Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always a laugh
toff
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 75 (3510)
02-06-2002 8:12 AM


As always, the creationist 'arguments' on these pages make me laugh. They take some scientific fact, bend it completely out of shape, and then cite it as evidence against evolution, despite the fact that their piece of 'evidence' has been refuted any number of times before. Honestly, guys, why don't you stop wasting your time and go preach to people about religion, instead of trying to talk about science, about which you clearly know nothing?
Incidentally, ever wonder why all of the prominent creationists (people like Gish, etc.) have either spurious degrees from diploma mills or degrees in subjects unrelated to evolution? Because anyone who actually studies the facts, rather than the creationist propoganda, realises that evolutionary theory is accurate, and creationism is a religious belief having no basis in fact.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:46 AM toff has not replied
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2002 1:55 PM toff has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 75 (3530)
02-06-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-06-2002 8:12 AM


Thats all fine and dandy, but if your going to make an assertion like this one, you are going to need some backup. So? Back it up. Give me an example of why I should believe your erroneous proclimation against creation science.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-06-2002 8:12 AM toff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 7:50 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 23 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 1:58 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 3 of 75 (3554)
02-06-2002 6:17 PM


i havent bent any science to my benefit. im mostly using what ive learned and been taught. i dont have the access to a lab to provide false data :-)
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 4 of 75 (3555)
02-06-2002 6:22 PM


yeah you just twisted facts to your benefit anyway, claiming that creationists lie. you need to cite proof for those kinds of accusations.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 7:35 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 75 (3564)
02-06-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 6:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yeah you just twisted facts to your benefit anyway, claiming that creationists lie. you need to cite proof for those kinds of accusations.

Are you claiming that Creationists do not lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 6:22 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:50 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 75 (3567)
02-06-2002 7:43 PM


Well, being that Creationists are humans, the potential for them to lie is there. However, the potential is also in the hands of evolutionists.

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 75 (3569)
02-06-2002 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:46 AM


[b] [QUOTE] Give me an example of why I should believe your erroneous proclimation against creation science.[/b][/QUOTE]
Because he's right, at least for the most part. Quotes followed by source URLs.
"On the same diagram, he [Gish] says the "earth's crust" is "void of fossils." That is a lie. Every fossil found on this planet is from the earth's crust. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed?" page 8."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
Bad Credentials.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
"One new tactic I introduced to this debate was to gig Gish with tape recordings of his statements in previous debates. When the NCSE met in Los Angeles in 1985, Fred Edwords debated Gish on a KABC radio talk show. A caller asked Gish about the quest for Noah's ark, and while Gish denied that any evidence of the ark had been found, he also denied that the ICR sponsors expeditions to look for it. The next evening Karl Fezer and I visited the ICR and were entrusted by a secretary to roam their creationist museum after hours alone. (She asked us to lock up the ICR when we left! See our report of this foray in C/E N 5(3):16-17.) We listened to a sound-slide program on Noah's ark which proudly affirmed that the ICR does sponsor these expeditions. In 1986, Gish debated David Schwimmer at the University of Georgia, and in the Q/A period I confronted Gish with this contradiction. He sarcastically accused me of fabricating it and again denied ICR involvement.
So I entered our debate this year prepared to repay him for his sarcasm, armed with a microcassette onto which I had dubbed the seminal portions of the Gish-Edwords and Gish-Schwimmer debates. I played Gish's twofold denial over the PA system, then showed slides of several Acts & Facts accounts of these expeditions, culminating with an unequivocal affirmation of sponsorship in the November 1986 issue. In his rebuttal, Gish seemed a bit flustered and claimed he couldn't hear the tape I played, but notwithstanding the slides I had just shown, he stood up and denied sponsorship once again. Auburn is a university with a conspicuous contingent of faculty creationists, but perhaps because of statements like this, Gish seemed to enjoy little credibility or support that evening. I was told several of his supporters got up and walked out during his presentation, and with statements like this it was little wonder why."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
However he should not use absolutes in his posts. I also want to point out that Gish's degree is valid, he just never put it to respectable use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:46 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-06-2002 8:07 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:19 PM gene90 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 8 of 75 (3570)
02-06-2002 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
02-06-2002 7:35 PM


Cobra made a good point but what i was actually saying is that dont make accusations like that without proof and even then only against those that performed the lie.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 7:35 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 75 (3573)
02-06-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by gene90
02-06-2002 7:50 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] However he should not use absolutes in his posts. I also want to point out that Gish's degree is valid, he just never put it to respectable use.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for admitting this. It is very misleading to accuse Creation scientists as a whole of being bad scientists, and then citing one example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 7:50 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 75 (3605)
02-06-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by gene90
02-06-2002 7:50 PM


