25 Pages of Quotes By Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[ChemEngineer]

That is not true. The fact that no one has been able to do that today does not equate to being proven that it can't happen. To posit otherwise is arrogant as hell IMHO. Which is not to say that God did or didn't create life, but the truth is that we don't know and nothing has been proven.

Scores of citations by scientific experts and you have one "gotcha"?
Terribly weak.
I don't recall posting that quote you attribute to me, and can't find it anywhere. But that's immaterial.

As to what has been "proven," do you not know countless facts you have learned in your years on this earth?
The rest of us certainly have and we don't need to be lectured on what is or isn't "proven" according to YOUR standards.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in mathematics." - Carl Sagan (Cosmos, as I recall)

 

[Hollie]

Scores of citations by scientific experts and you have one "gotcha"?
Terribly weak.
I don't recall posting that quote you attribute to me, and can't find it anywhere. But that's immaterial.

As to what has been "proven," do you not know countless facts you have learned in your years on this earth?
The rest of us certainly have and we don't need to be lectured on what is or isn't "proven" according to YOUR standards.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in mathematics." - Carl Sagan (Cosmos, as I recall)

Just too funny. Among the science 'experts" you ''quoted'' is Adolph Hitler.

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"

(Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)

 

[task0778]

I don't recall posting that quote you attribute to me, and can't find it anywhere. But that's immaterial.

Check your own OP.

As to what has been "proven," do you not know countless facts you have learned in your years on this earth?

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. There is nothing that I have ever seen that proves God exists or that God created life, AND there is also nothing that I have ever seen or heard that disproves the possibility the life cannot come from inanimate sources. Could be that God did it, but IMHO there's no proof either way. If you say there is, fine by me.

 

[abu afak]

Dear "Mod":

1. The quotes by scores of experts, professors and scientists clearly express my opinions and thoughts. That is quite obvious to anyone reading except you.
.2. The "reasoning for starting this thread" is to counter the nonsense proffered by Darwinists day in and day out.
3. After an hour, it is impossible for me to edit the opening post. Why don't you do something about that?
4. These quotes make an excellent starter for a discussion, as demonstrated by the large number of follow-up comments.
5. Few people reading this message board are PhD biochemists or biologists or statisticians or paleontologists or geologists.
These quotes cited express expert opinions which are ONLY refuted by attacking the sources, not the messages. This is the ignorance of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Ignorance is what Darwinists do best.

Dear Mods, the OP not only had NO original content, you MISSED that it was PLAGIARIZED by the OP from some Kwazy Kweationist Source, and the OP should be deleted, not just warned.
Many/Most of the Quotes are FRAUDS and/or OUT of Context.


ie, The very First 'Quote' (George Wald) from ChemEngineer's Giant OP list is BOGUS!!

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Quote #57​

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

The poster (or whoever he cribbed it from - one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else's mistakes transform into your mistakes without warning) got the reference wrong. If he had photocopies of the paper, that would not have happened. The correct citation is:

Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.

- C. Thompson

---

I went to the library and found the [September 1958] article. The quote is a complete fabrication. What the article does say is:

The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.
Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.
Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.
This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.
A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.
Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.
That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.

I think that this extended quote shows that the "quote" is Not even correct as a Paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.

- Mike Hopkins

---

I apologize for the length of this quote. I think it is only fair to give Dr. Wald ample time and space for his views to be expressed.

[The following is] transcribed directly from his paper "The Origin of Life," which appeared in the August 1954 (pages 44-53) issue of Scientific American.

Any mistakes of transcription are of course mine.

I am starting at the top of the center column on page 45.

One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created. This is an understandable confusion of nature with terminology. Men are used to making things; it is a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a superhuman being. Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural creation of life. Our own tradition provides such an account in the opening chapters of Genesis. There we are told that beginning on the third day of the Creation, God brought forth living creatures- first plants, then fishes and birds, then land animals and finally man.
Spontaneous Generation
The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more naturalistic view of the matter. One had only to accept the evidence of one 's senses to know that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds. This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry. Indeed, even the theologians- witness the English priest John Turberville Needham- could subscribe to this view, for Genesis tells us, not that God created plants and most animals directly, but that he bade the earth and waters to bring them forth; since this directive was never rescinded, there is nothing heretical in believing that the process has continued.
But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries, this belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. First the Italian Francisco Redi shoed in the 17th century that meat placed under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops maggots. Then in the following century the Italian Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke the seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to rot. He could find no way, however, to show that the air inside the flask had not been vitiated. This problem was finally solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860, with a simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out in a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria, and molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and only rarely reached the broth. In such a flask, the broth seldom was contaminated; usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments.
We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

