Evolution. Are you truly knowledgeable about EVOLUTION?

Question

Then, guess who said these quotations re. EVOLUTION:

1."The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

2. "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"

3. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."

4. "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."

Answer 1

1. "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

2. “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

3. “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138

4. "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.

Answer 2

Since WellTravelledProg answered so well, I will not attempt to steal his thunder. I know a lot about evolution -- enough to know that "Scientific" Creationism is just a pack of political rhetoric, cherry-picked data, psuedoscintific jargon, and outright lies.

Darwin addressed many issues in evolution by raising the issue from the opposition point-of-view, then discussing it. Creationists make meaningless out-of-context sound bites from Darwin's circumspect approach

The quoted question:
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

The immediate subsequent text answering it:
"It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter
on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time."

Answer 3

1. Michael Denton, who wrote a book critical of evolution in 1986 which was full of scientific errors, flat-out lies, and attempts to mix science and philosophy. Worthless. Besides, you *do* know that Denton is now a confirmed evolutionist, don't you? Spending so much time examining the evidence changed his mind so that he accepts it as fact. hehe.

2. Charles Darwin -- taken completely out of context. If read in context, it's the beginning of an explanation of why it's difficult to have a complete fossil record, showing how geology over millions of years can wipe out fossils, or even that none may have ever existed of a particular species. Besides, that was written nearly 200 years ago -- and since then, thousands of "transitional form" fossils *have* been found.

3. H. Lipson, 1980. A physicist, not a biologist. And he's probably right -- scientists are human after all, and *some* are willing to bend their results to fit the theory. Those kind of results get discredited very quickly, are found out for fakery, and get tossed aside. Science is very nicely self-correcting like that.

4. H. Nilsson, 1953 In the 50+ years since he wrote this, several experiments intended to directly show evolution *have* given positive results (most notably several involving fish species in Indonesia in isolated streams).

None of these are current, and you quoting them shows not only an attempt to lie (Darwin's quote taken out of context), but a complete lack of understanding about how science proceeds and gathers new evidence.
Instead of trying to find quotes to dis-prove it, you'd serve yourself intellectually a lot better reading up on CURRENT information -- all of it, positive and critical -- and actually use facts to make up your mind.

Answer 4

you've were given the right idea. purely because you, on your mortal human ideas, won't be able to completely understand each and every nuance of a particular idea or conception does no longer immediately make it pretend. That is going for evolution, for international warming, for why wars take position, for conception in GOD, for knowledge of the Trinity. See, human beings do this on each and every aspect. in the adventure that they don't get it, it should be incorrect. Hilariously adequate, this argument is mostly used to argue that Christians ought to all be idiots. in view that an atheist or different non-Christian won't be able to understand our faith (at a particular age, after being raised in a particular way) then it should be incorrect. mutually, in case you do not realize what evolution is truly defined as, you won't be able to thoroughly discredit it. purely as you mustn't blindly remember on your faith, you ought to no longer blindly settle for all theories placed forth by scientists. The medical international screws up another day and has to re-evaluate. it really is a similar with evolution. that's a concept which will be switched over, adapted, and altered as we learn extra about our origins.

Answer 5

But in fact (2) died believing evolution was a close as we could get to a real explanation. And his substantial objections, e.g., the ones about fossils, etc., were rigorously dealt with by discovery & research - and the evidence just keeps piling on. It's a shame he wasn't here to see it.

Now, do you remember how he felt about God?

Answer 6

1. Michael Denton

2. Charles Darwin

3. H.S. Lipson

4. H. Nilsson

Answer 7

Don't know, and don't care. Evolution is now a proven fact, and that's all you need to know. (Write by avatar if you want the proof.)

Answer 8

THE EVOLUTION

“I know that the word of “Evolution” has become an obsolete and worthless word in some circles of the people___ and they do frown even on it’s simple reference.

You will however surprise to know that I, not only, respect these friends and their feelings, rather, I agree to their viewpoint, to some extent, in the light of the current knowledge. Because they apprehend “Evolution” in terms of material or mechanical evolution whereas material or mechanical evolution is far different from that of the creative evolution.

