better than what the Leftists do with their pet causes.
Many/most of these quotes don't even have anything to do with evolution. Even putting that aside, a handful of scientists (not even biologists) against tens of thousands. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
This is your reminder to breathe.
If you believe that creationism is valid science, prove creationism. To do that you have to do more than find flaws with evolution, you have to scientifically prove creationism.
Gee...two qoutes, one a quarter of a century old, the other three quarters.
bttt
There are no such things as missing links. We might as well quit looking for them."
-- Dr. Austin Clark, biologist at Smithsonian Institue in Washington
What are we to make of this quote? I see many creationists use it, but I never see any references to where it originally came from, thus preventing anyone from checking it out. Without any idea about the context in which it appeared, it's impossible for us to seriously evaluate it - especially when one considers how often creationists take quotes out of context an distort their original meaning.
It should also be noted here that the quote implies that Austin Clark is a biologist at the Smithsonian Institute - but that isn't true. Clark was a curator at the Smithsonian Institute during the first half of the twentieth century. He's been dead for nearly 50 years now. Another common tactic of creationists is to cite scientific sources from 50 or 100 years ago without noting their age and without apparently understanding that science actually progresses - thus, the personal opinions of scientists from those many decades ago don't necessarily hold true today.
Thanks.
Of course, it will likely not scratch the granite thickness of the upper sphere on the shoulders of the RELIGION OF SCIENCE's priesthood represented hereon . . .
but it's still great to have available.
Cool. More inquisitors insisting the sun revolve around the earth.
read later
I admit that I spent over forty years duped by the "theory" of evolution... I tried for a minor in anthropology. My professors and even most of nuns who taught us in high school were reverent in their defense of evolution. In essence the theory itself does not entirely preclude a biblical creation (day = eons). But, to almost everyone with a "scientific" mind evolution is religion.
I'm not a literalist but what I've read objectively on the subject has certainly made me sceptical (same with global warming and radical environmentalism). 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.