Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 11:51 PM
18 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
33NextFF
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
tomato
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 1 of 485 (531262)
10-16-2009 5:47 PM


Why is debating Creationists so frustrating for Evolutionists?
One reason is that Evolutionists do not understand the Creationist mindset.
Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists, and Evolutionists do not take the time to explain the differences to the Creationists.
Here are some examples of differences between the two parties:

กแ Some Creationists think Evolutionists are never neutral.

Since religion answers every question for many Creationists, they might assume that Evolution answers every question for Evolutionists. Evolution takes no stand on whether or not God created the Universe, but some Creationists have trouble understanding this.

I have to fight back the temptation to say, "Don't you know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? If you don't, I'll buy you a good dictionary."

กแ Some Creationists think Evolutionists follow authority.

Agassiz, Boyle, Cuvier, Faraday, Kepler, Mendel, Newton, Pasteur, and so on and so forth--I'm sure you've seen this procession. Creationists march these famous Creationist scientists before our eyes, always hoping that if they bring just one more, we will fall to our knees in submission.

Conversely, they think that we currently follow authorities who are Evolutionists. In an Internet debate in which I recently participated, the Creationists kept accusing us of clinging to every word Dawkins ever wrote. The fact was that they were the ones who brought his name up. I did a word search through all the pages and found that they used his name more often than we did.

กแ Some Creationists think Evolutionists follow scripture.

Creationists show this assumption in two different ways. Number one, they laugh with glee when this year's science textbook contradicts last year's science textbook. They ask, "Why do you follow a book which changes? Follow our book! Our book never changes!"

Number two, they pretend that scientific opinion, too, is constant. This enables them to quote out-of-date sources. If Edred John Henry Corner said that there was scarce fossil evidence for flowering plants, then so be it. Those words were indelibly etched in black and white, so they must have been just as true in 1976 when Duane Gish quoted him as they were in 1961 when he made that statement.

กแ Some Creationists think Evolutionists regard Evolution as always good.

I used to belong to a newsgroup for piano teachers. One thread had to do with the differences between teaching girls and teaching boys. I made what I thought was an inoffensive and self-evident statement--that males and females evolved differently.

The other newsgroup members immediately pounced on me. According to them, I was a male chauvinist, I was out to degrade women, and I was a "Leave It to Beaver" fan.

กแ Some Creationists think Evolutionists share their impatience for definite answers.

Since sacred scripture does not contain any theories or hypotheses, some Creationists do not recognize the importance of theories or hypotheses. In his review of an Evolutionist book, Gish commented, "One can read page after page of speculations and interpretations by various workers in this field, but speculations are no substitute for definitive evidence."

Sometimes I wonder who coined the adage that "there is no such word as maybe." It could not have been a scientist.

กแ Some Creationists think Evolutionists regard Evolutionary theory as salvation.

In his review of Abusing Science, Duane Gish wrote, "People like Kitcher live in a dream world where evolution is God--nothing is impossible with evolution."

We sometimes hear the Loeb and Leopold case gleefully cited as evidence against Evolution. Those two offenders were taught Evolution! If Evolution is so wonderful, then why didn't it save Loeb and Leopold?

Simple: because Evolutionary is not designed for that purpose. My washing machine will not cook my food or heat my room. Likewise, Evolutionary theory will not explain the origin of the Universe or save a person's soul.

Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

Edited by tomato, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-19-2009 2:20 PM tomato has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 10-19-2009 11:17 PM tomato has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Izanagi, posted 10-19-2009 11:35 PM tomato has not yet responded
 Message 68 by GDR, posted 07-17-2010 8:31 PM tomato has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2 of 485 (531659)
10-19-2009 9:29 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Thread Name Not Available thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 3 of 485 (531725)
10-19-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-16-2009 5:47 PM


Excellent analysis!
Really interesting points!

Another thing I have encountered is that creationists have a difficult time with the standards of evidence. They often seem to not understand why their story about this guy their pastor heard about who once was an evolutionist until he learned it was false (or other such anecdotes) do not qualify as evidence. It convinces them so it must convince us as well.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 5:47 PM tomato has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2009 3:00 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3310
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 485 (531733)
10-19-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Lithodid-Man
10-19-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Excellent analysis!
Not just different standards and different ways of thinking, but also different motives, which I believe make a lot of difference in their approaches and actions.

