Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[SIZE=2]I'd like to present some quotes from historians, scholars, scientists, paleonttologists and others, on the FATAL flaws in the THEORY, (yes, its still just a theory) of evolution.
ON THE THEORY ITSELF
"Evolution is not only under the attack of fundamentalists Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."-Discover, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" by James Gorman.
Christopher Booker, a writer for the London Times, a man who accepts evolution said, "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himslef at least partly aware, it was full of collosal holes." Regardin Darwons Origin of the Species, he said, "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of the species in fact does nothing of the kind."
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition.
ON THE FOSSIL RECORD
Think of this, millions upon millsion of bones and fossils have been unearthed by scientists in the past. Now, if evolution, a process that is to be incredibly slow, taking millions of years, were true, there should be even more millions of fossil records of slowly changing animal and plant forms. But there is simply none, not one.
"Darwins theory has always been closley linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is strictly not true."-The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrased by the fossil record because it didnt look the way he predicted it would, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." It goes on to say that after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transistion than we had in Darwins time."
Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another."
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places."-The Neck of the Giraffe, Francis Hitching
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evoution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." -The Synthetic Origin of Species, Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson
With refenrence to the above, New Scientist said that there is not "enough evidence from the fossil material to take our theorising out of the relms of fantasy." Thus the intermediate, evolving depictions of creatures are as Francis Hitching put it," Pure fiction in most respects, sheer invention."-The Neck of the Giraffe
Commenting on the total lack of evidence from the fossil record when compared to the Genesis account of creation, that the animals were all created in their own time, Englands Kentish Times said, "The creation account of Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rahter in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Harmonizing with the above state of the sudden appearance of living things over slow evolution, Francis Hitching again says, "Fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed."
Commenting on the belief that warm blooded birds came from cold blooded reptiles, the French evolutionist Lecomte du Nouy, said, "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." He also made the admission that birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation."-Human Destiny
---------------
These are but a scant few things said about the theory of evolution. The proponants of this theory are blind to the facts. They choose to stick their heads in the sands and ignore scientific truth. Never before has such an absolutely, positvely, disproven theory been presented as undeniable, hardcore scientific fact. The scientists who value honesty and who uphold themselves to present the truth, are doing themselves a great discredit. They know themselves this theory is not true, there simply is no evidence for it. Why, they have to make up, as said above, "from the realms of fantasy," supposed evolving creatures.
I find it funny how so many atheists and proponents of evolution look down upon those who believe in a god, as though something to be pitied-they are undeveloped mentally, sitting in darkness.They laugh at faith, saying it is rediculous to believe in something that isnt real or tangible. Well, do not you atheists and believers in evolution do the same? You believe in something that is simply not true. There is no evidence for evolution, and the scientists know it. You have faith in a broken theory that is not tangible, and never will be. You have made Darwin your supreme god in a pantheon of lesser demi gods of scientists who push this theory forward. You bow down before the Theory of Evolution and burn the incense. It is the same as bowing down before a lifeless idol of wood to worship it-and just as rediculous.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]I'd like to present some quotes from historians, scholars, scientists, paleonttologists and others, on the FATAL flaws in the THEORY, (yes, its still just a theory) of evolution.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]ON THE THEORY ITSELF[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"Evolution is not only under the attack of fundamentalists Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."-Discover, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" by James Gorman.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Christopher Booker, a writer for the London Times, a man who accepts evolution said, "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himslef at least partly aware, it was full of collosal holes." Regardin Darwons Origin of the Species, he said, "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of the species in fact does nothing of the kind."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]ON THE FOSSIL RECORD[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Think of this, millions upon millsion of bones and fossils have been unearthed by scientists in the past. Now, if evolution, a process that is to be incredibly slow, taking millions of years, were true, there should be even more millions of fossil records of slowly changing animal and plant forms. But there is simply none, not one.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"Darwins theory has always been closley linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is strictly not true."-The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrased by the fossil record because it didnt look the way he predicted it would, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." It goes on to say that after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transistion than we had in Darwins time."