An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[premio53]

Hoyle was the guy who coined the name "Big Bang". He coined it to ridicule the idea of an initial explosion event, and instead proposed the idea of "continuous creation", wherein matter is always appearing at a central point and moving outward, thus causing the apparent expansion of the universe. Was he right about that one?

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

[jonesthecurl]

Um, is that meant to be a response? 'cos it doesn't seem to reference anything I said.

[premio53]

Um, is that meant to be a response? 'cos it doesn't seem to reference anything I said.

I'll quote my favorite boxer, Muhammed Ali, "I may not know what I'm talking about, but I know I'm right."

[jonesthecurl]

So you have wrongheaded scientists, a muslim boxer, and some toilet-heads on your side. Congratulations.

[Gillipig]

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

[chang50]

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

The thing about being stupid is most stupid people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are.........

[PLAYER57832]

What "assumptions" are you talking about?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If you want to call yourself an idiot then that's your prerogative. Ignorance is not an insult and I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. It sounds to me like you have not even read the Original Post because you are not arguing the data and info provided but instead making up allegation that I am assuming all of this and providing no resources for my words. All of my words are backed with sources and links right in the OP and it is not what I am say but what other scientist are saying also. I just happen to agree with the available and observable facts of the data provided. The examples of evolution found in text books and museums are just a hoax for money.


If evolution was a fact then there would not be a division or even a controversy!

Wrong.

There is no real scientific controversy, but there are plenty of groups with vested interests in making people disbelieve most natural and geological science. See, its pretty critical to those groups that they insist there is doubt such dangerous and business-threatening ideas as global climate change, the impending demise of most (if not all) amphibians, general impacts of no just individual chemical pollution, but combinations of pollutants... etc, etc, etc. Each of these represents a very, very serious threat to a lot of business interests. Ad in a few (Dr Morris is among thes) who have convinced themselves this is truly a religious debate.. and you have a LOT of pressure to get more people to believe the same lies you have believed. The notable part is not that a few have constructed this opposition, it is that so many resist that pressure, despite the fact that these ideas go against their basic business interests.

Also, its pretty notable to most of us is that you keep calling our words lies, but then ignore essentially all criticism and most serious questions of your ideas.

[PLAYER57832]

This latest Darwinist lie states that the Carvings of what appears to be a Dinosaur on a cliff face are not real. Damn, it's so easy to lie to people and they will believe it especially with the internet. Not only do Darwinist create hoax exhibitions for museums and children's text book for schools, now they want to go out of their way to discredit any real evidence to the contrary by posting their lies on the internet where they know that untold millions of ignorant fools, er, I mean folks, will believe it.
]

LOL, First, even if these were real petroglyphs, it would not represent true conclusive proof that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. It would be enough to raise a question, perhaps.. however the evidence contradicting that idea is pretty hefty. Namely that despite all the fossil evidence, there is nothing of humans in the layers with dinosaurs. In fact, they are quite far removed. What we see instead are earlier species that seem to be precursors to humans and things that might be descended from various dinosaurs.

Beyond that, your representation of this as some big conspiracy is just plain idiotic. A few scientists dismissing claims that are patently wrong represents the scientific process, not a conspiracy. All of the effort spent on this one artifact by creationists and all the twisting needed to build up this idea of a conspiracy was wasted effort.

[Dukasaur]

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

I wish stupid people would have difficulty figuring out how to mark their ballots on election day. Alas, some activities are designed with idiots in mind.

[premio53]

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

I wish stupid people would have difficulty figuring out how to mark their ballots on election day. Alas, some activities are designed with idiots in mind.

Some people can't take a statement in the spirit it was made. The comment I made isn't half as stupid as the comments made by some of the men who claim to be "scientists." Let me repeat a few of them. As you reread this and soak it in you will realize that they are not stupid comments at all but an honest admission of how impossible the idea of evolution which started with spontaneous generation is.

The "father of evolution" (Charles Darwin) said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting to focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

[chang50]

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

I wish stupid people would have difficulty figuring out how to mark their ballots on election day. Alas, some activities are designed with idiots in mind.

Some people can't take a statement in the spirit it was made. The comment I made isn't half as stupid as the comments made by some of the men who claim to be "scientists." Let me repeat a few of them. As you reread this and soak it in you will realize that they are not stupid comments at all but an honest admission of how impossible the idea of evolution which started with spontaneous generation is.

The "father of evolution" (Charles Darwin) said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting to focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

Spontaneous generation is an obsolete concept which is distinct and seperate from abiogenesis.I would be astounded if anyone here holds to it,but then again we do have some creationists..

[crispybits]

Nice misquoting work there premio

The "father of evolution" (Charles Darwin) said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting to focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.

Note that this is actually a complete misquote when it is referenced by creationist sites - the above is the full article which they claim it comes from

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)


[color=#FF0000][i]Funny how other quotes from the same article as that one comes from aren't also mentioned:

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable.

We know as surely as we ever shall that evolution has occurred; but we do no know how this evolution has been brought about. The data which we have accumulated are inadequate, not in quantity but in their character, to allow us to determine which, if any, of the proposed explanations is a vera causa.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

Nils Herbert-Nilsson was not "noted" except in such a way as to discredit all of his work based on solid scientific evidence. He did not believe that genes ran in lines as we now know they do, he stated that enzymes were genes, which can be demonstrated as so wrong that in scientific terms it's laughable, and his alternative theory was that the earth regularly underwent huge extinction events and that straight after these events life got back up incredibly quickly and reformed itself from gametes. If you're going to try and discredit evolution by quoting a "noted botanist and geneticist" it's normally a good idea to make sure he wasn't just plain wrong and that all of his theories were demonstrably proven false.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

And we should listen to a physicist from over fifty years ago over the entire population of biologists on a biological question why exactly? If I brought in an expert on the writings of William Shakespeare to give you tuition on the Bible would you pay him much heed? It's exactly the same with this guy.

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

This quote is often utilized in Creationist publications and websites in an attempt to demonstrate that Sir Arthur Keith, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, simply dismiss creationist viewpoints outright due to a presumed antitheistic bias. However, in attempting to research this statement, one finds that it usually appears without primary source documentation. In those instances where seemingly original documentation is provided, it is stated to be a Forward for a centennial edition or “100th edition” of Origin of Species. However, several facts show that the attribution of these words to Arthur Keith is erroneous.

Keith passed away in 1955, some four years before the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s work, so that he was clearly not available to write an introduction for the centennial edition (this was actually done by William Robin Thompson). Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction to earlier printings of Origin of Species, in use from 1928 to 1958, the words given above do not appear in that introduction. Finally, the last “edition” of Origin of Species is the sixth edition published 1879. It is for this reason that all later publications of Origin of Species are actually reprints of this or earlier editions so that there is simply no “100th edition” of Darwin’s work. In light of the fact that the documentation provided by Creationist publications is specious, one is still left with trying to explain the source of this citation. It is enough to say, however, that since this “quote” lacks valid documentation, it should not be regarded as one that originates with Arthur Keith himself until it can be properly documented.[/i][/color]

I suggest you actually go to source when presented with quotes like therse and see if you're getting the full picture premio. For an example, I shall noww quote you using the same standards as your quotes were mined up:

some single cell organism formed by spontaneous generation

Glad you agree that the creationist argument is full of crap there

[Dukasaur]

Here, let me fix that for you.

Some people can't take a statement in the spirit it was made. The comment I made isn't half as stupid as the comments made by some of the men who claim to be "scientists." Let me repeat a few of them. As you reread this and soak it in you will realize that they are not stupid comments at all but that they are taken completely out of context in a deliberate and malfeasant attempt to mislead others.

[tzor]

Damn, it's so easy to lie to people and they will believe it especially with the internet.

Quoted for TRUTH.
And the truth will set you free.
Free yourself Viceroy63; free yourself now.
We will continue to bathe in the irony.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

I wish stupid people would have difficulty figuring out how to mark their ballots on election day. Alas, some activities are designed with idiots in mind.

Some people can't take a statement in the spirit it was made. The comment I made isn't half as stupid as the comments made by some of the men who claim to be "scientists." Let me repeat a few of them. As you reread this and soak it in you will realize that they are not stupid comments at all but an honest admission of how impossible the idea of evolution which started with spontaneous generation is.

The "father of evolution" (Charles Darwin) said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting to focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

I see, so your logic is that you can take excerpts from what some scientists that might seem, on the surface, taken out of context, to maybe dispute claims you believe evolutionists make means that the whole field of evolution is wrong?

Well.. only if you are a bling young earther. To anyone else... the FIRST step to refuting any theory is to actually read the real theory. That is something you clearly have not done.

[Viceroy63]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie. To teach the theory of evolution as fact, and make no mistake about it, it is being taught as a fact of science, is to lie to the masses at large and to make fools of us all. That some scientist admit the obscenity of it all only goes to show that the theory of evolution is not such a widely accepted doctrine of belief as some would have the rest of us believe.

The science of the theory of evolution is not only the grandest hoax known to man, it is perhaps the most elaborate doctrine of confusion that this world has ever seen right next to mainstream "Christianity." I consider myself an intellectual person and a Christian, so I should know.

I don't know Einstein but he sure hit evolution in the head.

I just wish stupid people were so stupid they couldn't even type. Then they could be however stupd they want without polluting the rest of us with their crap.

The thing about being stupid is most stupid people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are.........

And I wonder who is more "Stupid?" The "Stupid" person doing the typing, or the Stupid person doing the reading?

[AndyDufresne]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie. To teach the theory of evolution as fact, and make no mistake about it, it is being taught as a fact of science, is to lie to the masses at large and to make fools of us all. That some scientist admit the obscenity of it all only goes to show that the theory of evolution is not such a widely accepted doctrine of belief as some would have the rest of us believe.

The science of the theory of evolution is not only the grandest hoax known to man, it is perhaps the most elaborate doctrine of confusion that this world has ever seen right next to mainstream "Christianity." I consider myself an intellectual person and a Christian, so I should know.

