Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Evolution quotes and frauds

" I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was
literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that
there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
--Dr. Wernher von Braun.

"Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing — against the only alternative I can imagine: Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist." — George Wald, "Fitness in the Universe," Origins of Life, Vol. 5 (1974), p. 26.

“The missing link between man and the apes…is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated… Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…” [Newsweek, Is Man a Subtle Accident? Nov. 3, 1980 p. 95.]

“One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.” (Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington)

“Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.
Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator.
If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.”
(Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIA’s Resource Associate for Science and Origins)

“I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination.” [American Anthropologist, Distinguished Lecture; Hominoid Evolution and Hominoid Origins, by David Pilbeam. Vol. 88, No. 2 June 1986. p. 295.]

“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried this question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. - - Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” Dr. Colin Patterson, Evolution and Creationism, Speech at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (November 5, 1981), pp. 1,2. Dr. Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of its journal, as well as author of the book Evolution.

“A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.” — Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, p. 140.

Consider a famous Neanderthal fossil discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg, Germany, dated by Professor Reiner Protsch. On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues.” Once believed to be a world-renowned expert on carbon dating, Protsch’s entire professional career is now being questioned. The university noted: “The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years.”

Protsch’s work first attracted suspicion when scientists at Oxford wanted to double-check the authenticity of his dates and verify the ages of many previously reported fossils using modern techniques. Oxford officials insist that this “dating disaster” was discovered during a routine examination, and was not an attempt to discredit Professor Protsch. The fossils he had dated were just in a long line of others that were being rechecked. According to Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax: “[A]nthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago” (as quoted in Harding, 2005).

But the Neanderthal skull was not the only forgery Oxford discovered. Protsch also had paraded “Binshof-Speyer” woman before the public, stating that she was 21,300 years old. Yet the new Oxford date puts this woman living at 1,300 B.C. Protsch also claimed that “Paderborn-Sande Man” walked the Earth 27,400 B.C., and yet the corrected figure reveals that he died only a couple hundred years ago—in A.D. 1750! Futhermore, Protsch also is being investigated for a scandal in which he allegedly tried to sell 280 chimpanzee skulls to individuals in the United States for $70,000.
(The above from:

As far as the excuse that this is how Science works—that Science is self-correcting—how many times will pre-history have to be re-written, and how many millions of people have been deceived by this and other lies sold to the public as ‘major pieces of evidence?’ (i.e., the many other hoaxes such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Heidelberg Man, Peking Man, New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man, Java Man, Ramapithecus, Orce Man, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, etc.)

Another example:
National Geographic published an article on Archaeoraptor in 1999. And yet, Archaeoraptor was a fraud. It was concluded that the fossil was a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens, with a maximum of five separate specimens.

Here is yet another case where Evolutionists have claimed evidence which has later turned out to be false:

"In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape."

To call this the "scientific process" is dishonest, because, according to Wikipedia, the 'scientific method' means that the "steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results."

Even calling 'Evolution' a 'theory' is not strictly accurate, because "a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable."

The origin of the universe is not repeatable. And evolution of new species is not observable. Therefore, neither one can be proved or disproved by the scientific method; this means that Evolution is a philosophy rather than true Science.

Also check these out:

"Just when you think Evolutionists couldn't be any more confused about the origins of Humanity, they go and prove you wrong. According to the Evolutionist's Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) we all came from apes that lived underwater, much like the Sea-Monkeys seen in the back of old Archie comic books."

Evolutionists Claim Nessie Is An Elephant
Unexplained sightings of the Loch Ness monster could have been elephants enjoying a swim, a scientist has said.


bobxxxx said...

Your dishonest quote mining (taking quotes from scientists out of context to distort their meaning) does not change the reality of evolutionary biology. New evidence from molecular biology and genetics have shown beyond any doubt that all species are related and all species developed from common ancestors. For example, the fact that people and chimps share an ancestor has been proven beyond any doubt countless times.

This information is available to anyone who wants to look for it and study it. Unfortunately creationists are only interested in getting their information filtered by dishonest people who have never discovered anything. Creationists refuse to study the discoveries of modern science because they are terrified of science, and they are especially afraid of evolution because if evolution is true, most of their religious beliefs make no sense.

The choice is scientific reality or religious fantasy. Cowardly people prefer their fantasy world. People who want to educate themselves prefer the discoveries of modern science.

bobxxxx said...

And evolution of new species is not observable. Therefore, neither one can be proved or disproved by the scientific method; this means that Evolution is a philosophy rather than true Science.

Please see my previous comment about molecular biology and genetics. When biologists compare DNA sequences of different species, they can see the history of life with their own eyes. They see the history of life in extreme detail. They can not only determine evolutionary relationships beyond any doubt, they can also describe what happened millions of years ago and they can accurately say when it happened. Most non-scientists and especially creationists have no idea how much science has advanced in recent years. Evidence from molecular biology is extremely powerful and this evidence is rapidly growing every single day.

Biologists are no longer trying to prove evolution because it's been accepted as a fact for a very long time. Instead they are busy learning more about the almost 4 billion year history of life. Meanwhile creationists deny evolution is a proven fact. They are being left behind in the Dark Ages while science rapidly moves forward into the 21st century.

CrazyCalvinist said...

I agree entirely. If the teachings of evolution were actually true, I think there should at least be some scientific data to back that up, and PROVE it. It's no more than theory. The evolutionists, think Christians are whacked, for believing in creation, yet their evolution theories takes far more "faith" to believe than what we read in Scripture and believe.

Professor Stephen Dawkins seems to be giving a resurgence to evolution becoming more talked about again. In many ways, I sympathise with Darwin, as he did seem to genuinely at least look for the truth, that he was always searching but never found it, though his wife was a devout Christian. Whereas Dawkins seems the entire opposite. I don't even know why they give it the name of evolution anyway, as a more correct assessment from what I have seen of Professor Dawkins would be God-hating athiests.

thekingpin68 said...

There is scientific fact, no doubt. There is also scientific theory and debate, and Jeff has presented his perspective through documentation. The ad hominem should be left out of the debate.

Jeff said...


Your dishonest quote mining (taking quotes from scientists out of context to distort their meaning) does not change the reality of evolutionary biology.

As thekingpin68 pointed out, you resort to the red herring ad hominem fallacy. You make a vain attempt to subvert the quotes which I have collected, by stooping to false accusations and personal attacks (i.e., falsely claiming that I am being dishonest).

People who want to educate themselves prefer the discoveries of modern science.

To your presumed disdain, I will show how dead wrong you are by quoting more well-educated individuals:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but 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 to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

The choice is scientific reality or religious fantasy.

Wrong again.

"The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the object or phenomenon we wish to study must be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, like say the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any explanations we might propose for observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable. By this we mean that we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for a phenomenon in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong or inappropriate, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.

What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. Most living organisms and their offspring are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed to be a scientific "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, J. Savage says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook titled _Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declared that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything "except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."

What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.

The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men."
- Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

Jeff said...


Thanks for your comment! Much appreciated!

Jeff said...


Thanks for pointing that out!

thekingpin68 said...

Jeff can you please publish your reply comment that starts with

As thekingpin68 pointed out (after the quote), in my recent thekingpin68 comments?


Jeff said...

Jeff can you please publish your reply comment that starts with

As thekingpin68 pointed out (after the quote), in my recent thekingpin68 comments?

You mean that one paragraph? Sure!

thekingpin68 said...

Thanks, Jeff.

I appreciate the info, and some others should as well.