Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

Here are a few questions from a "poor ignorant creationist".

​

Does evolution teach that the "origin of species" started in the oceans with single-celled organisms? If so, can these single-celled organisms be considered "simple". If single-celled organisms can be considered "simple" how does that relate to your statement #6 above? If single-celled organisms cannot be considered "simple" how do you define the word "simple".

​

Robert

---

Robert,First off, I would certainly NEVER call you 'poor' as I don't know your economic status. Evolution says that the origin of life is unknown. A likely place for it to start would be in the oceans, but others argue for panspermia and others in tidal pools. The fact is that the question is not answered yet. Semantics games about simple, complex and information are used by creationists. For example, if you define simple by 'size' then they are simple. If you define simple by 'longevity in the fossil record', then they are extremely complex. How DO YOU define simple, complex and information?CheersJoe Meert

To put Percy's point in a different context. It is unlikely, in the evolutionary sense, that humans could have evolved during the heydey of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs dominated their environment for a long time. Once they died off, a new niche was open for a different type of organism to become successful. Which is more complex, a dinosaur or a human? Again, depending on how you define complexity, the answer could be either.CheersJoe Meert

My A-number 1 complaint against creationists is not the misquotes, it's not their religious zeal or faith and it's not even their heavy handed banning on discussion boards. The biggest problem is that they think that good science is conducted via public opinion. Their efforts are all aimed at influencing public opinion, from the 'Discovery Institute' to AIG. They refuse to submit their work (what little there is of it) for review and discussion in mainstream journals. Instead, they create their own journals and close these to opposing views. I know this because I was told by the editors of ICR Impact and AIG's CENTQ that old earth articles will not be considered for publication. How odd since the converse is NOT true. All articles submitted to journals are based on their scientific merit (with the exception of perhaps Science and Nature who also require some 'pizazz'). In short, revolutions in science do not take place in the court of public opinion, they take place in the minds of those proposing change and are confirmed in the field and on the pages of scientific journals where they are judged harshly by their peers. I do not see this critical approach taken by creationists. Instead, I hear people like Kurt Wise say (in essence) "The science be damned, if all the observations and all the data went against young earth creationism, I would still hold young earth creationism as true". This is a very compelling personal testimony and plays well in the court of creationist opinion; however, in the court of scientific revolution this is the equivalent of a death sentence for creation 'science'.CheersJoe Meert

​

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

[QUOTE]From: Percipient
"The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces."Wait a second, you just said that "science" does not acknowledge such supernatural forces. And it is impposible to gather and prevent such "evidence", after all, "evidence" for the supernatural is surely just phenomenon in which "science" has not explained as of yet.[/B][/QUOTE]JM: You're learning, now put the two together.CheersJoe Meert