The following quotes can be found here or here or here:

 

 

I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. 
attributed to Kurt Wise in an email, 2003.

 

 

No, of course I haven't done lab research on the systems described in Darwin's Black Box.
an email from Michael Behe to the Baptist Board Administrator, 2003.

No, of course I haven't done lab research on the systems described in Darwin's Black Box. That's easily seen by looking at the references in the book. I chose widely-known, textbook examples of complex biochemical systems, not ones that would somehow depend on work I'd done in my own lab. For my money, that makes the argument more powerful, more widely accessible.

 

 

And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree.
from The radiometric dating game by David Plaisted, 1998.

Now, the point about agreement is that whatever figure is given about how often ages agree with the expected age, is consistent with the fact that there is no agreement at all between K-Ar and other methods, since so many measurements are done using K-Ar dating. And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree. So Iím very interested to know what data there is about how often _different_ methods agree.

So when one combines all of the above figures, the statement that there are only 10 percent anomalies or 5 percent or whatever, does not have any meaning any more. This statement is made so often as evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating, that the simple evidence that it has no meaning, is astounding to me. I donít object to having some hard evidence that there are real agreements between different methods on the geologic column, if someone can provide it.

 

 

I had either stupidly or dishonestly reversed the time axis of the textís figure to get my figure 
from D. Russell Humphreys, The Acts of the apostates, 1998.

Thompson immediately jumped to a wrong conclusion; he thought I had either stupidly or dishonestly reversed the time axis of the textís figure to get my figure, and he hastily rushed to judgement upon me in his website. If he had bothered to look up some of my other, more technical references, he would have seen that I used data from a different part of the section in the textbook. The technical references are harder to get, but they spell out exactly how I made my figure. A critic is morally obligated to look up all references before rushing to accuse. At the very least, Thompson might have asked me about it first. He did not follow any of those normal procedures of good scholarship. As far as I know, he still hasnít, despite my informing him of the above. He justly deserves any embarrassment he may get from this incident.

 

 

...various dating methods agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 
John Woodmorappe, Studies in creationism and flood geology ICR Impact 238.

I refute the claim that various dating methods agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I demonstrate that there are gross contradictions in billion-year values from earth's rock, and that there are even some values obtained which are much greater than the 4.5-billion-year accepted age of the earth.

 

 

This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago. 
Danny Faulkner, The faint young sun paradox and the age of the solar system , ICR Impact 300.

 

 

this (radioactive) decay has occurred over billions of years at constant rates 
Larry Vardiman, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, ICR Impact 301.

On May 20-21, 1998, a second conference to address radioisotopes and the age of the earth (RATE) met in San Diego, California. Six research scientists with specialized training in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics met to report on research completed over the past year. They also discussed plans for future activities. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Answers in Genesis (AIG), and the Creation Research Society (CRS) are jointly sponsoring these conferences to develop and communicate an understanding of radioisotope data from a young-earth perspective. An initial approach taken by some of the investigators is to explore models for accelerated rates of decay of radioisotopes during Creation, the Fall, or the Flood. Several sources of data suggest that significant quantities of radioactive decay have occurred during the history of the earth and cosmos. The conventional age model assumes that this decay has occurred over billions of years at constant rates rather than in concentrated episodes over short periods of time. Some of the RATE researchers believe other explanations that do not require accelerated decay may be the answer, such as the geochemical distribution of elements.

 

 

Confirmation of the Mars report will demonstrate that the universe is teeming with life. That would mean that life is a product of evolution and we don't need God to explain it. 
Henry Morris, WHERE HAS ALL THE WATER GONE?, ICR Impact 291.

But if it can just be shown that there was once life on Marsóany form of lifeóthat would supposedly prove that life is a natural phenomenon that occurs whenever the conditions are right. Confirmation of the Mars report will demonstrate that the universe is teeming with life. 9

That would mean that life is a product of evolution and we don't need God to explain it. Or at least, that is the reasoning that many employ. Of course, theistic evolutionists might still argue that God could have allowed life to evolve on many planets if He so chose.

But it is not a question of what God could do. What He says is that our planet Earth is where He created life, Earth is where He Himself became man and died for our sins, and Earth is where He will reign forever over His whole creation.

