|
Author
|
Topic: Articles and books directly against leading creationists?
|
micahfitch
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 20 (189433)
03-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|
|
Hello, I am doing an IP for school and am looking for articles, journals, and books directly opposing creation historians and creation scientists. Right now I am specifically searching for counterarguments against Walt Brown (Hydroplate Theory) and Bill Cooper (After the Flood). Arguments against similar creationists would be appreciated also.
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
Message 2 of 20 (189435)
03-01-2005 10:47 AM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 3 of 20 (189436)
03-01-2005 10:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by micahfitch
03-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|
Have a look at talk origins
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by micahfitch, posted 03-01-2005 10:23 AM | | micahfitch has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 4 of 20 (189437)
03-01-2005 11:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by micahfitch
03-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|
Hi, The Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock directly challenges Philip Johnsons ID'ism. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by micahfitch, posted 03-01-2005 10:23 AM | | micahfitch has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 5 of 20 (189443)
03-01-2005 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by micahfitch
03-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|
To comment on Cooper I've come across people trying to argue for one of his claims - specifically the claim that the Germanic people included Noah and his sons in their pagan myths. WHen I reported the following there was no real response. THe essential problem is that the only sources are Christian - and when I checked out the most easily available source (Snorri Sturluson's Edda) I found that Cooper had neglected to mention that it contradicted his claim. According to Cooper the Germanic Seskef is the Biblical Japeth - and some sources do indeed make Seskef's father Noah. The Edda not only does not claim this (as Cooper implicitly admits) - it explicitly contradicts it. Sturluson was an Icelander living after Christianity had becoem the dominant religion. Among other things he tried to preserve the stories of the pre-Christian times. If there was a genuine pagan tradition making Noah Seskef's father there is no reason why Sturluson should not mention it (if anything he should be expected to mention it as a validation of the old tales). An introduction to the Edda and a translation of the prologue - the section we are concerned with - may be found here: Psychonomicon's Introduction to the Prose Edda The Flood is explicitly mentioned - Sturluson was living in a Christian society - but following that Sturluson moves on. I have omitted parts that are not directly relevant but you can read hte link and see that nothing of importance has been left out.
Near the centre of the world where what we call Turkey lies, was built the most famous of all palaces and halls - Troy by name...
...There were twelve kingdoms with one over-king, and each kingdom contained many peoples......One of the kings was called Mnn or Mennn. He married a daughter of the chief king Priam who was called Trin, and they had a son named Trr - we call him Thr......In the northern part of the world he met with and married a prophetess called Sibyl whom we call Sif ......Lrii, who resembled his father, was their son. Lrii's son was Einridi, his son Vingethr, his son Vingener, his son Mdi, his son Magi, his son Seskef, his son Bevig, his son Athra, whom we call Annar..."
Thus according to the Edda a long time after the Flood when the human population had greatly recovered we have the kingdom of Troy (ruling over "many peoples"). And from there we have eight generations of ancestors for Seskef (Munon, Tror, Loridi, Einridi, Vingethor, Vingener, Modi and Magi). And Cooper mentions none of this. If Cooper can't be trusted to accurately represent an easily obtainable source then how can anything he says be considered reliable ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by micahfitch, posted 03-01-2005 10:23 AM | | micahfitch has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 6 of 20 (189446)
03-01-2005 11:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by micahfitch
03-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|
He's not one of the ones you listed, but this site, which debunks Kent Hovind is always fun.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by micahfitch, posted 03-01-2005 10:23 AM | | micahfitch has not replied |
|
Christian7
Member (Idle past 270 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: 01-19-2004
|
|
|
Message 7 of 20 (191833)
03-15-2005 10:57 PM
|
|
|
You do realize that evolution is a load of crap right?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by Brad, posted 03-16-2005 12:47 AM | | Christian7 has not replied | | | Message 10 by Phat, posted 03-19-2005 11:55 AM | | Christian7 has not replied |
|
Brad
Member (Idle past 4809 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: 01-26-2004
|
|
|
Message 8 of 20 (191854)
03-16-2005 12:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Christian7
03-15-2005 10:57 PM
|
|
that was called for...
Does the intelligence of your comment reflect the intelligence of you? This really doesn’t seem like the thread to debate evolution as fact or fiction, beyond thatTAKE A LOOK AROUND! Read, learn, understand, we don’t embrace evolution because we want to deny creationism; we embrace it because that is the best explanation. Nowif I just clicked on the reply button to flame I would be a bad personsothe book The Blind Watchmaker is in direct opposition to many current ID ideas.
