Comments
581 - 600 of 899 Comments Last updated 8 hrs ago

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#598
Oct 1, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The Myth of Evolution is all about passing on mutated DNA.
Normal breeding corrects these mutations (God built this safety measure in to reproducing DNA)
Inbreeding by passes this safety measure because siblings usually care the same mutation so they get passed on. Inbreeding is evolution at work.
I hope this spin on it opens people's eyes as to how impossible mutations from a single cell to humans is so impossible. Bad mutations out number good mutations 15,000 to 1. There is no way we could have evolved from a single cell life form.
EVERY time a species has been isolated and it "evolved" in to a new species it lost DNA. It NEVER EVER added DNA.
You cannot believe in evolution and except the facts surrounding it.
Ignorant POS who doesnt understand how evolution works and is trying to argue back from ignorance.

The proof of evolution is in your DNA, but will you go to a doctor to ask him to show you? Nope - because you are lying cowards the lot of you.

You bully and spam atheists forums because you know your god isn't real and there are no consequences for your hate.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#599
Oct 1, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but inbreeding passes on mutations so much faster. One can observe that DNA and mankind has not changed much in all of mans history.
Proof that human's DNA hasn't changed?

No?

Interesting. You just make up bullshit as you see fit...

...!!!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#600
Oct 1, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
One can observe that DNA and mankind has not changed much in all of mans history.
Right. Because we have DNA sequencing charts preserved in the Great Pyramids by those plucky Egyptians, right?

And of course, your bible describes Adam's DNA chart perfectly.

Right?

... RIGHT?

.... hmmmmm....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#601
Oct 1, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
booby ...
Who Would Jesus Belittle?

I bet **you** know, right?

Your inner Jesus is so evident, here.

(pssst: most people call that "hate"...)

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#602
Oct 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Fossil Gaps 16

Theropod “arms”(relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].” Hinchliffe, p. 597.

See “What Was Archaeopteryx?” here.

Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

j.“When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural.... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...” William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.

“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.” A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” Lyall Watson,“The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

k.“At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.” Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#603
Oct 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population.
When has this been observed?

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604
Oct 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
you know your god isn't real.
Science Proves God

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.”[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read,“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?]

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#605
Oct 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pahu wrote:
Fossil Gaps 16
Theropod “arms”(relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].” Hinchliffe, p. 597.
See “What Was Archaeopteryx?” here.
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
j.“When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural.... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...” William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.
“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.” A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.
“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” Lyall Watson,“The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
k.“At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.” Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Evolution is a fact, your religious lies about it are outdated and disproven.

Concentrate on proving the god your cult sent you here to lie about instead.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#606
Oct 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

LCNLin wrote:
Hitler an atheist
snipped with scissors you don't let children use
It so nice you cherry-picked all those nice quotes for us.

We'll just print them out and put them on the refrigerator with this Christian fish magnet we got for tithing on time.

Now... perhaps you can provide positive evidence to support your argument.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#607
Oct 5, 2013
 
LCNLin wrote:
In the News -
Jailed Pussy Riot member Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, who is on the fifth day of a hunger strike, has been transferred to a prison hospital.
Tolokonnikova's husband, Pyotr Verzilov, said on September 27 that the authorities of the penal colony in Russia's central Republic of Mordovia placed his wife in the penitentiary's medical unit after she felt unwell.
Earlier in the day, Tolokonnikova accused prison officers of taking away her drinking water.
Authorities at the penal colony in Russia's Republic of Mordovia, where she is jailed, denied the claim.
In a message made public by her husband, Pyotr Verzilov, Tolokonnikova said on September 27 that a prison guard told her that her drinking water would be taken away and then an inmate accompanying him grabbed her by the arms and removed the water.
Tolokonnikova is serving a two-year prison term for a protest performance against President Vladimir Putin in a Moscow cathedral.
She began a hunger strike to protest prisoners being forced to work excessive hours and an alleged death threat by a prison official.
She said she was moved to an "isolation cell" on September 27.
Wait.

Since when did Russia become the example for the US to follow?

Strange how an enemy for only ~50 years can be so quickly trusted to be a true friend when it suits you.

Now if I was a Bible thumper, I might think you would be Satan's minion.


“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#608
Oct 5, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Science Proves God
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.”[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read,“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?]
Could you clarify premise 3?

"Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe."

I'm going to take the cheap shot Creationist rebuttal here and ask "Were you there?"

As far as I know, no scientist has put for a testable hypothesis for what was before the Big Bang.

There is the multi-verse idea but doesn't that kill the "we are a special snowflake universe" like Earth is the center of all creation?
olasonn

Norway

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#609
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
When has this been observed?
Many places actually, here's one example:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/...
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#610
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>Like many people you are not looking at how evolution actually works. One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
Macro Evolution is a myth.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#611
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro Evolution is a myth.
You are lying.

Why do you lie in such easy-to-prove ways?

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#613
Oct 9, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro Evolution is a myth.
Nobody believes creationists liars with no evidence of god. When you cult grows up and becomes mature, it will realise just how stupid it looks for lying about god.
Mr Clue

Manhattan, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#614
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro Evolution is a myth.
Your alleged IQ is a myth. Evolution will still be THE mainstay of the life sciences long after you've died and turned into worm food, idiot.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#615
Oct 10, 2013
 
Fossil Gaps 17

In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).

l.“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” Nilsson, p. 1212.

“...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.” Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History),“The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.

“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.” Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.

On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#616
Oct 10, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a fact, your religious lies about it are outdated and disproven.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin,*Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped .. We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"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].

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Enc...
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#617
Oct 10, 2013
 
When you die, you will be a transitional fossil.
Pahu wrote:
Fossil Gaps 17
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
l.“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” Nilsson, p. 1212.
“...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.” Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History),“The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.
“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.” Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.
On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#618
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>

Now... perhaps you can provide positive evidence to support your argument.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin,*Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times .. so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption .. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do .. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley,

"Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963)[Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Enc...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 19 min Patrick 226,235
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 21 min Patrick 21,497
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 23 min Patrick 10
100% Faith Free 30 min Patrick 8
Richard Dawkins in a nutshell 33 min Patrick 26
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 2 hr Patrick 10
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 5 hr USN Atheist 39
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••