Evolution is a Fact

[Hawk007]

Oh look. A silly non-authoritative blog. Good job. I bet I could find another one just like that has proof that humans are descended from alien colonists from the constellation Pleaides

Now you attack the authenticity of the site and deny the quotes given by scientists? That is pretty sad!

 

[laconicstudent]

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory" by Dr. Menton who received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Nice quote. I don't care what he has to say. The evidence shows otherwise. This is a classic example of Creationists, who don't understand how science operates, thinking that quoting and making appeals to authority are meaningful.

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?

Nice non-authoritative site. Not peer-reviewed = worthless. Please try again.

It really looks like evolution is not so factual like some might think!

No, it really is. All the research supports that, and not all of the non-authoritative .net's and .orgs and quote mining will change that fact or refute actual research.

 

[Sanguis]

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory" by Dr. Menton who received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?

It really looks like evolution is not so factual like some might think!

At the bottom: "Click here to return to creation science website.". Lulz.

Still, we have observed evolution directly. We have observed evolution indirectly.

Perhaps you should read the 10s of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, rather than papers on creationist propaganda websites.

 

[Tenka]

Now you attack the authenticity of the site and deny the quotes given by scientists? That is pretty sad!

Quote mining is lying, there are no excuses.

 

[Cabal]

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory" by Dr. Menton who received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?

It really looks like evolution is not so factual like some might think!

Oh no. One person with a Ph.D disagreed with evolution. How will we ever survive this. Woe is us.

Appeal to authority - fail.

If something is correct, no amount of denial can change that. Yes, evolution is a majority opinion. Yes, sometimes the majority is wrong. But the converse of that is just because something is a majority opinion, that doesn't automatically make it questionable.

 

[Cabal]

Now you attack the authenticity of the site

Oh come on, it's Jack Chick. You may as well be citing X-men comics. Actually, that's somewhat unfair on the X-men comics.

and deny the quotes given by scientists? That is pretty sad!

No, what's sad is you don't have a clue how useless quote mining is. When placed in context, those quotes would not necessarily make the same point Jack Chick is making, and chances are they're pro-evolution.

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Does anyone have that quote-mine of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that makes them look like they're saying evolution is true?)

 

[laconicstudent]

Now you attack the authenticity of the site and deny the quotes given by scientists? That is pretty sad!

Scientists aren't infallible Gods. If what they say isn't backed up by peer-reviewed research, its worthless.

 

[Hawk007]

Is it not so typical, when evolutionists see any scientist mentioning something against evolution they get all excited and disrespectful, they are afraid to read something else for a chance, this supports the fact why so many scientists are evolutionist, because they are so afraid to go against it!

Come on people, you were looking for educated people, now that I give them to you you get all agitated..........do you only respect scientists that support evolution? That tells it all!

 

[Cabal]

Is it not so typical, when evolutionists see any scientist mentioning something against evolution they get all excited and disrespectful, they are afraid to read something else for a chance, this supports the fact why so many scientists are evolutionist, because they are so afraid to go against it!

Come on people, you were looking for educated people, now that I give them to you you get all agitated..........do you only respect scientists that support evolution? That tells it all!

Hawk, did you even READ the link I sent you?

Picking a few lines out of an entire piece of writing isn't an accurate way of showing the point that piece is trying to make - in fact it may appear to give the opposite point.

And as for the fact that one or two scientists with PhDs disagree with evolution, that doesn't stop it from being fact - because a fact, by definition, isn't true depending on whether people believe it or not.

One is perfectly free to deny that 2+2 = 4 but that won't change the fact that it's true.

And frankly, people are getting exasperated with you because you do nothing but recycle VERY tired-out and illogical points and make no attempt to respond to the points raised in response to them. You want that to change, the power's in your hands on that one.

 

[laconicstudent]

Is it not so typical, when evolutionists see any scientist mentioning something against evolution they get all excited and disrespectful, they are afraid to read something else for a chance, this supports the fact why so many scientists are evolutionist, because they are so afraid to go against it!

No, it is because we happen to read the primary research literature.

Come on people, you were looking for educated people, now that I give them to you you get all agitated..........

Because you were quote mining a non-authoritative source that has no basis in data maybe?

do you only respect scientists that support evolution? That tells it all!

No, you are the only one interpreting our reaction as disrespect. The reality is that we regard your silly source with the contempt it deserves for not being research based or peer-reviewed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Some resort to drugs and alcohol for relief --- others to science for relief.

