Why creationists panick...

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxm007:
I've been scouring the webforums about this subject. From extremely religious forums that tend to shift to fundamentalist views to forums of intellectual evolutionalists that claim to have all the answers. I've come to the conclusion that creationists make it a sport to critisize insignificant details and flaws of any development or new theory on evolution by people that mostly spend their whole life studying the subject.
I observed that Creationists in my oppinion tend to panick that evolution theory pushes a god further and further away from their existance and reduces them too close for comfort to an organism instead of a child of some superbeing. The irony of it is , I think, is that Evolutionism doesn't prove that there isn't a god, yet religious people are really defensive about Evolution. It just puts god in a different perspective and should enrich religions. Even though I'm an atheist and an evolutionist I respect religions or any seekers of truth for that matter, but I tend lose that respect when I see people bashing scientific method that made you be able to microwave your dinner yet they accept without question the contents of some book written and rewritten by mortal people. Science is by no means perfect but this childish denial of some people really needs to stop.

​

You creationists , prove to me that the sun is a star. Have you been to star before?

---

As far as I understand the question deposed here is a reversal from one Bernard Shaw reposed that Huxley objected to. If that is indeed the origin of this specific question then I do not see why the creationist of any stripe is compelled to respond to this one when what is to be confused if I am correct is something that Huxley said in compation Creator God people and Lysenko. There is no comparision and Russians were justified to criticize Mendelians as ideal and seeking after a god that was an idol rather. So smooth questions do not upset A-B--c. But it is the consequence and result (in the interpreation ) that is potenially convergent and even then scientifically questionable. That is where I would leave any pressure which is only that I need to know if this is the intended etemology in the word? An interesting question nonetheless that would I respond would have to look at the black board Feynman and Bethe wrote about stars on. Thanks for the input. As far as the denial by will I have not been able to change the directum of it.

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-27-2001]

Seems to me that Creationism History is more one of a constant change of views while evolution thinking is one of less and less change (in the view) called "constriction" by Historian Will Provine (on? the view of landscape presented in the 30's at Cornell not in Chicago) while the opposite would be expected niavely but not necessarily prima facie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
The unchanging belief in a particular interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible is at the core of Scientific Creationism.

​

"There was a Flood, now we just have to find evidence for it."

​

"Kinds were created specially and suddenly, now we have to find evidence for this."

​

"The Earth is a few thousand years old, now we have to find evidence for it".

​

NEVER will these assumptions about what is "supposed" to be found ever change,

---

Dear Schrafinator,
You are quite correct here, as in question to HM Morris in a snail mail letter I suppose I 'supposed' this "supposed" and yet Dr. Morris' response stays with me. He had said in so many words that biology and math must remain seperated in any conversation on evo/crea illusion discussions. But one thing that IS "Supposed" to be found in evolution thinking (say RA FISHER if a name is needed) is a supremecy of natural selection but while reading the detail between Fisher and Wright it is right apparent for the same dispute of pure vs applied math between Borel and Lebesque (only confined to one country rather than across the Pond) that on ordiantions of the same evidence ( thus also the same for creation or evolution) the collection can be suppposed that the set does not. But then the logic of the math would also have to be quite seperate that not even in Boole's Laws of Thought is this maintained. The internet medium may permit the nats to be so teased in or out till the "debate" progresses. It is certainly possible in this directum to adhere to HM Morris of the Defender's Study Bibile where Internal Designs In The Bible are discussed to be adhered to but unless the seperation maintained engage the acutal evolutionary content the debate will be like a mock trial and I would have quickly lost interest long ago. There is something here.

quote:

---

because then the paricular interpretation of the Bible would be wrong.

​

By contrast, Science changes constantly as new information

---

While it is true that Science in general does change as fast as time exists if such a thought could be really expressed but in fact evolutionary theory remains hidden behind a simple point drawn by Fisher in response to Wright that Croizat made 1000pages in many languages a big joke out of and the debate must resolve the extension of this point some time. Evolutionists simply have more narrative than good usable theory. The Journal of Theoretical Biology is full of models that have never been tried out.

quote:

---

is found, and science does not assume it knows what will be found.

---

I am not assuming but writing about something I have read that you could too if one want, to. But lead us not into ____.I would like people to use Cantor's math but that would be assuming too much even from Wright's "back variable" yet the infinity need not remain convergent for secular purposes only.Thanks, but I still think this the other way.