Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 4:41 PM
329 online now:
jar, kjsimons, New Cat's Eye, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Taq (7 members, 322 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,269 Year: 28,875/21,208 Month: 941/1,847 Week: 316/475 Day: 81/82 Hour: 6/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Links for the Creation/Evolution Controversy (not a debate topic)
Phat
Member
Posts: 10239
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 76 of 123 (732216)
07-04-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
12-04-2008 1:33 AM


New Link from NPR
Evolution was herky-jerky

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-04-2008 1:33 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Tali_Zorah, posted 09-30-2014 9:37 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3581
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 77 of 123 (733990)
07-23-2014 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
05-30-2014 1:16 AM


Re: Understanding Creationism, also something on "Fragments of the Fossil Record"
The first of an intended series of posts written by a former creationist on The Panda's Thumb

Understanding Creationism 1

Part 8 of 8 is at

http://pandasthumb.org/...ves/2014/07/understanding-c-7.html

and at the bottom are links to parts 1-7.

Another interesting article is here at the Questioning Answers In Genesis blog.

The short version is that the popular but wrong image is that there are a lot of complete orderly land animal fossils found. The reality is that most show a lot of wear and tear, are often (usually?) incomplete, and the bones are scattered all over the place.

He goes on the say that if the creationist flood model of massive numbers of rapid burials were indeed the case, then we would expect to find a lot more complete orderly land animal fossils.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2014 1:16 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3581
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 78 of 123 (736037)
08-30-2014 8:32 PM


Finally! Secret of Death Valley’s ‘Sailing Stones’ Is Revealed
Not a creation/evolution thing, but I had to put it somewhere.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...-revealed/#.VAJXQKOwSpF

Short version: Water, ice, and wind. See the cite for the full story.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


    
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 79 of 123 (736784)
09-13-2014 5:25 AM


Why Evolution Is Mental
I wrote this very short explanation of why, on a personal level, I feel I let evolution "invade" my mind, for so many years, by entertaining it's daft questions.

http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/...stic-and_13.html


  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 80 of 123 (736788)
09-13-2014 7:18 AM


This is not a Discussion Thread
This is just a reminder that this is not a discussion thread. Anyone wanting to respond to Mike's blog post in Message 79 should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2014 6:34 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 81 of 123 (736813)
09-13-2014 3:04 PM


"UNDERSTANDING CREATIONISM: AN INSIDER’S GUIDE BY A FORMER YOUNG-EARTH
Today on FaceBook Ed Babinski linked to this blog entry: http://ageofrocks.org/...by-a-former-young-earth-creationist . The link contains a repost of former creationist David MacMillan's essay, "Evolution of Evolution", part of a series of eight essays posted at Panda's Thumb, the link to which is contained within this link. Excerpts from the intro:
quote:
The article below was originally published by Panda’s Thumb and is the fifth in an eight-part series, which can be found here in its entirety. David offers a profound look at the young-Earth creationist movement, specifically with respect to how they approach evolutionary theory.

quote:
My primary aim on this page has been to elucidate how geologists reconstruct Earth history through historical scientific methods—formulating hypotheses from collected geological data and making predictions about what kind of corroboratory evidence might exist. Biologists do the same with respect to the history of life and its diversification through time, but David writes in his introduction to the series:

quote:
Creationists don’t see it the same way. Creationists artificially classify medicine, genetic research, and agriculture as “operational science,” and believe that those disciplines function in a different way than research in evolutionary biology. They understand the theory of evolution, along with mainstream geology and a variety of other disciplines, as a philosophical construct created for the express purpose of explaining life on Earth apart from divine intervention. Thus, they approach the concept of evolution from a defensive position; they believe it represents an attack on all religious faith.

