Some Quotations from Scientists on Evolution -part1

[BGoodForGoodSake]

It's no good getting upset with me. Behe said it.

IS that ALL?! C'mon now Blob, aren't you done yet? Stop straining yourself over this, WHY are you here?

Brian I think Blob posted Behe's quote because this thread is of quotes. It began as quotes from scientists who thought evolution was either incomlete or wrong.

I think it is best to note that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Science is like the American government it is our duty to analize and criticize.

[Ken]

SpaceCase wrote: "Hey Ken, back to your original post... Can I assume that the individuals in your quotes have one thing in common? They all are trying to prove, we arose from nothing, for no reason, with little time, to where we are today? Of course they will fail, because their goal is to prove God doesn't exist... However, when we accept that God exists... why couldn't He have CREATED using evolution? According to his purpose, he steered and molded a wonderful masterpiece... Not by chance, but by His will..."

Hello SpaceCase, The only thing in common the individuals I quoted have is that they admit that evolution is not true ...its a theory and not even a good one. In fact, many of the persons quoted are professed evolutionists - they only believe evolution because to admit otherwise forces them to consider God in the equation - their hard hearts and blinded eyes won't allow that.

You ask that, for those of us who believe, why couldn't God have created using evolution. It is not that God couldn't have done so but the matter is that He DIDN'T use such a method. The bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in seven literal days. We also know that death entered the world because of the sin of the man (not caveman) Adam. There is no way an intelligent Christian should believe that billions of dead things were around millions of years before Adam walked the earth. Death was not present until Adam's sin. Also Adam was created in God's image - God is not a single-celled amoeba in some primordial slime. God says kind reproduces after its kind so while there may be breeding within a species cause subspecies, the offspring will always belong to the original "kind."

The truth is Christians did not want to appear 'dumb' to the world and, valuing the world's opinions more than God's, chose rather to adopt the fantastical faith in a big bang and evolution. Christians should value God's truths more than man's conjectures.

Some simple thoughts for an evolutionist to consider (no, you don't have to be a scientist to figure it out):
1.) Every ancient culture has tales of a great flood. If this flood was true we should expect to see seashells on mountaintops and millions of dead things laid down in layers all over the earth. Hey, that is exactly what we find, isn't it? Just think about it.

2.) If evolution were true then we should see millions of fossils representing every alleged in-between stage of development from microbe to man and microbe to every other form of life(including plant life now!). We see NO SUCH THING. Evolution doesn't only have a missing link ... it has an entire missing chain!

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

3.) If evolution is true and amoeba evolved why are there still amoebas, etc.? Why are there still lizards? And how did those little Frankenstein cells created when lightning struck the primordial pond evolve into the millions of different species of life - including, plant and animal phylas? This takes much more faith than believing in a Creator.

4.) Evolution is based on a theory of "survival of the fittest." Consider when the first eyeball was forming over "millions of years of evolution." At some point, maybe thousands or a couple million years, we could get 5-10% of an eye .. but wait such would be a useless bodypart and therfore, by the rules of evolution it would be not fit for survival and disappear from the earth. The first eye had to be 100% functioning and complete - this flies in the face of evolutions millions of years of unoticeable micro-changes.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Charles Darwin said"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wonderings all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People MADE A RELIGION OUT OF THEM."

The truth is it takes much more BLIND FAITH to believe in the fairytale of evolution than it does to believe in the Creator God. Maybe the reason so many people are biased by evolution or conversely biased with Christianity exists in the outcome of both "faiths." (As Ken Ham says, We all have biases - it comes down to what bias is it better to be biased with anyway?) An evolutionist thinks that all of us die and turn to dust to live no more. But a Christian knows that they have eternal life after the Judgment and that the unbelieving (by choice not mere ignorance) and other unsaved sinners perish forever in the Lake of Fire.

[Jbuza]

The truth is Christians did not want to appear 'dumb' to the world and, valuing the world's opinions more than God's, chose rather to adopt the fantastical faith in a big bang and evolution. Christians should value God's truths more than man's conjectures.



<cheer> <applause>

[BGoodForGoodSake]

1.) Every ancient culture has tales of a great flood. If this flood was true we should expect to see seashells on mountaintops and millions of dead things laid down in layers all over the earth. Hey, that is exactly what we find, isn't it? Just think about it.