Wald spends quite some time dealing with the issue of the probability of life arising spontaneously. I again quote Dr. Wald (p47):

With every event one can associate a probability - the chance that it will occur. This is always a fraction, the proportion of times an event occurs in a large number of trials. Sometimes the probability is apparent even without trial. A coin has two faces; the probability of tossing a head is therefore 1/2. A die has six faces; the probability of throwing a deuce is 1/6. When one has no means of estimating the probability beforehand, it must be determined by counting the fraction of successes in a large number of trials.
Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible, or certain derives from our experience; the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be "impossible". It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.
We shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession. For one thing, the time with which our problem is concerned is geological time, and the whole extent of human history is trivial in the balance. We shall have more to say of this later.[/B]

Wald then describes the difference between truly impossible and just very unlikely. His example is a table rising into the air. Any physicist would concede that it is possible, if all the molecules that make up the table act appropriately at the same time. ".but try telling one [a physicist] that you have seen it happen."

Finally, Wald cautions us to remember that our topic falls into a very special category. Spontaneous generation might well be unique in that it only had to happen once. This is the section to which I was referring in my previous post:

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at lest once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two [sic] billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.[/B]

As I composed this, it came to me that here was a real authority on the spontaneous generation of life: Wald is a Nobel Laureate, his work on photopigments is classic. This is the perfect rebuttal to the Hoyle nonsense about tornadoes.

Finally, I would repeat that any errors herein are mine, except one. Dr. Wald estimated the age of the planet at two billion years. Since 1954 we have more than doubled that figure, based on new information. I can't help but think he is tickled pink at that kind of mistake.

- C. Thompson\

`

 

[scruffy]

Scores of citations by scientific experts and you have one "gotcha"?

Quotes mean nothing, dumbass.

You've already been exposed as mathematically and scientifically ignorant, and here you are back for more.

Terribly weak.

Yes, this thread cetainly is.

The rest of us certainly have and we don't need to be lectured on what is or isn't "proven" according to YOUR standards.

You are definitely NOT a scientist.

You're a religious nutjob with a stick up his butt.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in mathematics." - Carl Sagan (Cosmos, as I recall)

You're quoting Carl Sagan?

Hypocrite much?

 

[james bond]

Then why are you asking me ? It has the same function in almost all living organisms.,

As usual, you couldn't relate evolution to vaccines. No one should ask you anything unless they want to hear BS.

 

[Dagosa]

As usual, you couldn't relate evolution to vaccines. No one should ask you anything unless they want to hear BS.

Why should I get into a debate with a denier ? This is your quote…”I know what DNA or RNA does in vaccines.” Dufus, they have the same function as they do in nearly every other organism relative to evolution. . You made the claim !
Why should I repeat the same shit if YOU SAID YOU ALREADY KNOW.

 

[james bond]

There's no such thing as nothing.

Nothing doesn't exist.

It's a mystery and scientists and people argue about it all the time. When I say there was nothing, I mean there was nothing of this universe. I'm prolly in the minority of people who believe there was nothing of this universe before the Big Bang. In other words, there wasn't a concept of time, space or dimension, except God existed. We don't know what was there and how it got there. Otherwise, tell us what was there before time, space and dimension. Can you say time, space and dimension existed to our universe?

 

[james bond]

Why should I get into a debate with a denier ? This is your quote…”I know what DNA or RNA does in vaccines.” Dufus, they have the same function as they do in nearly every other organism relative to evolution. . You made the claim !
Why should I repeat the same shit if YOU SAID YOU ALREADY KNOW.

It means I know more than you. Most people know more than you and that you're a worthless troll.

 

[Dagosa]

It means I know more than you. Most people know more than you and that you're a worthless troll.

Nothing of any consequence to say do you. You put your foot into it, claiming to know something you really don’t BS artist.

 

[james bond]

Nothing of any consequence to say do you. You put your foot into it, claiming to know something you really don’t BS artist.

You don't even know what day/week is coming up. It's important, too. I know and plan to do something.

Proof you have nothing of consequence to say at anytime unless a troll post haha.

 

[Dagosa]

You don't even know what day/week is coming up. It's important, too. I know and plan to do something.

Proof you have nothing of consequence to say at anytime unless a troll post haha.

Lots of blather. You still know how DNA works ? You said you did. Why are you asking me ? Ha ha.. YOU said you knew what it was. You should be telling us.

 

[ChemEngineer]

James you waste your precious time responding to trolls and you waste everyone else's time as well. Even if I have them on IGNORE, I still see your useless rebuttals which are hopelessly ineffective.

