BCSpace Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Isn't it a logical fallacy to say one's opinion is better or more valid than another's because of one's education, status, or position?This is especially futile on an anonymous message board.Indeed. I could say I have all sorts of degrees in addition to the ones I already have. Of course I only brought it up because Alan did first. If you can find a place where I have ever tried to defeat a good argument by citing my authority (which you cannot verify anyway), please do me the favor of pointing it out.I am not claiming you have done so. But others might do so on your behalf.I don't think it is a fallacy to say that a Biologist who has an advanced degree in Biology and is currently working in the biology field generally knows (a whole lot) more about biology than a person who has not studied biology.It's not incorrect to a point. As the article states, it is an important part of informal logic, but nevertheless, ultimately fallacious.
The Dude Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I am not claiming you have done so. But others might do so on your behalf.Well thanks for nipping that in the bud.
John Larsen Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 If I had to choose between Darwinian evolution and creationism I would choose creation. I am a trained scientist (B.Sc. Honours, and M.Sc.) and am convinced Darwinism is mostly nonsense, and in many cases provably so.AlanWell go on you sly dog. Please don't hold back you provable case. Dust off your degree and prove that evolution is nonsense.
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Let us start with Darwin himself. Charles Darwin himself made this statement in â??the origin of speciesâ??: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day, I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggeredâ?¦" Towards the end of his life, Darwin confessed: "Not one change of species into another is on recordâ?¦we cannot prove that a single species has changed (into another )".Opinion of Thomas Huxley: Thomas Huxley, who was perhaps, the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that "evolution was not an established theory but a tentative hypothesis, an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis but an hypothesis nonetheless. It is not universally accepted."Professor Theodosius dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary spokesman, has admitted that "it would be wrong to say that the biological theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance among biologists or even among geneticists".Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institution, states bluntly: "There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeysâ?¦ he appeared suddenly and in substantially the same form as he is today â?¦there is no such things as missing links. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other, each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a special and distinct creation".Professor J. Doyle, president of the Botany section of the British Association for the advancement of science, said : "since we cannot prove the evolution of a single organism, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the universe in a thousand million years."Dr. Dâ??Arcy Thompson says," In the study of evolution and in our attempts to trace the decent of the animal kingdom, 80 years of study of the origin of species, has had a disappointing result. It has not taught us how birds descended from reptiles, mammals from other quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. We do not know the origin of the echinoderms, of the molluscs, of the coelenterates, nor one group of protozoa from anotherâ?¦ this failure to solve the cardinal problems of evolutionary biology is a very curious thing."Professor G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, states, "â?¦there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the â??General theory of evolutionâ?? and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."When John T. Bonner reviewed Kerkutâ??s book, he said: "this is a book with a disturbing message: it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions. The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what group or whether, for instance, the transition from protozoa occurred once or twice, or many timesâ?¦; we have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence; and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our sound advice."Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of comparative anatomy at Earlangan university, said: "the theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of decent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific re-search, but purely the product of imagination."The late Sir William Dawsaon, Canadaâ??s great geologist, said of evolution: "it is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; yet it is utterly destitute of proof ".Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize-winner, said in an address, a few years ago, to the American chemical society, "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do." Dr. Millikan is an evolutionist; but he is honest enough to admit it as a theory that cannot be proved.Loren Eisley, a leading evolutionist, says: "with the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins what 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."Dr. D.M.S. Watson writes "â?¦the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is "special creation", which is clearly incredible."Dr. W.R. Thompson, a world-renowned entomologist, was for many years the director of the commonwealth institute of Biological control at Ottawa, Canada and was selected to write the foreword to the new edition of Darwinâ??s origin of the species. In that foreword, he made the following very significant statement: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the cause of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science".Dr. George Wald, a noble prize winner, chooses to believe in evolution even though he regards it as a scientific impossibility. He says, "The only alternative to a spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creationâ?¦" He has also said, "I am convinced that the only way to prevent the total chaos that we are headed for and probably within the next ten years, is to return to God". Many others also believe in evolution for the same reasons.Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., president of the British association for the advancement of science, stated, "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible".Nicholas Berdyaev, one of our great modern thinkers, wrote, "The naturalistic view of man as a product of evolution in the animal world is the feeblest of all anthropological theoriesâ?