quote:
No, actually my assertion in this thread is not an assertion at all, but rather it is a quest to find and understand the truth to the question"Why do so many scientists supporting the theory of evolution make so many seemingly condemnatory statements regarding Darwinian evolutionary theory?"
Statements such as this small sampling, .... (snip quotes)
Just one little question here. I note that, pointedly, many of the authors of these quotes are or were evolutionists. My question is: 'Why is that?' If they are/were so convinced of the fallacy of evolution then why are/were they evolutionists?
quote:
This is but a very small sampling of the thousands of quotes from which we could choose. Are they all taken out of context, giving the reader a false understanding of what was actually said?
In some cases, yes. Gould, for instance was known to be outraged at how his words were used as authoritative evidence against evolution.
quote:
Are they mere fabrications, designed to confuse and give misdirection to the reader?
Possibly.
quote:
Are creationists waging a smear campaign that makes politicians seem docile?
Ummm, not sure what your point is here.
quote:
Or do the men and women who utter these words mean exactly what they say?
Some may, others not. Some are simply opinions.
quote:
This investigation must necessarily include an attempt to discover whether or not these thousands of quotes are "myths" created in the minds of creationists, or if they are indeed actual quotes and, if so, are they so far out of context that a misunderstanding is guaranteed or are they confirmation that far more scientists question the validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory then is made know in science writings, journals, and publications. The truth is out there, we need only to conduct an honest and open-minded search to find it. I'm game, how about you?
Have at it.
quote:
...
Now this is where I find the macroevolutionists argument most disingenuous. For me, as a microevolutionist, the study must begin at that instant when non-life became life. How did life get here? Was it through abiogenesis? Was it from unknown microbes traveling through the vastness of space until becoming trapped by earth's gravitational force? If so, how did these microbes survive the plunge through our atmosphere? Or, did some as yet unknown entity somehow create life specifically for this planet? Was there a plan? Was there a purpose? These are questions that I can not answer, not for the creationists, not for the macroevolutionist, but only for myself as I continue on this adventure in pursuit of knowledge and truth. I do know this much however, macroevolution can not answer these questions for me because it can not start at the beginning.
So, you are saying that microevolution explains the origin of life?
quote:
To the macroevolutionist, this theory of creation, which necessitates a god of some sort, is nonsense. However, the macroevolutionists realize that their explanation of how life arrived in the first place is also nonsense, and it too violates known natural laws.
No. First of all, it is not nonsense, it is merely unknown. Second, there is no attempt to violate natural laws. That would be contrary to naturalism. Abiognesis actually attempts to explain the origin by natural methods.
quote:
Macroevolutionists are not comfortable with any acknowledgement of the supernatural and this is why those who support macroevolution must avoid beginning at the beginning, knowing that life somehow springing from non-life through purely natural means is an absolute absurdity, and thereby choose instead to acknowledge that their theory does not deal with how life appeared, but only what happened afterward.
Not at all. Many evolutionists acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural origin. And I know of none who are afraid to address it. They only say that it isn't necessary and the discussion is fruitless, which is an honest position.
quote:
That too may be fine for you but, for me, if one can not start at the very beginning, then their position is already too weak for me to give it much credence.
THen I assume that you don't believe that your computer works since you do not know the ultimate origin of its parts.
quote:
In order for me to ever accept macroevolution, I would have to study it from the very beginning, at that precise moment when non-life became life and then moved on through the span of time until finally arriving at the present day.
For an absolutist this is a valid position. Now, just what is your explanation since you are so adamant against evolution and abiogenesis? What theory do you accept? All we have heard is your rant against evolution. Surely, you have some alternative?
Since you are a microevolutionist, it must explain origins, right?
quote:
Macroevolution does not begin early enough for me and can not offer that to me, and that is just another reason why I am convinced macroevolution is nothing more than a myth that is as ancient as is man himself.
And your is ... well, ... er, just what?
™ Version 4.2