You're veering off into "pathological" on this one, AV. Are you seriously comparing a career in science with something like a heroin addiction?

What is your malfunction?

 

[Hawk007]

Hawk, did you even READ the link I sent you?

Picking a few lines out of an entire piece of writing isn't an accurate way of showing the point that piece is trying to make - in fact it may appear to give the opposite point.

And as for the fact that one or two scientists with PhDs disagree with evolution, that doesn't stop it from being fact - because a fact, by definition, isn't true depending on whether people believe it or not.

One is perfectly free to deny that 2+2 = 4 but that won't change the fact that it's true.

And frankly, people are getting exasperated with you because you do nothing but recycle VERY tired-out and illogical points and make no attempt to respond to the points raised in response to them. You want that to change, the power's in your hands on that one.

If you notice the second post does not only have a few lines...... enjoy reading it.

 

[Hawk007]

No, it is because we happen to read the primary research literature.



Because you were quote mining a non-authoritative source that has no basis in data maybe?



No, you are the only one interpreting our reaction as disrespect. The reality is that we regard your silly source with the contempt it deserves for not being research based or peer-reviewed.

Silly source, so now scientists are silly.........ok, if you say so!

 

[Split Rock]

Not to mention going all the way to Mars and the moon to find water.

As I heard on the radio once, these guys are so desperate to get God off their backs, they'll (literally) leave no stone unturned (on this planet or another) to find a way to discredit Him.

Some resort to drugs and alcohol for relief --- others to science for relief.

They don't know this, but they are living proof of the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.

They think they are being wise --- but I see them actually in a struggle, begging this "Thing" they can't explain to get off their backs.

How does finding water on Mars or the Moon discredit God??

 

[Sanguis]

Silly source, so now scientists are silly.........ok, if you say so!

Scientists who don't peer-review their work are, yes.

Either that, or they know they're wrong, and they're afraid of being exposed.

Link us to a peer reviewed paper, then we'll consider the possibility that you're as delusional as you appear to be.

 

[Wedjat]

Jeeze Hawk. Seriously, I wouldn't cite Chick in a theological debate, much less a scientific one.
As for your PHD, all I can say is that he specializes in anatomy and cell biology, not evolutionary biology, I must admit though, it's the closest I've ever seen anyone come. When most people cite creationist PHD's, it's usually in a completely unrelated field.
Honestly, it surprises me that he made it all the way to PHD still holding his creationist beliefs, I guess there's always one.
But keep in mind, it is just one. I think read somewhere that scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory had reached a millisteve, that is, there are at least a million scientists named Steve who agree with evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

[SIZE=+1]Interesting site.......

Scientists Admit:
Evolution Not Supported By Facts![/SIZE]

Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory" by Dr. Menton who received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?

It really looks like evolution is not so factual like some might think!

Now you attack the authenticity of the site and deny the quotes given by scientists? That is pretty sad!

Oh goody... a Quote Mine. This gives me an opportunity to show my very own Creationist Quote Mine. I actually "investigated" these myself... rather than just use someone else's list. Enjoy!

I have decided to create my own little quote-mine of comments made by Professional creationists/IDers to show that these leaders of the Creationist/I.D. movement doubt their own ideas and that Creationism/I.D. is full of holes. As one of our own Creationists here recently said, The Quotes Speak for Themselves. Here goes:


Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

 

[Cabal]

If you notice the second post does not only have a few lines...... enjoy reading it.

Oh dude, now I KNOW you didn't read the link I sent you.

Aside from a fair few "..." in that second quote (so much for context, eh? ) the Gould quote he refers to has been quote-mined so many times by creationists it's not even funny - as explained in the link I sent you, if you'd bothered to read it. And I see you took my statement about having a few lines out of context a bit literally (how ironic) - frankly it doesn't matter what the exact length is if it is not long enough or lacks enough context to be certain of the original point being made, and that fits that quote perfectly.

And, AGAIN, one person just CLAIMING that evolution isn't a fact doesn't MAKE it so. A claim, in and of itself, is not scientific research - THAT is what makes a claim valid or not. Present all the quotes in the world you want - isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

 

[pgp_protector]

Another creationist propaganda site, filled with PRATTS, quote mining, straw men, all the usual falsehoods, and absolutely no reputable sources cited for verification.

Lrn2research.

And 30 years old to boot

 

[laconicstudent]

Silly source, so now scientists are silly.........ok, if you say so!

You seem to have fixation with the idea that ideas have merit on the basis of who proposed them.

Maybe you'd like to review Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia