Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

bob_2 · 09-28-09 5:33 pm

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist]. "One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976). "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11 "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26. "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist] "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31. OK, so say they are quotes from three decades ago, do you have current quotes refuting what is said here, what is found in the "Book of Rocks" as John Alfke like to call the fossils. Me thinks John is taking somebody's word for the current evidence and Elaine, well,.....

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 9:14 pm

is this recent enuf? <a href="http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009.html" target=_top>http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009.html</a>

bob_2 · 09-28-09 9:55 pm

NOW, some answers about purpose, how we got here,and where we are going, or even some guesses bssed on your superior knowledge and contrarian postiion. I'm tired of being opposite you and Elaine all the time. I know I'm not wrong that often.

john8verse32 · 09-29-09 12:36 pm

I know I'm not wrong that often. just about every post.... even some guesses bssed on your superior knowledge and the purpose of science is to find out "how, what, when, where...." the purpose of religion is to find out "why". so far, many people do not understand WHY a loving God would order the Hebrews to kill their neighbors, even women and children (except saving the virgins), in order to steal the land the Heebs had left, due to God's inability or lack of interest in modifying the drought which had caused them to leave for Egypt 400 yrs earlier. Is that WHY we are here? to kill our neighbors, steal their land, and later, like David, a man after God's own heart, to rape the good looking women? then have their husbands killed? you wanna know why we are here? why not ask God why He tried to kill everybody in a flood, even innocent kids and animals!!! ** I can understand why He would not want to leave any good scientific evidence behind to prove that mass murder!!! **is this a valid , logical reason for an alleged "loving God" to massacre innocent kids and animals along with trying to stop the really hot women from fooling around with aliens? I know I'd be appaled if my daughter volunteered to mess with ET, but would I try to kill everybody? as your fave story claims your Loving God did? (CEV) Genesis 6:1 More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. 3 Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years." 4 The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later. 5 The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6 He was very sorry that he had made them, 7 and he said, "I'll destroy every living creature on earth! I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I'm sorry I ever made them."

elaine · 09-29-09 1:17 pm

Has anyone realized that in Adam and Eve's generation there had to have been multiple incestuous relationships? And after the flood? How was the earth so rapidly populated? Even if his sons and wives reproduced, as they evidently did, wouldn't that have resulted in either siblings or many cousins cohabiting? Yet the Bible says that there was evil in the land, but there was evil after the flood. So how did sin survive the flood if the intent was to destroy evil?

bob_2 · 09-29-09 7:05 pm

Your point???? Read about any breeding, such as dogs and cats and it is the overbreeding that creates the problem, the question is absurd on the face of it, if you only have two people starting mankind.

elaine · 09-29-09 7:34 pm

Bob, if he Bible is supposed to be our guide, then when incest was most definitely practiced, when did it cease being appropriate or proper? Same for polygamy? "For the Bible tells me so."

bob_2 · 09-29-09 8:36 pm

Polygamy, like divorce was never God's way: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Elaine are you testing God with your obvious questions.

don · 09-29-09 8:59 pm

then when incest was most definitely practiced, According to the Bible, when was incest practiced? Not just a one time generational necessity, but actually practiced as a way of society? It may be of interest to read how the Review and Herald dealt with a question on a related topic:<blockquote>Review and Herald, May 5, 1977, page 6 Did Cain and Seth have to marry one of their own sisters and have children with them? Would this not be adultery or fornication? If so, why did God allow it? Why could God not have made other women the way He made Eve? We are dependent on the inspired record in the book of Genesis for our information on the early period of human history. In addition we may consult Ellen White's comments on this period. On items not revealed in these sources we must simply conjecture. Hence, until we get further information in the next world we will not have an answer to the question you raise as to why God did not create other women as wives for Adam's sons. In the absence of any inspired information we may assume that in that early period someone at least must have married his sister. At a later period God forbade a man to take his sister (Lev. 18:9). The specific term for sexual relations between a man and his sister is incest. It would not be adultery unless the man was married to an- other woman or the woman to another man. It would, however, be fornication, which is a general term for sexual immorality. However, if morality has its root in God, then, if, in the beginning of human his- tory, because of the situa- tion, God gave permission for a man to marry his sister, such a marriage would not be a sin. As the human race degen- erated and weakness devel- oped in families, a man and his sister, both carrying in their genetic code family weaknesses, would be more likely to transmit such weaknesses to their off- spring. At least this is one of the bases on which marriage between first cousins is dis- couraged today. Such weak- nesses would not have been present in that first family. Incidentally, Abraham was married to his half-sister (Gen. 20:12). <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1977-18/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6" target="_blank">http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1977-18/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6</a> </blockquote>To see this file, a DjVu Browser Plugin is needed. See <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/GetDjVuControl.asp" target="_blank">**here**</a> (Message edited by Don on September 29, 2009)

