| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Soren K." |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2004 08:40:30 PM |
| Object: |
What do Scientists think about evolution? |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440"
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BlankWhat do Scientists think about evolution?=20
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go =
about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of =
mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's =
take a look at what scientists have to say:=20
Recent Quotations:=20
"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.=20
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so =
powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval =
astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become =
a reality for evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A =
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].=20
"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].=20
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of =
creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe =
(1981), p. 19.=20
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all =
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their =
observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.=20
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean =
Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was =
new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the =
final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and =
N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.=20
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations =
for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth =
fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have =
developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If =
they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created =
by some omnipotent intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial =
(1983), p. 197.=20
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion =
that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago =
and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, =
and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided =
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, =
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.=20
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a =
simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly =
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the =
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay =
down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not =
always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely =
overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity =
of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms =
(1977), p. 8=20
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics =
has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has =
been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It =
certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, =
we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one =
thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest =
that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."?*Colin =
Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural =
History (November 5, 1981).=20
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant =
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring =
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the =
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment =
is practically endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1986), p. 327.=20
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact =
that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of =
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems =
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. =
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and =
all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the =
contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to =
re-evaluate our basic assumptions."?*Director of a large graduate =
program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.=20
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that =
Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined =
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, =
in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are =
certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious =
fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The =
main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The =
doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather =
than a siege from without."?*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook =
of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.=20
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin =
of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the =
creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily =
burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every =
book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation =
of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a =
basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are =
correct."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), =
p. 31.=20
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and =
stick by it to the bitter end?no matter which illogical and unsupported =
conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists =
recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements =
and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to =
Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."?I.L. =
Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).=20
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for =
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of =
life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by =
natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see =
the very process we profess to study."?*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's =
Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading =
evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].=20
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the =
all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of =
people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as =
proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. =
Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a =
philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a =
belief in the meaninglessness of existence."?*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery =
of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.=20
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution =
because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the =
long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see =
whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in =
with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the =
theory does not stand up at all."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.=20
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than =
the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of =
life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when =
Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A =
Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.=20
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that =
even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his =
views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support =
over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary =
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and =
evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is =
still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis =
entirely without direct factual support and very far from that =
self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us =
believe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.=20
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please =
everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, =
but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are =
threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian =
fallacy."?*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.=20
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago =
is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on =
special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad =
hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it =
appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history =
nor science."?*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard =
University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.=20
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole =
organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species =
become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent =
the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument =
be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For =
example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through =
time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh =
climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told =
about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink =
containers."?*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, =
Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 =
(1984), pp. 796-797.=20
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the =
all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of =
people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution =
as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his =
successors."?*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).=20
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any =
evolutionary theory I know."?*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and =
Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).=20
