Comments on Gordon's Blog: Dr Grady McMurtry - What are his qualifications an...

gordon you are a funny man

2012-02-06T12:25:51.326Z

gordon you are a funny man

2011-08-28T03:32:43.030+01:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

"The" - When you say this, presumably y...

2011-04-24T08:37:19.883+01:00

"The" - When you say this, presumably you apply it to the Christians who have commented on this who do not believe in a young earth? At least you are being honest. Most creationists pussyfoot around this issue and say that you can be a Christian even if you accept evolution and begin in an old earth. At least you are equally condemning unbelievers and "Christians" (who by your honest assessment are going to under go "gnashing of teeth"). We need more honesty like this from Christians.

Charles its seems to me that some people on here d...

2011-04-24T02:26:19.538+01:00

Charles its seems to me that some people on here don’t really want to hear what you have got to say, my view is that you wont be able to change them or save them, try and forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,for they have the ITCHING of the ears and soon to have the GNASHING of teeth.

"And why aren't there huge numbers of the...

2011-03-20T14:06:51.463Z

"And why aren't there huge numbers of these developing evolving creatures on earth right now, this second, with parts of this or parts of that, which are useless or next to useless until complete but are in the process of evolving?"

There are. Look nowadays at examples such as the flying squirrel, the flying lemur, the flying phalanger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colugo

These all have skin flaps that allow the species to glide from treetop to treetop to escape from predators etc. for the reasons seen previously above. Modern bats (which of course are mammals) most likely evolved this way too although these skin flaps don't control any skeletal structure whereas bat wings do so their evolution would be something slightly different. But all of the above creatures evolved these methods independently - something called convergent evolution. Lemurs and squirrels are very distantly related and we can see from other species that this wasn't an ancestral trait but has in fact evolved fairly recently to allow for 'gliding flight'. Is it so hard to imagine that after millions more years of evolution they will be capable of gliding further and further eventually capable of sustaining momentum in the air like with birds and bats? I think not, and if the right selection pressures are there then our descendants may one day see such a thing (if we don't destroy them or ourselves first).

"I know the fossil record is incomplete, but come on in billions of years there must be many. Where are they? Even one?"

I've provided you with more than one, I've provided you with several so I hope this suffices but I have a feeling you'll just ignore them and claim they're not transitional when they clearly are.

"And with so much change why can I recognise creatures unaltered for hundreds of millions years, why haven't they slowly evolved out of existence with these thousands, no hundreds of thousands, or millions of small changes that make up evolution. Why are frogs still frogs, cockroches still cockroches, bacteria still bacteria, crocodiles still crocodiles?"

Species do undergo periods of stasis such as sharks they have remained unchanged for millions of years, and nautiluses and some bacteria, corals but this is because they're simply so good at what they do they don't need to change. An species doesn't change over time simply for the sake of it, it only changes according to selection pressures e.g. a change of the environment (an ice age for example) or the introduction of a new predator so it needs to adapt to find new ways to survive against the new predator.

Hope this answers any questions you have on evolution, and remember, think about it for yourself and don't just accept backwards bronze age thinking from creationists, try putting your trust in the scientists where biology is concerned: you do it in all other areas of life such as medicine and you wouldn't be reading this right now if you didn't trust scientists elsewhere so trust us biologists a little too :)

Josh

Dear Kathryn "Why do we find NO fossils of c...

2011-03-20T14:06:29.809Z

Dear Kathryn

"Why do we find NO fossils of creatures with half a wing, quarter of a wing, three quarters of a wing, 10% of a wing, 90% of a wing, 99% of a wing, 72.546% of a wing, 0.02141% of a wing, etc,etc? You ONLY ever see a wing or no wing, why?"

We do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

The Anchiornsis has feathers (like most dinosaurs, you know that the T-rex probably had primitive feathers too, right?) but it was unable to fly or even glide. These 'wings' you see were most likely an adaptation for thermoregulation and probably had some sexual selection acting upon it to increase the surface area allowing them to gradually grow.

The famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx example is still very pertinent. It is fully bird AND fully dinosaur. It actually has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than modern birds today such as jaws with sharp teeth, three fingered claws, long bony tail, extensible second toes used as killing claws, feathers for homeothermy, and other skeletal features that you do not see in modern birds today. This dinobird was probably unable to fly also - but it's very obvious it had the ability to glide e.g. from treetop to treetop to escape predators or to save energy instead of climbing down a tree and then climbing up the next one.

This transitional fossil here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confuciusornis is the first bird discovered to have a beak and be toothless. It was more advanced than Archaeopteryx but this is to be expected as it came after Archaeopteryx. The wing shape of it though is very unlike modern birds being long and narrow which doesn't give a great deal of surface area for flight. It therefore would have employed gliding flight but wouldn't have been able to control this very well.