To repeat a page I was working on years ago, which I based on a post I had made on a Yahoo forum (contains a table, so my apologies to the spacing problem that will inevitably occur and my thanks to the admin who fixes it):

quote:


Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists:



There is a public view of science that it is impartial and unbiased. That is an idealized misconception that creation science seeks to turn to its advantage by depicting scientists as being dogmatic, thus eroding public confidence in science. Then when their critics point out that creationists are also biased, the usual response is something like, "Yes we are, but at least we are honest about it."

Now, it is quite true that science is a flawed and fallible human endeavor which has made many mistakes. And it is also quite true that scientists are fallible humans and that they have their biases as do all humans. And it is also true that not all scientists are honest and that some have perpetrated hoaxes. And the same is also quite true about creation science. But that does not put scientists and creationists, nor science and "creation science", on an equal footing.

Although both camps share many of the same human foibles that plague us all and everything that we do, there are still certain fundamental differences between science and creation science and between scientists and creationists on the whole. Fundamental differences that make all the difference in how those two human endeavors approach their research and scholarship, their mistakes, and their hoaxes.

Science / Scientists ...Creation Science / Creationists ...
What they are trying to do:
1a. The scientist is either trying to make a new discovery or to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous discovery, hypothesis, or theory. 1b. A creationist is normally not trying to make a new discovery, nor to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous claim. As rustyb puts so succintly in his signature, "I already know the Truth." There's little use in trying to discover something new about the "Truth" that you already know a priori, nor is there any use in testing it (which would probably be sacrilegious anyway), nor to try to add to its Completeness. Rather, what a creationist is normally trying to do is to come up with convincing claims and arguments against anything that appears to contradict "the Truth" that they already know.
How they measure success:
2a. The success of the scientist's efforts depends directly on the quality of his research and on the validity of the studies that he bases his research on. Therefore, a scientist is motivated to verify his sources and to maintain high standards of scholarship. 2b. It doesn't matter whether that creationist had done a proper job of researching the claim, or had even researched it at all (though it does help to make it more convincing if there's something in the bibliography, even if that source had never actually been looked at -- remember that NASA document?). It doesn't matter if the claim or argument is valid, just that it sounds convincing; after all, the creationist already "knows" that it must be true.
Scholarship
3a. Since scientists depend so much on the validity and quality of the work of other scientists, the scientific community is motivated to police itself against shoddy or falacious research. 3b. When you research some other creationist's claim, you're not depending on that claim being true or valid; you're only depending on that claim sounding convincing.
How they handle dishonesty:
4a. Thus, a scientist who is discovered to be performing substandard or dishonest work loses his credibility and his standing in the scientific community. 4b. And if a claim is discovered to be false or a creationist is discovered to practice questionable methods, none of that matters, just so long as they still sound convincing. A creationist is far more likely to face censure for theological lapses than for shoddy or questionable scholarship.
ditto
5a.5b. Of course, if a claim starts drawing too much negative publicity, then it is no longer convincing and must be dropped, as quietly as possible, until everybody has forgotten about it, whereupon it can be resurrected and received as a "new" claim.
How they handle mistakes:
6a. Mistakes and hoaxes will still happen in science, but the near-constant scrutiny and testing will uncover them.6b. Mistakes and hoaxes will also happen in creation science, but in this case there is no mechanism in place to uncover them; indeed, there is much resistence to uncovering creationist mistakes and hoaxes.


First, let us consider what these "convincing" claims and arguments are used for. Creationists can have many different motivations and their claims can serve a variety of purposes; this is actually a far more complex situation than most on either side would think. From the experience and observations of myself and those reported by others, I would say that the primary purposes of these claims are (of course, there are others, but these are the main ones):


  1. to combat the influence of scientific ideas that appear to contradict certain theological ideas.
  2. to protect and strengthen one's own faith and the faith of others from the pernicious influence of scientific depravity, secularism, philosophical materialism, and any assortment of people, groups, and ideas that they perceive to be attacking Christianity.
  3. to proselytize by showing doubters that the evidence really supports Genesis and not science (regardless of whether it actually does or not).
  4. to claim to have scientific reasons to oppose the teaching of evolution and thus circumvent legal barriers against doing so solely for religious reasons and purposes.
  5. to sway public opinion enough in their favor.
  6. to learn how the physical evidence actually does support the literal truth of Genesis.

