The best part of this phenomenon is when Creationists trot out scientific theories and principles from the other sciences, which are based on the very same scientific methodology that gave rise to the ToE, then warp them with illogic, and try to use them to invalidate evolution.
Look at this statment (used a million times in this forum I'm sure) for example:
quote:
First Law of Thermodynamics: This is the law of conservation of matter and energy. Matter and energy can change from one to the other. But matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Matter cannot be created within the framework of the natural laws of science. {my font}Matter therefore, could only have come into existence by super-natural means (the Creator).
- http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html#Apes
The author concedes the truth of the first law of thermodynamics, which invalidates Creationism in itself; but to circumvent this conundrum, he then states that this law does not apply to the supernatural thereby proving a creator.
Excuse me? This answer is not logical at all. This law does not imply or infer a supernatural entity; I submit that it in fact implies the opposite: matter and energy were not created by anything, they have always existed (Please note I'm not arguing big bang here, only demonstrating the faulty reasoning of this individual).
Then he follows this statment with:
quote:
The general theory of evolution, the big bang, and other such theories only try to explain how life was formed out of unorganized non-living matter and energy. They provide no clues at all as to how all of the matter and energy came into existence in the first place.
This demonstrates the obvious ignorance of what the ToE does and does not do - namely, it does not provide an explanation of 'how life was formed.'
While one can, no doubt, argue that this individual is an ignoramus and is not intentionally trying to be deceitful, my point is that Mr. McGee got this argument from somewhere else - like a 'scientific creationist' or, perhaps, an actual scientist who
DOES know that these arguments are faulty, wrong, and dishonest.
Perpetuation of arguments of this type exist only to sway, even trick, the ignorant who don't know enough, or care enough, to question what they are being told. Throw in some actual science, a half-nod to reason, and a healthy appeal to emotion, and most people fall for this garbage.
The reason I began reading this site is because I was/am ignorant of basic concepts evolution that I could not adequately answer the questions that I had when I was confronted (more like inundated)with these arguments.
I'm glad that I am better able to combat ignorance, and I am not surprised that the majority of the creationists I see here continue to prove Lithodid-Man's point simply by the content of their posts.
I'm happy to say I have learned a great deal from you people; both evolutions and creationists. Thanks.
This message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 07:10 PM
This message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 07:12 PM
™ Version 4.2
