News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

<table width="100%" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" bgcolor='#FFFFFF' >
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="center">
<table width="505" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td style="background-color:#FFFFFF;border-top:0px solid #000000;border-bottom:1px solid #FFFFFF;text-align:center;" align="center"><span style="font-size:10px; color:#999999;line-height:200%;font-family:verdana;text-decoration:none;">Email not displaying correctly? <a href='http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/e/275851/xdrtdddt/'>View it in your browser.</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"><center>
<IMG src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/header.gif" alt="Creation Science Evangelism" width="505" height="64" BORDER="0" align="center" usemap="#Map">
</center></td>
</tr>
</table>
<table width="505" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="border-left:2px solid #00913E; border-right:2px solid #00913E; border-bottom:2px solid #00913E">
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="font-size:12px;color:#000000;line-height:120%;font-family:trebuchet ms;"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:#e5f4eb; ">
<tr>
<td><div align="left"><strong>[color:"#046716" size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]<a href="#article">Article</a></font><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> | [color:"#046716"]<a href="#resources">Resources</a></font> | [color:"#046716"]<a href="#events">Events</a></font></font></strong> <strong><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">| [color:"#046716"]<a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/articles.php">More Articles</a> </font></font></strong></div></td>
<td><div align="right"><strong><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href='http://www.forwardtomyfriend.com/fjdjr/b755c04978193e1387b5ea59ff0aaf92/'>Forward to a Friend</a></font></strong></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;">
<p><strong> <a name="article"></a>Article          </strong></p>
</div><div style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px;">
<h1 style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:14px; color:#046716">Thirty-Year Secret Leads to Evidence of Worldwide Flood </h1>
<a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=37"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/story1.gif" alt="Waco Mammoth Site" width="104" height="86" hspace="10" vspace="5" border="0" align="left"></a>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In 1978, a couple of guys searching for fossils and arrowheads stumbled upon a treasure of bones sticking out of a creek bed near Waco, Texas. It was later discovered that what they found was a family of Columbian mammoths, along with camels, saber-toothed tigers, and a variety of animals yet to be uncovered.<br>
<br>
For thirty years it’s been questioned what brought this variety of animals so close together in one site. Today, paleontologists suggest the herd was in the midst of disaster -- “trapped by flood waters and entombed by a mudslide.” They say the placement of the bones show that adults were trying to “lift juveniles up out of the muck when the wall around them collapsed.” Creationists call this even more evidence for God’s Word and the Flood in the days of Noah. <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=39">Click here to watch the one-and-a-half minute video.</a>


<br>
Skeptics have long scoffed at the idea of a worldwide Flood, suggesting it was merely a local one. God’s Word, however, is clear, stating that “the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.”


<br>
If the Bible is correct about a Flood which covered everything, then evidences like these should be found. This recent discovery is just more proof that Noah’s Flood exceeded his “known land,” even beyond Waco, Texas.


<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We can argue many more proofs for a worldwide Flood. Check out our <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=568&cat=DVDs&sub=Debate">Debate #7 on <em>The Genesis Flood</em></a>, to see Dr. Hovind engage a preacher-turned-atheist on this very subject. As you watch, you’ll find that the evidence for God’s Word is compelling</font>.<br>
</p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:5px; padding-left:5px;">
<p><strong><a name="resources"></a>Related Resources            </strong></p>
<table width="100%" border="0">
<tr>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=568&cat=DVDs&sub=Debate"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/pd2.gif" alt="Debate #7 - The Genesis Flood" width="74" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=830&cat=DVDs&sub=Seminar"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/pd1.gif" alt="Creation Seminar Box Set" width="73" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=445&cat=DVDs&sub=Seminar"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/pd3.gif" alt="The Hovind Theory" width="73" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=143&cat=Books&sub=Creation%20Reference"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/pd4.gif" alt="In The Beginning" width="73" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=568&cat=DVDs&sub=Debate">Debate #7 - <br>
<em>The Genesis Flood<br>
</em> $9.95 </a></font></strong></td>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=830&cat=DVDs&sub=Seminar"> <em>Creation Seminar</em>