¦"Dr. Arthur I Brown writes: "let me assure you that evolution is not a necessary induction from known facts; it is a creed held in spite of facts. It has had the benefit of shrewd and persistent and widespread propaganda in books, magazines and newspapers. Pictures of imaginary pre-historic scenes and â??reconstructionâ?? have deluded the general public and influenced the thinking of those who have been willing to take these assertions at their face value without investigation".Professor Leander S. Keyser made this statement, "To my mind, there are enough counts against the theory of evolution to make it impossible to accept it as a scientific truth or even as a reasonable hypothesis."Herbert lee williams, chairman of the department of journalism, Memphis state university, writes, "It is at this point that we pass from what might be just innocent observation of similar appearances into the fantasy sphere, for hominid is a coined word, meaning â??manlikeâ??. You have seen hundreds of drawings and three-dimensional reproductions of creatures which were half-man and half-ape. But youâ??ve never seen a hominid, because it exists only in theory. All you have seen up to this point are monkeys, apes and men- and a few hundred conjectures built about the imaginary hominid.""Believable? I suppose that depends on who you are. Before you accept such hypothesis as facts, you should amass as much scientific knowledge as Von Braun, the recognised technological genius of the twentieth century, who dismisses the theory with a comment: "There are those who argue that universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?" "When a man of science is a man of faith, he doesnâ??t become an inferior scientist. He simply becomes a superior man. The scientific method demands far more than the theory of biological evolution has been able to supply."Fred John Meldau wrote, "In nature, we find endless variety within the species or genus: but absolutely no change from one family to another. Summed up in four words, the laws, governing all life prove there are mutations but no transmutation, which simply means that there are many varieties within any group, but there can never be one â??kindâ?? of life mutating (changing) into another family."Dr. Etheride, speaking of the great British museum, said, "In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species."Professor T.H. Morgan says, "within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.""Darwin's Theory never had any proofâ??: Richard Goldschmidt, ph. D.,D.Sc., professor of zoology, university of california, says, "Geographic variation as a model of species formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. Darwinâ??s theory of natural selection has never had any proof... yet it has been universally accepted. Here may be wide diversification within the speciesâ?¦ but the gap (between species) cannot be bridgedâ?¦ sub-species do not merge into the species either actually or ideally. Nowhere have the limits of any Species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, which also includes sterility.""There is not the slightest evidence"â?¦ Dr. Austin H. Clark, F.R.G.S., who is recognized as one of the worldâ??s greatest biologists and, at one time, biologist of the United States national museum, bluntly stated that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong on almost all vital points. "so far as concern the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major group arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complexâ?¦ appearing as a special and distinct creation--the greatest groups of animals in life do not merge into another. They are and have been fixed from the beginningâ?¦ back-boned animal is always unmistakably a back-boned animal, a starfish is always a starfish, and insect is always an insect, no matter whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present dayâ?¦ If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates,â?¦ That these major group, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that do at the present."
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/fi...load&id=660Here are a list of a bunchAnd on the below link is Select list of 3000 Science Academics who are Darwin skepticshttp://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
katherine the great Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Lostindc. You have GOT to be kidding. Please show me someone who was not born in the 1800's! I don't know where you are getting your information (although I have my suspicions.) You are looking at extremely old, antiquated information. These guys did not have a hundredth (or thousandth) of the information that we have today and I have no doubt that if they had been born at least mid 20th century, they would have very different opinions. Please educate yourself with current science--not science that is over 100 years old!
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Lostindc. You have GOT to be kidding. Please show me someone who was not born in the 1800's! I don't know where you are getting your information (although I have my suspicions.) You are looking at extremely old, antiquated information. These guys did not have a hundredth (or thousandth) of the information that we have today and I have no doubt that if they had been born at least mid 20th century, they would have very different opinions. Please educate yourself with current science--not science that is over 100 years old!No, you are the one that has to be kidding. Did you even look in the next post. There is one list of over 700 phd scientists and then another of 3000 that are alive right now and most actively working. Slow down...and look
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Lostindc. You have GOT to be kidding. Please show me someone who was not born in the 1800's! I don't know where you are getting your information (although I have my suspicions.) You are looking at extremely old, antiquated information. These guys did not have a hundredth (or thousandth) of the information that we have today and I have no doubt that if they had been born at least mid 20th century, they would have very different opinions. Please educate yourself with current science--not science that is over 100 years old!BTW, I am willing to bet quite a bit that I am more versed in this subject with credentials to prove, so I think you are the one that needs to get off the amateur wagon and educate yourself....
John Larsen Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 No, you are the one that has to be kidding. Did you even look in the next post. There is one list of over 700 phd scientists and then another of 3000 that are alive right now and most actively working. Slow down...and lookIf you try to win the contest by counting degrees, you will still lose--badly.
