0
   

Gungasnake's "Evolution is Bunk" Digression

 
 
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 10:36 pm
Hitler gave lip service to God when it served his (Hitler's) purposes, but that was about all. Hitler was basically an evolutionist. The theory of evolution was the basic philosophical foundation of both naziism and communism. Newt Gingrich summed it up more succinctly than I've read or heard elsewhere, noting that the question of whether a person views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic processes simply has to affect human relationships. Once you start to believe the latter, the gates of hell are basically open.

From "Evolution and Ethics", by Sir Arthur Keith

Quote:

....The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.....


...Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed....









Edit (MODERATOR): Split from Interesting Take on Hitler/ Religion/ Bush By M. Farell
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 10,624 • Replies: 144
No top replies

 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 09:13 pm
Much of junk science is fairly harmless. The theory of evolution is not. As I noted, it was the basic philosophical cornerstone of naziism and communism and of the various eugenics programs in western countries in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It's caused the world a whole lot of grief. You say you don't like Keith's version of it? Try this:

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number14/Darwin14.htm
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 09:34 pm
One thing I am not going to do, gunga, is get into a discussion on creationism v. evolution with you or anyone else, on this forum or any other. It's too much like trying to have a meaningful and reasonable discussion with a five year old about the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 10:31 pm
I see your logic and sources are as impeccable as ever, G-snake.

Let's see "evolution is bad because Hitler believed in it?" Or is it "evolution is bad because someone twisted it to their own purposes?"

By that logic, nearly everything ever invented (bronze, steel, fire, microchips, etc.) is bad.

I always love the stuff you come up with. Smile
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 11:00 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
One thing I am not going to do, gunga, is get into a discussion on creationism v. evolution with you or anyone else, on this forum or any other.


You'd lose that debate bad...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 11:16 pm
DrewDad wrote:
I see your logic and sources are as impeccable as ever, G-snake.

Let's see "evolution is bad because Hitler believed in it?" Or is it "evolution is bad because someone twisted it to their own purposes?"


Evolution is junk science which has had horrific social and political consequences.

This is something I've seen posted on a couple of conservative forums which, near as I can tell, pretty much sums it up, or at least sums up the junk science aspect of it:

Quote:

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Quote:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be
    proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the
    missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed
    that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was
    proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't
    BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the
    logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could
    as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner
    was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her.
    In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's
    great for fantasies...

    http://www.bearfabrique.org/tina.jpg

  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of
    genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw
    Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger
    groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like
    requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions
    of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically
    adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are
    globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal
    to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in
    overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the
    heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few
    thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter,
    a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and
    it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out
    over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into
    one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the
    salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

Quote:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!


Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 11:26 pm
You and Bibliophile the Bible Guru should get together.

Again, try posting a credible source (instead of an unattributed source you've seen "on a couple of ... forums"). But then again, you don't do that, do you?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 11:46 pm
Did you try following the logic of the thing? I mean, you don't need authority figures on this one, it's easy enough to comprehend. Evolution stands everything we know about probability theory on its head. Basically, a theory which required one or two probabilistic miracles in the entire history of the planet you might could at least listen to, but evolution requires an endless sequence of zero-probability events.

Back in the 60s and 80s, several symposia were held at which a number of the world's best mathematicians tried to explain the nature of reality to leading evolutionists and the evolutionists were prety much in states of shock and denial. In other words, it should have sunk in but it didn't. You had people like Sir Fred Hoyle noting that the odds against life forming from inert matter ala evolution was something like one divided by a number which was some multiple of ten raised to a power like some number with 40,000 zeroes after it, i.e. that the age of the universe wasn't long enough for that to happen.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 12:49 am
gungasnake wrote:
Did you try following the logic of the thing?


Internal consistency does not equate to external validity.

gungasnake wrote:
...noting that the odds against life forming...


And if life didn't form, there would be no one to calculate the odds....