Now, I included that last one because it does exist and, I believe, that most creationists start out with that as their primary purpose. While the exceptional ones, like Dr. Kurt Wise, are able to keep it as a principal, if not primary, purpose, most creationists get lured away by the other purposes and their rhetorics. Even then, many have not completely lost sight of that purpose and would still claim to follow it.

However, their actions rarely follow their avowed purpose. There is one thing that has perplexed their opponents, including myself. Now, as YECs, they believe that the earth is no older that 10,000 years, yet they repeatedly avoid committing to that age.


I believe it is that motivation to convince that really drives creationists. So much so that they continue to use claims that have proven to be false, just because those claims sound so convincing to them.

Edited by Admin, : Fix table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-19-2009 2:20 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by tomato, posted 10-21-2009 1:31 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 485 (531787)
10-19-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-16-2009 5:47 PM


I would also like to add the following.

Some creationists think evolutionists also use the childish "what-if" as evidence.

In science, a hypothesis is made and tangible evidence will either confirm or disprove it. But creationists think like children. They come up with what-if scenarios and then try to use them as evidence. The most obvious examples are all the myriad of what-if "evidence" they come up with to try to prove noah's flood. Everything from insects surviving on floating mats of vegetation to the hydro-plate theory is used to prove the flood even though they're all what-ifs. Creationists don't understand that using a what-if scenario ain't evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 5:47 PM tomato has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 9:25 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 6 of 485 (531790)
10-19-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-16-2009 5:47 PM


You've brought up some very good points and I think the answer lies in the nature of people themselves. I think that creationists think people who accept evolution think like creationists simply because it is familiar to them. For most creationists, there is little understanding of how science actually works and that might be a symptom of poor education.

For instance, the idea that hypotheses must be falsifiable in science might not be common knowledge. There's an assumption that all the evidence is to try and prove something, when all evidence is really to try and disprove something. When the evidence fits in with a current model, then new evidence is looked for to see how accurate the model is. That's why experiments are run to test how well currently accepted concepts, like GR, explain new scenarios. Science is the constant pursuit for knowledge and nothing is definitive until all knowledge of the Universe is known. I imagine not many people would realize this.

So most creationists, when arguing with a person who accepts evolution, and in not understanding science, attempt to argue as if the person were thinking like a creationist because the creationists are familiar with that type of thinking and unfamiliar with the scientific way of thought.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 5:47 PM tomato has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 7 of 485 (532020)
10-20-2009 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
10-19-2009 11:17 PM


Hi Taz,

Everything from insects surviving on floating mats of vegetation to the hydro-plate theory is used to prove the flood even though they're all what-ifs.

You forgot the moon pools to pump out the ark ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 10-19-2009 11:17 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
tomato
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 8 of 485 (532049)
10-21-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by dwise1
10-19-2009 3:00 PM


How old is the Young Earth?
"Now, as YECs, they believe that the earth is no older that 10,000 years, yet they repeatedly avoid committing to that age."

That seems to be the figure which Duane Gish settles for.
Yet he never shows us an instrument which shows a 10,000-year reading.
Instead, he spends full time poking at real or imaginary weaknesses in the Evolutionist argument.

I think it's because he realizes that the more digits he writes, the less ridiculous he will look.
10,000 is only 4,000 more than the 6,000 figure which Bishop Ussher asks for, so that's the optimum figure.

In other words, it's J. C. Penney's $9.98 trick, only in reverse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2009 3:00 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2009 3:54 PM tomato has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3310
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 9 of 485 (532146)
10-21-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by tomato
10-21-2009 1:31 AM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
That seems to be the figure which Duane Gish settles for.
Yet he never shows us an instrument which shows a 10,000-year reading.
Instead, he spends full time poking at real or imaginary weaknesses in the Evolutionist argument.

I think it's because he realizes that the more digits he writes, the less ridiculous he will look.
10,000 is only 4,000 more than the 6,000 figure which Bishop Ussher asks for, so that's the optimum figure.

I believe you mentioned that you live in South Korea. While "creation science" exists in other countries mainly because American creationists have been exporting it, it is the perhaps-unique social, political, and legal conditions in the USA that had created "creation science" and dictated the forms that its many claims and arguments have taken.

