Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Creation/Evolution Internet Radio Show Tonight 6pmPST/9pm EST
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 16 of 27 (454556)
02-07-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:10 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
I think that Creationist research should be peer-reviewed same as any other.
What makes you think it wouldn't be? Don't you think it's possible that creationists don't put their research in for peer review because they realise themselves that it is without merit? What barrier has there been to creationists putting their research in to the peer review process other than their own reluctance?
Whether such research would pass peer review is another distinct question, but then a lot of perfectly mainstream research doesn't pass peer review for any number of reasons.
You seem to be presupposing that there exists solid creationist research which has merit, despite their being no evidence for the same. Why not consider that in fact there may simply not be any substantive scientific basis to creationist claims.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:10 PM DeadManTalking has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:59 PM Wounded King has replied

  
DeadManTalking
Junior Member (Idle past 5888 days)
Posts: 12
From: Arlington, VA, USA
Joined: 02-05-2008


Message 17 of 27 (454565)
02-07-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wounded King
02-07-2008 4:28 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
You bring up an interesting point. Have scientists who do Creation related research given up on the system as it exists today? Or is it as you suggest that the research actually has no merit? There are some very bright people who are very well-educated on the Creationist side of the argument - one of whom I will have as a guest soon (he has already agreed) after I read his book.
We DO know that Creationists are blackballed from Universities because universities use this as a litmus test as they do political views as well. I believe that this is again more example of unfair treatment of the Creationist view. This is why I don't think that Creation related research would even be allowed to pass the mail room at any journal.
It's clear that the affirmative action doesn't extend to political views, and certainly not to the Creationist view. I know that you'll suggest that you couldn't possibly have one person from every religious background be represented and that is somewhat fair to say. However, one should not be blackballed for their view. I would suggest that one's view of our origins don't have any practical effect on any subject - not medicine, engineering, biology, etc. meaning that there is no practical thing about how you live your life that will change as a result of our view of your origin (except perhaps your view of morality, eschatology, etc).
I do presuppose that solid creationist research exists. You are right. I also presuppose that Creation happened, but I'm happy to so so. Time will tell. You are incorrect though that NO such evidence exists. As I have already said there are some VERY bright people on the Creationist side, and we have been demonized for long enough. I have read their writings, and you do not do them proper justice to suggest the contrary.
In my view, since the Creation account comes from the Bible then if you can show that the Bible is accurate or inaccurate then you can by extension show the Creation is the same. Though many people have tried, and failed (yet claimed victory anyway) this has yet to be shown. In fact, just the opposite has been shown in my view. Therefore, I believe that evidence for the Biblical Flood also support s the Biblical Creation account.
So, in my arguments you'll see me at times draw from the various other fields (as does Evolution) to support my overall claim that Creation best explains the facts as we see them. As Michael Schumer, the former Creationist, said in his book Darwin Matters. Evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence. It's my claim that Creation is best supported by a similar convergence of evidence.
God bless you,
Rich