We're not stupid here, G-snake. Smoke and mirrors won't cut it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 12:50 am
gungasnake wrote:
you don't need authority figures on this one


Translation: We couldn't find anyone credible that would support this viewpoint.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 04:00 am
DrewDad wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
you don't need authority figures on this one


Translation: We couldn't find anyone credible that would support this viewpoint.


Need the authority figures, huh? Ok.....


The Fossils In General

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing'
evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the
most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does
not provide them ..."

David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps;
the fossils are missing in all the important places."

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line,
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be
claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil
record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and
generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental
structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history
and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with
gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"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?" (p. 206)

"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 gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

The Abundance of Fossils

"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... 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, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological
exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely
more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been
discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are
filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The
availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit
objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What
is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major
groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They
can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection
of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so
complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack
of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of
material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51

Evidence for Creation ?

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that
it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator
University Museum of Oxford University
" A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66

"Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution -- from
biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still think that to the
unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from
the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The
evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would
break down before an inquisition."

E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany,
Cambridge University, England
Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought,
Quadrangle Books, 1971, p. 97

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there
is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of
conservative creationists, that God created each species separately,
presumably from the dust of the earth."

Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose
Emeritus Prof of Cell Biology, University of London
The Nature and Origin of the Biological World
John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164

The Geologic Column

"In many places, the oceanic sediments of which mountains are composed are
inverted, with the older sediments lying on top of the younger."

"Mountain Building in the Mediterranean"
Science News, Oct 17, 1970, p. 316

"2/3 of Earth's land surface has only 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods
in place. ... 80-85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic
periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order." (p. 46)

"Since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a
significant portion of the geologic column, it becomes an overall exercise
of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary -
uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.
The claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time
of ten biochronologic 'onion skins' over the earth is therefore a fantastic
and imaginative contrivance." (p. 69)

John Woodmorappe, Geologist (Creationist)
"The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary
Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment"
Creation Research Society Quarterly
June 1981, pp. 46-71.

Circular Dating

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of
rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never
bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth
the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be
hard-headed pragmatism."

J.E. O'Rourke, Evolutionist researcher
"Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy"
American Journal of Science, Jan 1976, p. 48.

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint,
geologist are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has
been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and
the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms
they contain."

R.H. Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology
Cambridge University
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, vol 10, p 168

Catastrophism

"The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and
mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic
evolution. Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great
catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to
consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the
bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked
the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the
reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
"Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace
Darwinism & Uniformitarianism"
Contrast: The Creation Evolution Controversy,
Vol 4, No. 2, 1986, pp.1-2

"We can accumulate great quantities of sediment in a given area very
rapidly. This has changed our whole thinking about the processes that came
to lay these layers here in the Grand Canyon." "One thing that supports
this view is the fact that these layers are continuous for mile after mile
through the Canyon. You can pick any one of these layers and follow it
through for a 100 or 200-miles in the Canyon, with very little change. This
kind of continuity and uniformity suggests that deep water was involved in
the process."

Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick (Creationist geologist)
The Fossil Record (film)
Films for Christ Assoc, 1983

"A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for Evolutionary
geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its
paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata. The whole
area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the whole
sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon."

Albert W. Mehlert, Former Evolutionist &
paleoanthropology researcher
"Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A Review"
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Vol 23, No. 3 (Dec 1986) p. 106



"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a
number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and
the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this
planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random,
they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Fred Hoyle
Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148

"...in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive
earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if
not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical
evolution rates would have been negligible. ... It is becoming clear that
however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged
from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.
We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the
prebiotic soup.' " (p. 86)

"...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy
would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then
doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima
facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not
just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a
message sequence." (pp. 211-212)

Charles B. Thaxton (Creationist)
Ph.D. Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard,
Staff member of the Julian Center
The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories
Philosophical Library, 1984

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate
between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching
halt

I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
Member NY Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4

"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many
discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it
comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no
positive evidence for its existence." (p. 261)

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is
impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together
suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an
occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (p. 264)
"It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which
possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever
existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all
its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams.
It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than
the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man." (p.
338)

Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Adler and Adler, 1985,

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random
is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in
every respect deliberate... It is almost inevitable that our own measure of
intelligence must reflect higher intelligence -- even to the limit of God."

Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe
Prof of Astronomy, Cambridge University
Prof of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics
University College, Cardiff
Evolution from Space, J.M.Dent, 1981, pp 141,144

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Michael Denton:


Dr. Denton, an evolutionist, holds a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, and is
currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia.

"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 shown that even the simplest of all living systems on
earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the
tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms,
each is in effect a veritable micro- miniaturized factory containing
thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery,
made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more
complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel
in the non-living world.

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." (pp. 249-250)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The American biochemist Harold Morowitz has speculated as to what might be
the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self- replicating cell
... Such a minimal cell containing, say three ribosomes, 4 mRNA molecules,
a full complement of enzymes, a DNA molecule 100,000 nucleotides long and a
cell membrane would be about 1000A. (1A. = 10-8 cm) in diameter. According
to Morowitz:

This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the
context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower
limit, since we have allowed no control function, no vitamin metabolism and
extremely limited intermediary metabolism. Such a cell would be very
vulnerable to environmental fluctuations." (pp. 263-264)

"The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the
degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a
continuing source of skepticism ever since the publication of the Origin;
and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims." (p. 327)

"It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we
look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an
absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of
chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed
a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene -
is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very
antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the
intelligence of man? (p. 342)

"Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the
extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent
than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell. Viewed down a
light microscope at a magnification of some several hundred times, such as
would have been possible in Darwin's time, a living cell is a relatively
disappointing spectacle appearing only as an ever-changing and apparently
disordered pattern of blobs and particles which, under the influence of
unseen turbulent forces, are continually tossed haphazardly in all
directions. To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by
molecular biology, we must magnify the cell a thousand million times until
it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant air ship large
enough to cover a great city like London or New Your. What we would then
see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On
the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port
holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream
of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of those openings
we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering
complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits
branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some
leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly
plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical
chamber more than a kilometre in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome
inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered
arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of
products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in
a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the
outer regions of the cell.

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many
objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We
would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of
robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional
components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex
pieces of molecular machinery, each on consisting of about three thousand
atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would
wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these
weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all
our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing
one such molecular machine - that is one single functional protein molecule
- would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not
be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. Yet the life
of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly
tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.

We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its
analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems,
memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems
regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe
and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes
involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In
fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy,
that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating
molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late
twentieth-century technology.

What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense
automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as
many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth.
However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled
in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of
replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness
such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an
awe-inspiring spectacle." (pp. 328-329)

"As Von Neumann pointed out, the construction of any sort of self-
replication automaton would necessitate the solution to three fundamental
problems: that of storing information; that of duplicating information; and
that of designing an automatic factory which could be programmed from the
information store to construct all the other components of the machine as
well as duplicating itself. The solution to all three problems is found in
living things and their elucidation has been one of the triumphs of modern
biology.

So efficient is the mechanism of information storage and so elegant the
mechanism of duplication of this remarkable molecule that it is hard to
escape the feeling that the DNA molecule may be the one and only perfect
solution to the twin problems of information storage and duplication for
self-replicating automata." (pp. 337-338)
......................................................................


Fossil Evidence

"The family trees which adorn our text books are based on inference,
however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Evolution's Erratic Pace"
Natural History, May, 1977, p. 13

"... if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a
trace of that evolution in the fossil record."

