Directory of creationist sites, essays, arguments, and quotes

DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES AND ARGUMENTSMAIN CREATIONIST SITEShttp://www.answersingenesis.orghttp://www.icr.orghttp://www.creationism.orghttp://www.discovery.org/csc/WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.htmlhttp://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm(I read the Wall Street Journal article quoted in the first link. It was an science professor from the Univerisity of MN and evolutionist who was quoted as saying the creationists "tend to win the debates"). THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISMCompleteness of the fossil record:"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129."Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9Quote regarding the general state of the fossil record from a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: "Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.'I will lay it on the linethere is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History (Dr. Patterson is a evolutionist but honest enough to make this declaration), London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist)."Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...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 is wrong.The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil 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." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific: "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
E.J. H. Corner, Evolution in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have todaysome new species of courseplus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181."We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." *E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299."Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." *Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia)."No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." *Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia)."Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." *A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4."The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." *A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53."....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" —*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30."Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44."Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery." *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15."No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." *John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90."Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (evolutionist, Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168. LARGE RESOURCE OF QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORDhttp://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htmFIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILShttp://www.creationism.org/books/sunderlan...1TheProblem.htmMORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORDhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.aspTHE SEARCH FOR MAN'S MISSING LINK CAME UP EMPTYLarge number of articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.aspMore examples of false missing links: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205b.htmAn essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htmWHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLYExcellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.htmlMore articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.aspFIVE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESISFive Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.htmlOTHER ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM General essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.htmlQUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS THAT LEND SUPPORT TO CREATIONISMhttp://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.htmlhttp://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.phphttp://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.htmlYOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTSTHAT SUPPORT CREATIONISMhttp://www.age-of-earth.com/http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.htmlhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htmLARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITEShttp://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.htmlA EVOLUTIONIST COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE EVOLUTIONIST CAMP"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80. THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNALhttp://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.htmlhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htmhttp://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.htmlIS GOD ETERNAL?http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.htmlhttp://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htmBIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMSBrief webpages: http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htmhttp://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htmhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htmExcellent Comprehensive Essay: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htmONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.htmlFALL OF MAN AND CREATIONhttp://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

re: Quotes of evolutionistI wanted to speak briefly regarding the evolutionist quotes I used in the previous post. First of all I do believe in not taking quotes radically out of context. For example, unless a lot of fairness is used I generally do not like quotes of partial sentences and find them suspect. For example, the Bible says, "....there is no God." Bible scholars will tell you, however, that the Bible declares, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." On the other hand, in a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues. Now I do not believe for one instant that some of the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. I clearly indicated that some of the gentleman were evolutionist yet I quoted them in areas we agree. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in doing so.Lastly, many of the quotes are from the 1970's and 1980's. I would remind the readers that in 1980 the evolutionist had over 120 years to prove their case and still did not do it. I would also remind the readers that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-novelty.htmlIn regards to the above link, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently been tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

This is really amusing. It seems that evolutionists can only be trusted when they seem to support creationism with out-of-context quotes. Are we supposed to believe that Patterson, Eldredge or Ridley are claiming that species don't evolve?I'm sure Dobzhanski's oft-quoted line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" would not be so conducive to underhanded creationist quote mining. His lifelong commitment to his Orthodox Christian faith should dissolve any argument that evolution is only supported by atheists. So all that's left is some quote concerning the controversies still raging in biology that the creationists hope everyone will misinterpret as ridiculously as they.It's deplorable that creationists still use this tactic. It makes a mockery of reputable scientists and insults the legacy of rational inquiry for which creationists obviously have no respect.regards,
Esteban "Quote Mining Disaster" Hambre

Dear Mr. Hambre:Please read my previous post. If you read my second post I would say that you are creating quite a strawman. Secondly, you seem to assert I pulled the quotes radically out of context in the paragraphs or pages they were on but you never prove it. It is a time honored tradition in debates that he who asserts must prove. I do not think you can prove it.I did update the initial post and indicate that Dobzhanski was a evolutionist. I hope you are not denying he said that though.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Well Ken, to that you are not taking Dobzhanski out of context, and to provide the context in which makes you quoted statement, how about providing the preceding, containing and following paragraphs to the quote you have given?

quote:

---

I did update the initial post...

---

I don't recall where I read this, nor do I really know where all it may have happened, BUT...It has been noted by someone, that you have a habit of substantially editing your previous messages, long after they've been replied to. An example I have found, is message 1 of the "Bible inerrancy is well supported" topic. You posted that message on 1/13/03, and then did edits on 2/3/04, 2/4/04, 2/4/04, 2/9/04, and 2/10/04.While it is not totally improper to go back and edit things, it isn't really proper to change the content after the topic has proceeded.If you must go back and edit old messages, it's only right that you ADD information, to correct or clarify what you were saying. Please preserve what you said initially, and make clear what content is by what later edit.Essentially, I think that the original content of messages should remain the same, after the message is posted. Original messages should not be "updated". Updating your thoughts is what subsequent messages are for.AdminnemooseusADDED BY EDIT: All the above said, this is a "Links" forum topic, and not really a debate topic. And anyhow, there are way too many diverse topic points in the opening message, for it to be a proper debate topic. I'm closing it down.2nd EDIT: To add the showing of my "signature".[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-01-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-01-2004]

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads