Scientists Admit:
Evolution Not Supported By Facts!Issue Date: January/February 1987
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.
On many campuses, any professor who admits having doubts about the "factual" nature of evolution would be laughed off the campus (and out of his job). But today, more and more courageous scientists are publicly admitting what they have known privately for years: believing in evolution requires an act of blind faith.
Does evolution square with the facts? Here are the statements of several scientific leaders as found in The Quote Book, published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd.
Debunked: Many current scientists reject evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Debunked: Many scientists find problems with evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html
Debunked: Evolution is useless. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
Debunked: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
Evolutionists Great Con Men
"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. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.
Debunked: Evolution has not been proved. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
Check the debunking here: Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC401.html
Do Fossils Prove It?"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)
Debunked: Transitional fossils are lacking. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
*excerpt*
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.
Debunked Earlier: Transitional fossils are lacking. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
Debunked: We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
*excerpt*
The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
The transformation is even and slow.
The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.
However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. . . . . (f*ck just click the link)
But What About Those Bones?"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)
Debunked: Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC401.html
*excerpt*
Evolution is not based on fragmentary fossils. The theory would still be extremely robust with no fossils at all, based on evidence from modern life. Furthermore, there are more than enough substantially complete skeletons to support evolution. The whale transitional sequence, for example, is based on several excellent skeletons.
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.
Debunked: Scientists find what they expect to find. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA310.html
Debunked Earlier: Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC401.html
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
But the World Is So Old...Isn't It?"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.
Debunked: Radiometric dating gives unreliable results. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
*excerpt*
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
To be continued . . . .
Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.
Debunked: A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html
*excerpt*
This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast (ad nauseum . . . ).
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
Debunked: Quick frozen mammoths . http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together?
In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism."
Well gentlemen, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well.
Debunked: Humans and dinosaurs once lived together. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
Why Do They Do It?"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)
Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Saviour.
A. Lunn summed up the curious faith of the evolutionist as follows: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.) Those supposedly omniscient scientists who still teach evolution as though it were fact are finally seen for what they are...frail men willing to believe a lie because it helps them avoid the truth.
Debunked: Evolution requires faith. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html
*debunked*
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.
Debunked: Evolution is a religion. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
Debunked Earlier: Quote Mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
I'll just add this old quote from John R. Cole taken from NCSE (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp):
"Creationists have developed a skill unique to their trade: that of misquotation and quotation out of context from the works of leading evolutionists. This tactic not only frustrates scientists but it misleads school board members, legislators, and the public. Whether such actions by creationists of selectively seeking out quotations or references in order to prove a preconceived case are willful distortion or the product of wishful thinking is irrelevant. Such acts misuse science and scientists in BOGUS APPEALS to authority."
*Snip*
The Great Barrier Reef, the oldest and largest reef in the world, has been determined to be 4,200 years old.
The world's oldest tree is 4,300 years old.
Minerals being washed into the ocean by erosion would bring the salt content of the ocean to its present level in less than 5,000 years!
*Snip*
In addition Kent Hovind and his Challenge to evolution is a JOKE.
http://true.wxcs.com/hovind/flaw-impossible.htm
Debunked: Hovind's challenge. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16The Evolution Handbook
Author:
ISBN: N/A
Price: $5.00 US
Pages: 992 - PaperbackProminent scientists explain why evolution is a hoax
Science teachers present evolution as if it were a proven fact. This book, with its thorough index, makes it easy to find answers to those outrageous claims.Thousands of scientific facts, disproving evolutionary theory.
Hundreds of statements by prominent scientists disproving evolution.
1,350 scientific quotations or references.
Remarkably broad coverage. Learn about many different aspects of evolution.
A handy full-size subject index to make it easy to find what you are looking for.
Study questions.
An extensive research guide.
43 pages of illustrations.
Easy to understand!Table of Contents
Preface
A Treasure House of Information The origin of this book and how to use it
Introductory
Scientists Speak about Evolution:
Statements by Non-creationist Scientists — Even they do not believe evolutionary foolishness
Chapter 1 - History of Evolutionary Theory
How modern science got into this problem.
Chapter 2 - The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution
Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas.
Chapter 3 - The Origin of the Earth
Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state.
Chapter 4 - The Age of the Earth
Why the Earth is not millions of years old.