Lord Solly Zuckerman, MA, MD, DSc (Anatomy)
Prof. of anatomy, University of Birmingham
Chief scientific advisor, United Kingdom
Beyond the Ivory Tower
Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p 64

"The entire hominid (a so-called 'ape-man' fossil) collection know today
would barely cover a billiard table... Ever since Darwin... preconceptions
have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader
"Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?
New Scientist, March 26, 1981, pp. 802-805

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are
still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the
physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with
room to spare, inside a single coffin."

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have
no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans -- of
upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings -- is, to be honest with
ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Lyall Watson
"The Water People"
Science Digest, May 1982, p 44.

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those
who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one
hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does
not make them utter fools... As we have seen, there are numerous scientists
and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no
doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..."

William R. Fix
The Bone Peddlers (Macmillan, 1984), pp. 150

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone
of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib... The problem
with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid
that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

Dr. Tim White
Evolutionary anthropologist
University of California at Berkeley
New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on
paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and
finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a
very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..."

Greg Kerby
From an address to the Biology Teachers
Association of South Australia, 1976

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's Homo habilis skulls, he
(Richard Leakey) added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it
was 'imagination, made of plaster of paris,' thus making it impossible to
draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Richard Leakey (Son of Louis Leakey)
Director of National Museums of Kenya, Africa
The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, p. 3

"The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no
more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly
upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The 'evidence' for the
alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."

Albert W. Mehlert, Former Evolutionist &
paleoanthropology researcher
"Lucy - Evolution's Solitary Claim for Ape/Man"
Creation Research Society Quarterly,
Vol 22, No. 3, (Dec 1985), p. 145

"Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and,
most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many
modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features, Brace reported at the
annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Phoenix...
Indeed, the present-day European skulls resemble Neanderthal skulls more
closely than they resemble the skulls of American Indians or Australian
aborigines, he said. Brace...measured more than 500 relatively modern
northwestern Europeans craniums last year..."

"Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told"
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix)
Nov 20, 1988, p. B-5, reporting on:
C. Loring Brace
Physical anthropologist and evolutionist
University of Michigan

Genetic Evidence

"The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even further by the
uncomfortable fact that there are many cases of 'homologous like'
resemblance which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be explained by
descent from a common ancestor." ( p. 151)

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in
any sort of an evolutionary series." (p. 289)

Dr. Michael Denton
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Adler and Adler Publishers, 1985,

"It has often been claimed, moreover, that these new and momentous findings
have at last unearthed the true mechanism of evolution, and that we are
presently on the brink of discovering precisely how macroevolution has come
about. However, the truth of the matter is very much the opposite: now that
the actual physical structure of what might be termed the biochemical
mainstays of life has come into view, scientists are finding -- frequently
to their dismay -- that the evolutionist thesis has become more stringently
unthinkable than ever before... "

"...on the molecular level, these separations, and this hierarchic order
stand out with a mathematical precision which once and for all silences
dissent. On the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstratable
fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing
links are indeed non-existent."

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D
Teilardism and the New Religion
Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 8

"In recent years several authors have written popular books on human
origins which are based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and
objectivity... by and large, written by authors with a formal academic
background... Prominent among them were On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz, The
Naked Ape and The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris..." (p. 283)

"Yet the tendency for individual paleontologists to trace human history
directly back to their own fossil finds has persisted to the present day."
(p. 285)

"So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear cut scientific picture
of human evolution." (p. 285)

Dr. R. Martin, Senior Research Fellow
Zoological Society of London
"Man is Not an Onion"
New Scientist, Aug 4, 1977


"The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate."

Francisco Ayala, Ph.d
Assoc Professor of Genetics, U of California
"Evolutionary theory under fire"
Science, Nov 21, 1980. p 883-887

"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality,
that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists
maintain that over long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in
such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer
illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the
occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the
artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to
modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms,
fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria,
roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human
beings."

