| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
psychoboy |
Re: Matthew 24:37 - The Days of Noah | #1 | ||
|
This seems to be an appeal to what the bible DOESN'T say, rather than an appeal to what the bible DOES say. This seems to be going on an awful lot, around here. Am I allowed to talk about what science DOESN'T say to defend my religious beliefs? For example, evolution doesn't say that we have to find any transititional fossils. Does the lack of one claim somehow validate another?
|
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
So ...what DOES evolution say? | #2 | ||
|
Stuffed if I know.
But what does scisnce say about it, or what do scientists who make up the science community say? Well... Regarding the fact that there are no transitional fossils (halfway between snakes and frogs, cats and dogs, dogs and horses, horses and giraffes, dinosaurs and birds, apes and humans, etc.) in the geologic record, Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory, wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against the theory." (Charles Darwin, "On the imperfection of the geological record", Chapter X, "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.) "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (6), June-July 1977, p. 24.) "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Personal letter written 10 April 1979 from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89). Again in his book, Darwin declared: "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." ("Americas God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations" by William J. Federer, FAME Publishing, 1994, PP 198-199) "You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." (Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his "Origin of Species". As quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.) Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin confessed: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." ("Americas God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations" by William J. Federer, FAME Publishing, 1994, PP 198-199) "His theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge -- that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based." (Dr. Barry Gale (Science Historian, Darwin College, UK) in his book, "Evolution Without Evidence". As quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", "The Washington Times", 8 February 1984.) The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.) In December 1996, one of the worlds leading paleoanthropologists and archeologists, the late Mary Leakey, said: "All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, thats a lot of nonsense." Nonsense taught as fact. (Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis fact sheet # 105, September 1997) "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. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution". "Physics Bulletin", vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.) "There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory -- that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress. Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had 'a damaging effect on scientific research', leading to 'distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science'." (Dr. John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales), as quoted in "How evolution became a scientific myth", "New Scientist", 11 September 1980, p. 765.) "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure (former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in "The Advocate", Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17.) "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." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by NJ Mitchell, "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.) "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." (Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.) "In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing ('ex nihilo'), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both. The novelty of a scientific theory of creation 'ex nihilo' is readily apparent, for science has long taught us that one cannot make something from nothing." (Edward P. Tryon (Professor of Physics, City University of New York, USA), "What made the world?" "New Scientist", 8 March 1984, p. 14.) "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd" (Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) "Convergence to God", in "Evolution from Space", J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1981, pp. 141.) "I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such nave thoughts." (Ernst Chain (world famous biochemist), as quoted by R. W. Clark, in "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond", Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, p. 148.) |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
Please prove you're not as ignorant as your post suggests | #3 | ||
Quote:Are you being sarcastic or just plain ignorant? Evolution says all these have a common ancestor, not that there should be transitions BETWEEN them. Having misrepresented evolutionary theory you then go on to quote Darwin out of context. I hope you are being sarcastic and I can retract my assessment of your ignorance. Quote:Just because one person finds it too complicated doesn't mean others are as limited. This is effectively an appeal to the God of the Gaps. ________________________________________________________________________
If there is evil in the world in lies in the lack of doubt. I am suspicious of the idea of the righteous. - Tilda Swinton |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
Re: Please prove you're not as ignorant as your post suggest | #4 | ||
|
Sorry Argy.
My computer must have cut most of your respose out. All I got was a response to just two of the quotes, my computer most have lost the rest. If you like you can repost your respose to the ...I don't know...maybe 20 quotes, or 40? |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: Please prove you're not as ignorant as your post suggest | #5 | ||
Quote:I can understand that, really. I got as far as: Quote:and realized there was little point in responding. I mean, if you don't realize that all fossils are transitional fossils, what's the use? |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
HA HA HA | #6 | ||
|
That's the way to do it ha ha ha.
Close your eyes to what the world's scientists say so you can stay in your own little world hahahaha. Christians and Atheists are all the same hehehe |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: HA HA HA | #7 | ||
Quote:As opposed to criticizing a strawman view of what evolution is or isn't, does or doesn't say? Yeah, it is to laugh. |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
Still no comment Keith? | #8 | ||
|
You clearly have no idea what scientists believe if you will only read what you already believe.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
At least the question is settled. | #9 | ||
|
Anyone criticizing the Books faces rigorous Newtonian scrutiny of sources, conclusions, quotes and context.
Anyone criticizing evolution gets a free ride. |
||||
|
|
||||
Argy Lacedom |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #10 | ||
Quote:I'm not sure what the newt wants to get from the strawman attack on evolution. It's obvious that his understanding of it is not up to kindergarten level. I guess he doesn't realise that selective quotations don't actually ruin a good scientific theory. Einstein invented the cosmological constant only to later recant, saying it was the worst thing he'd ever done. Strange thing is we now find it's very useful at explaining all sorts of cosmological phenomena. Anyone reading a quote from Einstein about his cosmological "blunder" today would only conclude how silly he was to dismiss it in the first place. Even if the quotes the Newt put up were real recantations from the "experts", it doesn't change the fact that evolution is one of the most powerful scientific theories developed by mankind. All it would do is show that the "experts" were silly to reach such wrong conclusions! ________________________________________________________________________
If there is evil in the world in lies in the lack of doubt. I am suspicious of the idea of the righteous. - Tilda Swinton |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #11 | ||
Quote:I think you are seriously underminding the work of scientists, but at least you admit it's a merely a theory and not a fact, and a theory no two scientists can seem to agree on. |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #12 | ||
Quote:Remember when you first got here and thought everyone was labeling you a christain apologist? Actually, we were more noting that you were constantly using standard lame christain apologies that we'd seen time and again, and said you LOOKED like an apologist. Now, it's fairly clear what you are. A real skeptic would probably look up why 'evolution' is both a fact and a theory, and understand the difference. Quote:Actually, it's a theory that 95% of the scientists in America accept in the large, but specific details are debated within the theory, within certain specialities. You really don't know what you're talking about. |
||||
|
|
||||
Iznomneak |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #13 | ||
Quote: I don't think I Newton is being honest about his theological position since he lifted much (if not all) of this post from this xian apologetic page. Check out another gem from this site: www.truenews.org/creation/creation.html Quote: with Science Fiction, all things are possible |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: At least the question is settled. | #14 | ||
Quote:Well, it's possible that he found it at a site that pretends not to be, or at least isn't obviously creationist, which he claims not to read. It might be from a site claiming to be an open minded non-creationist examination of evolution. Could be... Of course, a google for " no transitional fossils (halfway between snakes and frogs, " only finds one site, and it's clearly, obviously and undeniably creationist. |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
On the contrary | #15 | ||
|
I hate most arguments from christians against evolution.
I have never even bothered to read a christian site or book with their views against science. At least not knowingly anyway. You know yourself how many sites pop up when researching such things and I never read the religious rubbish. I never read christian sience rubbish. I believe their scientists are just as biased and crooked as evolutionist scientists. If I am ever researching anything, I like to go to the source I am against. e.g. I read christian material if arguing a case against christians. I find the information directly from the Catholic Catechism is far more damaging than information from a non-catholic sourse when arguing with Catholics. But as you are probably there are not many christians on this site, and if there are they are certainly not picking an argument with me. On the other hand, there are plenty of Atheists on this site so naturally you have only seen me arguing against Atheists. Send me a christian with typical christian arguments against evolution and I will be happy to take them to task if they are at least slight;y reasonable. |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: On the contrary | #16 | ||
Quote:Then why use them? Quote:And this from the guy who says _I_ am in the wrong for not reading the stuff i disagree with? You are so two-faced. You're quoting creationist arguments. If you avoid the sites that are obviously religious, and as obviously biased as evolutionists, how do you determine which sites have decent arguments? |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
Why use them? | #17 | ||
|
I don't.