Public schools in the US cannot teach religious doctrine, nor can the schools be barred from teaching a subject on purely religious grounds. That last decision was the result of Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968, which declared as unconstitutional the nearly 50-year-old "monkey laws" that the anti-evolution movement had put in place to bar the teaching of evolution on purely religious grounds -- the famous Scopes trial was part of an attempt to create a constitutional challenge to the Tennessee "monkey law", but it never made it to the US Supreme Court because Scopes' conviction was overturned by the state supreme court on a legal technicality. So since creationists could not have evolution kept out of the schools for purely religious reasons (the only reasons that they actually have), they devised "creation science" with which to deceive the courts and the public that their opposition to evolution was "purely scientific" (a lie they have frequently used).

I'm sure that Gish and all the other creationists do believe that 6000 is much closer to the true figure (about 6194, if we calculate from the Bible). However, given that that figure is so readily recognizable as being purely religious, Gish and company decided to hide that fact by rounding it up to 10,000 years. The better to deceive us with.

"Now, as YECs, they believe that the earth is no older that 10,000 years, yet they repeatedly avoid committing to that age."

I had written that and that table about 10 years ago; the table was based on a then-recent Yahoo forum exchange that had greatly opened my eyes, and that quoted remark on years of experience with creationists.

On one level: About the only creationists who will take a stand and try to argue the age of the earth are the newbies who hadn't learned yet. Their age-of-the-earth claims are the most blatantly false and the ones most easily proven wrong -- as well as being the most fun ones to disprove, epitomized by a famous opponent's remark, "Creationism is more fun than science!". Creationists who try that do not last very long. Either they eventually find that they must face that facts or else they quickly learn to avoid such discussions. I believe that Calypsis4, who claims to have been a creationist for 40 years, is a prime example of a creationist who has learned to duck and dodge and avoid discussion of his claims and even to avoid presenting any information about his claims (eg, refusing to post his sources, refusing to answer even the simplest questions about his claims, even refusing to say anything substantive about his own claims). So the more experienced creationists may say that they believe in a young earth (or not, depending on how cagey they are), but they will avoid committing to a definite age or to discuss the matter -- unless they take you for someone who doesn't know anything, in which case they will descending upon you like ravening wolves; if they realize that you do know something, then they will keep their sheep's clothing on and very tightly buttoned.

On another level ... I have a brief story about the incident that had opened my eyes. I've been active in this discussion since CompuServe in the mid 1980's. For the first years, I thought that creationists just didn't know the truth and that showing them the truth would bring most of them around. It didn't take me long to realize that they hated the truth and would go to any lengths to deny the truth.

Then in a Yahoo forum (they have so many), a creationist tried to prove that the earth was young by using the old sea-salt claim, that according to the amount of sodium in the ocean it is only millions of years old. I pointed out the reasons why that claim was so very wrong, and then I took him to task for not sticking to his story that the earth is only about 10,000 years old. It was his reply that opened my eyes (quote reconstructed from memory): "It wouldn't bother me at all if the earth were millions of years old, just so long as it isn't BILLIONS OF YEARS old as science says it is."

That's when I realized that they don't think at all like we do! We're trying to construct an integrated and self-consistent world-view by learning all we can about the world; everything we learn needs to fit together for it all to make any sense. They're not trying to build a consistent world-view; they're just attacking science. We cannot in honesty hold to several ideas that all directly contradict each other, whereas creationists have no problem doing that. So they can claim that the earth can't be more than 10,000 years old and that it's millions of years old, just so long as either (or a multitude of other estimates of the age of the earth) all contradict what science says. They will even include other claims that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution or creation or the age of the earth (eg, the ozone layer) if those claims constitute an attack against science.

All they want to do is to prove science wrong. Or at least to raise and spread any amount of doubt about science.

For example, as I wrote to another concerning Calypsis4 (http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=527876, Message 366 -- earned me my first suspension here):

quote:
So you see, we do view evolution differently. Those who accept evolution view it in terms of how it actually works, whereas those who believe that it violates their religious beliefs view it in terms of what the creationists say it is. Let's face it, those who accept evolution are interested in figuring out how it works, whereas creationists are mainly interested in disproving it. So it should come as no surprise that creationists will present evolution in as negative a manner as possible. For that matter -- and I'm speaking from 3 decades of experience with "creation science" -- , most creationists will even present a distorted view of evolution which is designed to be easier to "refute". A caricature. A strawman.