Darrel Kautz, Creationist Researcher
The Origin of Living Things, 1988, p. 6

"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we
henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the
doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given
the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed
sound strange.
And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona
fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics
Teilardism and the New Religion
Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 5

Mutations

"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw (DNA) material. You don't make a
new species by mutating the species."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a New and General Theory of Evol. Emerging?
Lecture at Hobart&Wm Smith College,Feb4,1980

"With ... the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic
information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected." (p.168)
"There are limits to biological change and ... these limits are set by the
structure and function of the genetic machinery." (p. 153)

Ph.D. L.P.Lester & R.G. Bohlin (Creationists)
The Natural Limits of Biological Change
Zondervan/Probe, 1984

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of
(E)volution."

Pierre-Paul Grosse
past-President, French Acadamie des Science
Evolution of Living Organisms
Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 88

"A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes
which constitute life is certain to impair - just as a random interchange
of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."

James F. Crow
Radiation & mutation specialist
"Genetic Effects of Radiation"
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, pp 19-20

Natural Selection

"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism ... may have a
stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a
creative force as many people have suggested."

Roger Lewin
Science 217:1239-1240, 1982

"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if
Evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each
favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing ... How, in
other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of
structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more
elaborated forms? ... one point stands high above the rest: the dilemma of
incipient stages. Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains
so today."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Not Necessarily a Wing"
Natural History, Oct 1985, pp. 12-13

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No
one has ever gotten near it..."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
Interview, BBC television, March 4, 1982

" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection'. No matter what
phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical
change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful
alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not
have the capacity to rearrange them nor to add to them. Consequently no
leap (saitation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we
know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an
outside source of intelligence - one who know what it is doing, such as our
genetic engineers are now performing in the laboratories."

I. L. Cohen
Member New York Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. p. 209

"The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection or
survival of the fittest. But they do not show evolution in progress. For
however the population may alter in their content of light, intermediate or
dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia."

L. Harrison Matthews, D.Sc, FRS
Intro to Origin of Species, Dent, London, 1971

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has
provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations
plus natural selection -- quite unaware of the fact that random mutations
turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."

Arthur Koestler
Janus: A Summing Up, Vintage Books, 1978, p 185

Separation between the Species

"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly
fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see
them, well defined?"

Charles R. Darwin
The Origin of Species, first edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979, p. 205

"...now that the actual physical structure of what might be termed the
biochemical mainstays of life [DNA] has come into view, scientists are
finding -- frequently to their dismay -- that the evolutionist thesis has
become more stringently unthinkable than ever before... " "...on the
molecular level, these separations, and this hierarchic order stand out
with a mathematical precision which once and for all silences dissent. On
the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstratable fact that
there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing links are
indeed non-existent."

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics
Teilardism and the New Religion
Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 8

The Fossil Record

"Beginning about six hundred million years ago ... the earliest known
representative of the major kinds of animals still populating today's seas
made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted 'event' shows up
graphically in the rock record: all over the world, at roughly the same
time, thick sequences of rocks, barren of any easily detected fossils, are
overlain by sediments containing a gorgeous array of shelly invertebrates:
trilobites, brachiopods, mollusks. ... Creationist have made much of this
sudden development of rich and varied fossil record where, just before,
there was none ... Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied,
well-preserved array of fossils ... does pose a fascinating intellectual
challenge."

Niles Eldredge, Paleontologist
American Museum of Natural History
The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism
Washington Square Press, N.Y., 1982, p. 44

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the
occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower
Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater
age."

D. Axelrod,
Science 128:7, 1958

"The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of
the fishes ..."

J. R. Norman, Dept of Zoology
British Museum of Natural History, London
"Classification and pedigrees: fossils"
A History of Fishes, Dr P.H. Greenwood (editor)
British Museum of Natural History, 1975, p. 343

"There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the
fossil collections of the world."

Gordon Rattray Taylor
Award-winning science writer
Former editor of the BBC's "Horizon" series
The Great Evolution Mystery,
Harper & Row, 1983, p. 60

"The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There
is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change
from reptile to bird was achieved."