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 02-07-2008 4:28 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2008 5:04 PM DeadManTalking has not replied
 Message 19 by subbie, posted 02-07-2008 6:04 PM DeadManTalking has not replied
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 02-07-2008 7:06 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 27 (454566)
02-07-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
quote:
Therefore, I believe that evidence for the Biblical Flood also support s the Biblical Creation account.
Are you joking ? The idea of a literal world-wide flood in the last few thousand years has been completely refuted. It's been known to be false for a long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:59 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 19 of 27 (454583)
02-07-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
I would suggest that one's view of our origins don't [sic] have any practical effect on any subject - not medicine, engineering, biology, etc.
You are demonstrably wrong in this suggestion, at least as to biology and medicine. And, if you include in "view of origins" the idea of a world wide flood at any time in the past, you are also demonstrably wrong about engineering. Belief in biblical creationism and a world wide flood contradicts fundamental principles in each of the fields you mention, and many others as well. As one example, consider geology. Take the example of Glenn Morton. Coming out of college, he was a committed creationist. However, as he began to do actual work in the field, he discovered that the evidence was inconsistent with what he was taught. He struggled for years trying to reconcile what he could see with his own eyes and the drivel that he'd filled his head with about a young earth and the noachian flood. He finally came to the conclusion that what he had been taught about a young earth was nonsense. You can read his story here.
Now, I suppose that it's possible to do some selected work in each of those fields that, as a practical matter would not be affected by belief in creationism or the noachian flood, but that is not nearly the same as saying that those beliefs wouldn't have any practical effect.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:59 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 20 of 27 (454586)
02-07-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
DeadManTalking writes
quote:
Also lets not confuse "lies" with statements that you disagree with or don't like.
They are lies because anyone who have even taken first year college physics and chemistry should know better than to make those claims. I am not talking about differences of opinion. I'm talking about factual claims that are just wrong.
quote:
Let's be fair on both sides shall we?
That's what I'm doing. If you stay around here long enough, you will notice that the moment an evolution supporter makes a wrong statement or outlandish claim, he'd be jumped on by a dozen other evolution supporters. What have disappointed me so far is the total lack of the same attitude from the creation side.
It is not just this site that I've found examples of this creationist attitude. Just about every other creationist I have ever had the pleasure of talking to have been just as equally intellectually dishonest. After I've pointed out a wrong fact on their part, they'd use the same wrong fact when talking to someone else, making it into a lie.
Hence my username. http://www.teens-4-christ.org/ has some of the worst examples of this attitude. Again, speaking as a believer in Christ, it's embarrassing to have to see fellow believers resorting to mischiefs, intellectual dishonesty, and downright shows of ignorance, all in the name of Christ. You should visit FSTDT every once in a while to see what I mean. Click on the links to the sources and read the responses from fellow believers.
So, forgive me for being skeptical of your radio show.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:20 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 21 of 27 (454602)
02-07-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:59 PM


Compelling evidence for creationism
We DO know that Creationists are blackballed from Universities because universities use this as a litmus test as they do political views as well.
I don't know this and it would require some solid evidence to make me believe it. I do know that there are a lot of tenuous inflated claims of persecution and academic suppression from the creationist and ID camps, see for example the 'Expelled' film.
Time will tell. You are incorrect though that NO such evidence exists.
Its easy to say so, why not open a new thread and give us your best shot at solid creationist research?
As I have already said there are some VERY bright people on the Creationist side, and we have been demonized for long enough. I have read their writings, and you do not do them proper justice to suggest the contrary.
The fact that the people are very bright doesn't mean that they have solid scientific evidence, even the most intelligent people can get things wrong. In the absence of you telling us what this compelling evidence is it also hard to tell if you are convinced because they have a strong scientific case or because their arguments are consonant with your own beliefs.
I look forward to seeing what evidence you choose to share with us.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:59 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2008 7:22 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 23 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2008 10:11 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 22 of 27 (454607)
02-07-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wounded King
02-07-2008 7:06 PM


Re: Compelling evidence for creationism
DeadManTalking writes:
Time will tell. You are incorrect though that NO such evidence exists.
Its easy to say so, why not open a new thread and give us your best shot at solid creationist research?
Already been tried, with us practically begging creationists to present their best evidence for creation. Nothing. Except for "well, it kind'a looks like it could'a been designed". And a few inevitable PRATTs.
But since that thread has closed, if DeadManTalking really thinks that he has some evidence to present, then he should open a new thread and have at it.
Edited by dwise1, : added last paragraph

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 02-07-2008 7:06 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 23 of 27 (454629)
02-07-2008 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wounded King
02-07-2008 7:06 PM


Re: Compelling evidence for creationism
As I have already said there are some VERY bright people on the Creationist side, and we have been demonized for long enough. I have read their writings, and you do not do them proper justice to suggest the contrary.
The fact that the people are very bright doesn't mean that they have solid scientific evidence, even the most intelligent people can get things wrong. In the absence of you telling us what this compelling evidence is it also hard to tell if you are convinced because they have a strong scientific case or because their arguments are consonant with your own beliefs.
To go along with this, you say you have read their writings. A lot of people can do a lot of writing. In fact, that's what we're all doing here on this forum. Some of us try to at least look up information as we right, so as to maintain accuracy, but this doesn't really count as "research." Neither do books and essays and interviews, which are just about all that ever comes out of the creationist camp.
Let me pre-empt an inevitable argument here: The Origin of Species was, indeed, a book, and it is, indeed, the foundational work of the currently accepted theory of evolution. But, we do not use the Origin as a Bible. In fact, many of us haven't even read it. That's because we have real research now to support the theory.

