Darwin's Theory is False

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings smallaxe,

Firstly,
some general comments -

Thank you for remaining reasonable in your posts,
it is encouraging that you can express your views without descending to insults.

I try to do the same - criticising your claims, not your person

"Try" being the operative word seriously, thank you for your comments and I just hope that all of us can disagree without being disagreeable.



You do not understand this issue fully.
Embryos of different species ARE similar - we can SEE this in photographs.
This DOES teach us something about evolutionary history.
It's a fact, details here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

But,
a LONG time ago (a century or more), a chap Haeckel took this idea and exaggerated it into a weird theory - that Ontogeny recapitulates Philogeny (development replays ancestry) - which means that embryos would go thru stages which look like ADULT forms of other species they evolved thru. Haeckel used line drawings, and faked some of them to puff up his theory.

SCIENTISTS checked Haeckel's work and found it was not right,
they also noticed he faked some photos.

Thus,
Haeckel's theory (OrP) was rejected LONG long ago.

But,
the underlieing concept of embryo similarities is true, and always was true,
and
studying these similarities (and differences) has increased our knowledge.

That they appear similar doesn't PROVE that they had a common ancestor. It's evidence, I agree; but based on the "cooking" that Haeckel did, I do not know how much stock I would put in it as evidence for Darwinism. It's all subjective; you look at the similarities and say it's evidence for your view while I look at the differences and say that it's not that strong for your view.

You can see actual embryo photos here :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/clips/

Please look at these photos smallaxe -
the similarities are obvious,
do you now agree embryos do look similar?

I looked at the photos, I see the similarities and acknowledge the similarities; but just because they look similar doesn't mean they have the same origin any more than just because a pancake looks like the Virgin Mary means that she actually gave birth to Jesus via the incarnation.

But the problem is -
creationists claim that biology still teaches OrP,
when this is
100%
totally
completely
absolutely
180 degrees
FALSE !

Now I know. See, I learn! Where's my cookie?

Yes,
biology DOES still teach that (some) embryos are similar - because they ARE similar
but, no -
biology does NOT teach Haeckel's old OrP theory.


I hear you.



False.
You don't seem to be aware that we have various dating methods -
* Isochron dating,
* radioactivite dating
* luminescence
* fission track
* obsidian hydration
etc.
Such methods do NOT rely at all on fossils.

It is simply UNTRUE to say that dating depends only circularly on fossils -
completely, totally, 100% WRONG.


I did not say that dating depends only on fossils. I know that there are other methods of dating. I know for a fact that fossil dating plays a large part in dating rock formations, and the circular logic behind THAT still stands.



This is false,
as well as confused.

You do not seem to understand the difference between :
* evolution as a fact observed in nature
* the THEORY of evolution we use to try and explain how it works

We SEE evolution -
we observe it in the field and in the lab every day -
we see and work with changing allele frequencies all the time.

Evolution is a FACT because we observe it to be so.

But,
the THEORY of evolution is an attempt to explain how the details actually fit together.
The THEORY of evolution is a vast and complex area of study covering many facets - the details of the theory are always being debated, argued, and changed - like all theories.

So,
it what you said is simply NOT TRUE.
Only people who do not understand the difference say that - usually creationists.


I see...

Words get used a lot, and I think that a large source of contention between creationists and evolutionists occurs because what one person thinks a word means isn't what the other person means.

Evolution as a fact is what I thought was called micro-evolution.

Evolution as a theory is what I thought was called Darwinism and/or macro-evolution (if there is a difference, please tell me what it is).

If I say anything about "evolution" that seems as if I believe it, I'm talking about micro-evolution. So what I understand your above quote to mean is that ypu see micro-evolution in the lab everyday, and you use macro-evo or Darwinism or other theories to predict/theorize where micro-evo is coming from and where it may go.

I'm not saying that that's what you believe, I'm saying that's what I understand your statement above to mean.




Relativity is indeed a theory -
one that is so well supported by the evidence that it is considered one of the great successes in science.
Every test ever done, anywhere, by anyone - SUPPORTS relativity.
NO test ever disagreed with relativity.
The other theories (e.g. Newton) have been TESTED and found NOT as good as Relativity.