Why are the fossils mineralized and encased in rock. Some deep within Mountains and only exposed recently due to erosion? And why aren't they all mixed together? ie. all sort of forms seem to only appear in certain layers only.

2.) If evolution were true then we should see millions of fossils representing every alleged in-between stage of development from microbe to man and microbe to every other form of life(including plant life now!). We see NO SUCH THING. Evolution doesn't only have a missing link ... it has an entire missing chain!

I suupose a homocide scene should have an entire trail of blood leading right to the murderer?

3.) If evolution is true and amoeba evolved why are there still amoebas, etc.? Why are there still lizards? And how did those little Frankenstein cells created when lightning struck the primordial pond evolve into the millions of different species of life - including, plant and animal phylas? This takes much more faith than believing in a Creator.

This shows a major misunderstanding. What precludes more primitive forms from existing? Do elephants cause mice to go extinct?

4.) Evolution is based on a theory of "survival of the fittest." Consider when the first eyeball was forming over "millions of years of evolution." At some point, maybe thousands or a couple million years, we could get 5-10% of an eye .. but wait such would be a useless bodypart and therfore, by the rules of evolution it would be not fit for survival and disappear from the earth. The first eye had to be 100% functioning and complete - this flies in the face of evolutions millions of years of unoticeable micro-changes.

Again a simplification of the idea to an extreme.
We can start new threads going into each of these subjects in detail if you desire.

[Blob]

Hello ken.

The truth is it takes much more BLIND FAITH to believe in the fairytale of evolution than it does to believe in the Creator God.

You put evolution down by labelling it "blind faith" and presumably consider "blind faith" to be a bad thing. You also imply that your own beliefs require "blind faith", just no so much.

Just to confirm - do you see your own "blind faith" as a bad thing too?

Maybe the reason so many people are biased by evolution or conversely biased with Christianity exists in the outcome of both "faiths."

Again you are using faith as a put down. So again, do you consider your own faith to be a bad thing?

[Byblos]

The truth is Christians did not want to appear 'dumb' to the world and, valuing the world's opinions more than God's, chose rather to adopt the fantastical faith in a big bang and evolution. Christians should value God's truths more than man's conjectures.

<cheer> <applause>

The truth according to whom? You say God could have done it this way (i.e. via the big bang and what it entails) but didn't because the Bible says God created everything in 7 literal days. I happen to disagree and believe there is an alternative explanation to Genesis as is evidently show on this site here :

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

This interpretation was not born out of some fear for not appearing 'dumb to the world' but out of deep conviction that that is what Genesis means. If it so happens to reconcile with currently prevalent evolutionary theories is but a mere fringe benefit rather than causality.

I do not mean to suggest you are wrong in your beliefs but rather to offer my side as an equally plausible alternative. You might take that as a sign of weakness in the faith on my part (the fact that I'm presenting a mere alternative rather than unequivocally stating my side as fact) but nothing could be further from the truth. What I believe is simply that, to me, it is utterly insignificant how the universe came to be and when. I do believe God caused it to be, period. I also believe that as a human being, by the way, not as a Christian. My christianity flows from that but that is irrelevant to this thread.

[Blob]

Hello Thinker.

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Why must there be a "who"?

There needn't be.

Why must there be a "what"?

Because we exist.

Why must there be a "where"?

Because space exists.

Why must there be a "when"?

Because time exists.

Why must there be a "why"?

There needn't be.

Why must there be a "how"?

Because things change.

There are "whys" because we need to know WHY it works.

For me the way things are seen to work is "how". "Why" presupposes a consious reason and there need not necessarily be a conscious reason.

I would like for you to to provide full evidence/proof as to how and WHY this universe came about since you don't believe in God.

I can't. I don't know. No one does. And if anyone claims to they are kidding themselves.

The best I can do is consider the options on offer in my culture. One offering is "God". Yet this answer does not add up and explains nothing IMO.

Therefore I am left still full of wonder and awe that I am conscious and the universe exists, but have no nutshell answer for it all.

How can you think with your intelligent mind for a second that everything everywhere just came to be or eternally existed without a creator?

Using my imagination.

If you believe, you will not worry about eternal death, if you don't believe, you do have something to worry about.