I remember well just how effective this portrayal of evolution can be. It becomes impossible to discuss the topic critically in the context of science, because ultimately it determines the validity of one’s faith. The same is true when a particular reading of the Bible commits one to a firm stance on the age of the Earth. How can we honestly discuss geological evidence for Earth’s antiquity if it is regarded as an attack on biblical authority? These sorts of closely held, philosophical labels awarded to modern biology and geology allow creationism to thrive, even in an educated society.


quote:
Below, David discusses the perceived ad hoc nature of evolution. It is vital to the success of creationism that evolutionary theory not be constructed from tested hypotheses, but rather through retrospective fitting of data to an anti-theistic philosophy. I believe his comments are also relevant to critiques from so-called ‘Flood geology’, as we saw last week with respect to Milankovitch theory and orbital tuning. Any opportunity to depict circular reasoning in the historical sciences is a victory point for young-Earth creationism.

quote:
... YEC’s bring to scientific literature the same expectations as they do to the Bible: either it conveys truth unblemished and immutable, or it deserves our unreserved skepticism. Since the very nature of science is to refute and refine (else why would we call it research?), YEC’s feel justified in cherry-picking data to support their views and selectively build a quasi-scientific alternative.

I believe this will apply to the on-going topic, SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science..


    
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 82 of 123 (736866)
09-14-2014 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Admin
09-13-2014 7:18 AM


Re: This is not a Discussion Thread
DISCLAIMER:

Sorry that link isn't made to flame-throw Percy though reading my message it might have sounded that way. I say "daft" in regards to my personal reasonings about it, I'm not saying that scientists or evolutionists are daft. I won't make any more comments here, just "sorry" I should have wrote that message more patiently, I tend to rush things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 09-13-2014 7:18 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 83 of 123 (737353)
09-22-2014 4:55 PM


Some Thoughts on Abiogenesis.
http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/

I updated my blog with some conversational-ponderings about the probabilities of abiogenesis and intelligent design. That latest blog isn't written with any great intellectually ambitious gusto and verve, it's just the stream of intangible mikey-thoughts that propagated forth from my weird and wonderful mikey-brain.

"There probably is no blob". That is to say - a blob isn't how life began! Do not be offended, if I do not believe your ancestors were blobs!!


  
Tali_Zorah
Junior Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 09-30-2014


Message 84 of 123 (737791)
09-30-2014 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Phat
07-04-2014 11:29 AM


Re: New Link from NPR
By SCOTT FARWELL Staff Writer sfarwell@dallasnews.com
Published: 14 August 2014 11:32 PM
Updated: 21 August 2014 10:46 AM

Most scientists believe Darwin got it right: Single-celled creatures evolved into complex ones, a process of natural selection and genetic adaptation that over eons turned a primordial swamp into shape-shifting cells, into ape-like primates, into people.

His theory is taught in virtually every science classroom in the world. It is used to demystify the complexity of life, translate the language of DNA, and make sense of geology, biology and paleontology.

Scientists call evolution a unifying theory, a weight-bearing wall that frames our understanding of the natural world.

But at the Institute for Creation Research in northwest Dallas, a group of nine Ph.D.s from places like Harvard and Los Alamos National Laboratory say all that molecules-to-man stuff is nonsense. And they’re out to prove it.
The biblical story of Genesis is literally true, they say. God created the heavens, earth and life in six sequential days lasting about 24 hours each.

The universe is not 13.8 billion years old (as astrophysicists calculate by measuring the rate of cosmic expansion), the earth is not 4.5 billion years old (as geologists conclude by using radioisotope dating on ancient rocks), and humans did not split from chimpanzees and gorillas about 4 million to 7 million years ago (as suggested by genetics and the fossil record).

Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, a numeric range they calculate using the genealogy of the Bible — Adam lived 930 years and begat a son named Seth, who lived 105 years and begat Enos, and so on.

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.

“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

Morris knows ICR’s professors are pariahs among their peers, their positions are ridiculed as “pseudo-science” by researchers around the world, and even many pastors reject the group’s literal reading of the Old Testament.

