- This topic is empty.
- Posts
You know, we shouldn’t be too harsh on all evolutionists. There are actually quite a lot of honest evolutionary scientists out there who question evolution and it’s problematic theories/laws openly. We need consider that many (not all) scientists actually enter their respective fields with honorable intentions, and we also need remember that these honest scientists only know what they have been taught by their peers, being taught the only “accepted” criteria that is available. Here we find no problem/arguments from those under the iron umbrella of evolutionists…the problems only begin when these honest scientists leave the theoretical aspect of the “scientific” machine and get into the practical side of real science…it is from here that the problems begin to manifest.
Also, the problem isn’t “if” these honest scientists exist, for there are many of them, the problem is, or should i say, the tricky part is, finding their honest statements/assessments in print.
You see, the boys club that science has become today, are a very insecure lot, a lot who can stomach no criticism whatsoever, which wouldn’t make sense if their theory were so solidly based on observable, repeatable processes/facts…yet, the insecurity and over protectionist attitudes these adherents display, psychologically speaking, is fully compatible with one who is actively involved in coverup behavior, that is, active deception.And whenever those honest scientists working under the iron umbrella of evolution pop up and dare question evolution on a public record level, the mechanisms of the machine immediately kick into damage control and such statements are immediately censored to the wider public through media coercion. Thus it is only through their (science community) own public platforms via transcripts etc can we find these challenges…they never (very rarely) make it into mainstream press…and how many average people even bother with science magazines and papers except for ardent God haters looking for ammunition to use against believers and scientists themselves?…not many.
So here are just a few interesting quotes from honest evolutionists that might interest you…i will kick off this thread with the most brutally honest statement concerning the faith known as evolution by a highly respected evolutionist himself…i have already used this statement in another post of mine, but since it is so powerful a testimony, thought it necessary to be the opening statement of this thread. Let this truth be acknowledged and understood in all it’s implications.
Feel free to add your own pearls as i will also be doing gradually as they come to my attention….they can be evolutionists questioning evolution itself or just plain silly statements/conjectures that these evolutionists regularly divulge in…Enjoy!
The New York Times Book Reviews, 9 January 1997. Professor Lewontin:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our apriori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology:
“There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level.” “We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells.” “We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution.” “Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete.”
“The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations.” “It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determining how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind. The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA.” “The rules… of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory. Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other.”
“We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level–from DNA to protein–it must work at all higher levels as well. We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management. But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling.” “Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome.” –Richard C. Strohman. March 1997. The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology. Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15, pp. 194-200.
Sean B. Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature:
“A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue.”– Sean B. Carroll. 8 February 2001. Nature, Vol. 409, p. 669.
Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist:
“I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, s
uch as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.” –Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,15:33) Did you write this? Or did you steal it… Stuart
Um…DUH!!!No Stu…i was there as a reporter and recorded all these statements!!
LOL….you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now aren't you Stu…
Hey!…Stu…that's like…stew!
You know, a mixture of ingredients!
Kinda like a primordial stew of ooze…A Stu of ooze, that's you, our Stu, the primordial scrooge, masquerading as a clue, the ultimate ruse, in spite of the truth, his thoughts are obtuse, poor little Stu, he can't seem to chew, that he's just another one of those hairless, primordial, baboons.
Sorry Stu, just joking!
You aren't hairless at all.Quote (Devolution @ April 28 2012,19:01) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,15:33) Did you write this? Or did you steal it… Stuart
Um…DUH!!!No Stu…i was there as a reporter and recorded all these statements!!
LOL….you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now aren't you Stu…
Hey!…Stu…that's like…stew!
You know, a mixture of ingredients!
Kinda like a primordial stew of ooze…A Stu of ooze, that's you, our Stu, the primordial scrooge, masquerading as a clue, the ultimate ruse, in spite of the truth, his thoughts are obtuse, poor little Stu, he can't seem to chew, that he's just another one of those hairless, primordial, baboons.