So we're looking at evolution in two very different ways. The one side is viewing it as it is, whereas your side is viewing it as creationists have mis-taught you. Rather than each side thinking that both side is talking about the same thing, we need to be open about what we mean and understand by "evolution" and be ready to hammer out a commonly agreed-upon definition.

So you have stumbled upon Cal's problem here. He has, after all, been feeding on creationist misinformation for about 40 years now. He has one distorted definition of evolution in mind, one which his mindless photos would indeed refute. The problem is that that is not what evolution actually is. He thinks that all he needs to do is to show that uniform gradualistic change is not the norm and evolution is refuted. Whereas we already know that uniform gradualistic change is not the norm, so his "atomic bomb" is a big dud. Cal needs to be open about what his assumptions about evolution are and why he thinks that, according to those assumptions, his "evidences" are supposed to be so devastating. He apparently doesn't think that that should be necessary, not knowing that his ideas about evolution are different from ours.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tomato, posted 10-21-2009 1:31 AM tomato has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tomato, posted 10-21-2009 4:40 PM dwise1 has responded

    
tomato
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 10 of 485 (532150)
10-21-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by dwise1
10-21-2009 3:54 PM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
Thank you, dwise1.

Just to get a possible misconception out of the way, I'm not Korean; I'm an American English teacher in Korea. So I'm familiar with the "intelligent design" foolishness.

Until recently, I was active in a C/E thread on a forum for foreign English teachers in Korea. The mod's shut down the thread because we were getting so nasty to each other. That was when I joined this forum.

I was interested in your comments about Creationists prizing anti-Evolution arguments, even if they contradict each other. It confirms what I have been suspecting for a long time. I have been writing a manuscript which I shall entitle "Duane Gish's Greatest Hits." It seems that Duane Gish believes in flood geology in one compartment in his brain. However, in another comparment in his brain, he prizes the "billions upon billions" of fossils which allegedly spring out of nowhere in the geologic column. Apparently, the geologic column conveniently converts between a record of flood deposits and a record of geological time.

I never could figure out what the point is about the Cambrian explosion. Let us let the Creationists have their way and agree that God said, "Abracadabra! Let there be a Cambrian explosion." Then all those arthropods and annelids came out of thin air. That still leaves fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals yet to be created. And they are supposed to have sprung out of nowhere, too.

If you ask me, that line of argument supports neither Evolution nor Creationism, but Cuvier's position.

Never mind the technicalities. Evolution is evil, so anything which opposes Evolution is good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2009 3:54 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2009 8:41 PM tomato has responded
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-22-2009 9:40 AM tomato has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3310
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 485 (532182)
10-21-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tomato
10-21-2009 4:40 PM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
It's the "Two Model Approach" (TMA). They set up the false dichotomy (AKA "false dilemma") that it's either the "atheistic" "evolution model" or their "creation model" and there are no other possibilities -- this I've seen both Gish and Morris start off an interview or debate by restating the TMA and establishing that as the basic premise for that event. Therefore, once that false dichotomy is accepted, you can prove the one "model" simply by disproving the other, so they devote all their time and energy to attacking their "evolution model" and thus "prove" their "creation model" without ever having to defend it, present any evidence for it, or even present it. Of course, their "evolution model" is a strawman caricature of evolution and science and their "creation model" is fundamentalist biblical literalism (though they make sure to "hide the Bible" for the sake of their political agenda).

This is why they concentrate so much on attacking science, because they believe that any and all "evidence" against science is automatically evidence for creation.

Since you're collecting Gish-isms, are you familiar with his Impact article # 321, "As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly." (September 1989 -- http://www.icr.org/article/321/)? It ties in directly with creationists making inconsistent and contradictory claims, only in this case he completely contradicts himself in the same article.

Most of it is a summation of the ICR's standard "Archaeopteryx is 100% bird; nothing reptilian about it!" line. But then right before arriving at his conclusion that Archie was pure bird, he completely switches his position with:

quote:
Another threat to the notion that Archaeopteryx was intermediate between reptiles and birds are the claims of Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer, fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Israeli scientist Lee Spetner, based on detailed photographic evidence, that Archaeopteryx is a fraud.15,16 They maintain that an artificial matrix was placed on a reptilian fossil and that modern feathers were used to impress the matrix, to leave a likeness of fossil feathers. Scientists of the British Museum of Natural History have defended the authenticity of the fossil. If the allegations of Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Spetner turn out to be correct, it would be a devastating blow to evolutionists. If the fossil is a forgery, however, it would have to be a devilishly clever one, because the forger would not only have to fake the feathers, but also somehow emplace the many bird-like features described in this article.

