The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

From the film:
NARRATOR (reading along with title card of Dr. Nicholas Patronas):
During this trial, one of the National Cancer Institute’s leading experts, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, a board-certified radiologist since 1973, professor of radiology at Georgetown University, and founder of the neuroradiology section of the National Cancer Institute [SOURCE: NIH Staff Pages]—recognized the absurdity of the Texas Medical Board’s case against Burzynski, put his own career on the line and flew himself to Texas to testify on Dr. Burzynski’s behalf. Dr. Patronas testified under oath his role at the National Cancer Institute.

NARRATOR (reading along with the official court transcript from the May 24, 1993 hearing): [SOURCE: Original complete court transcript of the entire testimony 1993]

Q (Jaffe): Basically, just in layman’s terms, you do all of the imaging work and interpretation for the National Cancer Institute’s testing of drugs?

A (Dr. Patronas): Exactly. That’s my job, to assess the effectiveness of the drugs that are given there.

Q (Jaffe): Did there come a time when you became aware of Dr. Burzynski?

A (Dr. Patronas): Yes, the National Cancer Institute asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientists, and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute. I was called as an expert in assessing the images to evaluate the effectiveness of his treatment. The basic conclusion, was that in five of the patients with brain tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared.

Q (Jaffe): And that’s part of what you do at the hospital, is to evaluate treatments on brain cancer patients? A: Well, since I am the neuroradiologist I see all brain tumors. And I see a large volume of them.

Q (Jaffe): You testified that five of the patients had their tumors resolved, they all...

A (Dr. Patronas): Disappeared.

Q (Jaffe): Disappeared? Can you give us some kind of context of that? How often does that happen? Just by spontaneous remission?

A (Dr. Patronas): I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs. The available treatments rarely produce results like that. The only medication, the only treatment, which I think is a last resort, is radiation therapy. Conventional chemotherapy is—provides very little, nothing, basically. So when this happens it is very rare. In these cases, all of the patients had already failed radiation.

Q (Jaffe): What happens with these patients, who failed radiation, with brain cancer?

A (Dr. Patronas): That’s it. They die.

Q (Jaffe): You are saying, that if someone has already failed radiation, there’s not much else?

A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing to offer, exactly.

Q (Jaffe): And there is nothing that you can do at the National Cancer Institute?

A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing we can do, not at this present time.

Q (Jaffe): What about these five patients? How come they lived?

A (Dr. Patronas): Well, it’s amazing, the fact that they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and the side effects of most aggressive treatments are worse than the tumor itself, so these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn’t have major side effects. So I think it’s impressive and unbelievable.

Q (Jaffe): How many times have you seen this in your experience? How often does this happen?

A (Dr. Patronas): I don’t. I have not seen it at any time.

Q (Jaffe): Now, let me ask you your opinion or advice. Based on what you have seen, what would happen, let’s say, for some reason Dr Burzynski’s brain tumor patients can’t get his medicine anymore, and have to go off treatment. What’s going to happen to them?

MR. HELMCAMP (prosecutor): Objection, Your Honor, not relevant.

MR. JAFFE (defense): I think it is relevant. That’s really the issue we are advocating in this case.

JUDGE: Overruled.

A (Dr. Patronas): I think these patients will die.

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=83

Seriously, it is like I am speaking a foreign language sometimes. At least, I shut up the trolls for the most part.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
... just thought this should be restated... add some brackets, and remove the temporary tax-gifts to the wealthiest... no need to get excited... these numbers aren't net worth, just yearly income... this takes us back to the 90's... remember Saved-by-the-Bell? Yeah, the 90's,... see, its all going to be fine.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Here are the current tax brackets.
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
I think Buffet wants something like this,
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
20% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
25% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
30% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
40% Bracket $600,000
45% Bracket $1,000,000

Dag forbid they even consider the logic I layed down.

>> ^bamdrew:

... just thought this should be restated... add some brackets, and remove the temporary tax-gifts to the wealthiest... no need to get excited... these numbers aren't net worth, just yearly income... this takes us back to the 90's... remember Saved-by-the-Bell? Yeah, the 90's,... see, its all going to be fine.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Here are the current tax brackets.
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
I think Buffet wants something like this,
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
20% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
25% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
30% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
40% Bracket $600,000
45% Bracket $1,000,000

... just thought this should be restated... add some brackets, and remove the temporary tax-gifts to the wealthiest... no need to get excited... these numbers aren't net worth, just yearly income... this takes us back to the 90's... remember Saved-by-the-Bell? Yeah, the 90's,... see, its all going to be fine.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Here are the current tax brackets.
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
I think Buffet wants something like this,
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
20% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
25% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
30% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
40% Bracket $600,000
45% Bracket $1,000,000

Here are the current tax brackets.

10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150

I think Buffet wants something like this,

10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
20% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
25% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
30% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
40% Bracket $600,000
45% Bracket $1,000,000

dannym3141:

Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

Politics aside, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most abundant source of energy, and new supplies of it are being discovered all the time. I never said people should stop burning them.

