Does any one believe in Darwins theory?

Question

Do you agree with organic evolution?

Answer 1

I do not agree with Macro Evolution!!

When I saw answerers use outdated material as evidence for evolution and then in the same breath belittle Creationists as being stupid, I took it as a personal attack. Then I saw a quote from a leading evolutionist that sounded like he was "Forced " to acknowledge that Creationism was a completely viable option. I started looking and there are lots of such quotes. I call them my hostile witnesses. In law a hostile witness is one who is forced to agree with you even though he does not want to, because the evidence forces him to. Please note that the list is rather lengthy.

Then I will give a discovery that completely disproves Macro evolution.

Finally I will give an article about a man that is regarded as one of the most respected Atheists/evolutionists in the world.

Hold on its going to be quite a ride

All of the Quotes below are from leading evolutionists

STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.", Nat.His., V.86, p.13

STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

S.J.Gould, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56

Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they (evolutionists) have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's Enigma, p.100

Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

H.S. Ladd, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ph.d Geologist Don Patton has found the fossilized remains of 5 men, four women and a child. Some of the bones are articulated. However no evolutionist will verify the find. Many including Richard Dawkins refuse the travel to the site. The reason? These fossils are in the same strata as Dinosaur National Park. If this find were verified, this would put humans conteporary with Dinosaurs. So Evolutionists will not verify it. This is hypocracy plain and simple. Either Man is 100 million years old, or the dinosaurs lived very recently. Either way the Theory of evolution, as Richard Dawkins confesses, would be utterly shattered.

The find is factual.

In addition near the same location there are human footprints along side of Dinosaur prints. The prints have been verified by all but evolutionists as genuine. Again Evolutionists will not come to the site. From their oak desks they declare that the prints are frauds.
Source(s):
www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks
Or look up Don Patton on a search engine



Now let me show you what one of England's leading atheists and evolutionists declared.

Former Atheist Says God Exists
By: Cliff Kinkaid (Editor of the AIM Report)
Insight On The News
December 21, 2004
Dallas Morning News

It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.

At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas had some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life, rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

------------------------------...

Last week, The Associated Press broke the news that the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now accepts the existence of God.

Mr. Flew's best-known plaint for atheism, "Theology and Falsification," was delivered in 1950 to the Socratic Club, chaired by none other than C.S. Lewis. This paper went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades and set the agenda for modern atheism.

Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was brought into being by an infinite intelligence.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

Given the conventional wisdom of some psychologists that people rarely, if ever, change their worldview after the age of 30, this radical new position adopted by an 81-year-old thinker may seem startling.

But Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data.

Mr. Flew's conclusion is consistent with the actual beliefs of most modern scientific pioneers, from Albert Einstein to quantum physicists like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. In their view, the intelligence of the universe - its laws - points to an intelligence that has no limitation - "a superior mind," as Einstein put it.

Not a few of our men and women of letters, it would seem, have been looking for God in all the wrong places. Those who dismiss God as a product of psychological conditioning or pre-scientific myth-making have not come to terms with the essential assumptions underlying the scientific enterprise.

Science assumes that the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."

Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.

Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.

Matter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day one.

The evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.

We can, if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most recently, Antony Flew.

Roy Abraham Varghese of Garland is the author of The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Tyr Publishing). He helped organize presentations by Antony Flew in Dallas on two occasions. Readers may contact Mr. Varghese through tyrpublishing.com.

In closing let me ask,
1) How do you know how old a rock is?
Answer: By the fossils it contains.
2) How do you know how old a fossil is?
Answer: by the rock it comes from.
3) How do you know how old the rock is
Answer: See #1 above.

Answer 2

I accept the modern biological theory of evolution.

Darwin launched the basic idea. There is a tendency among creationists to set up Darwin as a strawman. The Bible has its Genesis, so evolution must have its Darwin. Science has fleshed out our understanding of evolution significantly since Darwin first published the Origin of Species.

Answer 3

Well anyone who actively participates on a zoology, or science page should......

I do, for sure, The Theory of Natural Selection is a factual phenomenon that can be seen anywhere and with any living creature on the planet.
Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is all around us, you yourself are a product of natural selection, all the traits you posses are the ones that made your parents attracted to each other, this is the fundamental behind natural selection.

This type of selection would easily lead to the evolution of a species, look at deer for example. large antlers are preferred by females which choose males, the antlers also aid in helping the males win battles for females. All deer with small antlers simply cant compete, and thus never pass on those genes for tiny antlers. However the males withe the large well built antlers will win all contests and thus mate and pass on those genetic traits to their progeny, thereby creating a strain of deer with large prominent antlers, this evolution can be seen over several decades, but the morphological change in some animals and other organisms may have take millenia to occur to their current state.......humans are the perfect example of that long-term change process........

Answer 4

Biological evolution occurs. That is a simple, verifiable, indisputable fact. The development of resistance to antibiotics in bacteria and resistance to pesticide in insects are both undeniable examples of biological evolution.

The theory of evolution through natural selection was the scientific theory developed by Charles Darwin (and conceived independently by others, such as Wallace), which explains why evolution occurs.

There have been other theories of evolution proposed by other scientists. The most famous is the theory of acquired characteristics of Lamarck. Charles Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus even proposed his own version decades before Charles even considered the problem.

The other theories were disproven when they did not fit the evidence. Lamarck's theory was famously disproven when another scientist cut the tails off of mice and bred them, and lo and behold, the offspring still had tails.

Darwin's theory of biological evolution through natural selection has not been disproven, and so is accepted as true by anyone who uses logic and reason as guides, rather than preconceived notions and superstition.

Mountains of evidence, from disparate fields such as genetics, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biogeography, anatomy, anthropology and geology all support the predictions and conclusions of the theory of biological evolution through natural selection.

There have been pieces of evidence that have modified the theory over the last 150 years, as the genetic basis of heredity (DNA) was discovered and its mechanisms understood, and the effect other factors, such as mutation, gene flow, or founder effects can have on the allele frequency in a population, but the underlying theory has remained sound, usable, powerful, and accepted for more than a century.

Answer 5

Only the rational people believe in Darwin's theory. There are theological and philosophical and other irrational arguments against it but it is the best theory so far.

There are some exceptions and the Darwin account doesn't always apply but it does most of the time.

Answer 6

Dreamstuff..FYI Evolution doesnt dictate that people are apes...it ability that we've a uncomplicated ancestor with apes, that's additionally going to be particularly perplexing to instruct. to respond to, i've got faith in organic decision, besides as selective mutations. Its occurring each and every of the time. Its a great part of what makes existence so dazzling. yet, I dont think of that Evolution can clarify the Origins of mankind. Nor do I enroll in Abiogenesis..

Answer 7

I think that there is so much post-Darwin science (e.g. genetics) that I treat Darwinian evolution like Newtonian mechanics -- a nice theory that describes things pretty well, but has been surplanted by better revisions.

Answer 8

of course i do, what the hell are some people are on about, how can you not believe in evolution. there is so much evidence to prove it and it just astounds me that some people don't believe that it is possible or even plausible. i am not sure but i think that some people believe that fossils and all the proof of evolution where placed here by god to test them. eh!!

Answer 9

I believe animals and plants adapt to their new environment but I cannot believe men come from some kind of ape

Answer 10

With all my heart. There are massive amounts of evidence, so we have met our burden of proof in any court. THose who do not believe cannot prove their theory. Its ok, the crack they are all on impairs better judgement

Answer 11

Certainly Darwin did, if your really interested you could read his book