This spring, televangelist Pat Robertson said on the Christian-themed television show The 700 Club that people would “have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this earth that we live on only has 6,000 years of existence. I think to deny the clear [geologic] record that’s there before us makes us look silly.”

Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/...prove-creation-with-science.ece
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Catastrophism.html
http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/theflood.htm

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 07-04-2014 11:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2014 9:09 AM Tali_Zorah has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2014 9:12 AM Tali_Zorah has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19309
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 123 (737864)
10-01-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tali_Zorah
09-30-2014 9:37 AM


age of the earth
Welcome to the fray Tali_Zorah

But at the Institute for Creation Research in northwest Dallas, a group of nine Ph.D.s from places like Harvard and Los Alamos National Laboratory say all that molecules-to-man stuff is nonsense. And they’re out to prove it.

Let us know when they have results.

The universe is not 13.8 billion years old (as astrophysicists calculate by measuring the rate of cosmic expansion), the earth is not 4.5 billion years old (as geologists conclude by using radioisotope dating on ancient rocks), and humans did not split from chimpanzees and gorillas about 4 million to 7 million years ago (as suggested by genetics and the fossil record).

If you want to discuss the age of the earth see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (this is not a discussion thread).

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tali_Zorah, posted 09-30-2014 9:37 AM Tali_Zorah has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 86 of 123 (737865)
10-01-2014 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tali_Zorah
09-30-2014 9:37 AM


Re: New Link from NPR
You seem to have given us a link which proves that creationists exist. We actually knew that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tali_Zorah, posted 09-30-2014 9:37 AM Tali_Zorah has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 87 of 123 (739917)
10-29-2014 9:47 AM


Question-begging-epithets
I experience a lot of personal remarks, allusions, and epithets, agressivity towards me by the evolution side. I have noticed this since 2003, which shows there is a generally low IQ at these types of forums which could represent a kind of condensed group of bullies, you could say.

Not all evolutionists are the same of course, I would never argue that. There are certainly the eloquent few that have a good grasp of reasoning and tend to not fall into the trap of emotive language or caustic cursing.

https://answersingenesis.org/...the-question-begging-epithet

J.Lisle writes:

One of the most common fallacies committed by evolutionists on the Internet is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet

I would agree, that has been my experience.

J. Lisle writes:

Yelling or vulgar language during a debate is always an example of this fallacy. Many times people will turn up the vocal volume to compensate for a lack of cogency in their argument

And:

Ironically, many of those who use mocking or vulgar language in forums seem to think that their rhetoric constitutes a good argument. Far from it. Such language is an indication of a serious lack of critical thinking skills

There are several evolution blogs that consist of virtually nothing but emotionally charged language. The authors make no logical case for their position, and students of logic will easily recognize that such rhetoric is nothing more than emotional venting (much like a child throwing a tantrum.)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2014 10:09 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 88 of 123 (739918)
10-29-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mike the wiz
10-29-2014 9:47 AM


Re: Question-begging-epithets
Pot meet kettle.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2014 9:47 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2014 10:21 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 90 by mike the wiz, posted 10-29-2014 10:31 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 89 of 123 (739919)
10-29-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Theodoric
10-29-2014 10:09 AM


Re: Question-begging-epithets
Pot meet kettle.

That's a prime example of a question-begging-epithet, thanks. But did you know that, or did you read the link? In the link he gives examples just like your one.

Because this is a way of accusing me using rhetorical words, instead of a cogent argument. That's the exact rhetoric Jason Lisle expounds. He gives examples from real forums/blogs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your knew what you were saying.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2014 10:09 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by saab93f, posted 07-13-2015 5:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 90 of 123 (739920)
10-29-2014 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Theodoric
10-29-2014 10:09 AM


Re: Question-begging-epithets
Again from the linked article since it's topical:

Such statements are designed to stir people’s emotions, thereby distracting them from the realization that no logical case has been made.

(I really don't have any beef with you, I'm just showing you how this attitude is very apparent.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2014 10:09 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017