So Archie was 100% bird and not the least bit a dinosaur, or it was 100% dinosaur and not the least bit bird. Either way it isn't a transitional form! Again, we see that the facts and consistency mean nothing to creationists, just so long as they can attack science.

Google also pointed to a page by Lenny Flank, http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/archie.htm, which discusses Archaeopteryx and Gish's claims and his article.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tomato, posted 10-21-2009 4:40 PM tomato has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by tomato, posted 10-22-2009 3:05 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
tomato
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 12 of 485 (532211)
10-22-2009 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by dwise1
10-21-2009 8:41 PM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
Hello, devise1!

And thank you for your reply!

I have been neglecting Gish's articles for the ICR Website, and now realize that this is a serious oversight for a person claiming to do research on Gish. I printed out both of your links and shall read them on the bus to work tomorrow morning.

I understand what you mean about the "two model approach." Gish's critics have suggested many alternatives to both Creationism and Evolution. Maybe there were multiple creations, as Cuvier would have us believe. Maybe we are all ET's, as Hoyle and Wickramsinghe would have us believe. Maybe we were created in accordance with some other collection of folklore. A German opera fan might tell us that we populated the earth after Brunnhilde immolated herself.

What you call the "two model approach" brought our Creationist comrades some serious embarrassment on one occasion. They invited Wickramasinghe to testify in the Arkansas courtroom, forgetting that he pronounced a plague o' both of your houses. A lawyer asked, "Could any rational scientist believe the earth's geology could be explained by the single, a single catastrophe?"

He answered "no."

The lawyer asked, "Could any rational scientist believe the earth is less than one million years old?"

He answered "no."

He was asked for his opinion on scientific creationism, and he answered "claptrap,"

He was asked for his opinion on Gish's belief that each form of life was created separately, and he answered "claptrap."

I also understand what you mean by Gish assuming that disproving one position constitutes proving the other. I began my research expecting Gish to show us a dating instrument which would indicate a recent world Flood and a recent creation for all the world's taxons. So far, I have found no such thing.

Now that I think of it, I have run across both of Gish's stands on the archeopteryx--that it is a 100% bird and that it is a forgery, but never noticed the self-contradiction.
Speaking of Gish's shoehorn trick, did you know that Henry Morris called the Homo erectus a man while Gish called it an ape? This has been a source of amusement for some of Gish's opponents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2009 8:41 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 13 of 485 (532250)
10-22-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tomato
10-21-2009 4:40 PM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
Just to get a possible misconception out of the way, I'm not Korean; I'm an American English teacher in Korea. So I'm familiar with the "intelligent design" foolishness.

Is intelligent design well-known in Korea? That is to say, are the churches there advocating ID?


It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tomato, posted 10-21-2009 4:40 PM tomato has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by tomato, posted 10-22-2009 11:51 AM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
tomato
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 14 of 485 (532272)
10-22-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Izanagi
10-22-2009 9:40 AM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
No, as far as I know, the question of where we came from isn't debated very much here.

In fact, there don't seem to be much religious debate of any kind. The country is about one-fourth Buddhist, one-fourth Christian, and one-half uncommitted. I expected the Buddhists and the Christians to argue, but they don't. I also expected the committed and the uncommitted to argue, but they don't.

In the United States, the religious skeptics protest against the slogan "In God we trust" being printed on the currency. Here in Korea, no one protests against the second line of the national anthem, which translates "May God preserve our land for ten thousand years."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-22-2009 9:40 AM Izanagi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 10-22-2009 5:55 PM tomato has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 485 (532320)
10-22-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by tomato
10-22-2009 11:51 AM


Re: How old is the Young Earth?
tomato writes:

"May God preserve our land for ten thousand years."


Actually, this has been explained to me before by asian friends. The saying used to be "May the Emperor live for ten thousand years." The "may god preserve our land for ten thousand years" is just a modified version of this very ancient traditional saying. It's like "god save the queen". In other words, it's not really religious. Just a traditional line or greeting that everybody in the culture uses.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by tomato, posted 10-22-2009 11:51 AM tomato has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
33NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019