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places."-The Neck of the Giraffe, Francis Hitching [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evoution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." -The Synthetic Origin of Species, Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]With refenrence to the above, New Scientist said that there is not "enough evidence from the fossil material to take our theorising out of the relms of fantasy." Thus the intermediate, evolving depictions of creatures are as Francis Hitching put it," Pure fiction in most respects, sheer invention."-The Neck of the Giraffe[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Commenting on the total lack of evidence from the fossil record when compared to the Genesis account of creation, that the animals were all created in their own time, Englands Kentish Times said, "The creation account of Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rahter in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Harmonizing with the above state of the sudden appearance of living things over slow evolution, Francis Hitching again says, "Fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Commenting on the belief that warm blooded birds came from cold blooded reptiles, the French evolutionist Lecomte du Nouy, said, "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." He also made the admission that birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation."-Human Destiny[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]---------------[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]These are but a scant few things said about the theory of evolution. The proponants of this theory are blind to the facts. They choose to stick their heads in the sands and ignore scientific truth. Never before has such an absolutely, positvely, disproven theory been presented as undeniable, hardcore scientific fact. The scientists who value honesty and who uphold themselves to present the truth, are doing themselves a great discredit. They know themselves this theory is not true, there simply is no evidence for it. Why, they have to make up, as said above, "from the realms of fantasy," supposed evolving creatures. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]I find it funny how so many atheists and proponents of evolution look down upon those who believe in a god, as though something to be pitied-they are undeveloped mentally, sitting in darkness.They laugh at faith, saying it is rediculous to believe in something that isnt real or tangible. Well, do not you atheists and believers in evolution do the same? You believe in something that is simply not true. There is no evidence for evolution, and the scientists know it. You have faith in a broken theory that is not tangible, and never will be. You have made Darwin your supreme god in a pantheon of lesser demi gods of scientists who push this theory forward. You bow down before the Theory of Evolution and burn the incense. It is the same as bowing down before a lifeless idol of wood to worship it-and just as rediculous.[/SIZE]
religion is not history. we dont know what happened. we are guessing.
the bible is not a history book. its a book about how to live.
its religion. when religion tries to teach history you get stuff like the mideast. crazy stuff. even worse when the church tries to run countries.
if the church sticks with religion and lets the scientists stick with science all will be well.
i dont want the preacher to come over and pray over my dead honda, i want a mechanic to replace the busted head gasket. i do want the preacher to pray with me about my temper and impatience about the car.
does this help?
stephen s
san diego ca
religion is not history. we dont know what happened. we are guessing.
the bible is not a history book. its a book about how to live.
its religion. when religion tries to teach history you get stuff like the mideast. crazy stuff. even worse when the church tries to run countries.
if the church sticks with religion and lets the scientists stick with science all will be well.
i dont want the preacher to come over and pray over my dead honda, i want a mechanic to replace the busted head gasket. i do want the preacher to pray with me about my temper and impatience about the car.
does this help?
stephen s
san diego ca
I wasnt promoting one religion over another, or the control of religion over science. I am not an Evangelical who wants to change the political and scientific worlds to suit my beliefs. Nor was I saying that faith is the cure all for all problems (your comment on the honda) And actually, the Bible is a quite extensive history book that has been vindicated again and again and again and again in its reporting historical events. And it is also astonishingly accurate when it touches on science.
There is no evidence for evolution, and the scientists know it. You have faith in a broken theory that is not tangible, and never will be. You have made Darwin your supreme god in a pantheon of lesser demi gods of scientists who push this theory forward. You bow down before the Theory of Evolution and burn the incense. It is the same as bowing down before a lifeless idol of wood to worship it-and just as rediculous.
The difference between theists and atheists is that theist generally believe that their god is perfect while many atheists know that their theories aren't. Therefore an atheists does not regard making a mistake as a sin. Making mistakes is part of the learning process.
Theist on the other hand view a mistake as a sin. Unfortunately when you try to avoid making mistakes you also am not learning (anything new). Fear of sinning leads to the fear of making mistakes, which prevents you from learning anything new.
In short: atheists are open for new experiences, they are not afraid to leave the beaten path. While theist are often afraid of anything new, especially when they encounter something which is not mentioned in their holy writings.
Fatal flaw in the TOE? What about the bigger flaw in the Old Testament about Adam and Eve? There's no proof they ever existed, or that any of the creation theory in the book of genesis ever happened. It's all disputable. Christians have their faith, and Creationists have their own version of faith in their ideas.
