Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty

I think its a great way in a certain situation/topic to state what evolutionary scientific men speak on Evolution in such a way. Because it shows serious flaws in the theory. The fact is alot of evolutionists see the problems and speak on them. Therefore they must be used to show how weak the theory really is. And hopeless. The truth is for evolutionists is that there is no truth. It will always be an uncertain theory and assumption. Ive never seen Ken Ham and his other scientists doubt, only stand proud for the word of God. Never doubting because the evidence is consistent and we can trust in God to give us the true account of origins. BTW Here are a few of my faves."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" - H.S Lipson"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants" - Professor Whitten"With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what after long effort could not be proved to place today, had in truth, taken place in the premeval past" - Loren Eiseley"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" - Prof Louis Bounoure"I have said for years that speculations about the origins of life lead to no purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot explained away by such naive thoughts" - Ernst Chain"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" Stephen Jay GhouldThis message has been edited by almeyda, 05-22-2004 06:48 AM

NOSYNED -1st quote - This quote i think just shows how evolution is a religion for so many scientist. They have faith in their theory and no matter what evidence appears the world has evolved on its own. Fossil record does not prove evolution so therefore it must have been puntuated equilibrium etc. Puntuated equilbrium is not based on evidence but accepted for it appears to resolve a dilemna. It rests on shaky ground. But of course this is just another one of evolutions problems.2nd - A scientist cannot prove evolution by making life from non life as this is just showing that intelligence is needed. So therefore how can it be tested?. Waving around the magic wond of billions of yrs anything can happen will not make the impossible possible, the possible probable and the probable certain. (Maybe if i leave my computer on for a few billion yrs through time and chance maybe my computer might do the intelligent calculations and ratios i need and maybe even answer some of your questions and arguments against me and evolution. Anything can happen right.3rd - This quote shows that a naturalist world has just as much belief and faith needed than any other religion. And weve gone through a big topic on this but i dont think anyone has accepted it yet.4th - What dramatic advancement has evolution achieved since its inception?. I cant think of one. I can certainly think of times were evolution hindered scientific progress. Left over/useless organs, junk dna. Once again great science from the evolutionists!.5th - Yes its true the simplest living system is far too complex to arise on its own. Let alone give rise to higher and more complex life forms.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-23-2004 02:20 AM

CRASHFROG -

quote:

---

What we're trying to tell you is that the people you say said those things didn't say those things

---

I admit these quotes are taken out from a longer story/article. But the fact is these quotes arent so much taken out of context. Just because Ghould speaks on fossil problems does not mean he doesnt believe in evolution. I know this already. Its Ghould for gods sake. But this is evolutionists themselves speaking on significant problems with the theory. The theory can be a hopeless quest, which will indeed never end until the death of these men only to be continued more by the living evolutionists. Why then do the creation scientist stand so proudly against evolution?. These scientist have the same degress and PhDs, same achievments. Awards and prize winners for there discoveries and achievements. They are both capable scientist. The only difference is one believes evolution occured and the other creation. Creation scientist are shunned by mainstream science. Propaganderd againsts in a bid to prove they are not science and their evidence is nothing. God word will not be explained away by such naive thoughts as evolution.LITHODID MAN - Ahh yes very intimidating. I got those quotes from the Revised Quote book.

Bios | Answers in Genesis After reading this do you still think their are not real scientist who work under a different assumption rather than evolution?. You dont need to believe in evolution to be a fully qualified scientist. You do however have to be a evolutionist to get anywhere in the mainstream scientific communities, or if you want to teach science in the education system.

PHYSICS - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, KelvinCHEMISTRY - Boyle, Dalton, RamsayBIOLOGY - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, AgassizGEOLOGY - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, CuvierASTRONOMY - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Hershel, MaunderMATHEMATICS - Pascal, Leibnitz, EulerMany branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. It was God that taught man that the earth was real, orderly, consistent, and possible to investigate.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-23-2004 08:45 PM

Yes its true. Us Bible believers and other relgions will be terminated bit by bit. Evolution has already taken our foundation. Evolution has so called "disproved" the Bible. The world seems to be heading in a social decline. Yep we are falling straight into the hands of biblical prophecy.

PHYSICS - But lord Kelvin discovered the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created/destroyed which disproves the big bang theory as evolution suggests. Evolutionists come up with all sorts of refutes to this but this solid argument remains hard on the origins on evolution.BIOLOGY - What you really mean is that they supplied groundwork for biology. Not evolution. Many people here think biologists must believe in evolution or it is a necessity. But this is definately not true as they were pure God believing scientist. And today their are thousands of fully qualified biologists who disprove evolution and believe creation.

1859.

Johann Kepler (1571—1630)
Blaise Pascal (1623—1662)
Robert Boyle (1627—1691)
John Ray (1627—1705)
Nicolas Steno (1631—1686)
Isaac Newton (1642—1727)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646—1716)
John Woodward (1665—1728)
Carolus Linneaus (1707—1778)This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-26-2004 12:41 AM

lol. Crashfrog your always putting a smile on my face. Your priceless.

Alrite NosyNed. I didnt answer Crashfrog because there was no need to. Everything he said sounded like nonsense to me. Ill do it anyway just for you.Lord Kelvin - Evolution must occur? What does that mean. Yes it can occur without natural processes and that is if a creator has made all. As the Bible suggests of course.Here we go again with the big bang has nothing to do with your theory. You have to realise that the foundation of your theory lies in its origins. Do you realise how simple it is to make up stories about how natural selection gives rise to higher and higher forms. But evolution is not even passed the first stage on how it all started. And thats why evolution is still a theory.My argument is that the chances of life evolving. And the universe making itself are very very high. It is a big matter of belief and faith.No these scientist did not make the groundwork for evolution. They made the groundwork for biology. Evolutionists can of course then apply this form of science to their scientific theories. Its not about evolution making biology or evolution being the only way of using biology. This is definately not true. Biology is biology and can used to support any theory creation or evolution.Umm yes there is. AiG have biologists. Every other creation scientific community have them. We have them down here. Theres creationists many countries. Fully qualified scientist working on a different theory about the past. We seriously should be way ahead of this stage by now.