The whole field of cat videos is wrong because it is based on a lie. To teach the theory of cute cats as fact, and make no mistake about it, it is being taught as a fact of science, is to lie to the masses at large and make fools of us all. That some scientists admit the obscenity of it all only goes to show that the theory of cute cats is not such a widely accepted doctrine of belief as some would have the rest of us believe.

The science of the theory of cute cats is not only the grandest hoax known to man, it is perhaps the most elaborate doctrine of confusion that this world has ever seen right next to mainstream "dog loving." I consider myself an intellectual person and a dog lover, so I should know.

And I wonder who is more "Stupid?" The "Stupid" person doing the typing, or the Stupid person doing the reading?

--Andy

[premio53]

Crispybits, every scientist I quoted admitted evolution was impossible and then tried to rationalize why it “could” happen by redefining “spontaneous generation” or coming up with some other method. One goes on to lie about evolution being a “fact accepted by every biologist.” The funniest argument is trying to split hairs between “Abiogenesis” and “Spontaneous Generation.” Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you called a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?” The answer is it would only have four legs no matter what you called its tail.

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation does not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms.

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.) He digs his hole deeper.
DMS Watson wrote:Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable.

When I quoted Richard Dawkins saying that “some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice,” I wasn't taking anything out of context at all. He really believes that but goes on to try to rationalize why it could happen anyways.

abio·gen·e·sis
noun \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs\
Definition of ABIOGENESIS
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter (Webster)

[crispybits]

In order of your previous quotes:

Charles Darwin said that the theory can seem absurd, then goes on to point out other arguments that seem absurd on first principles and why this absurdity has nothing to do with the truth of the theory.

George Wald is not on record as having said anything even remotely close to what you quoted him as saying.

DMS Watson says that evolution is based on incorrect assumptions about the exact workings, but that it is true and then proposes his alternative workings. It's like two people arguing about how an alien engine works - neither doubts the alien engine exists, they just disagree on the details. Not a criticism of evolution as a whole.

Nils Herbert-Nilsson was a crackpot who believed some pretty strange things. Science has proven him wrong on several counts, and rather than being a "noted" geneticist and biologist as you claim he was at best a sidenote in the history of evolutionist theory, and at worst a quack.

Newton Tahmisian was an atomic physicist and devoutly religious man who at worst waved his irrelevant PhD around a bit whilst wading into an argument he was qualified to enter, and at best gave a genuine but uninformed response to a question outside of his area of expertise.. Would you take medical advice from someone with a doctorate in politics instead of medicine? Why take biological rants from a physicist seriously?

There is again no evidence Arthur Keith ever said what you quote him as saying, and the reference for the quote given on many creationist websites is not only incorrect but impossible.

So that's 2 outright lies by creationist sources, inventing quotes that they cannot provide evidence for, 2 distortion or misquotes, from people who say evolution is definitely the way forward (one of which has reservations about the exact details as accepted by orthodox science thus far), and a religious physicist talking horse shit.

As for your new quotes - abiogenesis is NOT the same theory as evolution. The theory of evolution says precisely NOTHING about how life started, it only talks about once life has got started, how do we get the diversity of life we have now. So the first quote from George Wald says precisely nothing about evolution, but rather the "how did it all start" question which science has hypotheses about but has not actually declared any answer as a "fact" yet.

The second one I just gave you - and that doubt about the exact mechanism isn't as orthodox scince states it isn't a statement that evolution is false, just that it works differently to how people think it works. Back to the alien engine.... Science progresses along lines like this, someone suggests a new way that fits the evidence that makes sense within the data and then everyone scurries off and tests both and works out which fits best.

The universe coming from nothing is again something very far removed from either evolution or abiogenesis, it's about the big bang. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion (and by the way it's also the opinion of a biologist on something he should be leaving to the physicists, so I wouldn't be going to Dawkins for cutting edge astrophysics information any time soon...)

[premio53]

Bottom line is everything came from nothing and "spontaneous generation" is a no no so we'll change it to "abiogenesis." Gotcha.

[crispybits]

Neither of which has any established scientific theory that is presented as a "fact", just a "what we think probably happened is..... but we don't know for sure as we've not managed to replicate the conditions for long enough yet".

Nothing to say about the blatant lies you peddled in your other quotes?

[premio53]

Neither of which has any established scientific theory that is presented as a "fact", just a "what we think probably happened is..... but we don't know for sure as we've not managed to replicate the conditions for long enough yet".

Nothing to say about the blatant lies you peddled in your other quotes?

I've shown very clearly that those who support your fairy tale will call evolution a "fact" and and lie about how all scientists today accept it as a "fact." If you can prove I misquoted anyone, I'll certainly apologize. Take care.

[crispybits]

Read my responses to your quotes again - at least one of the guys you quoted died 4 years before he supposedly quoted anything!

[premio53]

Read my responses to your quotes again - at least one of the guys you quoted died 4 years before he supposedly quoted anything!

If you are correct I now apologize.

[Gillipig]

I'm losing faith in mankind. Damn, premio, viceroy, are you neanderthals with monkeys doing the typing for you? I refuse to believe I'm the same species as you two.