Need Some Help

[Dark Virtue]

lol...that's easy. We're right Satan doesn't want the religions he started to believe in creationism DV(actually there are a lot of religions that believe in creation their just a bit confused).

As for the post about photosynthesis and food and light...you forget that holds no water with Christians because we believe in God With our earthly limitations it is impossible for us to do, but God can do it in any order he likes.

Our argument will always sound silly to those who depend on worldly logic and your argument will always make us pity you because God hasn't given you the wisdom to 'see' yet.



Actually the astronauts haven't missed it. They pass through the clouds (made of water) all the time.

As for dinosaurs...where in the bible does it say that the dinosaurs would never go extinct? Neither does the bible list all the animals nor give the dates they went extinct.



Yes it's kinda silly isn't it It also states that it just happened by chance. Now that takes a lot of faith to believe.

That reply truly saddened me.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Yet, mine gets no reaction wow! Must have been real good!

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Job ch 40
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

and 41
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Here are your dinosaurs DV.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

DV, Remeber, when you said the Birds had nothing to eat?

Or for the same idea, wolves didn't have anything to eat?

It says in Isaiah *whew took me 3 times to spell that* that one day the wolf and the sheep will live together peacefully in heaven.

That means that all animal suffering (predation) is not justified assuming we didn't cause the fall of man.

Note::: I like to put things inquotes when I've gotten them from something specifically, so don't expect that as an exact quote from someone...

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I passed all five which means that today is my last day of school because by passing all five I get exempted from all my exams. I placed advanced on the English and History test. I would also like for you to pray for my friend who didn't pass all of her's. She was really upset about it, and I was wondering if you could pray that God would help her pass the exams she has to take. I would also liek ti if you could pray for my sister because she isn't doingt to good in school and is at a very high risk of repeating her 9th grade year again.

 

[Eon]

I try to imagine Tigers eating grass and, you know, it makes no sense.

Ruminants have very distinctive digestion systems. Dental structures. Social behaviour.

Tigers share none of them.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

odd, your post doesn't show up. And whoever said that would be literal? Like as in eating grass? phhh!!! God doesn't to do that, you're just simply used to tigers eating things. so am i. i don't know what they will eat or even if they need to eat at all.

 

[Jericho_falls]

First Id like to say thank you to Phantom for saving me so much time by answering DV's questions reffering to Light, Geologic Begginings, Dinosaurs and Bird food. I would like to attempt to explain two questions however.

How long did it take Adam to name millions of species of animals? There must have been a mighty long line at the entrance to the Garden of Eden! You think the whales and fish got to cut in line?

How many species are there today? LOTS! How many a hundred years ago? The answer might suprise you... less. Why is that? Does that mean evolution is happening today. Not at all, it simply shows the degeneration of the gene pool... allow me to elaborate:

Suppose I get a beast that looks somewhat like a medium sized feline. This was the origional feline created in the Garden. It contains genes for small cats (SC), large cats (LC), stripes (St), spots(Sp), fangs (f), molars (m), etc. etc. We call this a "super gene pool."

Now it may suprise you to know that animals can have genes for traits they don't have. When a gene shows it's trait (large nose gene produces a large nosed dude) we call this the "Phenotype."

So we have a "super gene pool" cat with lots of genes, though only the Phenotypes show. He has kids, and his kids run off with their sisters in opposite directions. Soon it becomes apparent that the (LC) (F) and (St) genes did not get passed on to Kid #1, so all his children are small. Kid number two did not get the (Sp) (SC) or (M) genes. What happens? One borther becomes the father of Tigers and one becomes the father of Bob cats.

I hope you're following. Now, if all felines came from one "super feline," then more than likely there'd be one "Bear," "Dog" (or perhaps a bear-dog), one "Deer" etc. If you break animal life into these generalized groups (called kinds), you could name them all in an afternoon.

According to Genesis, life started on land. Geology, however, states that life started in the oceans.

“And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” Hmmm...what about lions? Tigers? Carnivorous creatures? Vampire bats? Tapeworms? Mosquitos?

Using the evidense presented in question one, we would assume that carnivors all origionally came from a herbavore "kind" which had carnivore genes in its pool yet had herbavore "phenotypes"

Simple... right?