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the past:
Older Quotations:=20
"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].=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
'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].=20
"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].=20
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental =
imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system =
without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence =
[a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of =
fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of =
breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science =
it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' =
"?*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).=20
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to =
the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional =
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."?J. =
Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.=20
"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].=20
"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].=20
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just =
shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. =
Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only =
thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an =
analysis and observation of the facts."?*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: =
Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.=20
"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.=20
" 'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly =
conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former =
period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its =
appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some =
pre-existing Being."?*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and =
Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.=20
"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."?*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.=20
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so =
far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can =
be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the =
relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are =
actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable =
predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."?*R.H. Peters, =
"Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. =
110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].=20
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the =
somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living =
origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the =
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in =
the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: =
namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved =
to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval =
past."?*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.=20
"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.=20
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous =
natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological =
research. It obstructs?as has been repeatedly shown?the attainment of =
consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For =
everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact =
biology cannot, therefore, be built up."?*H. Neilsson, Synthetische =
Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.=20
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for =
more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be =
accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary =
standpoint."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.=20
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was =
in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out =
by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen =
their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to =
fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the =
theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of =
the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and =
of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of =
science."?Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the =
British Museum of Natural History, London].=20
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not =
be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the =
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did =
not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most =
primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks =
developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a =
complete absence of intermediate fossils."?*D.B. Gower, "Scientist =
Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 =
[biochemist].=20
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the =
over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make =
further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or =
biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and =
down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' =
"?*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 =
(1966).=20
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, =
upon belief in the reality of the unseen?belief in the fossils that =
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse =
to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."?*Arthur N. Field.=20
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been =
deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to =
teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, =
ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It =
results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is =
impossible."?*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie =
Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.=20
--=20
Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists
www.atheistfools.com
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=3DridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"><BASE=20
href=3D"file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft =
Shared\Stationery\">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DridBody bgColor=3D#ffffff=20
background=3Dcid:004301c48332$03a1df00$0300a8c0@desktop>
<DIV><SPAN class=3DpageText><FONT size=3D4><B>What do Scientists think =
about=20
evolution?</B></FONT>=20
<P align=3Djustify>Outside the occasional book or research paper, most =
scientists=20
just go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention =
of=20
mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's =
take a=20
look at what scientists have to say: </P>
<P><B>Recent Quotations:</B> </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I think, however, that we must go further than this =
and admit=20
that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is =
anathema=20
to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory =
that we do=20
not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A =
Physicist=20
Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical =
system] is=20
so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval =
astrology=20
than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality =
for=20
evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1985),=20
p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. </P>
<P align=3Djustified>"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link =
with God=20
and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact =
was so=20
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so =
profoundly=20
affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the=20
universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67=20
[Australian molecular biologist]. </P>
<P align=3Djustified>"Scientists have no proof that life was not the =
result of an=20
act of creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the =
Universe=20
(1981), p. 19. </P>
<P align=3Djustified>"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific =
religion;=20
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' =
their=20
observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution,"=20
Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] =
to the=20
Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All =
that was=20
new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the =
final=20
verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and N. =
Chandra=20
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the =
possible=20
explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared =
on the=20
earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have =
developed=20
from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did =
appear in=20
a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent=20
intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a =
widespread=20
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred =
years ago=20
and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, =
and in=20
the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided=20
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, =
Evolution: A=20
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, =
considered=20
as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly =
unfolding=20
before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses =
and=20
extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as =
established=20
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some =
people,=20
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to=20
acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul =
de=20
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8 </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common =
ancestry in=20
systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I =
think it=20
has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It =
certainly=20
has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back =
