Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
~JuSt*A*MaN~

Scientists speak out about Evolution!

799 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

~JuSt*A*MaN~

Some people tell me that I should not give my own opinion on why Evolution is wrong without any evidence or facts, because I don't know much about it. They also tell me that I have to explain it to the scientists first, who use the theory everyday of their lifes. Well, now the scientists will tell US about it, and it is not looking good for Darwin... I start with the general theory of Evolution, which is split into 2 parts, and I will post more posts with dozens of quotes from the world's leading scientists about the other subjects regarding Evolution, such as the Fossil record. (If you don't agree with them, that is your choice, but remember: they are the experts).

Scientists about Evolution - Part 1

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief”. (Nils Heribert Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University and evolutionist).

I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum. I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence”. (Johnathan Wells, 'Icons of Evolution').

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program”. (Karl Popper, German born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar, 'Incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived').

Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible”. (Professor D.M.S. Watson, A famous Professor of Zoology at the London University).

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact”. (Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission).

The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do”. (Robert A. Milikan, physicist by provision and a Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society).

The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation”. (Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, ‘It Takes a Miracle for Evolution).

The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation”. (Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses more than 60.000.000 fossils).

Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless”. (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research).

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did”. (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp, moreover, for the most part these ‘Experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully”. (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician).

The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination”. (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of United Kingdom).

I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings. I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all”. (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution“, Physic Bulletin, Page 138).

The talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view”. (Niles Ethredge, British Museum of Science).

(Evolution is) a great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century”. (Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, ‘Evolution, Theory in Crisis’).

The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate”. (James Perloff, ‘Tornado in a Junkyard’, This book was published in the year 1999, Page 241).

Evolution is faith, a religion”. (Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University).

Evolution is baseless and quite incredible”. (John Ambrose, ‘The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought’).

Darwinism itself has become a religion”. (Norman Macbeth).

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution”. (Cecil Wakely).

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been debunked”. (Evolutionist Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London).

The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it”. (Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60.000.000 fossils).

Evolution is unproved and improvable; we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable”. (Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist).

Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy”. (Charles Darwin, ‘Life and Letters’, 1887, Volume 2, Page 229).

I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law”. (Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London (1966), An ichthyologist (Expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London).

I am convinced that the theory of evolution will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with incredible credulity that it has”. (Malcolm Mugeridge).

The origin of birds is a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved”. (‘Comparative Physiology of Birds’, Volume 1, Page 1).

As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present”. (Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, ‘An Introduction to Paleobotany’ 1947, Page 7).

If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in Him”. (Frederick Nietzsche, Anti-Christ in ‘The Portable Nietzsche’ (New York, 1968), Page 627).

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition”. (‘Science’, Volume 208, 1980, Page 716).

The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated”. (John Adler with John Carey, ‘Is Man a Subtle Accident’, Newsweek, Published in November 3, 1980, Volume 96, Page 95).

The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is ‘No doubt’ how man originated. If only they had the evidence”. (Fix, William R. (1984). ‘The Bone Peddlers’ Page 150).

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).

The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong; the scientific facts throw Darwin out”. (Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, London, 1981, Page 96).

The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency”. (Professor J Agassiz, ‘Study in Natural History’).

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, Published in the year 1982, Page 26).

Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his book On the Origin of Species”. (David Kitts, ‘Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory’, September 1974, Volume 28, Page 466).

This most beautiful system of sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being (God)”. (Isaac Newton).

Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe”. (Charles Townes, Nobel Prize winner in physics, ‘Science Finds God’, 20 July, 1998).

Edited by A-Fighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hairston630

I think its safe to say that the floodgates have been opened

Edited by hairston630

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Very good. As an evolutionist for 30 years I myself now doubt it also, good to see I'm in the company of experts.

I am not religious or a believer in Creation, I just don't think evolution is valid based on findings from a Finch's beak which is the only real 'proof' Darwin had. Apparently even those finches were actually different species.

I think animals can evolve to suit thier needs better giving them a greater chance of survival but I don't think one animal species evolving into another is valid. (Just to clarify what I deem evolution). Microeveolution and macroevolution.

Obviously the proof is not there, even though I've seen many tell me there is.

Good quotes, keep them coming. (Makes me feel more justified in my decision ^_^ )

If you believe in evolution how do you explain all these comments by people who know more than you?

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cradle of Fish

Jeez, you sure dont have an axe to grind.

This most beautiful system of sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being (God)”. (Isaac Newton).

Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe”. (Charles Townes, Nobel Prize winner in physics, ‘Science Finds God’, 20 July, 1998).[/font][/size]

First, Newton came about two hundred years before Darwin, and his quote has nothing to do with evolution.

Second, "many have a feeling" isn't scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

Got to love quotes with no given context, eh?

