Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 9:37 AM
35 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, vimesey (8 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,674 Year: 6,711/19,786 Month: 1,252/1,581 Week: 74/393 Day: 7/50 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Directory of creationist sites, essays, arguments, and quotes
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 6 (89459)
02-29-2004 7:47 PM


Directory of creationist sites, arguments, essays, quotes, resources
DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES AND ARGUMENTS

MAIN CREATIONIST SITES

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

http://www.creationism.org

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?

http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm

(I read the Wall Street Journal article quoted in the first link. It was an science professor from the Univerisity of MN and evolutionist who was quoted as saying the creationists "tend to win the debates").

THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM

Completeness of the fossil record:

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

Quote regarding the general state of the fossil record from a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.'

I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."

Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History (Dr. Patterson is a evolutionist but honest enough to make this declaration), London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89

Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist).

"Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46

A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)

Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have today—some new species of course—plus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." —Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

"We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." —*E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

"Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)

"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

"Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." —*A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

"....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" –*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery."— *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

"Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (evolutionist, Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

LARGE RESOURCE OF QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD

http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm

FIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderlan...1TheProblem.htm

MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp

THE SEARCH FOR MAN'S MISSING LINK CAME UP EMPTY

Large number of articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.asp

More examples of false missing links: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205b.htm

An essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htm

WHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY

Excellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

More articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

FIVE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

Five Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.html

OTHER ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM

General essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.html

QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS THAT LEND SUPPORT TO CREATIONISM

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php

http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html

YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTSTHAT SUPPORT CREATIONISM

http://www.age-of-earth.com/

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm

LARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES

http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html

A EVOLUTIONIST COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE EVOLUTIONIST CAMP

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL

http://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html

IS GOD ETERNAL?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm

BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

Brief webpages:

http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm

Excellent Comprehensive Essay:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm

CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm

ONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.html

FALL OF MAN AND CREATION

http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]


kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 6 (89465)
02-29-2004 8:22 PM


re: quotes
re: Quotes of evolutionist

I wanted to speak briefly regarding the evolutionist quotes I used in the previous post. First of all I do believe in not taking quotes radically out of context. For example, unless a lot of fairness is used I generally do not like quotes of partial sentences and find them suspect. For example, the Bible says, "....there is no God." Bible scholars will tell you, however, that the Bible declares, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." On the other hand, in a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues. Now I do not believe for one instant that some of the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. I clearly indicated that some of the gentleman were evolutionist yet I quoted them in areas we agree. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in doing so.

Lastly, many of the quotes are from the 1970's and 1980's. I would remind the readers that in 1980 the evolutionist had over 120 years to prove their case and still did not do it. I would also remind the readers that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-novelty.html

In regards to the above link, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently been tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters.

Sincerely,

Ken

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MrHambre, posted 02-29-2004 10:14 PM kendemyer has not yet responded

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3 of 6 (89478)
02-29-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 8:22 PM


Context
This is really amusing. It seems that evolutionists can only be trusted when they seem to support creationism with out-of-context quotes. Are we supposed to believe that Patterson, Eldredge or Ridley are claiming that species don't evolve?

I'm sure Dobzhanski's oft-quoted line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" would not be so conducive to underhanded creationist quote mining. His lifelong commitment to his Orthodox Christian faith should dissolve any argument that evolution is only supported by atheists. So all that's left is some quote concerning the controversies still raging in biology that the creationists hope everyone will misinterpret as ridiculously as they.

It's deplorable that creationists still use this tactic. It makes a mockery of reputable scientists and insults the legacy of rational inquiry for which creationists obviously have no respect.

regards,
Esteban "Quote Mining Disaster" Hambre


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 8:22 PM kendemyer has not yet responded

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 6 (89480)
02-29-2004 10:45 PM


To: Mr. Hambre
Dear Mr. Hambre:

Please read my previous post. If you read my second post I would say that you are creating quite a strawman. Secondly, you seem to assert I pulled the quotes radically out of context in the paragraphs or pages they were on but you never prove it. It is a time honored tradition in debates that he who asserts must prove. I do not think you can prove it.

I did update the initial post and indicate that Dobzhanski was a evolutionist. I hope you are not denying he said that though.

Sincerely,

Ken

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wj, posted 02-29-2004 11:30 PM kendemyer has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-01-2004 1:20 AM kendemyer has not yet responded

wj
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 6 (89485)
02-29-2004 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 10:45 PM


Re: To: Mr. Hambre
Well Ken, to that you are not taking Dobzhanski out of context, and to provide the context in which makes you quoted statement, how about providing the preceding, containing and following paragraphs to the quote you have given?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 10:45 PM kendemyer has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3881
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 6 (89496)
03-01-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 10:45 PM


Ken's editing of previous messages
quote:
I did update the initial post...

I don't recall where I read this, nor do I really know where all it may have happened, BUT...

It has been noted by someone, that you have a habit of substantially editing your previous messages, long after they've been replied to. An example I have found, is message 1 of the "Bible inerrancy is well supported" topic. You posted that message on 1/13/03, and then did edits on 2/3/04, 2/4/04, 2/4/04, 2/9/04, and 2/10/04.

While it is not totally improper to go back and edit things, it isn't really proper to change the content after the topic has proceeded.

If you must go back and edit old messages, it's only right that you ADD information, to correct or clarify what you were saying. Please preserve what you said initially, and make clear what content is by what later edit.

Essentially, I think that the original content of messages should remain the same, after the message is posted. Original messages should not be "updated". Updating your thoughts is what subsequent messages are for.

Adminnemooseus

ADDED BY EDIT: All the above said, this is a "Links" forum topic, and not really a debate topic. And anyhow, there are way too many diverse topic points in the opening message, for it to be a proper debate topic. I'm closing it down.

2nd EDIT: To add the showing of my "signature".

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-01-2004]

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-01-2004]


Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 10:45 PM kendemyer has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019