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 02-07-2008 7:06 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 24 of 27 (454766)
02-08-2008 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:10 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
I think that Creationist research should be peer-reviewed same as any other. That will only force them to have iron clad research which helps their side, and/or force Evolutionists to confront the fact that not all Creationist research and/or claims are without merit. Everybody wins.
I certainly agree with you there, but in the 25-plus years that I've been following creationist exploits I have witnessed the exact opposite. It is our long and ever-disappointing practical experience with creationism that fuels our skepticism.
For example, when I was researching the ICR moondust claim (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html) made by Henry Morris citing as its source a "1976" NASA document ("well into the space age" as Morris and just about every other creationist would intone), Duane Gish responded with their source, "research" done by Harold Slusher in which he had created his own formula and plugged in values that he pulled from that document. The moment I pulled that document off the library shelf, I knew that Slusher had misrepresented that 1967 printing of papers from a 1965 conference. And upon reading the document I discovered that Slusher had further misrepresented his "source" and the rules of mathematics in order to inflate his results by a factor of 10,000.
When I presented my findings to Gish, he completely ignored them. I also pointed out that Morris had obviously never verified Slusher's reference to the NASA document, let alone ever even seen that document -- mind you, Morris himself claims that that NASA document is the source of his claim, not a letter written by Harold Slusher, another lapse in scholarship. I pointed out that this lapse in basic scholarship caused Morris to make a false claim and that a bit of simple scholarship (ie, looking up and verifying the sources of a claim) would have saved the Morris and the ICR the embarassment of having that false claim exposed. Gish replied, and this is the truth, that since they don't get millions of dollars in grant money like scientists do, they can't afford to verify their claims. What!?! I replied again with the results of my research (ie, yet again I sent Gish xerox copies of the front page of the document) and pointed out that if they don't have much money, then they most certainly could not afford to waste any of their money on false claims, not to mention the damage false claims do to their cause. No response.
Similar patterns of behavior:
1. In correspondence with a local creation science activist, I would frequently catch him lying. Seriously, he was constantly lying. Now, I had always been taught that lying is a sin, but when I tried to take him to task for it, he would claim that he was doing it because he loves Jesus and since I'm not a Christian I have absolutely no right nor authority to question whether a Christian is sinning. Several other creationists have also voiced that claim.
2. When another creationist would try to use that first creationist's claims and I could show that that first creationist was lying and give specifice examples of that first creationist conducting himself in an un-Christian manner, to the point where that other creationist could not help but admit to the first creationist's misconduct, that other creationist (who personally knew the first creationist) would refuse address the first creationist on that matter. His refusal was based on the claim that it was absolutely none of his business to warn a "brother in Christ" from a sinful path that would endanger his soul. Of course, he did consider it his business to confront non-Christians with a burning concern for their souls, but not for the soul of a fellow Christian and a personal friend. WTF?
3. Most creationists are not interested in the truth, but rather want to gather "ammo" for their proselytizing efforts.
4. PRATTs exist and persist, despite being demonstrably false and despite having been refuted more than a thousand times in the decades that they've been around, precisely because creationists are not interested in the truth, but rather because they want convincing-sounding ammo.
And, I feel, that is key. As I discuss on a page I had started work on, "Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/cs_vs_sci.html, scientists seek to discover new truths about the natural universe, so they earnestly engage in research, they test and verify their results, they test and verify the results of other scientists (especially those upon whose work they would base their own research), and they do not tolerate any fraud or shoddy scholarship. Creationists, on the other hand, are not concerned with discovering any truths (they already believe they have it) but rather are concerning with convincing people. So they create convincing-sounding claims and they repeat the convincing-sounding claims of other creationists. And the rank-and-file creationists are drawn to the more convincing-sounding claims because that looks like they'll be the best "ammo" for their proselytizing. And the creationists who can produce the most spectacular convincing-sounding claims enjoy great success and popularity. And if any of their convincing-sounding claims are refuted, well, creationists just ignore that fact and keep using those claims. And if a claim is too soundly refuted such that it damages them publicly, then they just tuck it away for a few years until everybody has forgotten it and then they trot it out again on a new generation of suckers.
Sorry, but we've been around for quite a while and that is what we see happening over and over again. And that is why we are so skeptical about creationist claims.
I agree completely that creationist need to employ proper scholarship. The late Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish both had legitimate PhDs (in Hydraulic Engineering and Biochemistry, respectively). A big part of getting those degrees is learning scholarship and how to conduct research and the vital importance of checking sources. So why is it that as soon as they start practicing creationism all concern for scholarship flies out the window? No! Even when doing creationism they must hold to the same standards of scholarship as if they were doing science! That they consistently refuse to do so is rather telling.
Now, over the years I have come across some actual research that has been conducted by creationists. Nobody ever hears of them, not even creationists, because their work is not sensational enough. Indeed, more often than not, they show that other creationists' claims are flawed and so the creationist community doesn't want to hear them. That is what happens to peer-review in the creationist community! It's just ignored and swept under the rug. That must change!
I believe God will stand up to anyone's scrutiny.
So what does God have to do with any of this? Creationism is not based on God, but rather on a particular fallible human interpretation of the Bible and beliefs about the Bible. If all of "creation science" is shown to be completely and utterly false, that would say nothing about God, but rather about the theology (which is Man-made, after all) that requires belief in "creation science".
It is the claims of creationism that are under scrutiny, not God.
PS
You present yourself as being an honest creationist and I do believe that you are sincere.
However, from what I've seen, extremely few honest creationists last for very long. As they discover more and more of their claims to be false, they start to slip back out of sight and withdraw from creation/evolution discussions, often with great speed. Many even switch sides; eg Merle Hertzler whom I knew on CompuServe as one of the first honest creationists there -- within a year he had switched sides (see his story at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html). I believe you will find that several "evolutionists" here used to be young-earth creationists. And many end up losing their honesty, because their sectarian religious beliefs mean more to them than the truth and truthfulness do. And finally, very very few of them retain their honesty.
One of the more notable honest creationists is Dr. Kurt Wise (no relation to me). Look for an interview with him on AiG in which he recalls how, as a teenager, he consciously decided against evolution for purely religious reasons. A lot of his research had the effect of testing and refuting other creationist claims. Last I heard, he had aligned himself with the ICR, so I'm not sure how well his honesty is still holding up.
Edited by dwise1, : PS