Box Set


$75 (SALE) </a></font></strong></td>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=445&cat=DVDs&sub=Seminar"><em>The Hovind Theory<br>
</em> $17.95 </a></font></strong></td>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=143&cat=Books&sub=Creation%20Reference"><em>In The Beginning<br>
</em>$23.50</a> </font></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Order online or call 877-479-3466 to order by phone.</font></strong> <br>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="5">
<tr>
<td width="50%" valign="top"><div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;"><strong><a name="events"></a>CSE On Tour                 </strong></div>
<p align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=38"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/275851/story2.gif" alt="Eric Hovind presented a new message, God Quest, on speaking tour through Midwest." width="228" height="146" border="0"></a><br>
To schedule Eric at your organization, contact us at scheduling@drdino.com. </font></p></td>
<td width="50%" valign="top"><div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;"><strong><a name="events"></a>Upcoming Events            </strong></div>
</p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oregon</font></p>
<ul>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=359%23entry359">Lebanon</a> (November 6, Web cast) </font></li>
[/LIST]
<p><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Florida</font></p>
<ul>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=361%23entry361">Orlando</a> (November 18)</font></li>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=362%23entry362">Orlando</a> (November 19-20, ACSI Convention) </font></li>
[/LIST]</td></tr>
</table>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
<strong>[color:"#333333" size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Creation Science Evangelism<br>
29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, FL 32503 <br>
877-479-3466 | www.drdino.com</font></strong><br>
<br>
</span></td>
</tr>
</table>
<map name="Map"><area shape="rect" coords="8,2,180,64" href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/275851/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com" alt="Creation Science Evangelism">
</map><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/o/275851/xdrtdddt/o.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0">

Waco's mammoth site along the Bosque River, discovered in 1978, is the largest known concentration of prehistoric mammoths perishing from a single event, in this case a massive mudslide. Besides 24 Columbian mammoths, site excavations have revealed a prehistoric camel and a large cat.

So . . . ancient animals trapped in a large mudslide. No scientist would say this can't happen. Evidence for a worldwide flood -- how, exactly?

Sorry, try again. This time explain how a worldwide flood a few thousband years ago explains the geological column and the stratigraphy of the fossils therein.

The evidence for a global flood is rampant. Better catch up on your reading, unless, of course, you consider talk-origins an intellectual forum.

It's amazing to me how people color evidence for their own desires.

It would be better for people to gain the courage to let the data lead them rather then their own emotional preferences.

To not understand one's self is the greatest bridge to deception.

Know yourself.


"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.


"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].


"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].


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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).

"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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).


"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].


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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).


"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).



Older Quotations:


"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].


"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.


"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.


"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.


" `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].


"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].


"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).


"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.


"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].


"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].


"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"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.


"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.


" `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.


"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.


"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].


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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.


"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].


"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].


"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).


"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.


"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.


"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."

—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.


"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."

—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.


"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."

—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).


" `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.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."

—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].


" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "

—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]


"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."

—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.


"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."

—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]


"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."

—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.


"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."

—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.


"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."

—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.


"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."

—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.


"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."
—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).


"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."

—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.


"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] 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. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

Linda,

In response to your previous post...

There is no "geologic column". It is simply another myth used to attempt to support the myth of evolution.

If you want to believe that rocks evolved into complex machines, go ahead. Just don't expect intellectuals to be supporting your position when the facade breaks, and it will... eventually.

OK, are we back to "all scientists are liars"? Presumably you are not interested in having a look at fossils in cliffs yourself?

I could sit here and say that anything I disagree with is a lie manufactured by people in a conspiracy to deceive the world but I'd have about as much credibility.

BTW quotes, no matter how many, are not evidence either. Creationist websites are full of "quote mines," which are quotes by respected scientists taken out of context in an attempt to show that "even THEY say it's all nonsense!!!"

Also, as has been said, evolution does not say that rocks evolved into complex machines. If this truly is what you think the theory of evolution is all about then it's no wonder you find people like Hovind credible.

Still no concrete evidence here for creation.

You're the one proposing the hypothesis. By your own rules, you are obliged to show the evidence. I'm going to hold you to your own standards Linda.

Show me the "fossil record" (multiple correlating photos). And while you're at it, ask yourself where all that dirt came from.

Now, if you can't find multiple correlating photos, why are you believing this ridiculous stuff without evidence on just a word from someone you don't know?

Linda, you're falling into the old trap that so many gullible evolutionists have. They blindly believe (have faith in) the conclusions espoused by large self-serving institutions.

I would have thought that people would have learned their lesson once they had mercury placed, got sick, and realized that many big institutions are controlled and don't hesitate to lie to serve their own interests at the expense of others.

Are we still so naive?

[color:"brown"]Let's learn to have a little less faith and a little more evidence.[/color]


Watch and learn...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KFbs8s3VI6M

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kOW8LNU2hFE

Linda,

I've posted this question to you before multiple times and you have, as of yet, refused to answer it.

Please tell us...

Do you believe that rocks evolved into single-cell organisms?

I don't understand what you are asking here. Where all the dirt came from - ? What do you mean, show you the fossil record? Here's an idea. Try setting foot in a natural history museum and see the "fake" evidence for yourself. Pick up a basic science book. Wait -- no, it's all lies.

Why am I obliged to put forward evidence here for the whole of evolution? I've said before, it would fill a library. And you could brush it all off with a sentence anyway -- "it's all lies." The problem is that in order to be accepted as a plausible theory, creationism has to show that it explains the available evidence better than evolution. The fact that no one has been able to do this is why evolution continues to be the accepted model.