to the=20
question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell =
me=20
about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, =
evolution does=20
not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at =
the=20
American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981). </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Throughout the past century there has always existed =
a=20
significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able =
to bring=20
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the =
number of=20
biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is =
practically=20
endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. =
</P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet =
lament=20
the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully =
ignorant of=20
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems =
will not be=20
solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students =
assume=20
evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is =
a few=20
rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and =
many recent=20
discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic =
assumptions."?*Director=20
of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting =
Edge=20
(1982), p. 26. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"It is therefore of immediate concern to both =
biologists and=20
layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that =
undermined=20
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, =
in its=20
turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not =
limited=20
to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny =
Darwinism=20
for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes =
from=20
within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political =
revolt=20
from within rather than a siege from without."?*B. Leith, The Descent of =
Darwin:=20
A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence =
relative to=20
the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the =
mechanism in the=20
creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily =
burdened with=20
hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on =
evolution. The=20
lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as =
to the=20
genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the =
extent to=20
which these opinions are correct."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of =
Living=20
Organisms (1977), p. 31. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory =
of=20
evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end?no matter which illogical =
and=20
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that=20
scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's=20
pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that =
tied us=20
down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us =
back."?I.L.=20
Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985). </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an =
exorbitant price=20
for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of =
life's=20
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural =
selection=20
we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we =
profess=20
to study."?*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 =
[Harvard=20
professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of =
the=20
twentieth century]. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists =
committed to=20
document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with =
masses of=20
people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as =
proposed=20
by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, =
the=20
appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical =
belief which=20
is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the =
meaninglessness of=20
existence."?*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, =
(May=20
27, 1983), p. 641. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory =
of=20
evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living =
beings=20
(the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to =
see=20
whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in =
with=20
Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory =
does not=20
stand up at all."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic =
Bulletin,=20
31 (1980), p. 138. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no =
more nor=20
less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the =
origin of=20
life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when =
Darwin set=20
sail on the [ship] Beagle."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in =
Crisis=20
(1986), p. 358. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one =
hundred years=20
ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of =
his=20
views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support =
over the=20
past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His =
general=20
theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual=20
successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in =
Darwin's=20
time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual =
support=20
and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive =
advocates=20
would have us believe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1986),=20
p. 77. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had =
the luck=20
to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to =
grind,=20
but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are =
threatened=20
by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."?*Kenneth =
Hsu,=20
"Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some =
thousands of=20
years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special =
assumptions on=20
special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad =
hoc=20
hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears=20
convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor=20
science."?*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard =
University],=20
quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"We are certainly not arguing here that differential =
survival=20
of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. =
some=20
species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this =
represent=20
the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument =
be=20
equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For =
example,=20
consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. =
Clearly the=20
harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. =
As=20
Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political =
parties,=20
rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."?*A.J. Hughes =
and *D.=20
Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of=20
Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists =
committed to=20
document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with =
masses of=20
people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution =
as=20
proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his =
successors."?*S.=20
Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982). </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I can envision observations and experiments that =
would=20
disprove any evolutionary theory I know."?*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution =
as Fact=20
and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981). </P>
<P><B>Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the=20
past:<BR><BR>Older Quotations:</B> </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single =
fact to=20
confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific =
research,=20
but purely the product of imagination."?*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen =
zoologist].=20
</P>
<P align=3Djustify>"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with =
bodies=20
composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all =
others=20
derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal =
types in=20
their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this =
assumption."?*Austin=20
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The hypothesis that life has developed from =
inorganic matter=20
is, at present, still an article of faith."?*J.W.N. Sullivan, The =
Limitations of=20
Science (1933), p. 95. </P></SPAN>
<P align=3Djustify>"Where are we when presented with the mystery of =
life? We find=20
ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We =
know=20
virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."?*W. Kaempffert, "The =
Greatest=20
Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to =
explain the=20
origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "?Sir John Ambrose =
Fleming,=20
F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 =
[discoverer of=20
the thermionic valve]. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or =
that his=20
influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the =
success=20
of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific =
integrity."?*W.R.=20
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species =
[Canadian=20
scientist]. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"One of the determining forces of scientism was a =
fantastic=20
accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the =
solar=20
system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without =
evidence=20
[a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of =
fossils=20
which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding=20
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might =
truly=20
be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "?*David C.C. Watson, =
The=20
Great Brain Robbery (1976). </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The particular truth is simply that we have no =
reliable=20
evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified =
professional=20