Though Newtonian physics does work on a local scale, that's why it's still used in intro physics...


Quantum physics is indeed a (set of related) theories -
one that is so well supported by the evidence that it is considered one of the great successes in science.
Every test ever done, anywhere, by anyone - SUPPORTS Quantum physics.
NO test ever disagreed with Quantum physics.
The other theories (e.g. classical particles) have been TESTED and found NOT as good as Quantum physics.

But what about the clash between Relativity and Quantum Physics that Superstring theory is supposed to resolve? That's a different topic though, i guess...




Evolution is indeed a theory -
one that is so well supported by the evidence that it is considered one of the great successes in science.
Every test ever done, anywhere, by anyone - SUPPORTS evolution.
NO test ever disagreed with evolution.
The other theories (e.g. Creation) have been TESTED and found NOT as good as evolution.

Set aside the fact that these sites are run by true believers, and tell me what you think. (Now that i think about it, every website is run by a true believer ANYWAYS...)

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html

http://www.grisda.org/

http://www.halos.com/







Nonsense.
The only "tables turned" is in your inability to accept the evidence -
evolution is as well supported with evidence as relativity.

Except that for relativity, the evidence led to the acceptance of relativity, while for evolution, the evidence was intepreted in view of the already accepted theory of evolution. The basic tenets of evolution were developed and accepted at a time when the complexity of a living organism was not completely understood, and thus as new evidences have come forward, all of that new evidence has been interpreted in the light of "how can this support evolution" instead of "what is this evidence telling us."

It is only religious faith which causes creationists to accept relativity and reject evolution - because they think it disagrees with their faith (of course many Christians have no problem with evolution.)

I know. That is a separate discussion for me and them (and I refer to the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution.)

Relativity was accepted (against the odds) because it MATCHED what we OBSERVE -
every test,
every time,
every place,
by every person who did the test.

Evolution was accepted (against the odds) because it MATCHED what we OBSERVE -
every test,
every time,
every place,
by every person who did the test.

Against the odds? When Darwin came forward with the theory of evolution, the scientific world jumped right on it because it allowed one to be a full-fledged and honest atheist. Evolution never had a problem being accepted by most people who were not religious back in the day.



Dogs descended from wolves - a different species.
This new species evolved within human history - as a direct result of human activity.
This is prima facie evidence of un-natural selection producing a new SPECIES (not quite the same as natural selection, but an interesting case.)

You deliberately chose a SHORT time frame,
then claimed we have never seen an event that takes a LONG time,
and pretended this proves LONG events can not happen,
even though you had to ignore the direct evidence that showed you wrong -
wolves evolving into dogs within human time frames.

This is an interesting point, but it brings up something that I admit I don't know much about. What is the difference between species that can breed together and species that cannot breed together? Someone earlier said that technically dogs were wolves, I'm just throwing that out there. I wasnt the one who selected the short time frame though; you had taken the process of macro-evolution and then compared it to that of glacial flow.

Also, if dogs evolved from wolves, why do we still have both dogs and wolves? I have always wondered how evolution explains the diversity of species. If one species evolves into another, shouldn't the orginial species become extinct, or all of the orginal species become the new species?

Once again -
your argument boils down to :
" anything that takes longer than a human lifetime cannot happen"

We have never seen a giant sequioa growing to full height from a seed -
therefore, according to YOU, they cannot grow to full height.

We have never seen glacier ice flow from mountain top all the way to the to sea,
therefore, according to YOU, glacier ice CANNOT flow from Mt top all the way to the to sea.

This is obviously a false argument -
why do you keep using it?

I do not use that argument. You built it up from an erroneous interpretation of my argument, and then attributed it to me.


Let's be frank, your posts -
show little knowledge about these subjects,
confuse the most basic terms and concepts,
show no background knowledge of biology or science in general.

But,
you pretend you know better than all the best brains in the world?
When all you have to offer is tired all nonsense apparently lifted straight from AIG which you didn't even bother to check?