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:10 PM DeadManTalking has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-08-2008 4:55 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
DeadManTalking
Junior Member (Idle past 5888 days)
Posts: 12
From: Arlington, VA, USA
Joined: 02-05-2008


Message 25 of 27 (454769)
02-08-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by dwise1
02-08-2008 4:33 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
I just wanted to drop in, and tell you all that am really appreciate all of your responses. I'm saddened to hear about the responses by some Creationists. Regarding that the only thing I can say is that we are all fallible (thus the need for peer review), and I hope that in some small way I can contribute to the reversing of those responses by some members of the Creationist community.
I also wanted to say that it is clear that many of you have definitely done your homework as scientists, and made efforts to reach out to the Creationist community out of legitimate concern for your field and probably for the Creationist as well. I respect your efforts there, and here on this board. I intend to do proper justice by your efforts by giving them a little bit more time than I can at the moment in order to formulate a proper and honest response. While I am a Creationist I am NOT a knee-jerk one. That being said I will respond to all of the points made above since my last posting. I just want a bit more time to do so. I will do best to respond fully by tomorrow. However, I may have to bite it off a piece at a time due to my other tasks, errands, etc. Nonetheless, I will try to take them in order, and I look forward to your very well informed replies.
Sincerely,
Rich

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2008 4:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 02-08-2008 6:06 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 26 of 27 (454791)
02-08-2008 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DeadManTalking
02-08-2008 4:55 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
DeadManTalking writes:
That being said I will respond to all of the points made above since my last posting. I just want a bit more time to do so. I will do best to respond fully by tomorrow. However, I may have to bite it off a piece at a time due to my other tasks, errands, etc. Nonetheless, I will try to take them in order, and I look forward to your very well informed replies.
There's no rush, take your time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-08-2008 4:55 PM DeadManTalking has not replied

  
DeadManTalking
Junior Member (Idle past 5888 days)
Posts: 12
From: Arlington, VA, USA
Joined: 02-05-2008


Message 27 of 27 (455555)
02-12-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by DeadManTalking
02-07-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Creation / Evolution Show
New show tonight guys! Come and particpate won't you? We will be discussing the microbiological challenge to Evolution, and my initial thoughts on Dr. Walter Brown's book.
you can find it at http://www.nowlive.com/DeadManTalking at 6pm PST.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DeadManTalking, posted 02-07-2008 4:20 PM DeadManTalking 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