• Member Since 12th Sep, 2012
  • offline last seen 29 minutes ago

Fireheart 1945


"Defend your clan, even with your life." - Warrior code, Warrior cats novel series. Also, if you don't like that I post Christian blogs, then please either do not subscribe/watch me or complain.

More Blog Posts531

Jun
6th
2018

Just a few quotes about evolution · 2:24am Jun 6th, 2018

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?

- Charles Darwin

Dawkins talked about chance, but he didn't calculate the chance of anything. Nor did he cite anyone who did. He just assumed that cumulative selection would lead to macroevolution. He assumed what I have shown to be impossible. He said, without justification: "Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance."

- Dr. Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, quoting pg. 43 of The Blind Watchmaker.

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeroes] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

- Sir Frederick Hoyle

If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

- Sir Arthur Eddington, British astronomer

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 confess, absurd in the highest possible degree... The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone.

- Charles Darwin (Yes, I am aware that he is the man who came up with evolution/tied together previous evolutionary ideas and his own)

My last doubt concerns so-called parallel evolution... Even something so complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times makes my head swim.

- Frank Salisbury

To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.

- Sir Ernest Chain, discovered penicillin, won Nobel Peace Prize in 1945

Dear Mr. Grose,

In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for Design" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.
For me, the idea of creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all its harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.
While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?
Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?
Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.
I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for Design" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for Chance" lies in the inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.
We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

Wernher von Braun

Wernher von Braun, German/American aeronautics and space engineer, NASA

All quotes taken from the books The Collapse of Evolution (Second Edition) by Scott M. Huse and Dismantling Evolution; Building the Case for Intelligent Design by Ralph O. Muncaster.

Comments ( 9 )

A couple of book I might like to invest in.
And a good example of an animal that defies Evolution would be the Giraffe.

Very interesting!

4877256
Tag, you're it again :duck:

4877850

Tag, you're it again:duck:

(flip to 0:30)

4877850
Okay, seriously, what's going on here? :rainbowlaugh:

4877853
LOL! :rainbowlaugh: (Seriously those girls are the worst) :applejackconfused:


4877854
Either I'm very good at stalking you, or we have a lot of mutual friends :rainbowlaugh:

4877859
Well, yeah, either way seems accurate. :raritywink::rainbowlaugh:
But I mean, what's with the Tag?

4877862
I actually don't know...in a tag mood I guess!? :rainbowlaugh:

Login or register to comment