Sorry Stu, just joking!
You aren't hairless at all.
So I'm right then. Thanks for confirming.Stuart
1. The incredible shrinking brain:
On the BBC News, readers were told, “Old age…has evolved to help meet the demands of raising smarter babies.” As if to pre-empt puzzled looks and questions by some readers, the article added, “And it is not such a stretch, Dr [Chet] Sherwood [George Washington U] suggests, to conclude that grandparents’ extended lives are in an evolutionary sense there to relieve mothers from being solely responsible for raising their big-brained, energetically costly infants.” The Scientist also bought this idea uncritically.
2. The early brain gets the IQ:
Live Science told its readers, “It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we’re able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early.”
3. The arctic brain gets the eye size:
Judith Burns at the BBC News told readers, “Dark winters ‘led to bigger human brains and eyeballs’.” A team publishing in the Royal Society Biology Letters “found a positive relationship between absolute latitude and both eye socket size and cranial capacity.” But don’t think that means Eskimos make better philosophers: “The Oxford University team said bigger brains did not make people smarter.” It just means the bigger eyes need more visual neurons; “It’s just they need bigger eyes and brains to be able to see well where they live.”
Wasn’t cranial capacity, though, the sine qua non of human evolution? “The work indicates that humans are subject to the same evolutionary trends that give relatively large eyes to birds that sing first during the dawn chorus, or species such as owls that forage at night.”
Astonishing as it may seem, these adaptations occurred rapidly in the tens of thousands of years since humans first migrated into the arctic; Robin Dunbar commented, “they seem to have adapted their visual systems surprisingly rapidly to the cloudy skies, dull weather and long winters we experience at these latitudes.” New Scientist and the BBC News gave this theory a wink and an approving smile. But did the big-eyed people evolve a resistance to snow blindness?
4. From hydrogen to charity:
You only give to charities across the world because evolution figured out it’s less costly to be nice to every person you meet, even if you will never see them, than to risk offending someone you might see again. This is the gist of a story on PhysOrg about how generosity evolved. Tooby and Cosmides had to fit this into evolution because, obviously, “one of the outstanding problems in the behavioral sciences was why natural selection had not weeded out this pleasing but apparently self-handicapping behavioral tendency” to be nice to strangers; “If traditional theories in these fields are true, such behaviors should have been weeded out long ago by evolution or by self-interest,” the article noticed.
Did you write that? Or have you copied and pasted without doing the author the honesty of acknowledgement AGAIN?
So much for the commandment against theft.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 02 2012,16:47) Did you write that? Or have you copied and pasted without doing the author the honesty of acknowledgement AGAIN? So much for the commandment against theft.
Stuart
Hi Stu,That was from the CEH website, (Creation Evolution news), darn, i did forget to put that down, again, thanks for pointing it out…just that i was laughing so much about that scientist who said “It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we’re able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early.”
Ah…3.5 BILLION years!!! Early start!!! HAHAHA, golden.
BTW, when it comes to information about these matters, Christians don't get all huffy puffy over its usage, its the message that matters, not the ego of the writer, so no “theft” occurred..also, the site says use the information as we please!!So there you go, however, i do want to give them credit because credit is due. Excellent site that it is.
Cheers.
FROM:CEH
Stretching Credibility in Evolutionary Stories
Posted on September 20, 2011 in Awards, Biology, Birds, Darwin and Evolution, Dinosaurs, Dumb Ideas, Early Man, Fossils, Genetics, Humanity, Intelligent Design, Issues, Mammals, Marine Biology, Media, Microbiology, Mind and Brain, OriginsImprobable events happening numerous times; selective extinctions; voodoo phylogenetics – at what point do evolutionary explanations exceed the threshold of credibility a trusting public grants to the gurus of the culture, scientists?
