Evolution??

[Stormy]

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclutions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occured. (And other final considerations.)

Please read this link and see what they have to say.

Evolution??

Note to Susan: All evolutionist do not lie... many have just been duped.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

The same could be said for religion.   Ah... so now we're either liars or idiot sheep, blindly following the shepherd.

Wait, that reminds me of another good metaphor... now, who exactly was it that said that? Let me think...

 

[chickenman]

*sigh*

should we round up a list of ex-YEC-ers who feel they were once part of a big lie?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Heh, here we go with the "evil evolutionist conspiracy theories".

 

[lithium.]

Pete are you a evil evolutionist?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by chickenman
*sigh*

should we round up a list of ex-YEC-ers who feel they were once part of a big lie?

That's me. However, in fairness, YEC-ers (with the notable exception of Hovind) are no more inclined to "lie" outright than are true scientists. They are dangerous because they believe they are telling the truth - and that may also explain Hovind's deadly potency.

 

[lithium.]

Thats why science is more truthful that any religion. In religions people go around telling people that the stuff there saying is true without any evidence of it. But science never says that any theory is true. If a theory is found to be wrong they say its wrong and not true.

 

[Stormy]

I give you people on this forum too much credit. You would rather just assume than explore. I found it very interesting to read honest statements of the failure of the evolutionary theory to explain life. Here are just a few... but there are pages and pages.

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson

Here is one you will appreciate. It is the ploy that most of you have used.

"The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.

Please remember that these quotes are from indiviuals with a pro-evolutionary stance. They, like you, want to believe in Darwin, but they are having trouble keeping the faith.

 

[lithium.]

Sorry but evolution isn't a faith or built on failt, its a theory. And a theory that almost scientist in the world accepts.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Stormy, what if I linked to a page that paraded Christians having doubts about their faith in front of you? Would you wade through and address all the concerns, or would you say, "The beliefs expressed by these Christians do not adequately represent the Christian faith as I understand it"?

The argument from doubt is neither conclusive nor even legitimate. No belief is debunked merely because it has advocates who hold it less confidently.

 

[Stormy]

The argument from doubt is neither conclusive nor even legitimate. No belief is debunked merely because it has advocates who hold it less confidently.

These are people more educated in this field than you or I. They do not find the proof that is needed and they are now questioning the theory.

I think that it is worth your time to read what they are saying.

 

[lithium.]

It still doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution is what almost all scientist in the world accept.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Stormy
I give you people on this forum too much credit. You would rather just assume than explore. I found it very interesting to read honest statements of the failure of the evolutionary theory to explain life. Here are just a few... but there are pages and pages.

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson

Here is one you will appreciate. It is the ploy that most of you have used.

"The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.

Please remember that these quotes are from indiviuals with a pro-evolutionary stance. They, like you, want to believe in Darwin, but they are having trouble keeping the faith.

 

Stormy, why do you assume that none of us read and explore? I do it all the time, and have spent considerable time looking at creationist sites and literature.  In that context, realize that I am in my last semester of graduate school getting an MS in Biology with an emphysis in cellular and molecular biology, and a current working researcher-- I've not only studied biology and evolution in depth, I have looked at it's counter arguments as well.  With careful study of creationism as put forth by creationists (those that publish websites mostly) I have found mostly inconsistancies, distortions, logical fallacies, out of context quoting, publishing of edited quotes purported to be actual quotes, and outright lies-- I'm to the point were I feel safe and just assuming that something comming from a creationist site will fall into one of those categories.  It's sad really because I think there should not be a barrier between christianity and science.

But where does all of this leave me?  I do not have faith in  evolution, I have been convinced of the correctness of it by looking at the evidence for it.  It seems that from what you have posted here this makes me either a willful liar or a gullible fool.  No one likes being called names, but I'm getting used to it hanging around here (just a glutton for punishment I guess ).

I'm curious as to how you feel about christians that believe in evolution.  Are they just liars and fools as well?  Well meaning but deluded?  False christians?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by MSBS
 

Stormy, why do you assume that none of us read and explore? I do it all the time, and have spent considerable time looking at creationist sites and literature.  In that context, realize that I am in my last semester of graduate school getting an MS in Biology with an emphysis in cellular and molecular biology, and a current working researcher-- I've not only studied biology and evolution in depth, I have looked at it's counter arguments as well.  With careful study of creationism as put forth by creationists (those that publish websites mostly) I have found mostly inconsistancies, distortions, logical fallacies, out of context quoting, publishing of edited quotes purported to be actual quotes, and outright lies-- I'm to the point were I feel safe and just assuming that something comming from a creationist site will fall into one of those categories.  It's sad really because I think there should not be a barrier between christianity and science.

But where does all of this leave me?  I do not have faith in  evolution, I have been convinced of the correctness of it by looking at the evidence for it.  It seems that from what you have posted here this makes me either a willful liar or a gullible fool.  No one likes being called names, but I'm getting used to it hanging around here (just a glutton for punishment I guess ).

I'm curious as to how you feel about christians that believe in evolution.  Are they just liars and fools as well?  Well meaning but deluded?  False christians?

I completely agree.

 

[sulphur]

Why can't we be satisfied that religion and science are not compatible? One requires faith the other facts. The facts supporting evolution supporting evolutionand change are growing allthe time. The same way faith is growing because of these difficult times. I do not ask christians to prove their beliefs

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Stormy
I found it very interesting to read honest statements of the failure of the evolutionary theory to explain life.

How do you consider misquotations "honest". Many of these are taken out of context, for example (original quote from your source in bold).

"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
D.M.S. Watson

Do you see how the ommitted part changes the context completely?

I won't take the time to go through each one of these, many of them have been shown as misquotes by others.

Also, it is NILES, not MILES Eldridge, you might want to correct the author of the page - if they can't get the name right, why would I trust their research.

 

[choccy]

Honest opinions? Well, I picked one quote more or less on random from the site, and here it is:

Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)

See how the two quotes are put nest to each other, with a single reference? Makes you think they both address the same thing or at least are related to one another. As it turns out, the first quote is from a letter Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell. Here's the full paragraph:

You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition; nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

And the second quote is from a totally unrelated letter to J.D.Hooker about Darwin making what appears to be a stupid miscalculation:

I have been making some calculations about varieties, etc., and talking yesterday with Lubbock, he has pointed out to me the grossest blunder which I have made in principle, and which entails two or three weeks' lost work; and I am at a dead-lock till I have these books to go over again, and see what the result of calculation on the right principle is. I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.

Need I say anymore? Did I just happened to pick the only dishonest quote by accident or are there maybe a few (something like 99%) more that doesn't truly represent the honest opinions of the individuals quoted?

Stormy, do you feel quote mining is an honest form of debate?

Choccy

 

[Morat]

  Not to mention he called Henry Morris "educated in the field".

 

 

[RoachTron]

What if Adam was and alien (human) brought to earth by the space ship Genesis. Then the high command (God) decided Adam would be too lonely on the planet all by himself, so he sent agent Eve to spend time with him. And then High Command told these agents they could play around with the earth all they wanted to, but not to touch the "friut" or they would not be allowed to come back to their planet. Sort of like the rumor of the "black clap, the government tells soldiers when they go to Korea, so they won't sleep with the hookers." Well they ate this "fruit" and were not allowed to come back. Maybe this is how it all happened?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Evolution's strength is not so much that it has been completely confirmed (which is currently impossible with the available evidence) but that the new evidence repeatedly confirms it and that there is no superior theory in this respect.