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

I'm not arguing, but I am astonished you would believe scientists are above politics (and reproach), not because the scientific method is flawed, but because scientists are fallible humans with their own beliefs and interests. As W. Pennypacker said in so many words, governments reward scientists which confirm a pre-determined outcome (like secondhand smoke killing 100 billion people a year). Junk science is real; it may not be everywhere, but it's out there. And not just "the oil companies" which have "scientitians" in their corner.

Another thing, gang. Over the last few years, global warming hysteria has been relentless. It's the alarmists who declared, "The debate is over." There was even one smug a-hole who compared "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers. Classy! There was the faked data scandal. These are not the actions of scientists confident in their conclusions. Yet the lazy media continues to back the alarmists without question.

100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem:

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe


Do you really expect free people to surrender to THIS?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Why are "handouts" like medicare called mandatory and things like national defense called discretionary?

Medicare and Social Security aren't "handouts", they're benefits you pay for all your life via payroll taxes explicitly earmarked for that purpose (look at your pay stub sometime if you don't believe me). The reason they're mandatory is because they're essentially debts owed to the American people, real people, not just bond-holders. That's actually why they're called "entitlements" -- people are entitled to receive them, because they've already paid for them!

Defense is "discretionary" because Congress gets to decide how much money to spend on it each year. It's not like Social Security or Medicare where people have been promised a fixed benefit in return for the taxes they've paid.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Here's a fucking idea: stop spending more than we make. If the Dems would just agree to a balanced budget, the Republicans would raise the cieling.


Dems have been bending over backwards here, MG. They've even offered to break the promises made to seniors for Social Security and Medicare, and drastically cut all kinds of important programs. All Dems are saying is that there needs to be some additional revenues in the plan.

Most sane people agree that closing the deficit should include both spending cuts and tax increases, but not the Republicans. They've long since rejected a plan that would've been 83% cuts, and 17% revenue (mostly from closing loopholes), because they insist it be 100% cuts, and not a penny of revenue.

Not to mention, the debt we're facing now is essentially entirely created by Republcians. Look at this chart of the debt since 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

Notice that post WW2, both parties ran surpluses to pay down the debt accrued during the war. Then look at 1980, when Ronald Reagan took office. Debt explodes! Until Clinton comes into office, then the trend reverses. Then Bush reverses it back. Obama hasn't reversed the trend Bush started yet, but he also inherited the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression, and Republicans are pretty much refusing any proposal, even one highly skewed towards their policy preferences.

>> ^NetRunner:

And yet you still chose a ratio of 70/30 for cuts/taxes. Compared to politicians in Washington, you're practically a socialist. Democrats offered an 83/17 mix, Republicans rejected it and demanded a 100/0 mix.
In terms of your specific choices, the only stuff I'd really fight you on are raising the Medicare/Social Security ages, the tightening of disability, and means-testing social security. But then those are also where the big dollar-wise differences are between my way and yours.
I'd also note that unless you are substantially wealthier than the average person, you'd pay exactly the same taxes as you do today under my plan, and still be able to retire at 65. Under your plan you don't get any less of a tax burden, but can't retire until you're 70.
You want to keep working 5 more years before you retire, just so millionaires don't have to pay even a slight bit more in taxes? Why?
>> ^bobknight33:
If given the choices from you link then this is what I would choose:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget
I truly believe a smaller government is a getter government.


pwnt.

I love that he even agrees with a lift on the payroll tax cap. I'd be so happy if the republican party would just allow that. It's not even the revenue ceiling with me. It's the insistence that any tax adjustments be a sugar-coated regressing of the curve. Secretaries shouldn't have a higher realized tax rate than the CEO they work for. Especially not if you insist on robbing their savings account to pay for the CEO's wars.

They keep pushing this outmoded supply-side BS. This isn't about shrinking government. It's about keeping the PAC tap flowing.

And yet you still chose a ratio of 70/30 for cuts/taxes. Compared to politicians in Washington, you're practically a socialist. Democrats offered an 83/17 mix, Republicans rejected it and demanded a 100/0 mix.

In terms of your specific choices, the only stuff I'd really fight you on are raising the Medicare/Social Security ages, the tightening of disability, and means-testing social security. But then those are also where the big dollar-wise differences are between my way and yours.

I'd also note that unless you are substantially wealthier than the average person, you'd pay exactly the same taxes as you do today under my plan, and still be able to retire at 65. Under your plan you don't get any less of a tax burden, but can't retire until you're 70.

You want to keep working 5 more years before you retire, just so millionaires don't have to pay even a slight bit more in taxes? Why?
>> ^bobknight33:

If given the choices from you link then this is what I would choose:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget
I truly believe a smaller government is a getter government.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

My favourite game EVER.

Make sure to go here if you are serious about reinstalling.

I didnt, but if your arguments are so weak this is what you resort to, feel free to make a fool of yourself

>> ^KnivesOut:
Exactly, I'm glad you agree that WLC's original claim is a logical fallacy.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's in itself a fallacy. Premise one is false because it doesn't autmatically follow that evil is impossible if a perfectly good God exists.
1 God is perfectly good
2 God created man
3 Man is capable of evil
4 Evil exists
>> ^KnivesOut:
Logical fallacy is a fallacy. Here's another one:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
Poof, god doesn't exist.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] 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 C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.