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."?J. =
Bonner,=20
"Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I had motives for not wanting the world to have =
meaning,=20
consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to =
find=20
satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no =
meaning=20
in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure =
metaphysics; he=20
is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally =
should not=20
do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my =
contemporaries,=20
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of =
liberation.=20
The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain =
political=20
and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We =
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual =
freedom."?*Aldous=20
Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the =
News,=20
Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, =
Darwin's=20
closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. =
Aldous=20
Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th =
century].=20
</P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This =
theory has=20
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."?*Bounoure, Le =
Monde=20
Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of =
Scientific Research in France]. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Finally, there is only one attitude which is =
possible as I=20
have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before =
life.=20
Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only =
thing I am=20
interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and=20
observation of the facts."?*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le =
Transformisme=20
devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms =
must have=20
existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why =
is not=20
all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see =
them,=20
well-defined species?"?*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or =
Creation (1966), p. 139. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>" 'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is =
perfectly=20
conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former =
period,=20
this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in =
six days=20
.. . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."?*Thomas =
Huxley,=20
quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. =
II=20
(1903), p. 429. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, =
which are=20
more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with =
practical=20
scientific knowledge."?*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take =
predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical =
formula=20
which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show =
the=20
relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are =
actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable =
predictions.=20
They are not scientific theories at all."?*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in =
Evolution=20
and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 =
[emphasis his].=20
</P>
<P align=3Djustify>"With the failure of these many efforts, science was =
left in=20
the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of =
living=20
origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the =
theologian for=20
his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable =
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the =
assumption that=20
what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in =
truth,=20
taken place in the primeval past."?*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, =
(1957),=20
p. 199. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of =
Darwinism was to=20
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,=20
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as =
an=20
innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to =
biological=20
research. It obstructs?as has been repeatedly shown?the attainment of =
consistent=20
results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must =
ultimately=20
be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be =
built=20
up."?*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an =
experiment carried=20
on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should =
hardly be=20
accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary=20
standpoint."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by =
people whose=20
faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being =
carried=20
out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've =
seen their=20
task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the =
trunk=20
and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework =
has=20
very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological =
research. In=20
a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have =
held=20
back the progress of science."?Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior=20
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London]. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of =
evolution=20
could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The =
story of the=20
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did =
not find=20
a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive =
creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed =
species=20
suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of =
intermediate fossils."?*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," =
Kentish=20
Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in =
spite of=20
the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make =
further=20
progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; =
and we=20
shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, =
`Darwin is=20
god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "?*Errol White, Proceedings of =
the=20
Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966). </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing =
whatever but=20
faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen?belief in the fossils =
that=20
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse =
to come=20
off. It is faith unjustified by works."?*Arthur N. Field. </P>
<P align=3Djustify>"The theories of evolution, with which our studious =
youth have=20
been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues =
to=20
teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, =
ascertains=20
that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from =
this=20
summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."?*P. Lemoine,=20
"Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), =
p. 6.=20
</P><!-- END.CONTENT: this concludes our Content code include --></DIV>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.atheistfools.com">www.atheistfools.com</A></DIV>
<P> </P></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440--
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Blank Bkgrd.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <004301c48332$03a1df00$0300a8c0@desktop>
R0lGODlhLQAtAID/AP////f39ywAAAAALQAtAEACcAxup8vtvxKQsFon6d02898pGkgiYoCm6sq2
7iqWcmzOsmeXeA7uPJd5CYdD2g9oPF58ygqz+XhCG9JpJGmlYrPXGlfr/Yo/VW45e7amp2tou/lW
xo/zX513z+Vt+1n/tiX2pxP4NUhy2FM4xtjIUQAAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440--
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 12:31:56 AM |
|
|
"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible
explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either
appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did
not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some
process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed
state, they must have been created by some omnipotent
intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
I suspect most of your "quotes" are of this quality. Would you care to
tell us what Futuyma actually thinks of latter-day young-earth
creationism? In fact, MOST of the people you are (mis)quoting think it's
rubbish. This being one quote I am familiar with, would you please cite
the WHOLE PARAGRAPH? I notice ICR insists that they be cited in this
manner, so if it's their policy with regard to their material, why do you
not exercise it with regard to those scientists you are so busy
misrepresenting?
This quote, incidentally, is a lie. It's a lie because it literally ends
in mid sentence and misrepresents grossly what Futuyma's position is
(which is that ANY evidence of history is support for evolution, as
opposed to special creation).
The question is, why are you perpetuating lies about science in God's
name? And why should we believe anything you tell us?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JISTASKKIN" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
15 Aug 2004 09:56:21 PM |
|
|
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and always will be
untill the end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 12:33:01 AM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:pnVTc.16674$X12.4562@edtnps84:
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go
about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of
mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's
take a look at what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports
it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin,
31 (1980), p. 138.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle
over the authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and
always will be untill the end.
Busted irony meter AGAIN, Jist. A few out-of-context quotes from a
handful of scientists does not tell you what the scientific evidence
actually IS.
In fact, it's an effort at obfuscating the facts.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RHertz" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 09:53:16 AM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in message
news:pnVTc.16674$X12.4562@edtnps84...
