Hi to all my Forum Friends,
In the discussion titled "Miss USA 2011 One Of Only 2 Contestants Who Believe In Evolution" begun by our devout atheist Friend, Robust -- our young atheist Friend, Jimi, from Russellvile offers his insight into the discussion of Creation versus Darwinian Evolution.
Jimi tells GBRK, "It is difficult to answer a question that is based on as much incorrect information as you (offer). Evolution has nothing to do with belief. It is incontrovertible fact. The way that you state you question demonstrates that you know very little about Darwin. Perhaps you would be a more credible skeptic if you knew what you are talking about. You should come back after you have read some books on Evolutionary Biology. Only then can we have a serious discussion. I suspect, however that serious discussion is not your goal."
Well, Jimi, it would appear that many highly educated scientists disagree with you that Darwinian Evolution is a fact. They will tell us that it is a THEORY -- a THEORY with many holes. But, even the Evolutionist Scientists are intelligent enough to avoid the "Darwinian Evolution is a fact" foible.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SCIENTISTS, CREATION AND EVOLUTION
From: Creation or Evolution, Does It Really Matter What You believe?
http://mail.verticalthought.or...eation-evolution.asp
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume [The Origin of Species] on which facts cannot be adduced (cannot be advanced), often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived." -- Charles Darwin (1809-1882), British naturalist who popularized the theory of evolution through natural selection
"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties that turn them into agents of destruction of dead matter." -- Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), French scientist, developer of the pasteurization process for milk and of vaccines for anthrax, chicken cholera and rabies
"A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him." -- Louis Pasteur (1822-1895).
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate." -- Paul Lemoine (1878-1940), director of the Paris Natural History Museum, president of the Geological Society of France and editor of Encyclopedie Francaise
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it . . . Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people." -- Paul Lemoine (1878-1940).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the ****est is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." -- Sir Ernst Chain (1906-1979), coholder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for isolating and purifying penicillin, director of Rome's International Research Center for Chemical Microbiology, professor of biochemistry at Imperial College, University of London.
"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator." -- Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), NASA director and father of the American space program.
"It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." -- Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), NASA director and father of the American space program.
"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator . . . In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator." -- Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), NASA director and father of the American space program.
"For me the fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science, but from a consideration of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and wrong and from the historical record of Christ's life on earth." -- Francis Collins, former atheist and currently director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature." -- Antony Flew, emeritus professor of philosophy at Reading University, formerly one of the world's leading proponents of atheism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHAT DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOW?
From: Creation or Evolution, Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
http://mail.verticalthought.or...on-fossil-record.asp
Darwin staked the credibility of his theory on discoveries he was sure would be found in the fossil record. After a century and a half of exploration and discoveries, does that record support his theory or contradict it?
When Charles Darwin proposed his theory in the mid-19th century, he was confident that fossil discoveries would provide clear and convincing evidence that his conjectures were correct. His theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions, if not hundreds of millions, of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and human beings that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous. Science writer Richard Milton notes that the missing links "included every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibians -- living partly in the sea and partly on land -- and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans" (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253).
However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).
Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. But, since he thought his theory obviously was the correct explanation for the earth's many and varied forms of life, he and others thought it only a matter of time before fossilized missing links would be found to fill in the many gaps.
His answer for the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory was that scientists hadn't looked long enough and hadn't looked in the right places. Eventually they would find the predicted fossil remains that would prove his view. "The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record," he wrote (p. 261).
He was convinced that later explorations and discoveries would fill in the abundant gaps where the transitional species on which his theory was based were missing. But now, a century and a half later, after literally hundreds of thousands of fossil plants and animals have been discovered and cataloged and with few corners of the globe unexplored, what does the fossil record show?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jimi, I do believe we can put this to bed with enough actual testimony from leading scientific minds, even from Charles Darwin himself -- that Darwinian Evolution is a very weak theory which rides only on the hopes and wishes of atheists who are determined to deny God -- regardless of the amazing proof all around us that God truly exists and indeed did create the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Jimi, my Friend, the "Missing Link" is still very much MISSING. RIP Darwinian Evolution!
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