Four miracles: Getting one central nervous system by an unguided process would seem unlikely enough, but now, without a twinge of shame, Ferris Jabr at New Scientist tells us it happened four times. Jabr relayed, without any cross examination, the new idea of an evolutionary biologist at Auburn University, summarizing it thus: “The new findings expand a growing body of evidence that in very different groups of animals – molluscs and mammals, for instance – central nervous systems evolved not once, but several times, in parallel.” (While at it, the evolutionist rearranged the mollusc family tree.) Because the new family tree shows that gastropods and cephalopods are not as related as once thought, it can only mean one thing: “they must have evolved their centralised nervous systems independently, at different times.” If this was a crackpot view from one university it might be forgiven, but a neurobiologist at Georgia State chimed in, “This is more evidence that you can get complexity emerging multiple times.”
Imaginary feathers redux: National Geographic News takes the cake for leaping from amber fuzz to dinosaur feathers: “Incredible” Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber.” In the picture show, not one hint was given that these feather pieces might have all come from birds (see 9/15/2011). Ditto for a video posted by BBC News where BBC reporter Pallab Ghosh. Spilling pieces of amber on the table top, he says “Here’s the proof” (cue up the artist animation of feathered dinosaurs) – “actual feathers from dinosaurs living 85 million years ago.” It’s not sure what Ghosh proved other than his own assumptions, but he filmed co-author Phil Currie sharing his excitement. Isn’t this the same Phil Currie who told the makers of Voyage that Shook the World that scientists tend to see what they want to see?
Fossil record gap caulk: Ashamed of those embarrassing systematic gaps in the fossil record, the trade secret of paleontology? Need to reconcile them with the embarrassing mismatch with molecular phylogenetics? No problem; just selectively massage the data in a new model, and everything matches. That’s what Penn State scientists did. Read about it on Science Daily, “New Technique Fills Gaps in Fossil Record.” Just don’t look under the rug.
Your father tongue: It may not seem clear to the average reader how this reporter got from here to there: “Your mother tongue may come from your father,” New Scientist announced, based on genetic comparisons. “The language of some cultures correlates with a prehistoric influx of foreign males.” How genes create a language was not explained, or how one could know what language the inflowing males spoke.
Selective extinction: According to the evolutionary timeline, dinosaurs occupied a tremendous range of habitats for tens of millions of years, surviving everything till a meteorite hit the Earth. Even though they came in all sizes and shapes, this meteorite killed off every last one of them, but left a few spare birds and mammals around to repopulate the planet. That’s what Science Daily said in “Primitive Birds Shared Dinosaurs’ Fate,” that only the “primitive” birds died. Nicholas “Longrich [Yale] believes a small fraction of the Cretaceous bird species survived the impact, giving rise to today’s birds.” But in almost the same breath in another article, Science Daily announced, “NASA’s WISE Raises Doubt About Asteroid Family Believed Responsible for Dinosaur Extinction.” The prime candidate family of impactors couldn’t do it. Readers are offered a mystery story in exchange: “the family of asteroids some believed was responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs is not likely the culprit, keeping open the case on one of Earth’s greatest mysteries.” It must have happened, though, because Live Science posted a picture of the asteroid on the way in.
Evolution of overconfidence: Narcissism evolved because “Overestimating our abilities can be a strategy for success,” National Geographic reported based on a study at the University of Edinburgh. In “Evolution of Narcissism: Why We’re Overconfident, and Why It Works,” Reporter Christine Dell’Amore posted art of David slaying Goliath, displacing the object of David’s confidence from God onto himself. She also failed to ask if study leader Dominic Johnson was perhaps a bit overconfident of his own theory. It’s also not clear how this squares with the epidemic of low self-esteem psychologists were warning everyone about for years.