W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History
Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds
A.J. Marshall (editor), Vol 1, Academic Press
New York, 1960, p. 1

"The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in teaching of
evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends to a large extent
upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one could
easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse."

Prof G. A. Kerkut
Dept of Physiology & Biochemistry
University of Southhampton
Implications of Evolution
Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p 144

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the
textbooks. ...... The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the
horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from
non-equivalent parts ..."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
Synthetische Artbildung
Verlag CWE Gleerup Press

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned
as a student ... have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience of
more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic
Brachiopoda has proven them equally elusive."

Prof. Derek Ager
Dept of Geology, Imperial College, London
"The nature of the fossil record."
Proc. Geological Assoc. Vol. 87, 1976, p. 132


"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 Biological Society of Strassbourg,
Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum,
Director of Research at the
French National Centre of Scientific Research
The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding
before us. ... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since
some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and
refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

Pierre-Paul Grasse
past-President, French Acadamie des Science
Evolution of Living Organisms
Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 8

"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
Well-known Journalist and philosopher
Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo

"After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle,
science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a
mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort
could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the
primeval past."

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. Anthropology
The Immense Journey
Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest- growing
controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position
hold impressive credentials in science."

Larry Hatfield
"Educators Against Darwin"
Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96

"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated,
the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ...
The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the
issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of
respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is
interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have
abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical
persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances
regretfully, as one could say."

"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are
never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often
enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this
evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune
from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely
in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence
consists."

Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist
Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University
Former math instructor at MIT
Teilhardism and the New Religion:
A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin
Tan Books & Publishers, 1988, pp. 1-2

"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, Physiologist
Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in:
Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes,
3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations
to fit in with it."

H. J. Lipson, F.R.S.
"A physicist looks at evolution"
Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ...
it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and
there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that
one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried
putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question
is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that
is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of
Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the
members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of
Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was
silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one
thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist
British Museaum of Natural History, London
Keynote address at the
American Museum of Natural History,
New York City, 5 November, 1981

"The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian
revolution. The social and political currents which have swept the world in
the past eighty years would have been impossible without its intellectual
sanction. ... The influence of the evolutionary theory on fields far
removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of
how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific
evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate
the outlook of an age. Considering its historic significance and the social
and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped
that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory
that literally changed the world, would have been something more than
metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Adler and Adler, 1985, p. 358

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay
lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a
Creator..."

Dr. Michael Walker
Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney University
Quadrant, Oct 1982, p. 44

"I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as
indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if
the experimental evidence supports it."

H. S. Lipson
Prof of Physics, University of Manchester
A paper published by The Institute of Physics
IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980

"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between
evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific
community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and
ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction.
" (pp. 6-7)

"...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no
matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols
have to be discarded in the process." (p. 8)

"... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of
evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers.... If in the process of impartial
scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is
the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied
us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us
back." (pp. 214-215)

"... every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended
thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically
established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability
concepts. Darwin was wrong." (p. 209)

"... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p.
210)

I. L. Cohen, Mathematician, Researcher, Author,
Member New York Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, Inc., 1984.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
primergray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 01:22 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Newt Gingrich summed it up more succinctly than I've read or heard elsewhere, noting that the question of whether a person views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic processes simply has to affect human relationships. Once you start to believe the latter, the gates of hell are basically open.