Chapter 5 - The Problem of Time
Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change.
Chapter 6 - Inaccurate Dating Methods
Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable.
Chapter 7 - The Primitive Environment
Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life.
Chapter 8 - DNA and Protein
Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance.
Chapter 9 - Natural Selection
Why natural selection only makes changes within species.
Chapter 10 - Mutations
Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change.
Chapter 11 - Animal and Plant Species
Why the species barrier cannot be broken.
Chapter 12 - Fossils and Strata
Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax.
Chapter 13 - Ancient Man
Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything.
Chapter 14 - Effects of the Flood
What actually happened after the Flood.
Chapter 15 - Similarities and Divergence
Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution.
Chapter 16 - Vestiges and Recapitulation
You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life-forms.
Chapter 17 - Evolutionary Showcase
The best examples of evolution have proven worthless.
Chapter 18 - The Laws of Nature
The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory.
Chapter 19 - Evolution, Morality, and Violence
Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization.
Chapter 20 - Tectonics and Paleomagnetism
The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism.
Chapter 21 - Archaeological Dating
Egyptian, and other, dates correlate archaeological finds with the Bible.
Chapter 22 - Evolutionary Science Fiction
Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe.
Chapter 23 - Scientists Speak
Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless.
Chapter 24 - Utterly Impossible
Things evolution could never invent.
Chapter 25 - Latest Evolution Crisis
Events from 1959 to 2006
Chapter 26 - Summary of the Anthropic Principle
Discovering a flood fo coincidences
Chapter 27 - Big Bang Creationism
When opposites are combined
Appendix - Research Guide
Special Appendix - Something To Think About [/B]
How the hell could anyone suppose to disprove a table of contents? Give the name of the author . . . . and if the author is Kent Hovind, check here for the debunkings: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16'Evolutionists Are In A Panic Mode'
Issue Date: July/August 2005
Kansas State Board of Education member, Connie Morris, concluded that "evolutionists are in a panic mode" after scientists supporting the teaching of evolution in schools boycotted a four-day hearing called by the school board. The purpose of the hearings was to present the board with both sides of the evolution-intelligent design question.
The board was reviewing Kansas science curriculum standards and set up the hearings to develop a dialog between the two views of the origin of life. They then would decide how the students would be taught and tested on the subject.
*Snip*
Why would REAL scientists DEGRADE themselves and their respective fields by participating in a CROCK "science hearings" RIGGED by 3 notorious creationist? If ID has any scientific points or honest research to offer, its BEST DISCUSSED in a scientific journal.
Taken from: Kansas Evolution Hearings: Background. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/evolutionhearings.html
*excerpt*
During this time Calvert assembled a group of 24 witnesses to testify in support of the Minority proposal (side of the creationist). Calvert and the hearings subcommittee decried Irigonegaray's refusal to present pro-science witnesses, going so far as to label the boycott "unfair" and an effort to "silence the Minority." The Minority was counting on the scientists' participation to give them credibility, and the scientists wouldn't play .
Beetle Warfare
Little Bugs That Evolutionists
Would Like to Forget!Issue Date: January/February 1994
Here, excerpted from The Collapse of Evolution by Dr. Scott M. Huse, is one of the many humorous examples in nature that make evolutionists look silly.
Beetle Warfare
Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.
Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.
*Snip*
Debunked: The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
Debunked: Bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html
*excerpt*
That description of bombardier beetles' physiology is inaccurate. It is based on a sloppy translation of a 1961 German article by Schildknecht and Holoubek (Kofahl 1981). Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed (Dawkins 1986, 86-87). What actually happens is this: Secretory cells produce a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals), which collects in a reservoir. To produce the blast, the beetle releases some of this mixture into a reaction chamber, where catalases and peroxidases cause the mixture to oxidize in chemical reactions that generate enough heat to vaporize about a fifth of the mixture. The pressure of the released gasses causes the heated mixture to be expelled explosively from the beetle's abdomen (Aneshansley and Eisner 1969; Aneshansley et al. 1983; Eisner et al. 1989).
Originally posted by Robtard
I salute you Templares for doing the foot work, but I fear all your work will fall on deaf ears...
Thanks but i did no work. I just usually cut and paste from a ready made list of debunkings found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
The ones who contributed to it and compiled it deserves the salute 🙂 .