I've also said twice in the past day that evolution does not say that rocks evolved. I suspect you know this but would like to keep pushing this strawman argument for the sake of rhetoric. No one is going to be convinced by it apart from other creationists.

Conjecture is probably more appropriate than 'lies'.

I've spent lots of time in the NYC Natural History Museum, it's one of my favorites like the Smithsonian in DC, and I never saw any evidence of evolution in either place.

There is plenty of conjecture though, regarding timelines.

It's kind of like, if you die in the Britsh Isles and get buried there, it will be easy to assume in just a short hundred years, without any real documentation, that you were also born there. And chances are no one will care to argue about it.

Just conjecture.

The fossil record actually presents more evidence for creation than it does for evolution anyway. Because there are layers and layers of earth with no fossils whatsoever, and then all of a sudden, bang, lots of fossils all at one time. It's more difficult to conjecture that life evolved slowly if you actually refer to the fossil record, which literally tells us life did not evolve slowly but actually happened suddenly all at one time. The earth exists below it and thus was already created, created first, and then suddenly the earth was teeming with life. Suddenly. There is no argument about it in the fossil record, only in classrooms amidst teachers with anti-fossil record agendas. Why they are so opposed to simply honestly admitting the fossil record disproves evolution I have no idea, it's so obvious. The argument really only proves how dumb and donkey headed teachers of evolution are.

I live on a mountain that was once an island in a sea. In a city near here, there is a museum of the inland ocean with a great fossil record of it all. Deep ocean sea creatues in the midst of mainland USA. They apparently all got trapped in a valley between the mountain peaks as the waters receded, which is evidence even that the water was once higher than the peaks, which is how they all were able to swim here to begin with. But they didn't leave quickly enough... and died here. And we sit at a point higher than most of the rest of continental North America. So even if you want to argue that there never was a flood or that the land we now know of as America was not completely covered in water at some point in the not too distant historical past, even then you'll have a real problem. Because fossils prove otherwise.

Maybe you should spend more time in museums, of all sorts.

Hi Russ,

I disagree with Mr Hovind's proposal that there was a world wide flood.

He seems to base his conjecture on the fossil find of these mammoths. But I fail to see how a local conglomeration of fossils supports a world wide flood any more than is supports a local flood.

If I were to use the same logic then I could say that there was a world wide volcanic eruption because of the fossils buried in volcanic ash in Liaoning, China.

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050522202457.htm


The point is not if I believe the Noah Flood occurred but, rather, if the evidence you provided supports that flood more than a local flood. I can't see how it does. How is the fossil find more supportive of a world-wide flood more than it being supportive of the Waco River overflowing its banks in spring?

Maybe I missed something in the article that you could point out.

Hi SoSick,

Interesting observations from where you live:


What kind of deep ocean creatures are found there?

I realize that ocean creatures being there means that the land was underwater at one time. What evidence makes your conjecture that the land remained stable while it was flooded more valid than the conjecture of the geologists that the land was under the sea for a long time then was pushed up by movement of the tectonic plates?

The Himalayan mountains are getting higher every day by just this same process. Plus they have ocean creatures fossilized in their rocks just like on your mountain.

Hello again Russ.

I feel ignored. You make sweeping observations and proclamations about the validity of the Biblical Flood then refuse to respond to questions regarding those proclamations. Actually, you seem to be the robotic parrot for "Dr" Hovind. Since you can provide no further information nor reply to my questions, I have come to the conclusion that you don't really understand what "Dr" Hovind is presenting. Furthermore, I doubt you comprehend the questions I asked, hence your reticence to reply.

I am willing to be shown wrong in all these judgments by a learned and applicable reply. If all you do is ask me if I believe that rocks turned into men, you will not only be completely and amazingly off topic but you will bolster my opinion that you haven't got a fingernail's grasp of the science that you believe you are refuting.

Please show me how wrong I am. Use that great logical and erudite argument to put me in my place and show up all those puny-minded PHD physicists, geologists and biologists.

I agree that there are "layers and layers of earth with no fossils". However, why should there be if God created all land creatures on days 5 and 6? How could those layers and layers be laid down in only 5 days? Maybe God wanted the Earth to look old from the beginning?

Also, if you happen to go to a natural history museum and read the plaques, you might note that in the layers beneath those containing larger fossils, there are layers containing only microscopic fossils, then below that layers with no fossils at all. So, why would God put down layers of microscopic-fossil-filled sand/dirt between day 2 and day 6? Is He trying to tell us something?
I am sure He knew that we would look into it, being omniscient and all. What is this message that He tells us with these seemingly false layers of fossils?

Since I am an non-believer in the Judeo-Christian God, I need someone like you, being steeped in the imparted unseen knowledge of the Almighty, to provide some insight.

I really appreciate any help you can give me in this area.