I am willing to accept that macroevolution is unproven and quite possibly unprovable. I once had a prof. for whom I had a great deal of admiration who thought just that. He said that the theory of (macro)evolution as it stands is untestable and therefore not scientific. Okay, fine. But I cannot make the leap that because we do not yet have a scientific explanation for the origin of species, we must rely on a supernatural explanation (creationism). It is adequate to say 'we don't know (yet)', and leave it at that.

~~~

Regarding the quote above -

I am truly confused about you, Gungasnake. Apparently you believe that God created mankind, and therefore human life is sacred. But you are not anti-abortion, and certainly not a pacifist.

If you have the time and inclination, I would very much like to know what you think about such things, either on this or another thread.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 05:57 pm
primergray wrote:


I am willing to accept that macroevolution is unproven and quite possibly unprovable. I once had a prof. for whom I had a great deal of admiration who thought just that. He said that the theory of (macro)evolution as it stands is untestable and therefore not scientific. Okay, fine. But I cannot make the leap that because we do not yet have a scientific explanation for the origin of species, we must rely on a supernatural explanation (creationism). It is adequate to say 'we don't know (yet)', and leave it at that.



I pretty much agree, other than that there are bits and pieces of the picture which we DO know, one of which is that macroevolution is not the answer. I'd be willing to go a bit further than claiming that the jury is out with macroevolution; I believe the jury is in and the idea has been cleanly disproven.

Quote:


I am truly confused about you, Gungasnake. Apparently you believe that God created mankind, and therefore human life is sacred. But you are not anti-abortion, and certainly not a pacifist.

If you have the time and inclination, I would very much like to know what you think about such things, either on this or another thread.


I believe abortion is a generally bad and unnatural thing and should be rare, but it's basically a freedom issue. Somebody who lacks legal control over the uses to which their own body is put is basically not free. Moreover in my lifetime the only thing I've ever seen the right2life issue do is allow vermin to win elections over good candidates. I believe the dem party would have died a natural death 25 years ago other than for this one BS issue and I'd like to see the issue resolved, one way or another, convincingly enough to get it out of American politics.
0 Replies
 
australia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 06:09 pm
Don't give up your views gunga. you are an absolute legend.
0 Replies
 
primergray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 08:02 pm
australia wrote:
Don't give up your views gunga. you are an absolute legend.


He is the fathomless deep ... and it's been too long since I've been diving.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2004 12:09 am
Gungasnake wrote:
Need the authority figures, huh? Ok.....


For all the quantity you posted, it seems the quality is a little low. I didn't see much to support your argument (especially with sources 20, 30, and 40 years out of date).

Gotta give you points for persistence, though.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2004 08:10 am
DrewDad wrote:
Gungasnake wrote:
Need the authority figures, huh? Ok.....


For all the quantity you posted, it seems the quality is a little low. I didn't see much to support your argument (especially with sources 20, 30, and 40 years out of date).

Gotta give you points for persistence, though.


What normal people basically see in those kinds of quotes is that pretty much everybody with anything resembling brains and talent who has taken any sort of a look at evolution(ism) in the last 60 years has given up on it. There's no physical evidence for it, it's logically unworkable, and necessary aspects of it violate the laws of mathematics and probability.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2004 10:51 am
"...everybody with anything resembling brains and talent who has taken any sort of a look at evolution(ism) in the last 60 years has given up on it."

If that is so, you shouldn't have any problem finding a long list of scientists who have publicly rejected Evolution. The fact is, aside from a small number of "Creationists" with very dubious credentials, the number of scientists whose subject-fields require intimate knowledge of Evolution has steadily increased over the last 60 years.

The evidence favoring evolution has continued to mount for the past 100 years. During the same period it has been increasingly clear that "creationism" is pretty similar to the old idea that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

You are entitled to your opinion, Gunga, but in this case its about the same as believing that if you only have faith enough, you can levitate. Possible, but highly unlikely since all the evidence is against it.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2004 04:33 pm
australia wrote:
Don't give up your views gunga. you are an absolute legend.


Have you heard the part where the sea is originally from Mars yet?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2004 11:32 pm
Asherman wrote:
"...everybody with anything resembling brains and talent who has taken any sort of a look at evolution(ism) in the last 60 years has given up on it."

If that is so, you shouldn't have any problem finding a long list of scientists who have publicly rejected Evolution.


I posted exactly such a list, which you'll find on page 4 of this thread.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gungasnake's "Evolution is Bunk" Digression
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/01/2021 at 10:33:14