I think that this is the biggest understanding of what creation science is. Now if you wan't to argue with an individual creationists credibility, go right ahead, you might get somewhere, and might even win or get the favor. But this does not demean any relevance of creation science as being scientific. As all creation science is, is science. Thats it, plain and simple. It was just given a name to know that when you start hearing about creation science, you know that it involves a creationist interperetation, as all evidence requires interperetation. It is one thing to argue with creation science, it is another thing to argue with an interperetation in which a scientist (being creationist) perceives the evidence given by science.
--Also, creationism is not to argue with, as it is religious indeed, it is higher on your hierarchy of systematical branches within philosophical, theological, and scientific realms.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 7:50 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 11:56 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 14 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 3:31 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 75 (3615)
02-06-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:19 PM


[b] [QUOTE]As all creation science is, is science. [/b][/QUOTE]
When did the Statement of Faith become a part of the Scientific Method?
Creation science isn't science, it's the polar opposite: trying to make evidence fit a prior conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 12:00 AM gene90 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 75 (3616)
02-07-2002 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by gene90
02-06-2002 11:56 PM


"When did the Statement of Faith become a part of the Scientific Method?
Creation science isn't science, it's the polar opposite: trying to make evidence fit a prior conclusion."
--Thats just it, there is no faith in the workings of creation science. Its the conclusions by interperetation in creationism that includes any type of faith to some degree or another.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 11:56 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 12:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 75 (3621)
02-07-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 12:00 AM


[QUOTE][b]--Thats just it, there is no faith in the workings of creation science. Its the conclusions by interperetation in creationism that includes any type of faith to some degree or another. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
I have to disagree completely. Creation "Science" is based entirely upon faith, and the interpretation of evidence is based upon the prior conclusion. Also Creationism, such as is common here in the US, includes only one type of faith, that is Fundamentalist Christianity.
This is painfully obvious in their own Statements of Faith.
Evidence is twisted until it agrees with the Bible. Evidence that does not agree with the Bible is discarded.
"F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Aig Statement of Faith Part F.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
I've quoted the ICR Tenets of Creationism elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 12:00 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-07-2002 10:25 AM gene90 has not replied
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 11:03 PM gene90 has replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 75 (3625)
02-07-2002 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
As all creation science is, is science.
I'm sorry, but this is a good example of the entire problem. Creationism is no sort of science whatsoever. It is a belief, based upon religious faith. It does not use the scientific method, nor are its conclusions either testable or falsifiable. It takes a conclusion (creationism) and then looks for evidence to support it. That is not science.
Also, TrueCreation, in one of your other posts you have asked me to "Give me an example of why I should believe your erroneous proclimation against creation science."
Sorry, but you should read more closely. My original post made no proclimations [sic] at all about creation 'science', erroneous or otherwise. It made claims about so-called creation scientists, not about creation science.
Further, TrueCreation, in one of your other posts, you say "Also, creationism is not to argue with, as it is religious indeed, it is higher on your hierarchy of systematical branches within philosophical, theological, and scientific realms." If I understand this correctly, you are saying that because you (or someone else) think that religious beliefs are higher on some heirarchy of systems than science, science cannot argue with religious beliefs? If that's not what you mean, I apologise - but if it is, it is complete nonsense. Many religious beliefs cannot and should not be argued with by science, their proof or disproof being completely outside science's realms. This has nothing to do with with how 'high' the disciplines lie on some heirarchy of systems; simply with what data the belief deals with. As far as evolution is concerned, science is more than capable of arguing with creationism (a religious belief), as the religious belief goes counter to what science observes.
And sorry, TrueCreation. Your statement that "there is no faith in the workings of creation science" is almost correct. Try 'there is no SCIENCE in the workings of creation science.' It is TOTALLY faith-based. Why else do you think virtually the only support for it comes from faith-based (ie., religious) groups? Also see gene90's quote of the tenets of ICR-based creationism. That is NOT a statement any science-based group would have anything to do with.
KingPenguin, you claimed that I "[claimed] that creationists lie." Sorry, I did no such thing, nor can you point out where I did. In any case, Gish (I only mention him because others have) is a liar, proved over and over again, cited in this thread and in any number of works on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:19 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 9:28 AM toff has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 15 of 75 (3640)
02-07-2002 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by toff
02-07-2002 3:31 AM


[QUOTE][b]It does not use the scientific method, nor are its conclusions either testable or falsifiable. It takes a conclusion (creationism) and then looks for evidence to support it. That is not science.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
And I think it should be pointed out that "research" is not even the ultimate purpose of Creationism. The purpose of what they do is to spread a literal interpretation of the Bible. Their ultimate goal is to proselytize and "Creation Science" is simply an attempt to justify the theological position of it's practitioners. These theological points have nothing to do with evidence but are the core of the Creationist belief, and more importantly, motivation. I don't have a problem with belief in these points, but I find the misleading claims, manipulation of evidence, and claim of "science" to support a religious position extremely dishonorable.
"A. The scientific aspects of Creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."
AiG Statement of Faith, Priority A.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
"The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and etemal [SIC] life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
ICR Tenets of Creationism
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
"We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
History and Aims of CRS
http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 3:31 AM toff has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024