Theist on the other hand view a mistake as a sin. Unfortunately when you try to avoid making mistakes you also am not learning (anything new). Fear of sinning leads to the fear of making mistakes, which prevents you from learning anything new...While theist are often afraid of anything new, especially when they encounter something which is not mentioned in their holy writings.
I'm not quite sure how this has to do with what you quoted from my post...but...To what you said: You do not need to make a mistake to learn something new. I dont need to do 20 lines of heroine to know how it messes you up. And I dont need to keep doing heroine until I get some bad stuff to know what frying my brain is like. Further, I dont have to sleep around to know what getting an std is like. Should I spend my time hurting people one by one emotionaly to know how they would react-when I already know how they'll react?
You wrote: "While theist are often afraid of anything new, especially when they encounter something which is not mentioned in their holy writings." It not fear that keeps some from doing these things. Its wisdom. Like I said, should I steal to know the thrill of getting away? Or the consequences of getting caught? No, I know what will happen if I take to a bad course.
Fatal flaw in the TOE? What about the bigger flaw in the Old Testament about Adam and Eve? There's no proof they ever existed, or that any of the creation theory in the book of genesis ever happened. It's all disputable. Christians have their faith, and Creationists have their own version of faith in their ideas.
Shall we leave each of them to their own ideas?
Did you see the quote above about the fossil record and Genesis? I could add proof after proof here of how the fossil record, and the scientific history of creation, harmonizes with what the Genesis account says. Why, even science attests to the fact that all the animals suddenly appeared in the order that they are listed in Genesis. As to Adam and Eve, they would be 2 skeletons to be found out of the 36 billion people who have lived on earth......as opposed to the mising fossils of trillions of slowly changing evolutionary forms that was supposed to take place over millions and millions of years-that simply do not exist.
I'm not quite sure how this has to do with what you quoted from my post.
Well, atheist generally believe in evolution and theists generally do not
Quote:
I dont need to do 20 lines of heroine to know how it messes you up.
True, but I do not condemn them for using heroine. Especially when I do not know why they started to use it.
Most theists condemn them on sight simply because they don't use heroine themselves.
I can relate to poor homeless children who are so desperate that they rather sniff glue than experience another day of their life in the gutter again.
Quote:
You wrote: "While theist are often afraid of anything new, especially when they encounter something which is not mentioned in their holy writings." It not fear that keeps some from doing these things. Its wisdom. Like I said, should I steal to know the thrill of getting away? Or the consequences of getting caught? No, I know what will happen if I take to a bad course.
Ah, but is stealing a loaf of bread a sin when you have absolutely nothing?
It is easy to say that you should obey rules when you have everything you need to survive. Try taking the moral high road when you have absolutely nothing at all.
I'm not sure if the science articles referenced are attacking evolution per se, or if they are critical of Darwin's theory of natural selection. This is an important distinction, and it's also important to note that the vast majority of scientists, whether they believe in God or not, believe in evolution. The ongoing debate is not about debunking evolution but in explaining how it works.
Did you see the quote above about the fossil record and Genesis? I could add proof after proof here of how the fossil record, and the scientific history of creation, harmonizes with what the Genesis account says. Why, even science attests to the fact that all the animals suddenly appeared in the order that they are listed in Genesis. As to Adam and Eve, they would be 2 skeletons to be found out of the 36 billion people who have lived on earth......as opposed to the mising fossils of trillions of slowly changing evolutionary forms that was supposed to take place over millions and millions of years-that simply do not exist.
Great OP, AdrianR. Unfortunately, if someone chooses not to believe in God, no amount of proof or evidence that the theory of evolution is far-fetched (tho at first glance may appear logical, yet is full of unexplainable holes and extreme undocumented odds) will cause them to refute it. There are just too many other consequences to accept, which unfortunately will come to pass whether we accept them or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To learn or not to learn (anything new)
In short: atheists are open for new experiences, they are not afraid to leave the beaten path. While theist are often afraid of anything new, especially when they encounter something which is not mentioned in their holy writings.
...but...To what you said: You do not need to make a mistake to learn something new. I dont need to do 20 lines of heroine to know how it messes you up. And I dont need to keep doing heroine until I get some bad stuff to know what frying my brain is like. Further, I dont have to sleep around to know what getting an std is like. Should I spend my time hurting people one by one emotionaly to know how they would react-when I already know how they'll react? 