Finally you have Ichthyornis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyornis which is quite modern dating only to 89 million years ago. This too, unlike modern birds, had teeth so it still had some ancestral traits. But the wings are much more able on this bird and lived primarily out at sea. It was capable of full flight too with mechanisms helping it to control this flight.

His upbringing is pertinent for this reason: He w...

2011-03-15T23:02:12.299Z

His upbringing is pertinent for this reason:

He was brought up in an atmosphere where it was possible to reconcile weird science and speculative religious beliefs with real science. This may explain why he is able to operate with little apparent internal turmoil (given that many of his arguments are not used by other creationists).

I think its important to try to understand how he got to his current position.

2.

You seem fascinated by Grady McMurtry's father...

2011-03-15T19:22:33.813Z

You seem fascinated by Grady McMurtry's father, though he did not choose his own father, and states he converted to Christianity in his twenties, he clearly rejected his father's beliefs.

He didn't change his name, or "hide" it, but if he doesn't want to trumpet his father's distasteful beliefs why should he?

I say fair play to him in throwing off such baggage.

But you seem to think it is important.

Well you are a self proclaimed atheist.

Yet you got a degree in theology, work for a christian charity, and admit to "members of your family" being christians.

Are you hiding that your own father is or was a christian?

Are you hiding that you were brought up a christian?

You clearly think this upbringing is important for Mr McMurtry, yet you reject it for yourself.

Do as I say not as I do eh?

Why do we find NO fossils of creatures with half a...

2011-03-15T19:12:52.349Z

Why do we find NO fossils of creatures with half a wing, quarter of a wing, three quarters of a wing, 10% of a wing, 90% of a wing, 99% of a wing, 72.546% of a wing, 0.02141% of a wing, etc,etc? You ONLY ever see a wing or no wing, why?

And why aren't there huge numbers of these developing evolving creatures on earth right now, this second, with parts of this or parts of that, which are useless or next to useless until complete but are in the process of evolving?

I know the fossil record is incomplete, but come on in billions of years there must be many. Where are they? Even one?

And with so much change why can I recognise creatures unaltered for hundreds of millions years, why haven't they slowly evolved out of existence with these thousands, no hundreds of thousands, or millions of small changes that make up evolution. Why are frogs still frogs, cockroches still cockroches, bacteria still bacteria, crocodiles still crocodiles?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

2011-03-12T19:36:18.920Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

FROM APE TO HUMAN - IDON'T THINK SO :- Since...

2010-12-16T23:26:30.824Z

FROM APE TO HUMAN - IDON'T THINK SO :-
Since Darwin’s and Huxley’s publications a number of human-like and ape-like fossils have been discovered. Much of the material is fragmentary and views differ on any evolutionary path that might be interpreted from it. New discoveries tend to challenge previous interpretations10 while fossils considered human have been re-identified as ape.11 At a molecular level the DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are reported to be 96% similar.12 However this disguises the 40 million individual differences at the nucleotide level,13 the different number and structure of chromosomes and the gene gain and loss which, as Demuth et al state, ‘represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives’.14 Darwinian evolution of man and apes from a common ancestor remains unproven.
Joshua - 99% I don't think so.

Gordon why do you beieve this Darwinian nonsense - you had it right the first time - why did you turn away.

Return as quickly as possible.

Christian Love and concern Allan

Joshua -the difference between chimps and humans i...

2010-12-16T22:17:20.393Z

Joshua -the difference between chimps and humans is enormous.

I will try and find the paper - includinf the one saying the original comparison was falwed.

DOMINIC GORDON JOSHUA SURELY ALL THESE SCIENTISTS ...

2010-12-16T13:18:40.769Z

DOMINIC GORDON JOSHUA SURELY ALL THESE SCIENTISTS HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY

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, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. physiologist)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Ph.D.,D.Sc.,Dr.es.Sc., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, Calif: Master Books, p.154). Dr Wilder-Smith's personal conclusion is as follows:
"I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don't find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it.

QUOTE 7 "Once we see, however, that the prob...

2010-12-16T13:15:29.849Z

QUOTE 7
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." Sir F. Hoyle, famous mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist.

"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century." (M. Denton, 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis' page 358)

"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeol. Instit. of America).

"The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." (Evolutionist Sir F. Hoyle)

"The theory of Evolution ... will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has." (M. Muggeridge, , philosopher)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'"
(K.Hsu, geologist at the Geol. Inst. at Zurich)

"Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies."
(Scott M Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp 127)

"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud."
(George Kocan, Evolution isn't Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 Monday April 21 1980)

QUOTE 6 "The set of genetic instructions for...