You're not trying hard enough

Science depends on EVIDENCE -
you produce no evidence for your claims,
and
you dismiss the evidence which shows you wrong.

Yes,
you are not debating,
you are preaching.

This is a science forum - please don't preach here.

(By which I mean - I look forward to evidence-based discussion. You are, of course, completely free to express your views here.)


Iasion

That comes across to me as "I will preach; you'd better not." I addressed that statement earlier, so I won't address it again here; but the topic here is not science, but Darwin's theory.

 

[smallaxe0217]

I think he's actually replying within the quote.. I dunno for sure. I can't be arsed to read it the way he has it done.

I reply within the quote; if that's not the way it's normally done I'll try to do the quote/no quote thing. (kinda lazy sometimes).

will reply to other posts later on.

Also, has anyone here read the book "By Design or By Chance?" by Denyse O'Leary? It is an excellent read, and I should say off the bat that she is an evolutionist, not a creationist or intellegent designer. This is the Amazon link for it:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08...f=pd_bbs_1/103-6737467-7998217?_encoding=UTF8

adios for now.

 

[Lerxst]

Hey smallaxe (and anyone else who cares):

On the subject of books, I highly recommend Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Miller is an evolutiony biologist and also happens to be a devout Christian. The book presents a very nice defense of evolutionary theory. Miller also explains why modern biological science should not be taken as anathema to religious belief, even Christian religious belief. It is a very well written book and a great read for anyone even remotely interested in biology and its impact on religion.

 

[SnakeLord]

As far as I know, the fact of evolution refers to micro-evolution. Darwinism and macro-evolution are the theories.

You would be mistaken. The very first thing I would advise is to stop by talkorigins, (links have been posted by other forum users, and myself on many an occasion in other related threads).

What is your opinion on what the fact and theories of evolution are?

To be honest with you, you should not be asking me for my 'opinion'. An opinion isn't of very much value, the facts are. To save me from giving you a response that could not really compare to a specialists response, I would for now advise talkorigins.

As a very simple explanation: The fact is that evolution occurs, the theories are as to how and why. I would ask that you not get caught up in the whole "micro/macro" nonsense, because it literally is just that.

you just believe that it will happen later on

I did not stress belief in anything, I simply asked you a question. K?

However, speciation has been observed, fossils show it to be the case, etc etc etc.

Sounds like the dreaded "F" word to me.

I am glad then that we both consider the "F" word a bad and dirty word. I will assume from your statement that you're not religious. However, I shall also point out that this does not come down to "F", but to evidence.

My house got burgled sometime while I was out at work. Upon returning I found a hole in my back window, some muddy footprints going through my house, and my television set was missing.

I submit that a burglar did it. No smallaxe, I never saw a burglar - but that does not make this an issue of "F". I have looked at the evidence, (the hole in the window/muddy footprints/missing TV), and have come to a conclusion based upon the presentable evidence. It would be a matter of "F" if I said a flying, three testicled leprechaun did it.

Although speciation has been observed, you do not need to observe it to know it occurs - given the evidence that we already have.

It is upto you to look at all that evidence. You don't have to, but then you're not really in any position to make statements concerning it.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

"Try" being the operative word seriously, thank you for your comments and I just hope that all of us can disagree without being disagreeable.

Thanks,
your calm tone and measured responses put you head and shoulders above most creationists.


Macro-evolution

You initially claimed :

However, it has not been seen, since it takes a long time to occur (as according to its propenents). It is taken on faith that micro will lead to macro. I simply do not believe that macro-evolution takes place.
...
The definition of macro-evolution involves periods of millions of years, and no direct observation of any process over that time is possible.

This is absolutely clear - you argue macro-evolution has not been seen "since it takes a long time to occur"
and : "The definition of macro-evolution involves periods of millions of years"

Firstly - it is NOT CORRECT to say
"The definition of macro-evolution involves periods of millions of years"
WRONG !

This is a CREATIONIST definition, MADE UP just so they can make this silly argument.

Humans would see sequioa trees growing a fraction of full size, they would compare the size of the young trees to the size of the mature tree to determine the rate of maturation, and then they would conclude based on the rate of maturation that the tree takes 400 years to mature.