 

[Eon]

I think you really need to take a strong look at how you've used the word evidence. Most of the unused genetic code in creatures is fragmentary, and that's why it isn't being used.

Plus genes recombine in later generations - that's why you have blonde kids born to dark haired parents and vice-versa. If you can show a single instance of a Tiger giving birth to an unrelated creature, like a house cat, then I might lend your guess some credence.

But I don't need to - we already know a great deal about how genes work, don't we? And we KNOW that they don't work like this, so it's a moot point. Please, if you're going to express a pseudo-scientific argument check out the REAL science first.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

If your going to agrue on a religious disscusion board don't tell us to use evidence that goes against what we believe.

 

[Eon]

Sorry? "You" aren't some monolithic entity that shares a hive mind. Many Christians have absolutely no problem with genetics as a science. Far from all Christians subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis - and with good reason, because whilst it might be good theology it is very poor science.

Now you can refute that with scientific argument if you like - but how can you limit a discussion to the narrow guidelines of your pre-determined beliefs and hope to ever hear anything worthwhile?

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

After readingmy post again, after reading your yours, I realize I wodered it wrong. It should have said don't tell us to use different evidence when we've already given what we think is enough. However more evidence is always good so I retract my past statement. I would also like to apologize.

 

[Eon]

No problem - kudos to you for being enough of a person to apologise when you think it's necessary. Speaks well of your character.

 

[Jericho_falls]

I think you really need to take a strong look at how you've used the word evidence. Most of the unused genetic code in creatures is fragmentary, and that's why it isn't being used.

Plus genes recombine in later generations - that's why you have blonde kids born to dark haired parents and vice-versa. If you can show a single instance of a Tiger giving birth to an unrelated creature, like a house cat, then I might lend your guess some credence.

But I don't need to - we already know a great deal about how genes work, don't we? And we KNOW that they don't work like this, so it's a moot point. Please, if you're going to express a pseudo-scientific argument check out the REAL science first.

Sometimes I get really ticked off at evolutionist's preconceived rut of what is or is not vaild science, which causes them to usurp all rights to "moot." My points are not moot. The theory I presented was in simple format, it has it's more complicated twins in the scientific field. Have you never seen a Rotweilder and a Chuiauia (forgive any spelling on canine names)? They came from the same basic creature which had potential for both animals in its genes! You probably can't get those two dogs from any dog which now exists, but once there was such a dog with that potential, the potential provided by a rich gene pool. Gene pool degeneration is a very real thing my deceived little friend.

For you to say that a tiger gives birth to a housecat is a cheap shot, you hope to paint a rediculously exaggerated picture which will depopularize this theory without actually presenting evidence against it.

To say most genetic information is fragmentary is supportive of this theory. If the gene pool were rich origionally and is being broken down, we would expect after a time that you would be left with a very small pool and fragmented genes. One however, these genes were whole and were unused. There are many examples of animals which have potential for certain phenotypes but for some reason the gene is set on the "off" mode.

Please, if you're going to express a pseudo-scientific argument check out the REAL science first.

 

[Arkanjel]

Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly that: a theory, with little in the way of hard scientific evidence to back it up. Yet it has been accepted almost as an article of faith in the modern world. However, as the following shows there are many within the scientific community who have voiced serious doubts over what still remains no more than a theory. Don’t expect the mainstream media to make too much of the following though; the powers that be would rather we accept Darwin’s theory as a proven fact rather than question it. Because that might lead us to question other accepted notions and dogmas, which in turn might even prompt us to start thinking for ourselves. And that is something the powers that be do not want to happen; their power rests on our acquiescence, which in turn depends on our ignorance, cultivated and conditioned by the mainstream media.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist.

"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].

"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].

"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, [Australian molecular biologist].

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"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 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.

"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.

"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].

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

" `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.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . . . Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com

 

[Jim]

Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly that: a theory, with little in the way of hard scientific evidence to back it up. Yet it has been accepted almost as an article of faith in the modern world. However, as the following shows there are many within the scientific community who have voiced serious doubts over what still remains no more than a theory. Don’t expect the mainstream media to make too much of the following though; the powers that be would rather we accept Darwin’s theory as a proven fact rather than question it. Because that might lead us to question other accepted notions and dogmas, which in turn might even prompt us to start thinking for ourselves. And that is something the powers that be do not want to happen; their power rests on our acquiescence, which in turn depends on our ignorance, cultivated and conditioned by the mainstream media.