bob_2 · 09-29-09 9:49 pm

Well, He was pretty clear about His rules by the time Leviticus 18 rolled around. Ask any breeder why they artificially inseminate cattle and horses, to prevent the effects of too much inbreeding, but being married to a physician you know this, you are like the Pharisees that know the answer but are trying to trick God or others to explain, what appears to be against the law. Up until he gave a law about it, apparently the genetics did not produce the "bad" products that any modern dog, cat, horse or cattle breeders see in inbreeding situations. Now Elaine, do you need a picture drawn for you???

bob_2 · 09-29-09 9:50 pm

Notice Leviticus covers homosexuality also. No Prop 8 discussion here, just an outright ban on it.

elaine · 09-30-09 2:41 pm

Whether God recommended it or it was absolutely necessary to fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply" it is never mentioned in the Bible, but only assumed that without sexual intercourse, no generations are possible and there were no other alternatives than to mate with a sibling, cousin, niece, or whoever was near. If God commanded murder,is that not as bad, or worse than incest?

don · 09-30-09 5:18 pm

If God commanded murder,is that not as bad, or worse than incest? Most definitions of incest include a criminal notion. Incest is defined as a violation of society standards. Go back to the time of Adam, Eve and their family. Did they even have an understanding of incest? Probably not. By the time we get to Sinai, sexual standards have become more clearly defined. Now, even more so. Why is the relationship of Adam's sons and daughters brought up in this discussion? What are people trying to imply? That Adam and Eve's children sinned by establishing families of the second generation? On what basis? .

elaine · 09-30-09 5:53 pm

What are people trying to imply? That Adam and Eve's children sinned by establishing families of the second generation? On what basis? That "sin" is a relative term: relative to the time, relative to the culture, and the social mores. Which is why Christians who make so much of sin, have different lists depending on those things: cultural relativity and contemporary social morals. If it wasn't immoral for incest in the beginning, at what point did it become immoral? When it no longer was necessary? And who defined when that time was reached? If it was only immoral for a man to divorce his wife, because she was his property, why is there no such restriction when a man takes a second wife in Bible times? Just trying to demonstrate that "sin" changes with the time and place and conditions. Most Adventists who are past 50 can remember there were a lot more potential sins then than now. What changed?

don · 09-30-09 8:49 pm

"sin" is a relative term: relative to the time, relative to the culture, and the social mores. If it wasn't immoral for incest in the beginning, at what point did it become immoral? Most definitions of incest are society based definitions of a crime. At the second generation from Adam and Eve there was no incest. The first indication of improper family sexuality comes just after the flood with the story of Noah; his nakedness and Ham's looking on Dad. The story of Abraham married to his half-sister is portrayed as a mere fact; no sin implied. The next account of improper family sexuality is of Lot and his two daughters. No moral statement is given. Lot is cleared of guilt, it seems, by the statement that he did not know what was happening on account of being drunk. Isaac marries his first cousin. Jacob marries his first cousins. The next sinful family sexual encounter is between Reuben and his father's concubine. The story is told very briefly and with a negative edge to it. Later, Reuben loses the blessing of the first born because of this sexual sin. Then there is the story of Judah, his sons and his daughter-in-law Tamar. She tricks him. But upon discovery she is honored. The Levirate law was quite important, it seems. Genesis reports these close-relative marriages and does not cast a negative shadow over most of them; unlike the story of Dinah and Shechem and Joseph and Potiphar's wife. It is unwise to look for a present-day societal norm in the stories of Genesis. It is safe to say, that the sins identified as sins in Genesis remain so today. At Sinai, regulations against incest can be found in Leviticus 18 and 20. . .

elaine · 09-30-09 10:36 pm

It is safe to say, that the sins identified as sins in Genesis remain so today. }} Is picking up sticks on Sabbath a capital offense? Wouldn't that classify it as a sin? If being a rebellious son was worthy of stoning then, is it still today? Rather than comparing sins of Genesis as those today, it is more appropriate to say that the behavior then would be called sin today, but was deemed necessary because of circumstances then? To make a blanket statement that after Adam & Eve's child were incestuous that no one was afterward is assuming what the Bible leaves out. "Inspired guessing"?

