[Ready2go]

Scientists with impressive credentials are leaving the doctrines of evolution. Unfortunately, no one has informed the general public.

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:

The notion that...the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Researcher and Mathematician I. L. Cohen:

At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. ...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.

Evolutionist Michael Denton:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

Peter Saunders (University of London) and Mae-Wan Ho (Open University):

From the claims made for neo-Darwinism one could easily get the impression that it has made great progress towards explaining Evolution, mostly leaving the details to be cleared up. In fact, quite the reverse is true.

Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it...

Evolutionist Greg Kirby:

If you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments...

Evolutionist Lord Solly Zuckerman:

Students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution... The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is...in this field at all.

Evolutionist Tom Kemp:

A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?

Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose:

We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists...

Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History:

The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.

Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University:

I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.

Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist:

The best physical evidence that the earth is young is a 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 phony physics.

Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University:

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.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton:

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?

C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General:

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.

Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho:

We ourselves would be less concerned about falsifiability if neo-Darwinism were a powerful theory with major successes to its credit. But this is simply not the case.

C. Martin in American Scientist:

The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.

Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolutionist:

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.

Arthur Koestler, author:

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.

Norman Macbeth:

Darwinism has failed in practice.

Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist:

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.

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.:

The Evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before...

John Woodmorappe, geologist:

Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic 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.

Evolutionist S. Lovtrup:

Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?

J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science:

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.

N. H. Nilsson, famous botanist and Evolutionist:

My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.

Luther Sunderland, science researcher:

None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Tom Kemp of Oxford University:

As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record.

Francis Hitching, archaeologist:

The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.

David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist:

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.

Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist and paleontologist and former Evolutionist:

Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician:

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 strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.

I. Cohen, mathematician and archaeologist:

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...

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist:

The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.

Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher:

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 that it has.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. The following quote was taken from a speech given by Dr. Patterson:

Last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on Evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with Evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.

GOD SAID in Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

MAN SAID that evolution is the answer to all life's questions. He said that this physical world is a product of actually nothing, exploded into real tangible building materials and through a process of time and chance evolving miraculously into what we are today. Man also says that the earth is billions of years old.

[Pietro]

Your list of quotations on 877 is very impressive.

[whattajoke]

Perhaps your "article" posted from "Science Digest" (nothing cited) would carry more weight if it were true.

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle: Was certainly no evolutionist. 1st example is an outright lie! How do you so-called christians sleep at night? Hoyle was an astronomer who NEVER accepted evolution. However, I'm sure you'd be interested to know he thought life came here on a comet from another planet. No mention of creationism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1503721.stm

Researcher and Mathematician I. L. Cohen: Haha, this is getting fun. after a difficult Google search, I finally found this "mathematician" on the "Tribulation Force" website. Apparently balancing my checkbook makes me a "mathetmatician." This same website provided me with much more of your "proof." (Warning this site is so annoying with it flashing background http://www.thetribulationforce.com/RNA_DNA.htm)

Evolutionist Michael Denton: Again, calling Micael Denton an "evolutionist" is like calling Bill Clinton a good guy. Denton is a published and well known ID'er from New Zealand. He has also been exposed as a liar and a cheat: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/denton.html

Peter Saunders (University of London) and Mae-Wan Ho (Open University): well, first of all Peter Saunders is a professor at KINGS COLLEGE in London. A deliberate attempt to make it difficult for me to find out that he is actually a mathematician with interests in the Precautionary principle and, gasp, biodiversity based of what we know of evolution. Another lie: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/PrecautionP.html

Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson: Sigh. You keep picking on dead people. This "quote" is widely known to be taken WAY out of context and is totally dishonest as it cut him off in the middle of a qualifying statement. Read this link and go out and buy his book. It's called "Evolution" and you might learn something (since he's one of your examples!) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/5212_ievolutioni_by_colin_patt_12_30_1899.asp

Evolutionist Greg Kirby: You are right, for once. He is an evolutionist and even published a peer reviewed (imagine that!) paper: "Kirby, G.C. & J.J. Burdon. 1997 Effects of mutation and random drift on Leonard’s gene-for-gene coevolution model. Phytopathology 87(5); 488-493. In other words, you took his "quote" completely out of context and he'd probably be pretty pissed you are being dishonest about it.

I'll stop here. You get the point. Whatever Creationist website you pulled your list from is bearing false witness. When is this ridiculous campaign going to stop??

[Pietro]

Do you have a source for the Patterson quote? It's hard to imagine how the meaning could be taken "out of context".

Thanks

[VadeRetro]

N. Heribet Nilsson used to be an old favorite of medved's. I once found a reference to a paper Nilsson published in 1908. How modern can even his very last works be?

Frances Hitching was not an archaeologist or any other kind of scientist. Woodmorappe is a renowed quote-twister with several web pages dedicated to debunking him.

Read and weep for yourself. Creationist "quote science" is lying propaganda.

[lasereye]

Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolutionist:

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.

This guy's an evolutionist? What does he think the mechanism is if not mutations?

[Dimensio]

MAN SAID that evolution is the answer to all life's questions.

When did MAN say this? I'm not aware of any MAN who says this.

[talk2farley]

We went over this in Philosophy class, where my professor used the construction of the Queen Mary as an example. Imagine the need arose for a tribe of people to get across a river.

The first guy might try using a stone to float acorss, and promptly sink and die. So the next guy uses a log, and makes it half way before getting tipped over and dieing. So the third guy tries lashing three logs together, and he makes it a god two-thirds of the way before a strong wind blows him back out to see where he dies. So the fourth guy fashions a crude sail. Etc. etc. etc.

It might take millions of years and lots of dead people, but the process or trial and error could conceivably allow even a primitive people with no notion of modern sea faring to contruct a ship as complicated and effective as the Queen Mary.

Likewise with the earth. Given eight billion years (the planetx approcimate age) could chance and failure not conceivably allow the evolution of primitve life into its most complicated modern forms?

And why does the Bible make no mention of ancient forms of life, from the basic trilobyte (which preceded everything by many bilion years) to the dinosaurs which dominated this planet for 300 million years (far longer than the reign of man).

Creation stories are fables intended to impart a moral orietnation onto the society in which they are indoctrinated, while simultaneously explaining what was, at that time, unexplainable. All major religions, both ancient, pagan, and modern, had them. Christian theology has TWO distinct creation myths, the hands-on and hands-off approach, which become readily apparent when reading Genesis 1. Dont be so quick to take something as "fact" which asks you to rely solely on your "Faith."