Evolution is bad science

[abidingone]

Darwin conceded in his writings that; “Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
—*Arthur N. Field.

“The absence in the fossil record of any transitional forms from one species to another is the fatal flaw of evolution.” Charles Darwin

Despite the insurmountable absence of transitional links, the dauntless faith of the evolutionists persists: A. Lunn once wrote a parody of such faith, saying: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen."

The probability of forming the proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167.626. Yet, evolutionists still cling to the belief that all life on earth sprung from some primordial ooze in which the perfect combination of amino acids came together and.. POOF'. . . .there was life.

Evolution is to science what quackery is to medicine.

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not found on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. “ Dr. Etheridge, British Museum of Science

“The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination.” Dr. Ambrose Fleming, former president of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did this ever happen?’” – Swedish embryologist, Sorren Luthrip

If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.

Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

[notto]

Quotes don't falsify.

Present some evidence to falsify the theory or explain the evidence better and you might have something.

If I find 50 quotes from scientists that say that creationism is false, would that convince you that it was false?

( by the way, I believe that both of the quotes you use from darwin are made up and never actually appear as you have put them in any of his works - if this can be shown to be true, would you promise to never use them again and report back to wherever you found them that they are false?)

Quote mining always interests me. I think in this case it is safe to say that the poster has never read any of the works that these supposed quotes come from but take the word of somebody else on what they say and copy and paste quotes around the internet. Intellectually dishonist and a very poor debating technique.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I know that he didn't. There isn't a "British Museum of Science" for starters.

 

[Colossians]

notto,

Present some evidence to falsify the theory
The onus is on you to present the evidence in favour of the theory. And since such is long wanting, it is time to put the theory to rest, don't you think?
(Any other theory in any other area of science, would not last more than a few months with such lack of evidence, but seeing that this 'theory' is about denying sin, it hangs on.)

What you should be asking youself is "what is my very deepest motive for wanting evolution to be true?"

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

notto,

Present some evidence to falsify the theory
The onus is on you to present the evidence in favour of the theory. And since such is long wanting, it is time to put the theory to rest, don't you think?
(Any other theory in any other area of science, would not last more than a few months with such lack of evidence, but seeing that this 'theory' is about denying sin, it hangs on.)

What you should be asking youself is "what is my very deepest motive for wanting evolution to be true?"

I don't know how you people have the gall, I really don't.

Here and over on the open thread we present page after page after page of evidence. I can only put your "no evidence" rubbish down to dishonesty, quite frankly.

 

[Beowulf]

As for me I'm having a hard time believing the man on that cross, born of Mary, the one I call Jesus Christ, evolved from an ape or a one-celled animal.

 

[notto]

notto,

Present some evidence to falsify the theory
The onus is on you to present the evidence in favour of the theory. And since such is long wanting, it is time to put the theory to rest, don't you think?
(Any other theory in any other area of science, would not last more than a few months with such lack of evidence, but seeing that this 'theory' is about denying sin, it hangs on.)

What you should be asking youself is "what is my very deepest motive for wanting evolution to be true?"

You need to read up on how science works.


What is my very deepest motive for wanting evolution to be true? It explains the evidence better than any other theory and has not been falsified.

In science, theories are accepted as tenatively true until they are falsified. Evolution has not been falsified (and certainly won't be falsified by a bunch of quotes).

You seem to be suggesting that 99.9% of scientists are upholding a theory that has no evidence. Can you provide evidence for this? The onus is on you.

Can you tell us specifically, what books, written by actual biologist, you have read on the subject. You seem to be commenting on the subject, so I would be interested to know on what you base your judgements. Do you undertand the theory of evolution? What specifically do you find lacking in the area of evidence? What journals have your read?

Your whole 'denying sin' is laughable and considering that this is a Christian only part of the forum, I would consider it slightly offensive.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hell, I missed that bit.

What a load of ballocks*. The theory is about genotypical change over time, nothing to do with sin. What planet do some of these people live on?

*Attested archaic spelling.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

As for me I'm having a hard time believing the man on that cross, born of Mary, the one I call Jesus Christ, evolved from an ape or a one-celled animal.

Why? Isn't the fact of the Incarnation so much a condescension that the exact biological nature of humanity is a mere side issue?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What you should be asking youself is "what is my very deepest motive for wanting evolution to be true?"

i do not 'want' TOE to be true. i am persuaded by the information of the truthfulness of it despite the serious personal cost holding to it demands.

1-i spent years studying theology and am unable to use it
2-i can not be as involved in my church as i desire
3-many people in the church will not associate with me because of it.

the cost of trying to believe truthful things can be high indeed.

so stop using the blatantly false 'you believe TOE because you want to' there are many of us who fight the theory each step of the way, but the commitment to truthfulness trumps personal discomfort.
.....

 

[herev]

The probability of forming the proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167.626. Yet, evolutionists still cling to the belief that all life on earth sprung from some primordial ooze in which the perfect combination of amino acids came together and.. POOF'. . . .there was life.

This reminds me of when I was a young teenager. My Sunday School teacher said, "believing in Evolution is like thinking you can throw up a handful of marbles and have them land spelling your name." My response then was the same as it is to the above quote today: "If God threw up a handful of marbles, would you deny HIS ability to make them land spelling your name?" Why deny that God can overcome insurmountable odds? TE's don't limit God this way.

 

[Vance]

Christians used to be equally appalled at the idea that the earth is just one planet among many revolving around the sun and that the sun is just one of trillions of stars in the universe. This was so contrary to their view of how God would have created things that they insisted it must not be true (in addition to the plain readin' of literal Scripture that it all revolved around the earth).

I don't think we should base decisions on origins on what seems the right or fitting way for God to have created.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Christians used to be equally appalled at the idea that the earth is just one planet among many revolving around the sun and that the sun is just one of trillions of stars in the universe. This was so contrary to their view of how God would have created things that they insisted it must not be true (in addition to the plain readin' of literal Scripture that it all revolved around the earth).

I don't think we should base decisions on origins on what seems the right or fitting way for God to have created.

this is part of what it means for the universe to be radically contingent. God did not have to create it in any particular manner. To find out what He actually did you must look at creation itself.

this is in opposition to the ancient Greek idea that the universe was necessary, it must follow logic and that the best way to understand it was to sit back in an easy chair and think about it. nay. science has shown that the universe is not common sense, plain, literal etc but rather is full of surprises, paradoxes and things that run extremely counter to appearances.

....

 

[Vance]

It brings to mind the story about class where they were discussing the nature of the horse, and one student suggested that they simply go out and actually observe the horse. They beat him up and drove him out of their class!

And the monks who were first given the opportunity to look through a telescope and refused since they were sure that either they would see what they already knew to be true, or would see lies of satan.