don · 10-01-09 7:16 am

Is picking up sticks on Sabbath a capital offense? Wouldn't that classify it as a sin? This is a problem of the Mosaic Law, not the book of Genesis. Any examples of sins obvious in Genesis that no longer are considered sin? If being a rebellious son was worthy of stoning then, is it still today? First Corinthians 5 gives us an example of a "capital offense" being handled by the Church and Paul. For the Christian, shunning and disfellowship are the tools that the church uses against "capital offenses". The NT gives little counsel to the secular world on how they should manage people who commit crime. The Christian Church considers secular authority to be ordained by God. Ministers of God who "bear not the sword in vain" against evil doers. To make a blanket statement that after Adam & Eve's child were incestuous that no one was afterward is assuming what the Bible leaves out. I should have said, "At the second generation point from Adam and Eve there was no incest crime in the practice of sibling marriage." Again, if incest is defined as a society crime, then the second generation from Adam did not practice incest by sibling marriage. At the time of the flood, we know that it was wrong to see Dad naked. This is another way of talking about inappropriate sexuality in the family. So, the writer of Genesis identified "incest" at several points. It did not include the second generation from Adam's necessity of marrying a sibling. How could such an obvious necessity be a crime? The writer of Genesis, and his society, identified criminal sexual behavior. It did not address the problem of Adam's second generation. (Message edited by Don on October 01, 2009)

elaine · 10-01-09 6:51 pm

If Moses' Law is how Jesus and the apostles referred to as all the Jewish laws, are they, or not relevant for Christians today? Where can you find in the Bible anywhere that there is a separation of either the "Law" or "Moses' Law"? Where in Genesis is criminal sexual behavior identified, and especially incest? Surely, no one would believe, without evidence, that there was never incest after the 2nd generation from Adam, or the 3rd generation from Noah. Evidently, sibling cousins cohabiting was not wrong, as the children of Noah's sons would have had no one else to marry. Then there are the "Nephilim" which no one can identify--but there was intermarriage there between unknowns.

john8verse32 · 10-01-09 9:09 pm

is the opposite of "INcest".... ET-cest? (CEV) Genesis 6:1 More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. ..creating the Nephilim.... the giants of old... whose fossil remains we do NOT have... probably because they were part Extra terrestrial, and left planet earth.... but since they didn't tell Moses... it never got written down.

don · 10-01-09 9:39 pm

Where in Genesis is criminal sexual behavior identified, and especially incest? Maybe criminal is too modern a term. In an earlier post I have identified the relevant stories in Genesis. The first indication of improper family sexuality comes just after the flood with the story of Noah; his nakedness and Ham's looking on Dad. The next account of improper family sexuality is of Lot and his two daughters. No moral statement is given. Lot is cleared of guilt, it seems, by the statement that he did not know what was happening on account of being drunk. The next sinful family sexual encounter is between Reuben and his father's concubine. The story is told very briefly and with a negative edge to it. Later, Reuben loses the blessing of the first born because of this sexual sin. Surely, no one would believe, without evidence, that there was never incest after the 2nd generation from Adam, or the 3rd generation from Noah. I agree. I believe that the second generation had to marry siblings. I don't believe this second generation were considered guilty of incest. Evidently, sibling cousins cohabiting was not wrong, as the children of Noah's sons would have had no one else to marry. Even today, some cultures consider the marriage of first cousins to be appropriate. See: <a href="http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts" target=_top>http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts</a> (Message edited by Don on October 01, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-28-09 5:33 pm

Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#2 09-28-09 9:14 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#3 09-28-09 9:55 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#4 09-29-09 12:36 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#5 09-29-09 1:17 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#6 09-29-09 7:05 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#7 09-29-09 7:34 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#8 09-29-09 8:36 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#9 09-29-09 8:59 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#10 09-29-09 9:49 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#11 09-29-09 9:50 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#12 09-30-09 2:41 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#13 09-30-09 5:18 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#14 09-30-09 5:53 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#15 09-30-09 8:49 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#16 09-30-09 10:36 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#17 10-01-09 7:16 am

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#18 10-01-09 6:51 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#19 10-01-09 9:09 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

#20 10-01-09 9:39 pm

Re: Quotes from Scientists supporting Creation over Evolution

Board footer