Quotes from scientists can be used by anyone. I don't think there is an ownership on them, though I bet many would wish there was. I have never, as far s I know used information from creationist scientsts or christians or christian sites. I understand mainstream science sources would never dream of repeating such quotes from scientists so I guess if any site does repeat them, they must have an agenda. So be it. They are still verbatim quotes from reputable scientists with no extra comments or fillers from anyone else. Quote:Not at all. christian science rubbish is very differnet from direct quotes from repuatble scientists and most of them evolutionists. Try again Keith |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: Why use them? | #18 | ||
Quote:Sure. Find a scientist who thinks that a 'transitional fossil' means "(halfway between snakes and frogs, cats and dogs, dogs and horses, horses and giraffes, dinosaurs and birds, apes and humans, etc.)." Quote:Wrong again. But the context would be used. Lady Hope's lies would not be. Quote:Then why is your list of quotes nearly verbatim copy of a creationist site? |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
Re: Why use them? | #19 | ||
|
They are on a Word doccument where I have hundreds of pages of quotes I have gathered over time. I did not note exactly where I found each piece of information or quote but noted the original sourse only.
I do not deny they well be on a christian site, or that they may heve even come from one. I do not deny that maybe some crafty editing had been done to take the quotes out of context but I already culled those I thought could be taken out of context in some way. Maybe some even slipped through the cracks that truly have been taken out of context, but I doubt it. You know I got much the same response from christians when, a year ago I posted the very same photos we just saw on "Hitler's Christianity". They too were 'taken out of context' 'fabricated' and a total lie and I was disgusting for even suggesting such a thing, I was discredited for using information from what was clearly an anti christian site. The photos, as the quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from. |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #20 | ||
|
1) Then tell me the reason for the Lady Hope quote?
For someone who's supposed to be a skeptic, you're pretty trusting on that one. First off, there's no corroboration of her story, even from Darwin's wife, who disliked his theory. Second off, scientific theories stand or fail on the evidence, not the personality. If Darwin's ideas were, by his standard, ill formed, they still drew attention to areas where evidence was found. Even if he changed his mind on the subject later, even if he rejected his theories as an older man, that doesn't change the evidence collected, the observations recorded, or the conclusions based on them. Cults of personalities, based on the individual, would be harmed by a change of opinion like that. If a religious figure turned out to be false, or made up, or severely removed from the historical, that might have an impact. But even if there were a reason to feel that LH's bullshit were true, factual and must be accepted as historical, there's no impact on the modern theory of evolution. 2) Where, exactly, did you get this quote-that-stands about transitional fossils being halfway between modern species? That's not part of the 'original source' but perfectly matches the creationist site you probably copied this off of. |
||||
|
|
||||
I Newton |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #21 | ||
|
1) Do not know. I remember being skeptical when I first started reading it as I did not know who Lady Hope is but obviously sounded religious and had to force myself to continue to read it. I still did not like it untill I noticed it a few times in differnet places and only read one objection to it with someone claiming it was a lie and added a lot of other allegations that sounded like the ravings of a fanatic so that sends a red flag straight away. The quote, to me, seems legitimate. Accept it if you like, reject it if you don;t like it, make no difference to me. I have to admit, it is not a real quote as she, a dubious source is apparently the only witness. But then too she was apparently by his side a lot in the end and if he was not a christian or at least considering it, why bother with her visits.
2) Probably was a creationist site. You would not have an evolutionist site repeating such a thing. Same as I say about the Hitler photos, you will not have a christian site posting those photos, does not mean they are fake as christians claim. |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: quotes, still stand regardless of where they come from | #22 | ||
Quote:That was her claim, yes. Of course, when she started telling her story and getting press, Darwin's Wife, who never really liked The Theory, and his daughter both said that she was not up to the house, nor did she spend time at his side. The reason it gets lots of press is because people who DO follow personality cults figure if there is dirt on Darwin, then those who "follow" Darwin will loose their faith. Same reason lots of people offer quotes to show that Einstein was a theist. Figure if we like science and rationality, and they can prove a smart guy liked God, then being an atheist would be the same as saying we're smarter than Einstein. Quote:Wait. You said you never ever to the best of your knowledge quoted creationist sites. You don't even read them. Now you _DO_ quote them? You must have outstanding whiplashinsurance. |
||||
|
| ||||