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go
about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
A clarification from Dr. Lipson:
Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand
Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly
evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics
Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that he claims that it's obvious that species have evolved, something
that can be seen in the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 10:26:16 AM |
|
|
"There are many references which show that humans are "pattern seeking"
creatures, seeing patterns where none actually exist. For example,
seeing "pictures" in clouds or faces in trees, land forms, etc.
References:
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason
Rule Our Minds (1994)
James R. Lucas, Fatal Illusions: Shredding a Dozen Unrealities that Can
Keep Your Organization from Success ,(1997)"
RHertz wrote:
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in message
news:pnVTc.16674$X12.4562@edtnps84...
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go
about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
A clarification from Dr. Lipson:
Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand
Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly
evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics
Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that he claims that it's obvious that species have evolved, something
that can be seen in the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 10:29:30 AM |
|
|
RHertz wrote:
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in message
news:pnVTc.16674$X12.4562@edtnps84...
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go
about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"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.
A clarification from Dr. Lipson:
Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand
Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly
evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics
Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that he claims that it's obvious that species have evolved, something
that can be seen in the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
"I can show you pictures of Carrots that look like humans, rocks that
look like humans, animals and characters from Science fiction movies and
cartoons, but it won't mean anything other than human beings make patterns.
There are many references which show that humans are "pattern seeking"
creatures, seeing patterns where none actually exist. For example,
seeing "pictures" in clouds or faces in trees, land forms, etc.
References:
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason
Rule Our Minds (1994)
James R. Lucas, Fatal Illusions: Shredding a Dozen Unrealities that Can
Keep Your Organization from Success ,(1997)"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve the Sauropodman" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
17 Aug 2004 02:01:30 PM |
|
|
"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in message news:<pnVTc.16674$X12.4562@edtnps84>...
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"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.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and always will be
untill the end.
More creationist flapdoodle, and out-of-context quotes -
Recently quoted by COTPT
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible
explanations for
the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth
fully
developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed
from
pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did
appear in
a fully developed state, they must have been created by some
omnipotent
intelligence."-*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
Yessiree, some pretty heady stuff...however it stands as another
shining example of how misleading and bankrupt fundamentalist
creationism is. It's too bad that COTPT doesn't read for himself, or
for comprehension. Perhaps Church of the Painfully Ignorant would
have saved himself from another blatant display of fraud - Douglas
Futuyama's book is a defense of evolution and a debunking for the junk
science called Scientific Creationism. Try reading some of the stuff
you quote, it may not make your mythology any more palatable, but at
least you won't look stupid while trying to argue your point.
Cheers
"A curse on those geologists. When I read Scripture I can hear the
damned clinking of their infernal hammers in every verse"
- Bishop James Ruskin, 1874
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 02:16:34 PM |
|
|
JISTASKKIN <try_not@here.com> wrote:
But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science.
In the real world, the phrase "authority of God's word" translates to
mean "the validity of a particular approach to Biblical
interpretation."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 02:51:30 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
JISTASKKIN <try_not@here.com> wrote:
But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science.
In the real world, the phrase "authority of God's word" translates to
mean "the validity of a particular approach to Biblical
interpretation."
So in your world, what particular approach to Biblical interpretation do
you use?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 03:22:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:51:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
JISTASKKIN <try_not@here.com> wrote:
But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science.
In the real world, the phrase "authority of God's word" translates to
mean "the validity of a particular approach to Biblical
interpretation."
So in your world, what particular approach to Biblical interpretation do
you use?
What has biblical interpretation got to do with anything in the real
world outside Christianity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 03:39:11 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:51:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
JISTASKKIN <try_not@here.com> wrote:
But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science.
In the real world, the phrase "authority of God's word" translates to
mean "the validity of a particular approach to Biblical
interpretation."
So in your world, what particular approach to Biblical interpretation do
you use?
What has biblical interpretation got to do with anything in the real
world outside Christianity?
Do you answer questions in your world?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
17 Aug 2004 11:06:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:39:11 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:51:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
JISTASKKIN <try_not@here.com> wrote:
But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science.
In the real world, the phrase "authority of God's word" translates to
mean "the validity of a particular approach to Biblical
interpretation."
So in your world, what particular approach to Biblical interpretation do
you use?