If you need a laugh, or enjoy getting mad, read evolutionary explanations. They are the most creatively funny but deadly things in the news. No reporter ever questions these stories, either logically, historically, philosophically, evidentially or any other which way; they constantly reinforce a cultural myth, a religion, that is utterly intolerant of intelligent design. Reporters completely ignored the groundbreaking premieres of the film Metamorphosis that just took place in California, Oklahoma and Texas, but have a slobbering love affair with Richard Dawkins (NY Times), acting as his veritable publicity agents, and chant their praises to atheists who deign to tell us how religion evolved (LA Times). Pulling the thread that unravels their sweater is remarkably easy. If hubris evolved, like the last article claimed, then their own hubris also evolved. This short-circuits the evolutionary explanation when you think about it. They are just bragging about evolution because evolution made them do it. Anything they say, therefore, is not true, but pre-programmed nonsense. Nonsense cannot be an explanation; the alternative, therefore, that they are depraved sinners, stands. Q.E.D.
Quote (Devolution @ May 03 2012,13:54) Quote (Stu @ May 02 2012,16:47) Did you write that? Or have you copied and pasted without doing the author the honesty of acknowledgement AGAIN? So much for the commandment against theft.
Stuart
Hi Stu,That was from the CEH website, (Creation Evolution news), darn, i did forget to put that down, again, thanks for pointing it out…just that i was laughing so much about that scientist who said “It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we’re able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early.”
Ah…3.5 BILLION years!!! Early start!!! HAHAHA, golden.
BTW, when it comes to information about these matters, Christians don't get all huffy puffy over its usage, its the message that matters, not the ego of the writer, so no “theft” occurred..also, the site says use the information as we please!!So there you go, however, i do want to give them credit because credit is due. Excellent site that it is.
Cheers.
Please explain your specific objection to the fact that life has been on this planet for at least 3.5 billion years.Stuart
Is it 3.5 billion years or 10billion years, take your pick,no one can check that out anyway.
That is not evidence,so where is your evidence; you are so gullible just to accept that as fact,a concept made up by men,and we know that men are corrupt.So what ever comes out of corruption is corrupt.
The Holy bible has historical fact as evidence; just follow the genealogy: going back from Jesus to Adam,Mathew chap.1.
The genealogy is clear; the names are all mentioned,from Adam to Jesus,and the age of each of the fathers.This is some evidence: evolutionists have none,but speculations.
The earth itself is old,but life on earth is only 6000yrs old.
Today is the yrs 5772 on the jewish calendar.The 6000th yrs is ending,and soon the 7000yrs will start and this is the 7000yr rest with Christ ruling on earth,in his kingdom.
Pictured as the sabath.(rest).The population on earth today is also reaching 7 billion.
We are in the last days,and you need to get saved from the grip of satan.Repent and find life; why would you choose death?
All you need to say in your heart is; Lord save me and show me the way to salvation,I want your salvation.And none of that macho stuff.
Satan is the rebeller; dont be one following his footsteps.wakeup.
Quote (Wakeup @ May 05 2012,10:34) Is it 3.5 billion years or 10billion years, take your pick,no one can check that out anyway. That is not evidence,so where is your evidence; you are so gullible just to accept that as fact,a concept made up by men,and we know that men are corrupt.So what ever comes out of corruption is corrupt.
The Holy bible has historical fact as evidence; just follow the genealogy: going back from Jesus to Adam,Mathew chap.1.
The genealogy is clear; the names are all mentioned,from Adam to Jesus,and the age of each of the fathers.This is some evidence: evolutionists have none,but speculations.
The earth itself is old,but life on earth is only 6000yrs old.
Today is the yrs 5772 on the jewish calendar.The 6000th yrs is ending,and soon the 7000yrs will start and this is the 7000yr rest with Christ ruling on earth,in his kingdom.
Pictured as the sabath.(rest).The population on earth today is also reaching 7 billion.
We are in the last days,and you need to get saved from the grip of satan.Repent and find life; why would you choose death?
All you need to say in your heart is; Lord save me and show me the way to salvation,I want your salvation.And none of that macho stuff.
Satan is the rebeller; dont be one following his footsteps.wakeup.
So you have nothing but history denial and religious fantasy conspiracy theories to offer us.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