Which is exactly the same process we use in evolution - observation and inference - sometimes over years, sometimes centuries, sometime eons.

The difference between this and macro-evolutionists is that the macro-evolutionists state their conclusion FIRST (macro-evolution occurs and took millions of years) and then interpret all the evidence through those filters.

Nonsense.
This is an outright insult, totally false.
We do NOT conclude that "(macro-evolution occurs and took millions of years)"
You keep saying this - but it's false.
It is becoming clear you are not able to grasp this.

Let me try and explain it again :
Evolution takes place, continuously.
Some process can be observed in days, some years, some centuries, some in millenia or eons.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between micro- and macro- evolution.
Only creationists insist there is a difference.

I do not use that argument. You built it up from an erroneous interpretation of my argument, and then attributed it to me.

And now,
after all my efforts to explain this -
you pretend that you never made this claim,
when we can SEE your words in which you made this EXACT CLAIM.

Very dissappointing, smallaxe, I thought you were above this.
My respect for you is fading.

I may answer more of your comments, or I may not
Bye.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

I posted definitions that proved this wrong in my previous post.

Do you REALLY believe that a dictionary definition trumps scientific evidence?

Many creationists seem to think so,
which is why they spend so much time arguing about words, not about facts.
(A large amount of your posts deal with WORDS and what the mean or not. Not much of your posts deal with scientific observations.)

A dictionary records how words are used in practice - INCLUDING slang, vague expressions, popular terms.
These 2 words have become widely used (micro-evolution, macro-evolution) as a result of CREATIONISTS using them so much.

But,
scientists did NOT create these words,
scientists do NOT use these words in their scientific papers.

Seriously -
you IGNORE actual scientific evidence which shows you wrong,
but you accept a dictionary definition as if it were evidence.

Whatever happenened to attacking my views and not my person?

Sorry.
I went too far there.
I should have left it at "your POSTS show..."

Interpretation of that evidence leads to various theories, like Darwinism or abiogenesis or creationism, which are dependent not only upon the physical evidence of science but also upon the philosophical foundation of the proponents of each theory. As long as the philosophical foundation is an important part of that theory, then that theory cannot be called science.

This is totally wrong,
and shows a fundamental error.

The whole pont of science is that INTERPRETATION and PHILOSOPHY have NO part in the process.
The whole idea is that people of ANY belief can agree on the FACTS.

The classic example is the flat-earth theory.

According to YOUR view - the flat-earth theory is valid.
Do you really believe the earth is flat?
That is just as valid an interpretation, according to YOU.

But not to me, or science.

The evidence SHOWS the world is round,
anyone who INTERPRETS the evidence to argue that the world is FLAT (and there are such people) -
is WRONG.

It's not just a philosophical interpretation which is as good as others -
it's WRONG.

Just like creationism -
it's WRONG.

The evidence SHOWS it's wrong.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

As far as I know, the fact of evolution refers to micro-evolution. Darwinism and macro-evolution are the theories.

As long as you insist on using woolly religious terms, I doubt this conversation will progress.

In scientific terms, there is no such thing as "micro-evolution", this is a popular term coined by creationists.
In scientific terms, there is no such thing as "macro-evolution", this is a popular term coined by creationists.
In scientific terms, there is no such thing as "Darwinism", this is a popular term coined by creationists.

Have you vere heard of Newtonism?
Or Einsteinism?
Or Copernicism?

Of course not.
Science does not deal with "-isms"
Religions and Philosophies have isms.
Science deals with evidence and theories.

The term "Darwinism" is a woolly religious term, coined by religious people to help bolster their false argument that it is a religion.
Scientists generally do not use this term, nor do I (apart from discussions like this where we discuss the actual use of the term, or respond to it's use)

The terms micro and macro are woolly religious terms, coined by religious people to help bolster their false argument that there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Scientists generally do not use these terms, nor do I (apart from discussions like this where we discuss the actual use of the term, or respond to it's use.)

