Evolution Quotes

http://bevets.com/equotesk.htm

Arthur Keith (1866 - 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the
only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.
attribution unknown

No discovery of recent date has had such a wide reaching effect as
that made by Mr Chrarles Dawson at Piltdown, Sussex. Hence the reader
will find that a very considerable part of this book is devoted to the
significance of that specimen of humanity which Dr Smith Woodward
named Eoanthropus dawsoni. The Antiquity of Man (1915) p.vii

Those of us who set out some thirty years ago to search for evidence
which would throw light on the antiquity of man believed we had to
deal with a simple problem. We started under the conviction that
there was only one kind of man -- man of the modern type. We were
certain that he was, like all other living things, subject to the laws
of evolution, and that as we traced him, by means of fossil remains,
into the remote past, we should find him assuming a more and more
primitive shape and structure. The Antiquity of Man (1915) p.497

On Oct 25, 4:54 pm, Sound of Trumpet HotPOP.com>
wrote:

Run the two theories; evolution & creation, through this rhetoric and
see which comes out ahead'

Mill's Methods are five methods of induction described by philosopher
John Stuart Mill in his 1843 book A System of Logic. They are intended
to shed light on issues of causation.

1. Method of agreement

Sound of Fart wrote:

You are reaching farther than usual to try to destroy science. The
Piltdown Man was a famous fraud! I can't believe anyone would actually
cite the Piltdown Man to prove anything.

On Oct 25, 7:54 pm, Sound of Trumpet HotPOP.com>
wrote:

Umm, you do know that your own Roman Catholic Church has no problem
with the idea of biological evolution, right...?

On Oct 25, 6:54 pm, Sound of Trumpet HotPOP.com>
wrote:

Here is a point for your consideration: science depends on evidence,
not authority. That some famous scientist said something does not
make it so, even if he is an evolutionist talking about evolution, and
even if you have quoted him in a way that does not misrepresent the
original context and hence the meaning of his words. Indeed, given
that you (and the source from which you crib) obviously assumes that
Sir Arthur Keith was wrong about common descent with modification
itself, why assume that he was right about, e.g. the compatibility of
evolution with Christianity, or whether Hitler based his ideas on
evolution, neither of which is strictly a question within the field of
evolutionary biology?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:54:23 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:

Surgeons? A doctor who's been dead half a century is who you quote?

--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

An FRCS wasn't even necessarily a doctor.

"Sound of Trumpet" HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:1193356463.412762.248050@

And born a mere *140 years ago*...

'Of recent date'...?!? The Piltdown specimen was found in *1912*!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown

Jeeezes, you people are *desperate*!!

LOLOL!!!

M.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:45:31 -0700, Jon Schild xmission.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:34:26 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
wrote:

For a cretinist, that is fresh and up-to-date.
They all live in the 15th Century, you know.
When sane folk were burned at the stake for telling the truth.