I will not be coerced into a belief through fear and threats of hell, Thinker. Besides, what if you are wrong? What if a punisher-god exists but picks on christians and rewards atheists? The god you believe in is said to be limitless and anything is possible. Unless you know the mind of your god - i.e. you are your own god - you cannot be sure. You can only have faith.

I feel I can understand a little where you are coming from, but seriously dude, get with it, science is not the final frontier, and you know that!

I agree.

the fact that we are more intelligent in these days to distinguish fact from fiction and stop being so gullible.

"We"? Not everyone agrees with you - most people in the world do not agree with you.

[August]

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes, that's correct.

Source. (pdf file, approx 200KB)

For the sake of completeness, here is the full context from the source. It's clear what Behe meant, sometime in the past astrology was considered a scientific theory, but has since been discarded as science, as a result of critical scrutiny as every theory should be.

I think the point that Blob wants to make is that we cannot look at a quote in isolation and determine the validity of the speakers position, that is called quote-mining.

"15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
16 scientific theory, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.
3 Q The ether theory of light has been discarded,
4 correct?
5 A That is correct.
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.
20 Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been
21 accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor
22 Behe?
23 A Well, I am not a historian of science. And
24 certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the
25 educated community has not accepted astrology as a science
1 for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle
2 Ages and before that, when people were struggling to
3 describe the natural world, some people might indeed think
4 that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what
5 we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the
6 earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the
7 earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don t we pull up the
9 definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
10 MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
11 BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
12 Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that s
13 what it says there?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the
16 supposed influences of the stars and planets on human
17 affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and
18 aspects."
19 That s the scientific theory of astrology?
20 A That s what it says right there, but let me direct
21 your attention to the archaic definition, because the
22 archaic definition is the one which was in effect when
23 astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real
24 events, at least by the educated community.
25 Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things
1 like astrology, and the history of science is replete with
2 ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless
3 giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of
4 describing the world.
5 And simply because an idea is old, and simply
6 because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean
7 when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it
8 was not actually a real scientific theory."

[Believer]

Hello Thinker.

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Why must there be a "who"?

There needn't be.

Then if there is no "who", then how do we address a person or other being?

Why must there be a "what"?

Because we exist.

You absolutely sure we exist as how we perceive it?

Why must there be a "where"?

Because space exists.

Is that all? Are you sure?

Why must there be a "when"?

Because time exists.

Okay.

Why must there be a "why"?

There needn't be.

You sure? If a machine works by a "how", then "why" does it work, as in its purpose? How about WHY something exists as it does?

Why must there be a "how"?

Because things change.

Okay.

But one must know the purpose of the 5 W's as they exist as valid universal questions. An atheist can reject some things out of it, but then left without the full complete picture, a jigsaw puzzle uncompleted.

There are "whys" because we need to know WHY it works.

For me the way things are seen to work is "how". "Why" presupposes a consious reason and there need not necessarily be a conscious reason.

Yes, for YOU it is by "hows", but then it begs the questions like "why" does it work for the reason of "how"?

I would like for you to to provide full evidence/proof as to how and WHY this universe came about since you don't believe in God.

I can't. I don't know. No one does. And if anyone claims to they are kidding themselves.

Okay so you accept that fact, yet you think saying "God did it" is too simplistic and needs to be observed scientifically?

The best I can do is consider the options on offer in my culture. One offering is "God". Yet this answer does not add up and explains nothing IMO.

Yes, IN YOUR OPINION, but how about God laying out the lab (Earth) for us to "play" with so we get closer to Him? Yet this is still not a valid option for you. One who believes in no God created everything must ask himself how it is logically possible for a godless universe to even exist, and for scientists this is fun and a hobby/job which just leaves them more confused.

Therefore I am left still full of wonder and awe that I am conscious and the universe exists, but have no nutshell answer for it all.

So why go flat out wild trying to discover it when we (generations) have been trying to figure it out but still no answer?

How can you think with your intelligent mind for a second that everything everywhere just came to be or eternally existed without a creator?

Using my imagination.

And how far does that get you?

If you believe, you will not worry about eternal death, if you don't believe, you do have something to worry about.