What has biblical interpretation got to do with anything in the real
world outside Christianity?
Do you answer questions in your world?
I did, moron. Why the ***** do you imagine the bible has any relevance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
17 Aug 2004 12:53:29 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:39:11 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:51:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
JISTASKKIN <try_not@here.com> wrote:
But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science.
In the real world, the phrase "authority of God's word" translates to
mean "the validity of a particular approach to Biblical
interpretation."
So in your world, what particular approach to Biblical interpretation do
you use?
What has biblical interpretation got to do with anything in the real
world outside Christianity?
Do you answer questions in your world?
I did, moron. Why the ***** do you imagine the bible has any relevance?
You did what? I was told that people who use vulgarity do so because it
is a replacement for saying something intelligent. I agree.
Not sure if it is ability or laziness on your part.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
15 Aug 2004 11:15:17 PM |
|
|
JISTASKKIN wrote:
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"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.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle over the
authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and always will be
untill the end.
According to the Higher Intelligence evolution by 'natural causes' can
take place in remote regions of the universe left unattended for
billions of years. They seed these areas with the building blocks of
life (panspermia) and then return aeons later to see what has transpired
in their ongoing and eternal creative experimentation. However
evolution as described by mankind did not take place on this planet
according to them.
When anthropologists look at the earlier models of humanity, what they
consider to be proto-hominids, they are in fact seeing the blueprints
and designs of earlier experimental human civilizations. For example it
is well known that the 'jaw' has become smaller and smaller over a vast
period spanning hundreds of thousands of years. Even today ask your
local dentist and he will confirm that current generations of children
are not even developing 'wisdom teeth' whatsoever. The changes in the
jaw structures of earlier proto-hominids represent not only various
ethnographic types of humanity that was tried and tested upon this
planet but also experiments by the Higher Intelligence of the various
capacities of language and communication processes - hence the profound
differences seen in the jaws of human skulls found by anthropologists
and on display at many history museums around the world.
Tiahuanaco represents the ethnographic museum left as a witness of how
many types of humanity were tested by the Higher Intelligence. If you do
a search there are many web sites which have pictures of the many human
faces (all unique and different from one another) carved into stone and
left as evidence of the information contained below. For the most part
this higher knowlege reveals that humanity is a biological test subject
of the Higher Intelligence.
--
Tiahuanaco represents the key to the social-archaeological puzzle of
ancient previous civilizations throughout South America. Tiahuanaco was
built at sea level during the previous cycle and heaved up to its
present altitude of 13,000 feet above sea level. It contains the Gate
threshold which describes the ethnographic museum as an historic log for
the various ethnic types of humanity that were tested upon this planet
in the cycles before Egypt. This astronomical-calendrical complex
connected with the desert mountains of Peru of the Nazca and the Pyramid
groups of Chan-cay, Jequet-epeque and Viru, as well as the 25 pyramids
of Apurle, and the Pyramid network and astrophysical stations of Morro
Solar; and the Pyramidal grids of Cajamar-quilla and Pachacamac; are
important considerations in understanding the pyramidal complexes of all
of Peru and Bolivia where the Treasures of the Heavens in the cities of
Lords of Light are attached to the earth. - quote from a world renowned
Archaeologist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 12:39:00 AM |
|
|
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
news:pxWTc.1740663$Ar.1691790@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
JISTASKKIN wrote:
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention
of mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say.
Let's take a look at what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"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.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle
over the authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and
always will be untill the end.
According to the Higher Intelligence evolution by 'natural causes' can
take place in remote regions of the universe left unattended for
billions of years. They seed these areas with the building blocks of
life (panspermia) and then return aeons later to see what has
transpired in their ongoing and eternal creative experimentation.
However evolution as described by mankind did not take place on this
planet according to them.
And you know this because they spoke to you while you were smoking some
very strong weed?