I decided to pick out a random name from one in the list above and see who they were, the very first one I searched for brought up this:

Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge (March 24, 1903–November 14, 1990) was a British journalist, author, satirist, media personality, soldier-spy and latterly a Christian apologist.

Well it looks like the "Scientists speak out" claim just left the building.

Our phylogenetic knowledge may be wrong, our evolutionary knowledge may not be complete, but the process happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
I think animals can evolve to suit thier needs better giving them a greater chance of survival but I don't think one animal species evolving into another is valid. (Just to clarify what I deem evolution). Microeveolution and macroevolution.

If you have two populations of the same species that become separated, after a long time of accumulating genetic differences, how could they possibly remain the same species? What is it that you think binds them and restricts them from changing so much that they would no longer be considered the same species?

There is no micro- and macro-, they're all part of the same process, just described over different time scales.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

OK, lets take Newton and Muggeridge out of the list. Still leaves plenty more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

Still no avoiding the fact that the quotes are taken out of context. Are you able to answer my question? I never seem to get responses when I ask that. linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
If you have two populations of the same species that become separated, after a long time of accumulating genetic differences, how could they possibly remain the same species? What is it that you think binds them and restricts them from changing so much that they would no longer be considered the same species?

There is no micro- and macro-, they're all part of the same process, just described over different time scales.

Yep, I know where you're coming from, those terms are outdated now but still define a difference in what one thinks even though science now combines them. I don't have all the answers but in looking for them have come to the conclusion of what I stated. If I had to give an answer off the top of my head it would be that I cannot see how the single mutant that determines a new species can interbreed when it is the first of a new species. I've heard all the for's and against's and that is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
Still no avoiding the fact that the quotes are taken out of context. Are you able to answer my question? I never seem to get responses when I ask that. linked-image

Yep I answered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyWeather
Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund Univ. Sweden, has

studied the subject of evolution for over 40 years and has

commented on this problem of missing links: "It is not even

possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological

facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of

transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the

material. The deficiences are real, they will never be

filled." (Hitching, Francis, "Was Darwin Wrong?"

Life Magazine, Vol.5, No.4, April 1982, pp. 48-52)

This was over 20 years ago, inwhich we have learnt more about evolution since. The fossil record is far from complete =/

Jonathan" Wells is an author, a prominent promoter of intelligent design and an opponent of evolution[1], which Wells and other intelligent design proponents often refer to as "Darwinism."[2][3][4]

His only 'qualification' are theological studies, inwhich he has a masters in. He opposes Darwinism to help destroy it for god as god told him to;

"Father's [sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." --Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D

Karl popper was a scientist of evolution yes. Evolutionary epistemology - the evolution of the mind and the theory of it's development. So yes, his area of evolution IS metaphysical, as it is to do with the evolution of the mind;

Evolutionary epistemology is a branch of epistemology that applies the concepts of biological evolution to the growth of human knowledge. It argues that the mind is in part genetically determined and that its structure and function reflect adaptation, an ongoing, nonteleological process of interaction between the organism and its environment.

wiki.

Professor D.M.S. Watson retired in 1965. 40 years is a a decent time for science to progress in a field.

Robert A. Milikan died in 1953, once again, we have learnt much more about evolution. Although in a sense he is right, we cannot observe animal evolution in our life time, nor our childrens childrens lives, but after that? Perhaps we will observe.

Colin Patterson is correct in his statement. Not much IS known about it, we don't know HOW is happens. Although we do know that it DOES happen. Evolution happens on a microscopic way in the cells of both parent. Look at the peppered moth, it evolved in a short amount of time and changed the colour of its wings to blend into the tree's that had become stained by pollution.

I can't be bothered going through everyone else, but so far they are mostly all outdated quotes from people who died half a century ago.

If we knew everything about evolution. We wouldn't still be investigating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo

Typical creationist quote mining crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neognosis

i don't have the time to adress this right now. I'll be back in the pm, though. However, I don't think you would have these questions if you understood what you are arguing about. Overwhelmingly, I've found that evolution detractors don't really understand evolution.

Evolution, btw, is NOT a theory. Evolution is a FACT. We have observed evolution. We KNOW evolution happens. The only theory is in regard to if evolution happened to species in the past. It's only a theory because we can not observe a past occurance.

Edited by Neognosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired
OK, lets take Newton and Muggeridge out of the list. Still leaves plenty more.

We can also scratch

Creationist Jonathan Wells, an intelligent-design advocate affiliated with the Discovery Institute, has written a book entitled Icons of Evolution,

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''-

Prof. Louis Bounoure apparently never said that

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html see this for gen on Prof. Louis Bounoure

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, ‘It Takes a Miracle for Evolution). need I say more

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'''

professor of electrical engineering at University College London (1885–1926) Dr. Ambrose Flemming .Hardly an expert on evolution

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@''''

William R. Fix, is not a scientist but an author

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@',

Just a Few I looked at, I don't think the others will stand investigating

fullywired

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
However, I don't think you would have these questions if you understood what you are arguing about. Overwhelmingly, I've found that evolution detractors don't really understand evolution.