9 Robert Jastrow, op cit., p. 63.

 

 

evolution currently provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, including humans 
Buckna and Laidlaw, Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?, ICR Impact 282.

This fall it was back to class for millions of students enrolled in schools, colleges, and universities throughout Canada and the United States. For those taking science courses such as biology, anthropology, and earth science, it's quite evident that evolution is the reigning paradigm in science today. University of Calgary biology professor Gordon Pritchard's statement on evolution is a good example of this mode of thinking: " . . . evolution currently provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, including humans" (Calgary Herald, August 3, 1995, p. A5).

 

 

fact of speciation leads directly to the fact of macroevolution 
Kenneth Cumming, Patterns of speciation, ICR Impact 215.

This is not to deny that speciation occurs. Much evidence implies that isolating processes are establishing unique populations all the time. Indeed, in the case of ploidy, a new isolated species (depending on the definitions) can occur in one generation. However, if speciation (primarily reproductive isolation) is the process of microevolution, and, in turn macroevolution, as some proponents hold, then we are once again in the precarious position of declaring that the fact of speciation leads directly to the fact of macroevolution, without knowing very well how either takes place, or the causative relation between the two.
 
Summary

The wide variety of definitions for the term species today permits one to conclude that some new species are being formed from old species. Thus, speciation supporting microevolution (horizontal change), is an acknowledged phenomenon. However, the critical category of speciation that would establish macroevolution (vertical change) is said to be difficult to document as a totally observed event. Although much literature has been written to illustrate the concept, most of it is inferential. Even in these writings, a credible extrapolation of these transformations to establish higher taxonation above the species level is very suspect.

Today's creationist interpretation of speciation would be given in an essentialist perspective claiming that even though the ancient "fixity of species" dogma is disproved by speciation events, there are also practical limits to so-called "phyletic" change. These limits are seen in the historic and current documentation of discontinuities between types. This subject will be the theme of an upcoming article on "specialization."

 

 

it is absurd to think that Adam could name all the animals in part of a single day....science requires us to believe that the days of creation week were long ages instead of literal days. 
Henry Morris, Adam and the animals, ICR Impact 212.

But then, say the skeptics, it is absurd to think that Adam could name all the animals in part of a single day. This argument is also used by those Christians and Jews who believe the Bible in a general way, but who insist that "science" requires us to believe that the days of creation week were long ages instead of literal days.

 

 

...all living things have arisen through a naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary process from a single source, which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inorganic world. 
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Creation/Evolution. ICR Impact 4.

There is the theory that all living things have arisen through a naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary process from a single source, which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inorganic world. This general evolutionary hypothesis is usually presented as an established scientific fact in science textbooks. All of the evidence that can be adduced in favor of this theory is thoroughly discussed in such texts, and it is often stated that all competent biologists accept the theory of evolution.

 

 

Dinosaurs and many other animals are pre-historic. Most of the earth's history took place long before the Bible or any other book was written and long before any man existed. It is a scientific fact that the earth is exceedingly old--perhaps 5 billion years. Evolution is a fact. God did not create the world as portrayed in the Bible. There once was a time when the land was inhabited only by reptiles--the Great Age of the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and other animals evolved into completely different kinds of creatures. Every creature evolved from lower forms of life, even man. Man is just an animal--a highly-evolved primate. 
Paul S. Taylor (1982). Dinosaur Mania And Our Children. ICR Impact 167

Dinosaurs are being used on a monumental scale to promote evolution. Parents are often amazed at how much even kindergartners know about them. Portrayed as strange, fierce-looking creatures, they are effectively used to indoctrinate millions of children with false evolutionary concepts, such as the following:

  1. Dinosaurs and many other animals are pre-historic. Most of the earth's history took place long before the Bible or any other book was written and long before any man existed.
  2. It is a scientific fact that the earth is exceedingly old--perhaps 5 billion years.
  3. Evolution is a fact. God did not create the world as portrayed in the Bible.
  4. There once was a time when the land was inhabited only by reptiles--the Great Age of the Dinosaurs.
  5. Dinosaurs and other animals evolved into completely different kinds of creatures. Every creature evolved from lower forms of life, even man. Man is just an animal--a highly-evolved primate.