Science cannot be discussed with Darwin's Cult because they invariably thump the Bible. You don't have to mention it, they will trying to change the subject which they cannot refute.

Bacteria - 1.9 million years old
If "selection" preserves the "fittest," why did single celled animals survive when more advanced species won out?

The naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
To synthesize the first titin molecule required picking 1 of 20 amino acids 33,450 consecutive times, which had to be L form, not D form, meaning multiply the first impossible miniscule fraction by 1/2 to the 33,450th, then multiply that product by 1/2 to the 33,450th power to account for peptide bonds, rather than non-peptide bonds. The end result is ~1 chance in 10 to the 65,000th power.
Bear in mind that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible and there are 20,000 more polypeptides just in humans alone.

So A>B>C>D is utter pseudoscience presented by Richard Dawkins and other cultists.

 

[Hollie]

James you waste your precious time responding to trolls and you waste everyone else's time as well. Even if I have them on IGNORE, I still see your useless rebuttals which are hopelessly ineffective.

Science cannot be discussed with Darwin's Cult because they invariably thump the Bible. You don't have to mention it, they will trying to change the subject which they cannot refute.

View attachment 779909
Bacteria - 1.9 million years old
If "selection" preserves the "fittest," why did single celled animals survive when more advanced species won out?


View attachment 779913
The naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
To synthesize the first titin molecule required picking 1 of 20 amino acids 33,450 consecutive times, which had to be L form, not D form, meaning multiply the first impossible miniscule fraction by 1/2 to the 33,450th, then multiply that product by 1/2 to the 33,450th power to account for peptide bonds, rather than non-peptide bonds. The end result is ~1 chance in 10 to the 65,000th power.
Bear in mind that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible and there are 20,000 more polypeptides just in humans alone.

So A>B>C>D is utter pseudoscience presented by Richard Dawkins and other cultists.

Very strange. The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is cutting and pasting images of fossils millions of years old yet doesn't see the conflict with his literal view of a 6,000 year old planet. There is

~1 chance in 10 to the 65,000th power.

that this (im)poster has ever studied science outside of his madrassah.

 

[ChemEngineer]

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." - James Shapiro, biochemist, University of Chicago

"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.

 

[Hollie]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg





Natural selection will not remove ignorance from future generations.

Richard Dawkins

 

[ChemEngineer]

The logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack is THE métier of the Left.
They practice it relentlessly, but fortunately I rarely see them, for I have an extensive list of Leftists on my
Ignore List.

 

[Hollie]

The logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack is THE métier of the Left.
They practice it relentlessly, but fortunately I rarely see them, for I have an extensive list of Leftists on my
Ignore List.

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
― Stephen Hawking

 

[Dagosa]

James you waste your precious time responding to trolls and you waste everyone else's time as well. Even if I have them on IGNORE, I still see your useless rebuttals which are hopelessly ineffective.

Science cannot be discussed with Darwin's Cult because they invariably thump the Bible. You don't have to mention it, they will trying to change the subject which they cannot refute.

View attachment 779909
Bacteria - 1.9 million years old
If "selection" preserves the "fittest," why did single celled animals survive when more advanced species won out?


View attachment 779913
The naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
To synthesize the first titin molecule required picking 1 of 20 amino acids 33,450 consecutive times, which had to be L form, not D form, meaning multiply the first impossible miniscule fraction by 1/2 to the 33,450th, then multiply that product by 1/2 to the 33,450th power to account for peptide bonds, rather than non-peptide bonds. The end result is ~1 chance in 10 to the 65,000th power.
Bear in mind that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible and there are 20,000 more polypeptides just in humans alone.

So A>B>C>D is utter pseudoscience presented by Richard Dawkins and other cultists.

The queen of cut and paste !

 

[ChemEngineer]

Charles Darwin's cult followers love to cite "billions of years" and "billions of these" and "billions of those" as if these were big numbers. They are not remotely large.

It just occurred to me to compare their pretend large numbers with some truly large numbers.
I began with a teaspoonful of water. How many water molecules in one? (5cc)

The answer is about 16,700 billion billion.

What is the definition of "impossible" according to an authority on statistics?
1 chance in 10 to the 50th. How may billions are 10 to the 50th?
50,000 billion billion billion billion billion.

Still not very large.

What is the probability of the naturalistic synthesis of titin, a protein in every human's muscles?

1 chance in 10 to the 64,000th power. How many billions in 10 to the 64,000th power?
AND there are over 20,000 different proteins in every human. Give it up Darwinists.

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com