Absolutely, I don't understand it properly after 30 years of believing it. I am doubting it now because these Creationists make good points but it's probably because I am just not understanding the whole theory correctly. You read there is no transitional fossils, then you read there is tonnes of them, which is it, none or tonnes? The information out there is very conflicting. No wonder it's confusing. :wacko:

Btw Raptor, do you have a comment on my answer I gave you after requesting one? Just curious to see if you think it makes sense.

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Life Magazine, Vol.5, No.4, April 1982, pp. 48-52)

This was over 20 years ago, inwhich we have learnt more about evolution since. The fossil record is far from complete =/

His only 'qualification' are theological studies, inwhich he has a masters in.

I'm sorry but I couldn't help but respond to this part because it made me chuckle since I'm pretty sure that's pretty much all Darwin had as well.....unless I'm mistaken.

Charles Darwin - Education

Charles Darwin entered Shrewsbury School as a boarding student in 1822. He left three years later, at the age of 16, called by his father to study medicine with his elder brother, Erasmus, at Edinburgh University. Repelled by the horror of early 19th century surgery, Darwin dropped out of Edinburgh in 1827 and enrolled in Christ College, Cambridge University, studying to be a clergyman in the Church of England. Charles earned his Bachelor's Degree in Theology in 1831. During his tenure as a student at Cambridge, Darwin befriended botanist and mineralogist John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861), one of his professors. It was Henslow who recommended Darwin to Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) of the HMS Beagle, who was in need of a naturalist. In August of 1831, Darwin received an invitation to serve as naturalist aboard the Beagle. Darwin accepted and set sail on a fateful five year voyage (1831-36).

I don't know enough about evolution to have an opinion on it one way or another. But I am skeptical about the field because I don't see it as a real science.

A real science is open to question and change. This field tries to find the pieces of the puzzle to push them into a preconceived and desired end. THAT is not science.

Its religion. And the funny part to me is that their hero was a theologian. Irony abounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Another one here masquerading as a scientist

Norman Macbeth was a retired lawyer with no formal scientific training, and his argument against evolution is a trial lawyer’s argument, meant to appeal to a jury of laymen. This is problematic, since the format of a trial requires an opposing side for its validity. Lawyers are zealous advocates by training; their function is not to present a fair or objective picture, but to state one side of an issue as convincingly as possible. Macbeth exploits the lack of counter-argument to no end, as in attaching great significance to the supposed tautology of the phrase survival of the fittest:

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but respond to this part because it made me chuckle since I'm pretty sure that's pretty much all Darwin had as well.....unless I'm mistaken.

I don't know enough about evolution to have an opinion on it one way or another. But I am skeptical about the field because I don't see it as a real science.

A real science is open to question and change. This field tries to find the pieces of the puzzle to push them into a preconceived and desired end. THAT is not science.

Its religion. And the funny part to me is that their hero was a theologian. Irony abounds.

That is a very good post truethat.

(I'm neither one way or other, actually I constantly struggle from one side of the debate to the other.)

Is there a middle ground??

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired
That is a very good post truethat.

(I'm neither one way or other, actually I constantly struggle from one side of the debate to the other.)

If evolution is false ,it no way strengthens creationism .if you can't swallow envolution then there is no way you can swallow genesis

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

OK, at some point someone is going to come on and explain how the theory of evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis, nor does it necessarily include abiogenesis. Although really without abiogenesis the theory of evolution is even more stupid because then it has no real beginning. It's like saying "..+2=4" "We don't know what came before the plus sign, that's another separate number and has nothing to do with the number we are looking at, it could be 2, the whole premise of the problem says it's 2, BUT we don't want to deal with that because then we would have to get into things we can't even talk about without laughing ourselves silly so there's no way anyone else would believe it, but we KNOW it's a plus sign, and that the second number MUST be a 2 and that definitely IS an equal sign, and we without a doubt know it's a number four after the equal sign."

Additionally, let' also define evolution. I think we can all agree that in this discussion evolution means more than merely change. It also does not mean adaptation. What we are talking about here is the idea that one species of living creature can change into another whole type of creature, not from one type of deer to another or one type of equine to another, but something on the order of having a mammal somehow result from a reptile. So, let's try to keep the discussion on those lines instead of using such obviously devious ploys as using "evolution" to simply mean change in one sentence and then in another have it mean "adaptation" and then somehow magically mean conversion from one type of creature to another.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but respond to this part because it made me chuckle since I'm pretty sure that's pretty much all Darwin had as well.....unless I'm mistaken.

