heavycola wrote:Creationism as a theory was superceded by evolution a long time ago, and people moved on. Except you lot. Carry on clinging to these ideas in the face of all available evidence and ridicule from every serious scientist on the planet - no one cares but you.
Wow.
Let's have a study lesson of what the evolutionists say themselves instead of dogmatic followers of it like you.
First, let's try
Charles Darwin himself. What did he have to say about it? In his book he mentioned:
"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered..." (1)
He also said in a letter:
"...Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy." (2)
Do you know who
Thomas Huxley is? Of course you do: you believe evolution so you'd have to know! Darwin's bulldog and all that crap. Whatever. Supported evolution with all his might. Did so much to try to support evolution theory. Here's a quote he made about creation:
"'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori
arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." (3)
Sir Arthur Keith. Big supporter of evolution and biggest one in England at his time. Here's what he says about it:
"A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." (4)
A doctrine in liturgy? I think he nailed it right on there.
As we go forward into time we find renoun evolutionary astronomer
Sir Frederick Hoyle who said,
"...Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the 50th power blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." (5)
Of course you've also heard the infamous statement about the Boeing 747:
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged (through evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that a 'tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.'" (6)
There's
Stephen Jay Gould who came a bit later who said about creation being taught in school:
"...No statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now." (7)
Gould discredited evolutionism many times. He talked about fossils and the prediction Darwin made on how if his theory was correct, numerous transitional fossils would have been found. Gould said,
"One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (8 )
Gould also said,
"Increasing diversity and multiple transitions seem to reflect a determined and an inexorable progression toward higher things. But the paleontological record supports no such interpretation. There has been no steady progress in the higher development of organic design. We have had, instead, vast stretches of little or no change in one evolutionary burst that created the entire system." (9)
Evolutionist
Louis Agassiz said about evolution,
"The theory is a scientific mistake." (10)
Ambrose Flemming, the President of the British Association for Advancement of Science said this:
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (11)
Science Magazine declared:
"The reader...may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions." (12)
Famous evolutionist
Robert Jastrow admitted,
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." (13)
I end this with a very informing quote by evolutionist
James Gorman,
"Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." (14)
I could go on all day long if I wanted to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES:
(1) Charles Darwin,
On the Origin of Species, 1958 Edition; p. 161
(2) Charles Darwin,
Life and Letters, 1887; Vol. 2, p. 229
(3) L. Huxley,
Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1903; Vol. 1, p. 241
(4) Sir Arthur Keith,
Darwinism and its Critics, 1935; p. 53
(5) Sir Frederick Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy,"
New Scientist, Nov. 19, 1981; p. 92
(6) Sir Frederick Hoyle, "Hoyle on Evolution,"
Nature, Nov. 12, 1981; Vol. 294, p. 105
(7) Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism,"
New York Times, July 19, 1987; p. 34
(8 ) Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters,"
Natural History, June-July, 1977; pp. 22 & 24
(9) Stephen Jay Gould, "The Five Kingdoms,"
Natural History, June-July, 1976; pp. 30 & 37
(10) Louis Agassiz, from H. Epoch,
Evolution or Creation, 1986; p. 139
(11) Ambrose Flemming, from his speech
The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
(12) Science, January 22, 1965; p. 389
(13) Robert Jastrow,
The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, 1981; p. 19
(14) James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?"
Discover, October 1980; p. 88
