Evolution vs. Creation, what's more reasonable?
Scientists with impressive credentials are leaving the doctrines of evolution. Unfortunately, no one has informed the general public.
As Science Digest reported:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:
The notion that...the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Researcher and Mathematician I. L. Cohen:
At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. ...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.
Evolutionist Michael Denton:
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.
Peter Saunders (University of London) and Mae-Wan Ho (Open University):
From the claims made for neo-Darwinism one could easily get the impression that it has made great progress towards explaining Evolution, mostly leaving the details to be cleared up. In fact, quite the reverse is true.
Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it...
Evolutionist Greg Kirby:
If you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments...
Evolutionist Lord Solly Zuckerman:
Students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution... The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is...in this field at all.
Evolutionist Tom Kemp:
A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?
Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose:
We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists...
Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History:
The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.
Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University:
I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.
Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist:
The best physical evidence that the earth is young is a dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling...the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. ...To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony physics.
Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University:
The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. ...if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.
Molecular biologist Michael Denton:
Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond...anything produced by the intelligence of man?
C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General:
When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.
Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho:
We ourselves would be less concerned about falsifiability if neo-Darwinism were a powerful theory with major successes to its credit. But this is simply not the case.
C. Martin in American Scientist:
The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolutionist:
No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.
Arthur Koestler, author:
In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.
Darwinism has failed in practice.
Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist:
Modern apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans...is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.
Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.:
The Evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before...
John Woodmorappe, geologist:
Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order. ...it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.
Evolutionist S. Lovtrup:
Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?
J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science:
The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.
N. H. Nilsson, famous botanist and Evolutionist:
My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.
Luther Sunderland, science researcher:
None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Tom Kemp of Oxford University:
As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record.
Francis Hitching, archaeologist:
The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.
David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist:
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.
Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist and paleontologist and former Evolutionist:
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.
Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician:
A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. ...moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.
I. Cohen, mathematician and archaeologist:
It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of Evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers...
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist:
The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.
Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher:
The theory of Evolution...will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.
I believe most of you mistake evolution with adaptation.
all of you check out this:
psychoticB: mutts do not evolve, they just adapt their genes within each other, the don't form new traits.
Asked By: Let's Debate - 11/2/2007
Once again, I'm gonna have to call you on this.
The first point is that many of those quoted are not qualified to comment on evolution. Mathematicians, Physicists, philosophers, etc are simply not skilled in genetics to talk about such a concept as Evolution.
Take those who are. Michael Denton for example made his comments over 20 years ago and since then the gaps that he refers to are still be used as fact by Creationists.
Dr Colin Patterson is blatantly misquoted and you will find letter from him attacking the misuse of his quotes by creationists on the internet.
Lord Solly Zuckerman is more a zooologist and not an evolutionist as you state (although I suspect you did a cut and paste job from a creationist website). His research dates back to the 1930's and he wrote books in the 60's and 70's.
NOW THIS IS GETTING EMBARRASSING FOR YOU because this is typical Creationist strategy - either misquotation or quoting research that is decades out of date. And you talk about reasonable. But I will continue a bit further because believe or not am getting a kick out of EMBARRASSING YOU and your lack of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE or even you inability to CHECK "FACTS" before you use them.
Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose is not so eminent and indeed the only refernce you find to him is on, you guessed it, creationist websites.
"Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History:
The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
Look at what is said here. Maybe the words are enough to fool creationists but this is simply saying that there is no competitor to evolution. It certainly is not denying evolution.
Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist is not reputable and even appears on websites alongside our famous Dr Humphrey's, laughing stock of the physics community who made basic mathematical errors when formulating his starlight and time theory for a young universe in line with the big bang, who has been criticised by the whole physics community who titter at his name and yet Creationists drag these people out as evidence of defection. These people WERE CREATIONISTS FROM THE START. THEY NEVER WANTED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE BIBLE.
Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho, again it questionable as to whether a mathematician can comment on such a topic. Even a biologist does not mean geneticist or expert in evolution.
THIS ONE IS GREAT
Pierre-Paul Grassé born 1895 and died 1985. He is hardly a CURRENT DEFECTOR FROM evolution. He NEVER BELIEVED in evolution. He was never an evolutionist as the website from which you did your copy paste states - yes I found the website. The website is LYING - IS THAT CHRISTIAN? TELLING BLATANT LIES - IS THAT CHRISTIAN?
IT GETS BETTER
Arthur Koestler was born in 1905 in Budapest. He was interested in the paranormal, mysticism and judaeism. He was not scientifically trained and was one who believed in Jung's philosophy. I wonder if the Christian website would continue to use his views if they knew he COMMITTED SUICIDE with his 3rd WIFE?
Lyall Watson, the man who tries to explain the supernatural with biology. AGAIN, NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST.
NOW I HAVE EMBARRASSED YOU ENOUGH. YOu should know that I will call you on these lies and misinterpretations. It strikes me as strange that Christians JUSTIFY LYING in order to serve a purpose of recruiting numbers or keeping their numbers. It makes no sense. I hope your God is watching.
What is even more hilarious is that YOU BELIEVE this and call yourself reasonable.
Answered By: penster_x - 11/2/2007