I don't know enough about evolution to have an opinion on it one way or another. But I am skeptical about the field because I don't see it as a real science.

A real science is open to question and change. This field tries to find the pieces of the puzzle to push them into a preconceived and desired end. THAT is not science.

Its religion. And the funny part to me is that their hero was a theologian. Irony abounds.

Oh, give me a break, true. Yes, science is open to question and change, BY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS WHO CAN BACK UP THEIR QUESTIONS WITH FALSIFIEABLE HYPOTHESIS! I'm not one to use caps but you're going overboard now. The fact that you don't see evolution as REAL science just shows that you obviously haven't read any of the tens of thousands of pages of peer reviewed papers over the last hundred plus years. The field doesn't push anything to desired end, the evidence simply leads to that conclusion. Evolutionary theory has changed drastically since darwin's time and is always changing to some degree or another as we discover more and more about genetics, biology and the fossil record. The fact of evolution hasn't changed but mechanisms and influences are better understood all the time. The fact of evolution hasn't changed because there has never, EVER been any contrary evidence found. It's some of the most solid science out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired
OK, at some point someone is going to come on and explain how the theory of evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis, nor does it necessarily include abiogenesis. Although really without abiogenesis the theory of evolution is even more stupid because then it has no real beginning. It's like saying "..+2=4" "We don't know what came before the plus sign, that's another separate number and has nothing to do with the number we are looking at, it could be 2, the whole premise of the problem says it's 2, BUT we don't want to deal with that because then we would have to get into things we can't even talk about without laughing ourselves silly so there's no way anyone else would believe it, but we KNOW it's a plus sign, and that the second number MUST be a 2 and that definitely IS an equal sign, and we without a doubt know it's a number four after the plus sign."

Additionally, let' also define evolution. I think we can all agree that in this discussion evolution means more than merely change. It also does not mean adaptation. What we are talking about here is the idea that one species of living creature can change into another whole type of creature, not from one type of deer to another or one type of equine to another, but something on the order of having a mammal somehow result from a reptile. So, let's try to keep the discussion on those lines instead of using such obviously devious ploys as using "evolution" to simply mean change in one sentence and then in another have it mean "adaptation" and then somehow magically mean conversion from one type of creature to another.

And your alternative theory is ??????? Go on surprise us !!!

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
If evolution is false ,it no way strengthens creationism .if you can't swallow envolution then there is no way you can swallow genesis

fullywired

Yes, I worded my post wrong methinks - I should have said, I constantly struggle with evolution because of the hype put out there by Creationists.

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Oh, give me a break, true. Yes, science is open to question and change, BY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS WHO CAN BACK UP THEIR QUESTIONS WITH FALSIFIEABLE HYPOTHESIS! I'm not one to use caps but you're going overboard now. The fact that you don't see evolution as REAL science just shows that you obviously haven't read any of the tens of thousands of pages of peer reviewed papers over the last hundred plus years. The field doesn't push anything to desired end, the evidence simply leads to that conclusion. Evolutionary theory has changed drastically since darwin's time and is always changing to some degree or another as we discover more and more about genetics, biology and the fossil record. The fact of evolution hasn't changed but mechanisms and influences are better understood all the time. The fact of evolution hasn't changed because there has never, EVER been any contrary evidence found. It's some of the most solid science out there.

Actually you using caps is par for the course. I'm sorry. But its just so very typical. Getting angry with me for not accepting what you believe. Sigh. I don't see it as a real science because they are adhering to the "theory" and ignoring what doesn't support it, in favor of what does support it.

This is evident and if you don't think so then why not do a little research of your own (not off Creationists websites) and you will see what I mean.

Agenda has long been part of science btw. I don't see how you can say this isn't true. For years the earth was thought to be the center of the solar system. The heliocentric theory was fought by many SCIENTISTS which modern scientists always try to pass off on the church.

Science has a long history of blaming religion for its own missteps and it won't surprise me that down the line when they find out that a major oversight has caused them to miscalculate because they were distracted by arguing the Creationists rather than pure science, they will blame Religion once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
Additionally, let' also define evolution. I think we can all agree that in this discussion evolution means more than merely change. It also does not mean adaptation. What we are talking about here is the idea that one species of living creature can change into another whole type of creature, not from one type of deer to another or one type of equine to another, but something on the order of having a mammal somehow result from a reptile. So, let's try to keep the discussion on those lines instead of using such obviously devious ploys as using "evolution" to simply mean change in one sentence and then in another have it mean "adaptation" and then somehow magically mean conversion from one type of creature to another.

You know what, I think this is the whole problem of the evolution debate - what the hell is evolution?

(It is so broad when being discussed it ranges from origin of life in discussions that people don't believe it based on no proof that life can come from nothing to whether changes came about in forms as you mentioned)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.