Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

Something interesting I found while surfing the net. I thought it might help creationist save face Dear Creationist,We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However, it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in order to save us all some time and grief, and to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself, we have prepared this text to help you out.Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? (you'd be surprised how many creationists don't) Please answer the following yes or no questions:1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?5. Does evolution deny the existance of God?6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1.Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them.Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on.--- By Dr Pepper------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I've seen this before. It wouldn't be a bad idea to post a link to the website this came from.

---

Here is the page where I found this;
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-test.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps it's just that my talents are meager, but I think it more likely that many on the evolution side, while perhaps better informed on average about scientific matters than their Creationist brethren, still have a long way to go themselves.

---

This is, unfortunately, true. I posted this more as a joking jab than anything else. What is most disturbing though is its accuracy. I am the first one to admit that my knowledge of science is nowhere near what I would like it to be, however, most creationist know even less than I do. One this forum though, there are a few creationist who have more knowledge about certain fields of science than I do, unfortunately, even these sometimes fail to notice, or acknowlege, some glaring mistakes in their original premise or logic.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

1. Does your argument include pointless ad hominem attacks against creation scientists?

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

2. Does your argument claim that creationists lie, misquote, or quote out of context without any documentation?

---

Personally? Never. I have seen others 'claim' this, however it is not a 'claim' given that it can be backed up by evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

3. Does your argument imply that most creation scientists have bogus credentials?

---

Again I have never personally implied this but those that have have been able to show that it is fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

4. Does your argument include mean-spirited generalizations in an attempt to portray creation scientists as incompetent and liers?

---

See above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

5. Do you put quotations around creation "scientists"?

---

Yes because I have yet to see a creation "scientists" follow the scientific method. It is therefore misleading to call them scientists, hence the quotations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

If you answer "Yes" to any of the previous, please bang your head against a wall.

---

I do, everytime I argue with a creationist (Just incase you don't pick it up, this is a joke)------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Personally? Never. I have seen others 'claim' this, however it is not a 'claim' given that it can be backed up by evidence."

​

It is sometimes claimed without evidence.

---

Might well be but I have never seen it claimed without evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Again I have never personally implied this but those that have have been able to show that it is fact."

​

I'd certainly be interested in these proposed "facts".

---

I don't have them because I never implied this. I do remember a certain "Dr" Hovind..ring a bell?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"See above."

​

See above. I want the supposed conclusive evidence that shows such accusations are valid.

---

Again since I never called creationists incompetent or liers I don't have this evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Yes because I have yet to see a creation "scientists" follow the scientific method. It is therefore misleading to call them scientists, hence the quotations."

​

Au contraire, it is not misleading at all to call creation scientists just that, given that many of them have postgraduate degrees from prominent universities. Even if Creation SCIENCE is not scientific, that does not detract from the fact that said scientists are just whay they claim to be.

---

Fair enough. Although I would then be far happier just calling them creationists to avoid any percieved insult from the quotations. I am not willing to call them scientists when refering to their work in a mostly religious endevour, especially when they attempt to pass creation science off as real science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"I do, everytime I argue with a creationist
(Just incase you don't pick it up, this is a joke)"

​

It's actually a pretty good joke.

---

I'm glad you liked it ------------------
compmage

​

[This message has been edited by compmage, 04-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?"
--They should have clarified on the point of is this an 'always' pattern as they did in question #1, because it does and it doesn't do this.

---

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with simplicity or complexity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?"
--See last comment.

---

Same, but for lower and higher lifeforms. Nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?"
--This either needs clarification or the answer is Yes, Evolution = Developement, Developement = Progression.

---

Wrong again. Evolution does not equal development. Evolution equals change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?"
--Not too valid on the point that it is opinionated.

---

Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?"
--Much too flexible.

---

Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them."
--Well aren't we biased!

---

Biased, perhaps. Fed up, more likely.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Your only resort is to say that complexity is simply opinionated, which it is not. Nucleotide sequencing in length and composition on biochemical grounds is extreamly compex, and it is even hightened in complexity and structure as you view sequencing of more 'advanced' organisms. This process according to evolutionary theory simply fluctuates and is not a linear prospect of 'simplicity to complexity', but simply 'decent with modification'.

---

However, as you state evolution doesn't say anything about 'simplicity' or 'complexity'. Any change would be evolution. Therefore evolution doesn't care about either of these. To say evolution 'creates' organism to move from simplicity to complexity is to misunderstand evolution. Evolution doesn't 'go' anywhere, it has no direction or goal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

quote:

---

evolution Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

​

The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; hylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

---

​

--I think you see what I am pin-pointing.

---

I wouldn't look in a dictionary for the definition of a scientific theory. Evolution is change. Development implies a goal or a direction. Evolution has none. Any percieved 'development' stems from the assumption that our current state is the goal or is along the path toward the goal of evolution. We are not the pinicle of evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Evolution doesn't comment at all about the nature of god(s). Any incompatibility is in the eyes of the religious (opinion)."
--Exactly.

---

Exactly. If 'you' personally misinterpret evolution and percieve an incompatability, that would be 'your' problem. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with 'you'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Only flexible if you are trying to assert that there are no transitionals."
--The same pertains if you are to argue that there are. (also, transitional should have been defined)

---

Almost every fossil species ever discovered is in some way transitional.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by ViewOfWorld:
One of the books you should pick up if your not scared about seeing another option without evolution is "The Case for Faith"...

---

You have posted vitually this identical post in 3 different threads that I have seen. I really think that once is enough. If it has relevance to all the threads why not just post it once and post a link in each thread?------------------
compmage