When anthropologists look at the earlier models of humanity, what they
consider to be proto-hominids, they are in fact seeing the blueprints
and designs of earlier experimental human civilizations. For example
it is well known that the 'jaw' has become smaller and smaller over a
vast period spanning hundreds of thousands of years. Even today ask
your local dentist and he will confirm that current generations of
children are not even developing 'wisdom teeth' whatsoever. The
changes in the jaw structures of earlier proto-hominids represent not
only various ethnographic types of humanity that was tried and tested
upon this planet but also experiments by the Higher Intelligence of
the various capacities of language and communication processes - hence
the profound differences seen in the jaws of human skulls found by
anthropologists and on display at many history museums around the
world.
Tiahuanaco represents the ethnographic museum left as a witness of how
many types of humanity were tested by the Higher Intelligence. If you
do a search there are many web sites which have pictures of the many
human faces (all unique and different from one another) carved into
stone and left as evidence of the information contained below. For
the most part this higher knowlege reveals that humanity is a
biological test subject of the Higher Intelligence.
--
Tiahuanaco represents the key to the social-archaeological puzzle of
ancient previous civilizations throughout South America. Tiahuanaco
was built at sea level during the previous cycle and heaved up to its
present altitude of 13,000 feet above sea level. It contains the Gate
threshold which describes the ethnographic museum as an historic log
for the various ethnic types of humanity that were tested upon this
planet in the cycles before Egypt. This astronomical-calendrical
complex connected with the desert mountains of Peru of the Nazca and
the Pyramid groups of Chan-cay, Jequet-epeque and Viru, as well as the
25 pyramids of Apurle, and the Pyramid network and astrophysical
stations of Morro Solar; and the Pyramidal grids of Cajamar-quilla and
Pachacamac; are important considerations in understanding the
pyramidal complexes of all of Peru and Bolivia where the Treasures of
the Heavens in the cities of Lords of Light are attached to the earth.
- quote from a world renowned Archaeologist
Yep...that's got to be it...the wacky tabacky!!
Or maybe it's the funny little mushrooms.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 01:14:27 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
news:pxWTc.1740663$Ar.1691790@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
JISTASKKIN wrote:
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention
of mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say.
Let's take a look at what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"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.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle
over the authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and
always will be untill the end.
According to the Higher Intelligence evolution by 'natural causes' can
take place in remote regions of the universe left unattended for
billions of years. They seed these areas with the building blocks of
life (panspermia) and then return aeons later to see what has
transpired in their ongoing and eternal creative experimentation.
However evolution as described by mankind did not take place on this
planet according to them.
And you know this because they spoke to you while you were smoking some
very strong weed?
When anthropologists look at the earlier models of humanity, what they
consider to be proto-hominids, they are in fact seeing the blueprints
and designs of earlier experimental human civilizations. For example
it is well known that the 'jaw' has become smaller and smaller over a
vast period spanning hundreds of thousands of years. Even today ask
your local dentist and he will confirm that current generations of
children are not even developing 'wisdom teeth' whatsoever. The
changes in the jaw structures of earlier proto-hominids represent not
only various ethnographic types of humanity that was tried and tested
upon this planet but also experiments by the Higher Intelligence of
the various capacities of language and communication processes - hence
the profound differences seen in the jaws of human skulls found by
anthropologists and on display at many history museums around the
world.
Tiahuanaco represents the ethnographic museum left as a witness of how
many types of humanity were tested by the Higher Intelligence. If you
do a search there are many web sites which have pictures of the many
human faces (all unique and different from one another) carved into
stone and left as evidence of the information contained below. For
the most part this higher knowlege reveals that humanity is a
biological test subject of the Higher Intelligence.
--
Tiahuanaco represents the key to the social-archaeological puzzle of
ancient previous civilizations throughout South America. Tiahuanaco
was built at sea level during the previous cycle and heaved up to its
present altitude of 13,000 feet above sea level. It contains the Gate
threshold which describes the ethnographic museum as an historic log
for the various ethnic types of humanity that were tested upon this
planet in the cycles before Egypt. This astronomical-calendrical
complex connected with the desert mountains of Peru of the Nazca and
the Pyramid groups of Chan-cay, Jequet-epeque and Viru, as well as the
25 pyramids of Apurle, and the Pyramid network and astrophysical
stations of Morro Solar; and the Pyramidal grids of Cajamar-quilla and
Pachacamac; are important considerations in understanding the
pyramidal complexes of all of Peru and Bolivia where the Treasures of
the Heavens in the cities of Lords of Light are attached to the earth.