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 My Post hereTICNow that is funny....Forget degrees, really, there are holes all throughout evolution and dissent is picking up again but this time it is backed by science not just religion.I am just enjoying Darwin and his atheist nerds getting picked apart...
katherine the great Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 BTW, I am willing to bet quite a bit that I am more versed in this subject with credentials to prove, so I think you are the one that needs to get off the amateur wagon and educate yourself....And I'm willing to bet that you're not older than 17.
Tsuzuki Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I am just enjoying Darwin and his atheist nerds getting picked apart...So, no bias at all, then.
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 And I'm willing to bet that you're not older than 17.Yep, you are right...keep on believing in a theory and getting upset when holes are shot all through that theory.Evolution is a religion and many scientist think it is the closest way to explaining life, but I will continue to follow prophets who have seen visions, had the veil parted, and actually know what it is all about...So, no bias at all, then.I have a ton of bias, especially since I was once an atheist who believed in evolution...
Anijen Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 This next one must be true because of its chiasmus pattern
Notquitewetyet Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 This next one must be true because of its chiasmus pattern Yes, the Neanderthal found in France was a Neanderthal who had arthritis. Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Same species, different sub-species. My grandmother's dog has arthritis. Seriously, you are way misusing what Dr. AJE Cave said.Yes, Nebraska man is now known to be a pig, but that's because a. no one lived in the Americas before (at earliest 23kya) and b. scientists who understand evolution examined the tooth and determined it to be a pig. Creationists and Darwin"doubters" have never come to the rescue. Plus, of course Darwin's theory has been modified extensively. Having been on an archaeological dig before, and having had a class on archaeological science, human teeth and pig teeth are similar due to an evolutionary process known as convergence, where because of having the same diet, over time they share similar adaptations.And same with Piltdown man. It was through scientific tests that it was determined to be a fraud, and also because it was totally contradicted by the evidence of Australopithecus in Africa, which was bipedal but had a small brain, while piltdown for its early age had too large of a brain to fit the evidence.Peking Man disappeared because American troops took it to Shanghai on December 7, 1941. Do I have to tell you what happened then?
Tchild2 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Yep, you are right...keep on believing in a theory and getting upset when holes are shot all through that theory.Evolution is a religion and many scientist think it is the closest way to explaining life, but I will continue to follow prophets who have seen visions, had the veil parted, and actually know what it is all about...Can you cite three scriptures by "prophets" that support this claim and state the particulars of what these "visions" have shown. I would like to show them to both Jeff K and BCspace, who have told me, when I cite prophets supporting the fall and/or creationism, that those prophets are offering opinion only.
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Those pictures are so funny, I had to call over my wife so we could laugh at them together, that counts as family home evening in my house.I recently found the tooth of a pre-canine dog about 6 feet below ground when we were excavating are yard. I have used this tooth and have constructed the transitional fossil between the canine and a rat. I am right, evolution is right, and the tooth proves it...
lostindc Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Can you cite three scriptures by "prophets" that support this claim and state the particulars of what these "visions" have shown. I would like to show them to both Jeff K and BCspace, who have told me, when I cite prophets supporting the fall and/or creationism, that those prophets are offering opinion only.Start by reading D&C if you really want to learn about what God has to say about life here and the afterlife, and when you are done get on your knees and thank your Heavenly Father for most valuable insight that you have received in your life.Oh, and throw away your Darwin textbooks with fake drawing and fabricated apes designed from teeth and jaw bone fragments.
Ahman Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 When you take the sacrament on sunday, you first take the bread.The bread represents Christs body. And what did Christ do with his body? He took it up again, being the first that overcame death.And why did Christ need to overcome death? Because the Fall of Adam brought death into the world. A condition that did not previouly exist before the Fall.
Tsuzuki Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Because the Fall of Adam brought death into the world. A condition that did not previouly exist before the Fall.When you say "death", are you specifically applying it to animal life, or does it equally apply to plants, fungi, and various other single/multi-celled organisms (bacteria/viruses)? Or could it be just humans who didn't die until the fall?
Ahman Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 When you say "death", are you specifically applying it to animal life, or does it equally apply to plants, fungi, and various other single/multi-celled organisms (bacteria/viruses)? Or could it be just humans who didn't die until the fall?It is my understanding that all things were created in an immortal state when the earth and all its creations were still in the presence of God. It was not until after the fall that corruption entered in.
BCSpace Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Can you cite three scriptures by "prophets" that support this claim and state the particulars of what these "visions" have shown. I would like to show them to both Jeff K and BCspace, who have told me, when I cite prophets supporting the fall and/or creationism, that those prophets are offering opinion only.You might want to show the LDS Church too whose statements on what is and is not doctrine are what I use as a guide (see my siggy below).....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.