2010-12-16T13:13:16.984Z

QUOTE 6
"The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long." (Miroslav Radman & R. Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific America, Vol. 259, No.2 August 1988, pp40-46)

"DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism - a miniaturised marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet."
(Paul S Taylor in The Illustrated Origins Answer Bk page 23)

"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..." (Fred Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, Evolut. from Space)

"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first - the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? ... there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.'" (George Howe, expert in biology sciences)

"...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."
(Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley and Robert L Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories (New York Philosophical Library 1984) pp 211-212)

"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA ... All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening ... if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion."
(Miroslav Radman and R. Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication... Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."
(Arthur Koestler, author)

"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life."
(David Kaufman, Ph.D., Uni of Florida, Gainesville.

QUOTES 5 In most people's minds, fossils and E...

2010-12-16T13:10:37.795Z

QUOTES 5
In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)

"... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."
(Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Camb. Uni. : Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quad. Books, 1961, p.97))

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/palaeontologist and former evolutionist)

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128] ... one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism ... [p.127] If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle. [p.128]"
(Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's destiny: H. Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp127-8)

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical view, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."

(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge Uni: Encyc .Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs in the American Museum of Natural History is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem."

Luther Sunderland, science researcher) "The...

2010-12-16T13:04:56.295Z

Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
(John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before."
(Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
(Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, Amer. Mus. of Nat. History).

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (C. Darwin, My Life & Letters)

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

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)

"As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
(Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, Uni of Michigan, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, p.7)

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated." (John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
(Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago)

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided 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 palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

Quotes 2 Sorry Gordon google was playing up ther...

2010-12-16T12:56:59.116Z

Quotes 2
Sorry Gordon google was playing up there :
Dominic what do you think of these scientists.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it .It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution .. if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir F. Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Camb. Uni)

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (L. D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?" (Molecular biologist M. Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 34

"When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them."
(C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioural complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity ... Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form."
(James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, "Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 (June 1988))

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods." (John Woodmorappe, geologist)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order." (H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed." (N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist)
"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."

2010-12-16T12:51:01.214Z

This comment has been removed by the author.

2010-12-16T12:49:50.807Z

This comment has been removed by the author.

Gordon Dominic and Joshua Quotemining Million...

2010-12-16T12:49:45.275Z

Gordon Dominic and Joshua Quotemining

Millions of people believe that this universe started with a big bang; and that after billions of years life on earth evolved in all its complexity - of its own accord!

Is this the case? Are living creatures able to bring themselves into being and then change from one kind to another? Have earth's myriad life forms: plants, insects, birds, animals and mankind all evolved from a common ancestor? Is there evidence to support this notion? Or is our generation being taken in by the greatest hoax of all time.

Listed below are a few eye-opening quotes by prominent scientists and thinkers of our time. We could list many, many more by palaeontologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, zoologists, geneticists and physicians: but the sheer volume would exhaust the reader. After all, why be associated with a theory if it's wrong?

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Camb. Uni.)

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." (Dr R. Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."
(Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen Uni)

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted." (Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, Uni. of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." (Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Nat. Hist.)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
(Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advance of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought)

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267

It is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of C14 years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years."
(G . Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." (Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

"The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling ... the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet .. To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science."
(T. Barnes Ph.D., physicist)

2010-12-16T12:49:06.328Z

This comment has been removed by the author.

2010-12-16T12:48:26.845Z

This comment has been removed by the author.

2010-12-16T12:48:16.561Z

This comment has been removed by the author.

Dominic, don't bother replying to this imbecil...

2010-12-13T17:58:39.260Z

Dominic, don't bother replying to this imbecile. I know it's tempting but don't.

There should be a big sign on this blog saying

"WARNING: Please don't feed the trolls."

Ultimately this is about religion Dominic, as it's solely because of Charles' religion that he refuses to acknowledge any evidence presented to him. There would be no debate if it weren't for religion.

Ultimately, it's not a scientific debate, because creationism and intelligent design simply aren't science. So it's a philosophical debate, disguised as a scientific one because the imbeciles insist on attacking the fundamentals of science that they have no understanding of.

Anyway, Gordon and Dominic, I seriously recommend that video, it is a very good one and Thunderf00t has many other great videos out there too. Thunderf00t is a scientist himself, and has a great, now famous series with over 30 episodes called:

"Why do people laugh at creationists?"

It always ends with the words:

"Why do people laugh at creationists? Only creationists don't understand why."

Words of wisdom :D