- quote from a world renowned Archaeologist
Yep...that's got to be it...the wacky tabacky!!
Or maybe it's the funny little mushrooms.
Dave,
Nothing says it can't be both. With a bit of horse tranqs and
licked toad to twist the high into the higher dimensions. :-)
--
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 01:53:42 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in
news:10i0k8e36iuhl25@corp.supernews.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nothing says it can't be both. With a bit of horse tranqs and
licked toad to twist the high into the higher dimensions. :-)
He wouldn't know a higher dimension if it bit him on the butt. Probably
just a crackhead with time on his hands.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution? |
16 Aug 2004 02:17:23 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message news:<10i0k8e36iuhl25@corp.supernews.com>...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
news:pxWTc.1740663$Ar.1691790@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
JISTASKKIN wrote:
Blank"Soren K." <SorenKisburning@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:kgUTc.107$wP1.46822@news.uswest.net...
What do Scientists think about evolution?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention
of mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say.
Let's take a look at what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"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.
Some very convincing stuff there, obviously science clearly supports
creation. But the issue of creation/evolution is actually a battle
over the authority of God's word, not science. Always has been and
always will be untill the end.
According to the Higher Intelligence evolution by 'natural causes' can
take place in remote regions of the universe left unattended for
billions of years. They seed these areas with the building blocks of
life (panspermia) and then return aeons later to see what has
transpired in their ongoing and eternal creative experimentation.
However evolution as described by mankind did not take place on this
planet according to them.
And you know this because they spoke to you while you were smoking some
very strong weed?
When anthropologists look at the earlier models of humanity, what they
consider to be proto-hominids, they are in fact seeing the blueprints
and designs of earlier experimental human civilizations. For example
it is well known that the 'jaw' has become smaller and smaller over a
vast period spanning hundreds of thousands of years. Even today ask
your local dentist and he will confirm that current generations of
children are not even developing 'wisdom teeth' whatsoever. The
changes in the jaw structures of earlier proto-hominids represent not
only various ethnographic types of humanity that was tried and tested
upon this planet but also experiments by the Higher Intelligence of
the various capacities of language and communication processes - hence
the profound differences seen in the jaws of human skulls found by
anthropologists and on display at many history museums around the
world.
Tiahuanaco represents the ethnographic museum left as a witness of how
many types of humanity were tested by the Higher Intelligence. If you
do a search there are many web sites which have pictures of the many
human faces (all unique and different from one another) carved into
stone and left as evidence of the information contained below. For
the most part this higher knowlege reveals that humanity is a
biological test subject of the Higher Intelligence.
--
Tiahuanaco represents the key to the social-archaeological puzzle of
ancient previous civilizations throughout South America. Tiahuanaco
was built at sea level during the previous cycle and heaved up to its
present altitude of 13,000 feet above sea level. It contains the Gate
threshold which describes the ethnographic museum as an historic log
for the various ethnic types of humanity that were tested upon this
planet in the cycles before Egypt. This astronomical-calendrical
complex connected with the desert mountains of Peru of the Nazca and
the Pyramid groups of Chan-cay, Jequet-epeque and Viru, as well as the
25 pyramids of Apurle, and the Pyramid network and astrophysical
stations of Morro Solar; and the Pyramidal grids of Cajamar-quilla and
Pachacamac; are important considerations in understanding the
pyramidal complexes of all of Peru and Bolivia where the Treasures of
the Heavens in the cities of Lords of Light are attached to the earth.
- quote from a world renowned Archaeologist
Yep...that's got to be it...the wacky tabacky!!
Or maybe it's the funny little mushrooms.
Dave,
Nothing says it can't be both. With a bit of horse tranqs and
licked toad to twist the high into the higher dimensions. :-)
Some folks don't need to ingest chemicals. Their brains produce their
own ...umm, alternate gestalt all by themselves.
They usually leave the genepool early if they are not willing to
accept help.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| < | | | |