I was encouraged that you have shown the ability to learn here, and to admit error and move on - fantastic
(Excursus: I do not expect you to "change sides", but it is possible that you may learn how to fit evolution into a Christian world-view - MANY Christians mananage this, you know - even the Pope.)
I make mistakes too, and you even found one - progress is certainly being made...

But on this issue -
you seem stuck fast.

Largely because you insist on using precious terms made up by creationists.

Most importantly, you are stuck on micro- vs macro-, page after page arguing about vague religious terms, while ignoring science and scientific terminology.

Yes, I do agree there is a distinction between :
* evolution (directly observed in nature)
and
* Common Descent thru Natural Selection (theory)
and also
* Speciation

When you argue about "macro-evolution", it appears you really mean Common Descent thru Natural Selection (the theory that we ALL evolved from ONE original life form) or possibly Speciation (the formation of new species)

It is totally correct that, strictly speaking, CD thru NS is a theory about something we did not observe DIRECTLY.

I am fairly sure, that YOUR argument about what is a :
FACT
and what is a
THEORY
are based on this very distinction.


Let's recap, I will try and lay it ALL out as CLEAR as possible, so that from now on, we only use the correct terms ok?

ABIOGENESIS
the start of the very first life, long ago, not sure how

EVOLUTION
changing of genes within creatures, over time, in response to natural selection pressures, as observed in nature.

NATURAL SELECTION
the tendency for differential survival rates to change allele frequency - an allele (one particular gene) that gives better survival chances, will become more common in the population.

SPECIATION
advent of a new species of creature (in large animals, this usually means it cannot interbreed with others, in small creatues, "species" means other things)

COMMON DESCENT thru NATURAL SELECTION
the theory that all life evolved from excactly ONE original lifeform, over truly vast timescales

(I wrote every word of that - all errors are mine, and will be fixed if pointed out

I hope you will do me the courtesy of reading it and responding.
i.e.
I would like to see you only use the correct scientific terms from now on,
see if you can express your arguments without using vague religious terms,
perhaps your argument will not say much at all...


So,
back to sequoias and glaciers

I see you object to my characterising your argument as :
"anything that is longer than a human life time cannot be true "

Now, I simply tried to express your vague argument as best I could,
it seems your objection is about "a human lifetime", when elsewhere you admit to medium term observations.

Then I will restate what I think your argument is :
"anything that takes a LONG time (such as millions of years) cannot be proven"

Now, this word "proven" - does not belong, we went over that, remember?
It's not about PROOF - it's whether its correct, or not correct (according to the evidence) - it's SCIENCE.

So, properly expressed, your argument apparently amounts to :
"anything that takes a LONG time (such as millions of years) cannot be correct"

You keep using terms such as "we can't see it directly" which is why I refered to a human lifetime.

But,
the whole point is this -
* you AGREE to evolution in the short term
* you agree some things can be studied in the MEDIUM term (e.g. you are happy with sequoias at 400 years)
* but you object to processes that take "millions and millions" of years.

There are several problems with this argument -

Problem 1 -
This is another one of those fuzzy barriers between micro and macro - you are happy with things seen in one lifetime, you have agreed that we can use science to form conclusions about say, 400 year processes, but you baulk at "millions and millions".
Why?
Where exactly is the barrier for you?
We know a great deal about the BILLIONS of years lifecycles of STARS, because we have ways of studying stars over billions of years.
We know a great deal about the millions of years lifecycles of continents on earth, because we have ways of studying geology over millions of years.

You have no problems with what scientists say about stars and continents do you?
Maybe you do - are you a YEC?


Problem 2 -
You accept, say, sequoia trees do live for 400 years.
We see evolution processes leading to speciation, certainly in less than 400 years.
I see you repeatedly and conspicuously ignored the issue of NEW SPECIES which have occured in far less time.
We already see speciation and evolutionary processes occuring much shorter than 400 years.


Speciation

Now, let's get to the meat -
have you read the examples of NEW SPECIES yet,
and the argument for CD thru NS ?

