|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2004 : 14:40:52
|
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=180&cr=4
Seems like we are all occupied and losing sight of the bigger picture. We can be working ourselves to death, trying to grab wealth or studying theories that don't hold water.
Do be a victom of this large conspiracy to 'keep us all occupied' till its to late and we have all overslept and missed the bridegroom!
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
Edited by - verlch on 11/27/2004 14:42:11
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 15:21:05 [Permalink]
|
I just ran a google on Conrad H. Waddington (1904-1975). Nowhere did I find anything that would support the qoute used on the site verlch has posted, and Waddington wrote extensively. He was an imminent scientist and has been called a 'renasance biologist.'
I suspect that the site either uses a quote out of context, ar worse yet, is publishing a lie. Neither is uncommon with Creationists.
Evolution is dead, but ah, such a lively corpse!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 18:48:27 [Permalink]
|
The Disappointing Gulf
"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....
Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.
In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."
Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Austral
Why would somebody go thourgh the trouble? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 18:49:53 [Permalink]
|
"Darwin was embarrassed ...
... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25 |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 18:55:11 [Permalink]
|
The Greatest Hoax
"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."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian,
Physiologist. Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, title pag |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 19:16:15 [Permalink]
|
Quote mining, verlch, is old hat and boring. Look at what happens when such techniques are applied to the Bible. Not a pretty picture, is it?
The bottom line is: the facts of evolution don't change based on what a handful of people have said about them. To think that it does is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Authorities can be wrong.
As for your original quote:..."Thus, for instance, Professor Waddington, who would sue for libel if one called him a Lamarckian, has compared the theory of evolution by chance mutations to 'throwing breaks together in heaps' in the hope that they would 'arrange themselves into an inhabitable house'; and as for natural selection, it 'in fact merely amounts to the statement that the individuals which leave the most offspring are those which leave most offspring. It is a tautology.'^4" 4: C. H. Waddington, _ The Listener _, London (13
Feb 1952).
Ten years later, Waddington was singing the praises of natural selection. [C.H. Waddington, _Biology For the Modern World_
(1962), 99, 100.
— talk.origins So you see, the 1952 quote doesn't tell the whole story at all.
The reset of your quotes may turn up in the Quote Mine Project. I'm too bored to go look. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 19:18:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
The Disappointing Gulf
"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....
Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.
In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."
Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Austral
Why would somebody go thourgh the trouble?
Ah yes. Mike Denton. He of Evolution: a Theory in Crisis fame. Science has pretty much debunked him, although he's still active.
quote:
In his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton argues for a typological model of nature - a model in which "...all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a particular class [is] merely a variation on an underlying theme or design which [is] fundamentally invariant or immutable" (Denton, 1985, p. 94).[1] This model is in direct contradiction with the evolutionary account of the history of life, in which all organisms are linked by common descent. Denton claims that while microevolution and speciation are proven phenomena, the common evolutionary descent of all organisms through a "gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations" is "a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from the self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe [it is]" (Denton, 1985, p. 77); that is to say, Denton argues that there is no evidence for macroevolution (at least not as normally understood).
Evolutionists - even those who agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"(Dobzhansky, 1973) - would be surprised by Denton's suggestion that they hold macroevolution to be a "self-evident axiom." Evolutionists do not believe that macroevolution is an a priori truth; rather, they believe that the force of numerous lines of evidence must compel any good scientist to accept it a posteriori. Some of the typical lines of evidence offered in support of the common evolutionary descent of all lifeforms are (1) the gradation of organisms in systematics, (2) the biogeographical distribution of species, (3) the existence of homologous and vestigial structures as demonstrated in comparative anatomy, embryology, and molecular biology, and (4) the presence of transitional forms and gradual sequences in the fossil record. To the evolutionist's surprise, however, Denton seeks to show that these lines of evidence are either nonexistent or support typology more than they do common descent. However, Denton does not stop even there - in addition to attacking the evidence for evolution, he argues that there is no mechanism that could, even in principle, cause macroevolution.
I will argue in this paper that both of Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail - neither does Denton manage to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor does he succeed in demonstrating that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/denton.html
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 19:36:02 [Permalink]
|
Does anybody know who the hell Dr. TN Tahmisian is? I've never heard of him and can't find anything on him except that he is quoted on a lot of religious sites.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 19:47:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
"Darwin was embarrassed ...
... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25
Sure. So what?
As new information is aquired, the theory must be modified to fit it.
Y'know, it must be a comfort to have all knowledge at your fingertips -- no new facts to confuse us and make us think.
I am not going to go into transitional species with you again. We've all been there and done that to the point of boredom. But I will ask: how exactly do you explain Pederpes finneyae?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2089873.stm
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 19:47:41 [Permalink]
|
You're right, filthy. A more-detailed quote can be found, though:" `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]. We all know the Bee is a peer-reviewed journal of the highest standing.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 20:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're right, filthy. A more-detailed quote can be found, though:" `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]. We all know the Bee is a peer-reviewed journal of the highest standing.
Yeh, and what a conspiritcy it must be! Thousands upon thousands of scientists, including a lot of them named 'Steve', all trying to bamboozle the public for who knows what perverse reason.
I've been off on another search, looking for something of the Tahmisian gentleman, but still no results. Perhaps tomorrow, I'll try it on Dogpile.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 23:58:08 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, what I got out of looking into that Waddington quote suggested that he actually criticized natural selection using that argument. You're right that it's not evolution; it is a misconception of what natural selection is all about. But Waddington - and others after him (look up tornados, junkyards and 747s) - thought that misconception true.
It is, of course, possible that the quote is ripped from a context in which the next sentence was something like "This just goes to show how little creationists understand evolutionary theory." (And actually, the date of the quote is important context, as it's claimed that Waddington was an "animal geneticist" two years prior to the structure of DNA being discovered by Watson and Crick.) But there are plenty of examples of highly-educated people believing the same crap about evolutionary theory as Waddington appears to.
The bottom line is that until someone goes and has a look at "The Listener," London, 13 November 1952, we'll never really know. The quote seems to be widespread enough that someone at the Quote Mine Project should have already taken it on, but I don't pretend to know their priorities. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2004 : 19:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
"Darwin was embarrassed ...
... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25
Sure. So what?
As new information is aquired, the theory must be modified to fit it.
Y'know, it must be a comfort to have all knowledge at your fingertips -- no new facts to confuse us and make us think.
I am not going to go into transitional species with you again. We've all been there and done that to the point of boredom. But I will ask: how exactly do you explain Pederpes finneyae?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2089873.stm
Just keep dust in your eyes and your minds off the truth! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
mountain_hare
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2004 : 03:44:38 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I see. So a couple of out of context quotes from authority 'disproves' evolution?
Amusing.
Since you seem to think that quotes from authorities carry such weight, how about a few from Creationists to show whether Creationism is 'science'?
Do Creationists respect evidence?
Apparently not, according to this Creationist...
quote:
... try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible... It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
... if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
"In Six Days" - Testimony by Kurt Wise, Phd. In Geology
What happens if the evidence conflicts with Creationism?
quote:
After conversion, the Holy Scripture is our standard for truth. If men's opinions (secular science) disagree with what the Scripture says, then reinterpret 'science.'
Dr. Donald E. Chittick
What is Biblical Creation and why is it important?
Do Creationists discard evidence if it conflicts with Scripture? Apparently so, according to this well known Creationism website!
quote:
By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/About/about_faith.asp
Is Creationism accessible to the scientific method. NO, says one well-known Creationist.
quote:
"Creation is not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore, it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus is inaccessible to the scientific method."
Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, (General edition, second edition, El Cajon, CA: Master, 1985), p. 5.
Well, are you willing to admit defeat, Vlerch? Obviously Creationism is weak, and unsupported by evidence, as even its followers openly admit. |
"This may sound really off the wall, but listen to me. You've got to believe me. I've not gone crazy, and I'm not fooling around. At first I thought I was losing my mind. But now I know I'm not. It's not me. The scientific community. It's being invaded by Creationism. Someone's ignorant delusions come to life. Little by little, the
invasion is spreading. Trying to swallow up everything in ignorance."
The words of Dr. Harry to the disbelieving scientific community, who were amazed that such idiotic ideals as "Creationism" would ever be taken seriously.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