I will not be coerced into a belief through fear and threats of hell, Thinker. Besides, what if you are wrong? What if a punisher-god exists but picks on christians and rewards atheists? The god you believe in is said to be limitless and anything is possible. Unless you know the mind of your god - i.e. you are your own god - you cannot be sure. You can only have faith.

Yes, I among countless other believers have faith. And why ask an asinine question of what if a punisher-god exists? Right... A God offers salvation to His believers only to punish them .

I feel I can understand a little where you are coming from, but seriously dude, get with it, science is not the final frontier, and you know that!

I agree.

Okay.

the fact that we are more intelligent in these days to distinguish fact from fiction and stop being so gullible.

"We"? Not everyone agrees with you - most people in the world do not agree with you.

So, those that don't agree with what I said, means they are not intelligent? Human beings are most intelligent, if brain mass increases, does that person get smarter? Yes they do, but it is still limited to what we currently possess in that we still have all the same functions, just an increase in memory and the ability to out-smart people better, yet it still does not address core issues.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes, that's correct.

I think the point that Blob wants to make is that we cannot look at a quote in isolation and determine the validity of the speakers position, that is called quote-mining.

I am not so sure, I think Blob's point is that Behe's definition of scientific theory is too broad. His definition elevates a hypothesis to the same level as a scientific theory.

Behe is redefining the term.

ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory." ~Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University

OH I LOVE THIS. I'm sorry. We must stop and reflect on this man's saying. Why? Because he has proposed a while ago a theory that contradicts the laws of thermodyanimcs-the first one-he proposes in his model for how the universe didn't need a beginning by saying that one hydrogen atom per square mile of empty space pops into existence per year...

I'm sorry, but it's obvious how biased he is. I mean...come on, he claims that matter can pop into existence without cause!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory." ~Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University

OH I LOVE THIS. I'm sorry. We must stop and reflect on this man's saying. Why? Because he has proposed a while ago a theory that contradicts the laws of thermodyanimcs-the first one-he proposes in his model for how the universe didn't need a beginning by saying that one hydrogen atom per square mile of empty space pops into existence per year...

I'm sorry, but it's obvious how biased he is. I mean...come on, he claims that matter can pop into existence without cause!

You have a problem with hydrogen atoms popping into existance but no problems with elephants popping into existance?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory." ~Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University

OH I LOVE THIS. I'm sorry. We must stop and reflect on this man's saying. Why? Because he has proposed a while ago a theory that contradicts the laws of thermodyanimcs-the first one-he proposes in his model for how the universe didn't need a beginning by saying that one hydrogen atom per square mile of empty space pops into existence per year...

I'm sorry, but it's obvious how biased he is. I mean...come on, he claims that matter can pop into existence without cause!

You have a problem with hydrogen atoms popping into existance but no problems with elephants popping into existance?

Elephants would have had at least a cause (aka creator)....

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory." ~Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University

OH I LOVE THIS. I'm sorry. We must stop and reflect on this man's saying. Why? Because he has proposed a while ago a theory that contradicts the laws of thermodyanimcs-the first one-he proposes in his model for how the universe didn't need a beginning by saying that one hydrogen atom per square mile of empty space pops into existence per year...

I'm sorry, but it's obvious how biased he is. I mean...come on, he claims that matter can pop into existence without cause!

You have a problem with hydrogen atoms popping into existance but no problems with elephants popping into existance?

Elephants would have had at least a cause (aka creator)....

So the same creator cannot create hydrogen atoms? Or is this not acceptable because of the implications?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory." ~Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University

OH I LOVE THIS. I'm sorry. We must stop and reflect on this man's saying. Why? Because he has proposed a while ago a theory that contradicts the laws of thermodyanimcs-the first one-he proposes in his model for how the universe didn't need a beginning by saying that one hydrogen atom per square mile of empty space pops into existence per year...

I'm sorry, but it's obvious how biased he is. I mean...come on, he claims that matter can pop into existence without cause!

You have a problem with hydrogen atoms popping into existance but no problems with elephants popping into existance?

Elephants would have had at least a cause (aka creator)....

So the same creator cannot create hydrogen atoms? Or is this not acceptable because of the implications?

Remember what we started talking about-Fred Hoyle's attempt at a naturalistic explanation for how the universe doesn't require a beginning....Don't stick everything in a blender and hit puree.