: Incidentally, those quotes were from EVOLUTIONISTS!So? Would that automatically make them gospel?
All scientific statements are open to debate and all scientific theories are open to revision.
: Okay, here are my sources. I intentionally didn't reveal
: them the first time so that I could get
: "unbiased" reaction -- of course, I know that the
: reaction can't be unbiased. Evolutionists are as firmly
: entrenched in their humanistic religious beliefs about
: the beginning of the world as I am in believing God
Really? How did you know that? Are you omniscient?
: On Tue Nov 23 12:18:53, Gotch wrote:
: > I'm interested in your reaction to the following
: > statements:
: >
: > "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology,
: > and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a
: > science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a
: > science of a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is
: > thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation --
: > both are concepts which believers know to be true but
: > neither, up to the present, has been capable of
: > proof."
: >
: Statement made by EVOLUTIONIST L. Harrison Matthews in
: his Introduction to C. Darwins "The Origin of
: Species" (reprint, London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd.,
: 1971), p. XI as quoted by D. Gish in "The Fossils
: Still Say NO!", p 5.
It's demonstrably wrong. So what?
Michelson and Morley were eminent scientists; they were also wrong.
Mere qualification and title in the sciences doesn't make one automatically right.
Gotch, try and *prove* the existence of gravity to me.
You can't. We accept gravity because a) it is falsifiable and thus science and b) it is the scientific theory that best explains the observed data.
Since you can't prove gravity to me, are you now going to stop using anything that uses the theory of gravity; planes, cars, elevators?
We don't know if the theory of gravity is the "right" theory; but it's a good enough approximation to make predictions on. So we work with it. That's the exact rationale behind evolution. We don't *know* that it's the one final answer, but it explains the observed data better than anything else.
:
: > "The Theory of Evolution is no longer with us,
: > because neo-Darwinism is not acknowledged as being unable
: > to explain anything more than trivial change, and in
: > defaulr of some other theory we have none.. despite the
: > hostility of witness provided by the fossil record,
: > despite the innumerable difficulties, and despite the
: > lack of even a credible theory, evolution survives. Can
: > there be any other area of science, for instance, in
: > which a concept as intellectually barren as embryonic
: > recapitulation could be used as evidence for a
: > theory?"
: Statement made by EVOLUTIONIST R. Danson in "New
: Scientist, 49:35, 1971 as quoted by D. Gish in "The
: Fossils Still Say NO!", p 8.
Actually, if you examine the evidence, you will find that R.Danson is a Creationist; and he has no formal scientific qualifications at all!
"However, when the facts are in it is undeniable that the theory of evolution is almost as empirically bankrupt as it is possible to conceive. R. Danson writes:
...Neodarwinism is now acknowledged as being unable to explain anything more than trivial change...despite the hostility of the witness provided by the fossil record, despite the innumerable difficulties, and despite the lack of even a credible theory, evolution survives. Can there be any other area of science, for instance, in which a concept as intellectually barren as embryonic recapitulation could be use as evidence for a theory?(120)...
Josh Anderson closes this section with quotes from three supposed scientists--but they are not! Two are well-known creationist pseudoscientists, and Danson is also a creationist. Wysong and Custance have scientific credentials, as all real pseudoscientists must, but credentials do not make one a scientist. A scientist is a person who believes in and follows the scientific method, which is based on free inquiry and critical thinking, and these gentlemen do not believe in or follow that method."
Taken from The Challenge of the Fossil Record
: Incidentally, this book by Gish is fascinating reading.
Especially as Gish is well-known to be a liar and a fraud.
"In Gish's book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards (1991 and earlier editions), he claims that Triceratops, a late Cretaceous horned dinosaur, appeared in the fossil record without a trace of any ancestor. Frederick Edwords, in a 1982 debate (see Debates-Edwords) confronted Gish with contrary evidence to his assertion. Gish replied that Triceratops' supposed ancestors are found in the same strata as Triceratops, so they couldn't be part of an evolutionary sequence (Edwords 1982b). This is incorrect, since the ancestors Edwords mentioned are actually found in geologic strata spanning 10-45 million years before Triceratops (Edwords 1982b). On March 20, two months later, Kenneth Miller had a chance to reprove Gish during a Tampa, Florida debate at Jefferson High School. Miller described and showed several transitional forms of dinosaurs leading up to Triceratops, including Monoclonius with its two incipient horns. When Gish objected that the animals occurred too close together in time for one to be ancestral to another, Miller countered by pointing out that they had at least 15 million years to evolve. He then handed Gish some textbook material on Monoclonius that confirmed this, advising him to study it before his next debate (Edwords 1982a). Nevertheless, only 11 days later, in a debate with Michael Alan Park (see Debates-Park 1982), Gish repeated his assertion that Triceratops appears "suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms."
To this day, in spite of additional oral and written rebuttals by scientists over the years, Gish continues to claim during debates and lectures that Triceratops has no transitional ancestors and that proposed ancestors do not occur early enough in the fossil record. (Debates: Shermer, 1995; also see Gish, 1994). This falsehood is also repeated in several subsequent books (1985, 1990a, 1995)."
Taken from http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
Gish has been proved wrong, yet refuses to acknowledge it. That's not the act of anyone with any scientific integrity.
"I used to be convinced that Gish was a conscious liar, because so many of the things he says are demonstrably false, and he is neither stupid nor uneducated. In the last few years, I have changed my mind. I now think that Gish is so severely deluded that he can no longer distinguish what he wants to believe from reality, at least on a conscious level."
"We...were convinced at first that he must be a deliberate liar, but now we have concluded that he is not. ...Gish says only what supports his belief. In his mind, that cannot possibly be a lie. ... We also think that sometimes he says what he wishes were true. If he wishes he hadn't said something, then he didn't say it."
"[Gish] says things that are false, now, but I suspect that he no longer even realizes it, or cares. ... He may have known, at one time, that there was something shaky or even devious about his claims, but he's made them so long now, that they have taken on a truth of their own for him."
: It doesn't blow evolution out of the water -- the Bible
: already does that -- but it sure gives some interesting
: arguments. Anyone else out there read it?
: If evolution is "fact," why is there so much
: disagreement among evolutionists as to how it happened?
Because it's a scientific theory. We don't burn, torture or kill anyone who disagrees with our own personal theories. Evolution is the best theory that explains the observed data; thus it is the strongest theory.
(OK, Lark, I know that not all Christians do; but religious intolerance has a pretty unpleasant history.)
: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS?
The usual site; go here. Try reading the entire site this time.
: Yes, I realize that secondary quotes are not as good as primary quotes, but I didn't have access at the time to the original sources.
: Thought I'd give you an exercise in thinking. Thanks for the reactions!
: Oh, yes, and by the way -- Thanksgiving is one of those quaint American customs started by those who determined that the right to worship the Creator as they ought was more important and anything else in their lives. I'm thankful for it.
Funnily enough, I did know that already. I didn't think I'd have to put up a sign saying ...
Gideon.
None.