 

 

all living forms have arisen from a single form of life by slow gradual changes. Thus, the time between the origin of life and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of the many complex invertebrate forms of life is now estimated to have been nearly three billion years. The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. 
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. (1980). The origin of mammals. ICR Impact 87.

According to the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution, all living forms have arisen from a single form of life by slow gradual changes. Thus, the time between the origin of life and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of the many complex invertebrate forms of life is now estimated to have been nearly three billion years. The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the neo-Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micromutations through natural selection of favored variants.

 

 

The flipper of the whale, the wing of the bat, the leg of the horse, and the arm of man are all structurally alike, even though they are functionally different. Evolution explains the presence of these structural similarities by pointing out that the organisms of these diverse species have an ancestor or ancestors in common from which they have descended. Over many years of descent from a common ancestry these different organisms have changed; though not enough to erase the structural similarity we still observe today. Descent, with change, from a common ancestry also accounts for the presence of vestiges in many different organisms. 
Gary Colwell, Ph.D. (1996). Socrates meets Darwin: a study in question begging. Creation Research Society Quarterly 33: 127

The year is 1995. The place is an imaginary after-world from which all aspects of life on earth can be monitored. A gigantic party is underway with all the famous thinkers of history in attendance. Socrates, who is a little more boisterous than usual, weaves his way among the guests, calling out, "Darwin! ... Darwin! ... Where is that man?!" Eventually Darwin hears his name being called and answers:

(Darwin) As I started to say, perhaps the best way to see this change is by examining some of the more important explanatory parts of the theory. First, the structural explanations of the theory of evolution explain the similarities of body structure found among organisms of widely diverse species living today. For example, although the whale, the bat, the horse and man are members of quite diverse species, their appendages exhibit marked similarities. The flipper of the whale, the wing of the bat, the leg of the horse, and the arm of man are all structurally alike, even though they are functionally different. Evolution explains the presence of these structural similarities by pointing out that the organisms of these diverse species have an ancestor or ancestors in common from which they have descended. Over many years of descent from a common ancestry these different organisms have changed; though not enough to erase the structural similarity we still observe today. Descent, with change, from a common ancestry also accounts for the presence of vestiges in many different organisms.

 

 

Joe Martin...butt kissed...Dawkins...and can't even catch the fundamentals. Joe "yoyo" - the Wizard of Odd - Martin

But you are right, speciation can be very rapid..... Helen on CARM

Know that you are NOT a decent person. None of us are. Helen on CARM

Normally, if you tell a lie, you should mix in a lot of truth to try to sell it. Fred Williams

 

 

I have reserved comment until the end because I am confident that the discerning reader will have easily detected the problems with these quotes. I will now highlight some of the problems. The first quote is from a private email. The reader is not given any context and there is no way to verify the authenticity of the quote. This does not mean that the quote is wrong -- only that it is weak. The majority of quotes have been mischievously truncated in order to convey an impression directly opposite of the original intent. The Faulkner quote regarding the luminosity of the sun appears to be cited for its eccentricity. I will not comment on the merit of such a claim other than to offer that eccentricity is not the same as being wrong. The remaining quotes appear to be some sort of private joke that only a small group of people might appreciate.

Recently my evolution quotes have been compared directly with these quotes. I welcome readers to compare both sets and judge for themselves. I have been using these quotes for over a year and while many have complained that the quotes must be out of context, few are willing to offer an example. On the rare occasion, that someone does challenge a quote, they normally take one of two approaches. The first approach is to quote a little more than I have chosen to quote. I suppose this game could continue until the entire book is quoted, but that would defeat the purpose of a quote. What these people fail to prove is that I have contradicted the original intent of the quote. The second approach is to claim that when I quote an evolutionist, I am drawing a conclusion that the author would not agree with. Obviously when an evolutionist confesses a problem with the theory, they have already come up with a solution that they, personally, consider reasonable. Typically when evolution is discussed, the solutions are emphasized and the problems are glossed over. I offer the reader the opportunity to review some of the problems.

 

See Also: Fark

Return to: An Atheist Fairy Tale