An important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.

All the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.

This very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:

“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”

The physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.

George Erl Devis writes further:

“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___ our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:

Is there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?

And___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.

We can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.

We are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__ is almost possible.”

As we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logical grounds. And such a result, duly derived from the stock of scientific information, is this:


“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”

and___ that is such a reasonable result, which is free from all sorts of logical objections. And___ through this very result we come to know about the Creator Who is Creator of all the material and immaterial things, and who is the Omnipotent.

If we presume that the universe is created accidentally or automatically. Then we will have to presume too, that the universe, itself has the power of creation. Such a presumption is, however, not maintainable on account of the scientific informations, collected so far, about the universe. So___ accidental or automatic creation of universe___ is the result___ which is totally irrational.

And where, God is being believed as the Alone Creator of universe, scientific informations are now becoming a foundation there. And science___ which is the fountain-head of the pure observational, analytical and experimental knowledge___ has reached at such a stage. That the next step whereof is not else___ but to believe in God and God’s Almighty Omnipotence. And___ that is on account of this very consensus of the universal scientific informations that:

“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”.

It is a Verse-like ray of Holy light and a great information. Proper apprehension whereof leads us, directly, to the realm of Faith.

“Universe was created accidentally or automatically” is a notion, which is not confirmed by the scientific information. So, to think like that is an irrational & illogical gesture. Which leads nowhere but to the ignorance.

Which God we should believe?

It is an important question and it is more important for the person who is desirous to know his God.

Can we consider this accidentally or automatically created universe as God? Does it create and remove everything by itself? But the scientific consensus that:

“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”

clarifies that universe was not created accidentally or automatically. Nor it is capable to create anything by itself. Nor it is given any knowledge of creation. And___ if the universe does not own any knowledge of creation___ then the knowledge of creation is definitely related to Mr. Albert Einstein’s that very Infinite & Supreme Power or Cause. Whose creative manifestations are being seen everywhere in this inapprehensible universe.

The act of knowledge, which is the process of creation in this universe___ is a magnificent sign ___ which is leading us, directly, to the Creator.

Power of knowledge and act of knowledge in terms of the process of creation___ bespeak of such a Creator who is Unique___ Who is free from the creaturely traits__ Who is far above the Nature and our state of knowledge___ Who is Supreme, Supernatural and Omnipotent. About whom we can speak in the following rational terms.

“The Creator of things is not a thing or like the created things. And as the intellect itself is a thing, so it is not considerable more than a thing of superior kind. Therefore its capability of making some image or imagination of the Creator will result to such a step, which may diminish the supreme sublimity of the Creator”.

In this way a man of intellect may believe in God on logical basis. Whereafter he will always consider his God as the Sole Creator and the Sole Guardian of universe. He will never consider his God as a part of universe or a thing in universe or the universe.

It means that God is Super-natural and Super-physical. Who is not perceivable through our senses at all.

The commonplace concept that God is a kind of matter as well as God is the Creator of matter or___ God is the universe as well as God is Super-natural & Super-physical___ is a self-contradictory and an irrational concept.

We must refrain from such concepts and resort to reality that existence of creatures is separate from the Creator and the creatures are not like the Creator at all. Because creatures live and die and they are under God’s control. It is recorded in the Scripture in the words of the Creator:

“I__ and I alone___ am God
No other god is real”
(Duet 32:39)

Worship no god but Me!
Do not make for yourselves images of anything
In heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth
Do not bow down to any idol or worship it
For I am the Lord your God and
I tolerate no rivals.
(Duet 5:7 to 9)

Hence, we must believe our God as the Supernatural and Super-physical. God is not perceivable by our senses. Nor___ God is point-able like point-able things. Nor___ the names of God’s created things should be used for God. Nor ___ we should consider God in terms of things and worship God as a thing. Of course___ we should believe God, the same way, as God has commanded us to believe. And___ God’s Commandments 9Duet 32:39 and Duet 5:7 to 9) are very much reasonable and quiet corresponding to our intellect.

Answer 9

teddy haggard? hehehe...

Answer 10

shut your ***