Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[Research1]

... Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

There are many atheists who don't believe in evolution.

 

[cerad]

There are many atheists who don't believe in evolution.

How many are named Steve? Bet most are french.

 

[rjc34]

BCSE : Milton Wainwright
"Some agnostic biologists, like myself, are interested in this and other forms of teleology; we call this approach science. It seems that the evolutionists are convinced that they have found the last word on life, some of us however, doubt that they have the full answer, and so are still searching.”

"However, for taking this line, I have been called a creationist (when I am an agnostic) and anti-evolution (despite having provided an addition to the theory of natural selection)."

Is this true? According to Professor Louis Bounoure, Former: President of the Biological Society it is? - Yahoo! Answers

"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults."
... Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

Apparently Kent Hovind is to blame for this one.

"E.T. Babinski actually contacted French authorities. They revealed that Louis Bounoure never served as Director or even a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter.

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but adapted from Jean Rostand, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy. Rostand also wrote that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190).

The end of Bounoure's quotation is from his book, "Determinism and Finality." It runs, "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

In other words, Hovind's quote is complete fiction and he is too incompetent and dishonest to correct it or even check up on it.

I tried to get AoS to start using quotes that went from 3rd century BC philosophers to back up his weak arguments... He then proceeded to quote mine an article on Carl Sagan. And now he's using a completely fraudulent quote by Kent Hovind.

 

[Hespera]

There are many atheists who don't believe in evolution.

So? Most people of all sorts are ill educated and superstitious.

 

[AV1611VET]

So? Most people of all sorts are ill educated and superstitious.

The way you guys talk, the very first question on any IQ test should be:

1. Do you believe in evolution?
   • If you answer YES, continue to next question.
   • If you answer NO, proceed to exit quickly.

 

[Blayz]

There are many atheists who don't believe in evolution.

There are many creationists who make blanket statements without offering a shred of proof.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Is this true? According to Professor Louis Bounoure, Former: President of the Biological Society it is? - Yahoo! Answers

"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults."
... Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

Thank you for sharing...

There are many creationists who make blanket statements without offering a shred of proof.

Atheists do the same so I guess they are in good company.

 

[Blayz]

Thank you for sharing...

you're welcome AoS. I intend revealing your fraudulent quote mines as and when they arise, time permitting.

Atheists do the same so I guess they are in good company.

My apologies, I keep forgetting you don't understand irony, and forgot to add the irony tags. Here, let me fix that for you

[irony]There are many creationists who make blanket statements without offering a shred of proof.[/irony]*

*explanation of the irony: I was using a gross generalization as an example of why gross generalizations are stupid, even though in this specific case it held true.

 

[Research1]

So? Most people of all sorts are ill educated and superstitious.

You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.

 

[rjc34]

You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.

When has that ever been claimed? It's pure straw man.

Please learn what evolution actually claims before trying to refute it.

 

[Blayz]

You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures?

Luckily for us, this particular piece of evolution-disproving evidence has never been found. The fact that there isn't a person on the planet that believes this strawman is secondary.

When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.

The word you were looking for is "fabrication", said fabrication coming from creationists and others with no understanding of evolution in any of its evolutions, from Darwin through to the modern synthesis.

 

[Research1]

When has that ever been claimed? It's pure straw man.

Please learn what evolution actually claims before trying to refute it.

What did land walking creatures evolve from then?

Are when was the transition observed?

 

[Tomatoman]

What did land walking creatures evolve from then?

Are when was the transition observed?

Whenever creationists express incredulity at the evolutionary changes necessary for the transition of creatures from sea to land, I like to point them in the direction of the whale's evolutionary history. If they are unaware of it and you watch them closely you can sometimes observe them go a funny colour.

 

[Hespera]

You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.

No I sure dont mean that. I hope you will take a moment for this..

First off, nobody believes that. its silly, and not remotely what evolutionary theory, or a fine and detailed fossil record says.

(you might note that many species of fish today climb out of the water and move about very well on land; some will drown if kept in water; and that can be observed today)

your statement here would stand as a good example of my observation that creationists always argue against straw men, against 'problems' with evolution that they believe to exist, because they are that misinformed.
And because if they didnt invent things to argue against, they wouldnt have anything at all.

With regard to that which has not been observed, is it superstition to think that mountains can wash away with time? Please answer this.

I wasnt going after theists or anyone in particular when I used the word "superstitious'. You are...theists are walking on thin ice when they speak of others being superstitious, esp.

 

[Hespera]

What did land walking creatures evolve from then?

Are when was the transition observed?

This can be answered but maybe it would be helpful if you admitted you are wrong about this being a claim, that something 'suddenly' morphed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whenever creationists express incredulity at the evolutionary changes necessary for the transition of creatures from sea to land, I like to point them in the direction of the whale's evolutionary history.

And I like to point out that Genesis 1 says the whales came on the 5th day -- before land animals.

 

[Research1]

This can be answered but maybe it would be helpful if you admitted you are wrong about this being a claim, that something 'suddenly' morphed.

Yet its you guys who thought up punctuated equilibrium...

 

[Research1]

With regard to that which has not been observed, is it superstition to think that mountains can wash away with time? Please answer this.

I wasnt going after theists or anyone in particular when I used the word "superstitious'. You are...theists are walking on thin ice when they speak of others being superstitious, esp.

We have observed mountains shrink, and things like hills form within recorded history.

Macroevolution however has never been observed or tested. Its not empirical science. This is something sadly the evolutionists will never accept...we keep going round in circles.

 

[Matthijs]

We have observed mountains shrink, and things like hills form within recorded history.

Macroevolution however has never been observed or tested. Its not empirical science. This is something sadly the evolutionists will never accept...we keep going round in circles.

But it has. We have speciated fast-breeding bacteria several times over - sometimes with amazing results. We have also demonstrated speciation in fruit flies just by putting them in situations where there are 2 different survival strategies.

For Pete's sake, I have bred wingless fruitflies myself in experiments - after a few generations of selection, wings disappear.

We can see speciation occur in skinks as we speak - several burrowing species are in different stages of losing their legs, as they become more of a hindrance than a help to them in the environmental niche they occupy.

We can observe ring speciation in gulls - really interesting, and it shows how "species" are really arbitrary groupings. Imagine a group of birds where every bird can breed with their neighbor, and share enough DNA with them to be quite alike, but not with a bird that comes from the other side of the continent!

I could go on and on. The evidence is there, and what is more, it is supported by what we are finding in the DNA record and the fossil record. Unless this is some galactic-sized joke, I don't see how all these things could be there if it wasn't true.

 

[Tomatoman]

And I like to point out that Genesis 1 says the whales came on the 5th day -- before land animals.

And this would be another example of your infallible bible stating complete bollocks.