You owe me a new irony meter. Do any creationists know why the Theory of gravity, Theory of limits (for calculus), Theory of relativity etc are called theories? Hint: It’s not because it’s a guess or a half-baked idea.

See below for evidence and why it is not accepted on faith but by evidence. The rest, that’s a another irony meter you owe me. Science is a fiercely competitive process. If something is shown to be wrong, it is dropped in favour of a new model that fits available data better. For example, Newtonian Physics was used until Einstein came along and revised them. Newtonian Physics was dropped in favour of the new model. Contrast this with the mouth-breathed word of God. The book cannot change and goes against evidence.

In a gallup poll, 40% of polled biologists said they believed in a God, or personal creator of some kind. Less than 1% of polled biologists (total, including the theistic biologists) accepted creationism. SHouldn't that say something?

"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].

You might also want to look here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (29+ evidences of macroevolution)

"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].

I find it particularly humorous that a Creationist should accuse anyone of lack of integrity, when they deliberately lie themselves- See examples of how creationists assert fossils of older man are “obviously” either fully human or fully ape—yet they don’t agree even with each other. Some creationists even change their mind about wether a fossil is obviously human or ape. Also, see examples of made-up stuff; like the Second Law of Thermodynamics which they say is evidence against evolution; despite the fact the law doesn’t even say what they try to make it say; about disorder when the law says nothing whatsoever about disorder.

"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, [Australian molecular biologist].

Does it matter if evolution doesn’t make a case for people who want us to have a special purpose? Nope. Wanting it to be so, don’t make it so. I also find it odd that it is only evolution and not say, the fact the earth is round that draws comments like this.

"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]

But that would make all vaccines evil and satanic tools, right? Does that mean chemists should be firebombed?

"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.

See what I mean by dishonesty?

The full quote:

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

If Creationism is correct, why the need to lie about Darwin?

"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.

Correct; only scientists don’t work with proof, they work with evidence and falsification.

It is entirely possible that the first self-replicating lifeforms were created by a god or gods. We just don’t have evidence for it. And that isn’t even a problem for evolution to consider, since evolution is concerned with life after we have replication (or reproduction). The problem of life first forming is another problem. So this quote doesn’t even apply to the problem.

"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.

Could you give an example please? Thanks.

As before, scientists have ample evidence to convince them. Creationism has had more than 150 years to find evidence and to convince the majority of scientists, and even before then, it had all of history, and has produced nothing.

"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.

Like who? Evolution is about as well established in the scientific community as any other theory. This evolution in crisis stuff is quite irksome.

"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.

Evidence exists. See the link above. Can the same be said of creationism? I talk about proof from independent sources, not from Creationist centers that require a statement of faith prior to acceptance.

"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].

Why are creationists so convinced that scientists deify Darwin? Would they say that physicists deify Einstein? Newton?

I also find the accusation of ‘holding back science’ comical, coming from a movement which burnt scientists and anyone else who threatened the status quo at the stake. What exactly has evolution prevented from advancing? What scientific breakthroughs have been held back by it?

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

But we have evidence of common descent; we have evidence of imperfect replication and mutations that provide evidence of evolution and contradict creationism. And if this were valid, I would have to ask what species we have observed being miraculously ‘poofed’ into existence?

"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].

More stuff about faith. It is surprising they use faith to bash scientists when it is the cornerstone to religion.

"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.

Such as? Until creationism can not only provide evidence, but explain what evolution explains better than evolution can, it will remain shadowed. It has had this chance for 150 years and still shows no signs of coming close.

"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.

This one was repeated.

"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].

We did find a series of fossils denoting smooth change in many places; even creationists say we find fossils in these states!

Every fossil is an intermediate fossil. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

I believe I have already provided reasons why it is not baseless.

" `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.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

Once again, I have already shown some reasons why it has fact.

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

Most biologists would disagree.

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

Some examples would be nice.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

Science does not deal with certainties, as the Bible does. It weighs probabilities and evidence for those probabilities. If creationists are unable to deal with how science operates, they should try following the rules like every other theory and scientific endeavor has.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

There with the proved again. Science does not ‘prove’ anything. Science observes the natural world and observes data and evidence of phenomena. They then make a hypothesis (Or guesses in creationist terminology) and test these hypotheses.

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . . . Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

That’s a lot of biologists fooled. Pity the few who know the Truth(TM) can’t come up with any evidence to open their eyes. Of course, that would be because of Satan, right?

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

More dishonest quoting?

Darwin's application of these principles to particular scientific problems seems to have taken shape in the early period of his species work and to have changed little in later years. Surrounded by "inductionists," he was not always confident of the propriety of his practice. Thomas Kuhn has remarked that "all crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research." In the present case, those who drifted away from special creation also showed a tendency to abandon "induction" as normal scientific method. Darwin embodied the innovative use of "hypothesis" at its best, but he never fully accepted its philosophical implications, nor did he completely overcome the inhibitions of one who knew that he was innovating and necessarily violating the supposed Baconian methodological canons of his time: "I am quite conscious," he wrote to Asa Gray on the eve of the publication of the Origin, "that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."When [it was reported that John Stuart Mill had characterized the Origin of Species] as being "in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic (and that) the method of investigation (was) the only one proper to such a subject," Darwin was relieved. ... [H]e suffered much at the hands of mathematicians, who usually, like so many of his critics, approached the Origin as if it were a proof of evolution, which of course it was not. Its supporters, on the other hand, commonly viewed it correctly as a hypothesis, based on plausibly ordered evidence and heuristic in purpose.

For Darwin, then, explanatory theory was equally as important in scientific inquiry as fact-gathering, and the test of the truth of a theory was its ability to group facts under a single generalization. "I believe in the truth of the theory [of natural selection], because it collects under one point of view, and gives a rational explanation of, many apparently independent classes of facts," he wrote in 1868. It seemed incredible, he told Hugh Falconer, that "a false theory would explain, as it seems to me it does explain, so many classes of facts." ... Again, following the principles of positive science, the explanation had to be within the bounds of natural causation and had to employ causes and processes known or believed on good evidence to occur. Any hypothesis that met these two criteria could be held provisionally as work went on, and then modified if necessary. ... Natural selection, he thought, met both criteria; special creation met neither. It merely verbally accounted for species; it "explained" nothing.

It is impossible to believe that anyone can actually read the above, in context and with even a pretense of objectivity, and honestly come away with the impression that Gillespie was using the quote to establish some sort of admission by Darwin that he felt his method was not sound.

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

The evidence is enough to show evolution is well-founded. Browse talkorigins if you honestly have any interest.

 

[Genesis1315]

to all - please watch the tone on the posts.

Gen

 

[Jim]

Oops.

I did not intend to be so hostile. I addressed the replies like I was talking to the authors of the quotes.

I apologise to Arkanjel if I was rude.

 

[Marcylene]

I enjoy your conversations and love learning from the Christian explanations that give Biblical reference. I must admit, aside from that, I do not study science as it relates to the Bible in depth. It takes all the studying that I can do to keep myself as a creation in check! This morning, it struck me as I read in Hebrews 11, God created the world by His Word. When He created the world the material He used created something totally different. A secret recipe if you will.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

In addition, we know that without faith it is impossible to please Him. (vs.6) It takes faith to believe that He is the Creator...the evidence of things not seen. (vs.1) While I think there are many people who are gifted and interested in finding the scientific facts, the truth will not fully be realized until we see Christ; then we no longer have to live and understand by faith, but by His Glorious sight!

 

[Eon]

I will not tell you that your God did not create the world - there is absolutely no evidence at all that he didn't do so. What I will tell you is that the book that purports to be written by him and was plainly written by men does not tell you the truth regarding the formation of this world.

I say that because you can take the bald lines from Genesis and you can prove them incorrect through comparison to known and understood phenomena. This reasoning is why the attack on Evolution by Creationists is a foolish waste of resources - because even if it succeeds, even if they find that piece of evidence that defrauds Darwins ideas (if they're even looking for evidence!) it will not serve to prove their own argument in any way at all.

The fact remains - evolution is the best fit of theory to fact. When we find somethign better believe that science will adopt it. I am quite happy for you to believe young earth creationism - if you wish. But please accept that you do so on faith and not on reason.