Brad
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Christian7, posted 03-15-2005 10:57 PM | | Christian7 has not replied |
|
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: 09-09-2003
|
|
|
Message 9 of 20 (192006)
03-16-2005 8:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by micahfitch
03-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|
Try Richard Dawkins. He has some books on that subject, the names of which I sadly can't remember at the moment.
Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent Hovind's website
Lying Dumbass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by micahfitch, posted 03-01-2005 10:23 AM | | micahfitch has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18300 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
|
|
Message 10 of 20 (192482)
03-19-2005 11:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Christian7
03-15-2005 10:57 PM
|
|
The Shadow Knows....(heh heh heh heh)
Guido, Shadow does have a point. One thing that is a paradox that I have learned here at EvC is that even though I perceive that Christian believers make more sense than atheistic theorists, it is usually a better and more logical argument that originates from the rational and scientific side than the stuff that the creationists attempt to come up with. I am a believer in creation to a point. 1) God started it. a) Don't ask where He came from. He is your Daddy! b) The reason that humans even ask is because we are infected with the "ye shall be as gods" virus. We have to know everything! Beyond that, much of evolutionary theory is good schoolwork and useful for science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Christian7, posted 03-15-2005 10:57 PM | | Christian7 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by nator, posted 03-19-2005 10:52 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 11 of 20 (192685)
03-19-2005 10:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
03-19-2005 11:55 AM
|
|
Re: The Shadow Knows....(heh heh heh heh)
quote:
much of evolutionary theory is good schoolwork and useful for science.
"Much"? Out of curiosity, which parts are not useful science in your opinion?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Phat, posted 03-19-2005 11:55 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Christian7
Member (Idle past 270 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: 01-19-2004
|
|
|
Message 12 of 20 (192738)
03-20-2005 8:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by nator
03-19-2005 10:52 PM
|
|
Re: The Shadow Knows....(heh heh heh heh)
leme answer tat one: 1. Evolution 2. The big bang theory 3. Stupid ghost crap after death theory
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by nator, posted 03-19-2005 10:52 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 8:26 AM | | Christian7 has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: The Shadow Knows....(heh heh heh heh)
quote:
1. Evolution
So, population genetics is a completely bogus field? Please explain.
quote:
2. The big bang theory
What does the Big Bang Theory have to do with the Theory of Biological Evolution? Please explain.
quote:
3. Stupid ghost crap after death theory
There is no scientific theory that involves ghosts after death, so this is just nonsense.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 8:18 AM | | Christian7 has replied |
|
Christian7
Member (Idle past 270 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: 01-19-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 20 (192743)
03-20-2005 8:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
03-20-2005 8:26 AM
|
|
Re: The Shadow Knows....(heh heh heh heh)
1. Genetics and Evolution are 2 different things even though evolution involves genetics. Genetics is useful.
2. I never said the BB theory had anything to do with evolution.
3. Yes there is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 8:26 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 9:23 AM | | Christian7 has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: The Shadow Knows....(heh heh heh heh)
Ok, let's review my question which you answered so we don't lose focus. I wrote:
Out of curiosity, which parts (of evolution) are not useful science in your opinion? You then gave the following list:
quote:
1. Evolution
2. The big bang theory
3. Stupid ghost crap after death theory
I then replied, asking you to explain how popularion genetics wasn't useful to science, how the Big Bang was related to Evolution, and I also stated that there was no scientific theory that involves ghosts after death. Now, you write:
quote:
1. Genetics and Evolution are 2 different things even though evolution involves genetics. Genetics is useful.
Ah, but population genetics is specifically the application of evolutionary theory (speciation, adaptation, natural selection, mutation, extinction, etc.) combined with our knowledge of genetics in order to better understand large-scale changes in populations. read more here: Population Genetics on Wikipedia If you say that Evolution isn't useful, they you are saying that the entire field of population genetics isn't useful. Is this what you want to say?
quote:
2. I never said the BB theory had anything to do with evolution.
Check what my original question was above. I asked "which parts (of evolution) are not useful science in your opinion?" Since you answered with something about the Big Bang, you actually did say that it had something to do with Evolution. Now, I know you probably didn't intend to, but this is why it is important to read very carefully and to make sure you understand what is being said or asked before answering.
quote:
3. Yes there is
Huh, that's news to me. Can you please tell me about this scientific theory which involves ghosts after death? If you have a link to information, that would be great. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 09:26 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 8:36 AM | | Christian7 has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2