This is a serious litmus test of your character, smallaxe - will you actually READ the evidence for new species, and for Common Descent thru Natural Selection ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


We SEE new species form from prior species,
and
all that CD thru NS needs is evolution over a long time -
so,
can it NOT be true?
What COULD stop it from being true?

Apart from religious objections?

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

I am going to split the Bible issue off to another thread.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Hey smallaxe

I hope I havent scared you away.

I thought our discussions were very fruitful, and your manner polite and reasonable


Iasion

 

[Darknight1996]

The problem of seperating the fact form the mechanism is that a so called fact of evolution does not have have much scientific content without a testable mechanism for changing one kind of creature into something entirely different, and especially for building the extremely complex organs that all living things possess. Darwisn knew this it is the first point he makes in On the Origin of Species. " The pattern of organisms would provide "unsatisfactory" evidence for evolution he argued "until it could be shown how the inumerable species inhabiting the world have been modified, so as to acquire the perfections of structure which most juslty excites our admiration"

 

[Sarkus]

Of course not.
Science does not deal with "-isms"
Religions and Philosophies have isms.
Science deals with evidence and theories.

We dealt with pr-ISMS at school.
Does that count?

 

[KennyJC]

The problem of seperating the fact form the mechanism is that a so called fact of evolution does not have have much scientific content without a testable mechanism for changing one kind of creature into something entirely different, and especially for building the extremely complex organs that all living things possess

Is there a mechanism to prove mountain erosion is caused by weather and running water over millions of years? Going by your post in the Noahs Ark thread, you know as little about geology as you do evolution, so that's probably a bad analogy.

 

[Darknight1996]

These people think evolution is false I do not know if it means much
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved 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 evolution, 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 evolutionists 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.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"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.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that 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 experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"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.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm

 

[SnakeLord]

Purely out of interest..

It is well worth noting that there doesn't appear to be one quote from your list that is younger than 20 years old. I would be absolutely speechless if someone was to believe that science did not improve and learn more over a two decade period - and for some bizarre reason feel they can make an argument against science by using the opinions of these people that have missed out on that extra 20 years. Hell, you even use quotes going back 100 years.

Science doesn't stand still. Remember that.

 

[duendy]

Purely out of interest..

It is well worth noting that there doesn't appear to be one quote from your list that is younger than 20 years old. I would be absolutely speechless if someone was to believe that science did not improve and learn more over a two decade period - and for some bizarre reason feel they can make an argument against science by using the opinions of these people that have missed out on that extra 20 years. Hell, you even use quotes going back 100 years.

Science doesn't stand still. Remember that.

well present present evidence that disputes what those quotes say and offer substantial evidence to prove Darwin's theory of evolution?

 

[SnakeLord]

well present present evidence that disputes what those quotes say and offer substantial evidence to prove Darwin's theory of evolution?

'Evidence' seems like such a pointless word here. Let me explain:

"All of those old quotes against evolution are wrong".. 2006, SnakeLord.

You still consider a persons quote as "evidence"?

If you want evidence confirming the reality of evolution then you need to ignore quotes, because we can all make quotes.. Why, just last night Sir David Attenborough spoke openly about the idiocy of creationism and pointed out the fact of evolution. Somehow, even with his experience in related fields, I doubt you'd give his quote, (or mine), the time of day.

I would personally just suggest that you spend some time studying evolution in depth. You are then free to agree with outdated quotes or not.. because you understand the issue in full.

The general point of my last post was not to end up with me having to type 60 gazillion words of explanation concerning evolution, but to raise an eyebrow at the kind of person that would read a 100 year old quote and consider that prevalent enough to dismiss evolution altogether.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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 evolution, 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.

What do you think meetings and review papers are for?

 

[leopold]

drink coffee and eat doughnuts?

 

[Hipparchia]

Darknight - I was struck by two things in your long set of quotes. First, they were all presented out of context. Now I know that was a matter of space, but I bet if we read some of these words along with what preceded and followed them, then the message they would convey would be quite different.
Secondly, several of the quotes had nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, but were about the origin of life. Isn't it kind of cheating to include those?

 

[(Q)]

Darknight

Your post originated from Dr. Dinos Creationism website.

http://www.drdino.com/