Links for the Creation/Evolution Controversy (not a debate topic)

Evolution was herky-jerky

Part 8 of 8 is atUnderstanding creationism, VIII:
An insider's guide by a former young-Earth creationistand at the bottom are links to parts 1-7.Another interesting article is here at the Questioning Answers In Genesis blog.The short version is that the popular but wrong image is that there are a lot of complete orderly land animal fossils found. The reality is that most show a lot of wear and tear, are often (usually?) incomplete, and the bones are scattered all over the place.He goes on the say that if the creationist flood model of massive numbers of rapid burials were indeed the case, then we would expect to find a lot more complete orderly land animal fossils.Moose

Not a creation/evolution thing, but I had to put it somewhere.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...-revealed/#.VAJXQKOwSpFShort version: Water, ice, and wind. See the cite for the full story.Moose

I wrote this very short explanation of why, on a personal level, I feel I let evolution "invade" my mind, for so many years, by entertaining it's daft questions.Creation and evolution views

This is just a reminder that this is not a discussion thread. Anyone wanting to respond to Mike's blog post in Message 79 should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

Today on FaceBook Ed Babinski linked to this blog entry: http://ageofrocks.org/...by-a-former-young-earth-creationist . The link contains a repost of former creationist David MacMillan's essay, "Evolution of Evolution", part of a series of eight essays posted at Panda's Thumb, the link to which is contained within this link. Excerpts from the intro:

quote:

---

The article below was originally published by Panda’s Thumb and is the fifth in an eight-part series, which can be found here in its entirety. David offers a profound look at the young-Earth creationist movement, specifically with respect to how they approach evolutionary theory.

---

quote:

---

My primary aim on this page has been to elucidate how geologists reconstruct Earth history through historical scientific methodsformulating hypotheses from collected geological data and making predictions about what kind of corroboratory evidence might exist. Biologists do the same with respect to the history of life and its diversification through time, but David writes in his introduction to the series:

​

quote:

---

Creationists don’t see it the same way. Creationists artificially classify medicine, genetic research, and agriculture as operational science, and believe that those disciplines function in a different way than research in evolutionary biology. They understand the theory of evolution, along with mainstream geology and a variety of other disciplines, as a philosophical construct created for the express purpose of explaining life on Earth apart from divine intervention. Thus, they approach the concept of evolution from a defensive position; they believe it represents an attack on all religious faith.

---

​

I remember well just how effective this portrayal of evolution can be. It becomes impossible to discuss the topic critically in the context of science, because ultimately it determines the validity of one’s faith. The same is true when a particular reading of the Bible commits one to a firm stance on the age of the Earth. How can we honestly discuss geological evidence for Earth’s antiquity if it is regarded as an attack on biblical authority? These sorts of closely held, philosophical labels awarded to modern biology and geology allow creationism to thrive, even in an educated society.

---

quote:

---

Below, David discusses the perceived ad hoc nature of evolution. It is vital to the success of creationism that evolutionary theory not be constructed from tested hypotheses, but rather through retrospective fitting of data to an anti-theistic philosophy. I believe his comments are also relevant to critiques from so-called ‘Flood geology’, as we saw last week with respect to Milankovitch theory and orbital tuning. Any opportunity to depict circular reasoning in the historical sciences is a victory point for young-Earth creationism.

---

quote:

---

... YEC’s bring to scientific literature the same expectations as they do to the Bible: either it conveys truth unblemished and immutable, or it deserves our unreserved skepticism. Since the very nature of science is to refute and refine (else why would we call it research?), YEC’s feel justified in cherry-picking data to support their views and selectively build a quasi-scientific alternative.

---

I believe this will apply to the on-going topic, SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science..

DISCLAIMER:Sorry that link isn't made to flame-throw Percy though reading my message it might have sounded that way. I say "daft" in regards to my personal reasonings about it, I'm not saying that scientists or evolutionists are daft. I won't make any more comments here, just "sorry" I should have wrote that message more patiently, I tend to rush things.

Creation and evolution viewsI updated my blog with some conversational-ponderings about the probabilities of abiogenesis and intelligent design. That latest blog isn't written with any great intellectually ambitious gusto and verve, it's just the stream of intangible mikey-thoughts that propagated forth from my weird and wonderful mikey-brain."There probably is no blob". That is to say - a blob isn't how life began! Do not be offended, if I do not believe your ancestors were blobs!!

By SCOTT FARWELL Staff Writer sfarwell@dallasnews.com
Published: 14 August 2014 11:32 PM
Updated: 21 August 2014 10:46 AMMost scientists believe Darwin got it right: Single-celled creatures evolved into complex ones, a process of natural selection and genetic adaptation that over eons turned a primordial swamp into shape-shifting cells, into ape-like primates, into people.His theory is taught in virtually every science classroom in the world. It is used to demystify the complexity of life, translate the language of DNA, and make sense of geology, biology and paleontology.Scientists call evolution a unifying theory, a weight-bearing wall that frames our understanding of the natural world.But at the Institute for Creation Research in northwest Dallas, a group of nine Ph.D.s from places like Harvard and Los Alamos National Laboratory say all that molecules-to-man stuff is nonsense. And they’re out to prove it.
The biblical story of Genesis is literally true, they say. God created the heavens, earth and life in six sequential days lasting about 24 hours each.The universe is not 13.8 billion years old (as astrophysicists calculate by measuring the rate of cosmic expansion), the earth is not 4.5 billion years old (as geologists conclude by using radioisotope dating on ancient rocks), and humans did not split from chimpanzees and gorillas about 4 million to 7 million years ago (as suggested by genetics and the fossil record).Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, a numeric range they calculate using the genealogy of the Bible Adam lived 930 years and begat a son named Seth, who lived 105 years and begat Enos, and so on.Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative, said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us, he said. And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.Morris knows ICR’s professors are pariahs among their peers, their positions are ridiculed as pseudo-science by researchers around the world, and even many pastors reject the group’s literal reading of the Old Testament.This spring, televangelist Pat Robertson said on the Christian-themed television show The 700 Club that people would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this earth that we live on only has 6,000 years of existence. I think to deny the clear [geologic] record that’s there before us makes us look silly.Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/...prove-creation-with-science.ece
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Catastrophism.html
VegasSlot77: Daftar Situs Agen Judi Slot Online Gacor Terpercaya 2022Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

Welcome to the fray Tali_Zorah Let us know when they have results. If you want to discuss the age of the earth see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (this is not a discussion thread).Enjoy

You seem to have given us a link which proves that creationists exist. We actually knew that.

I experience a lot of personal remarks, allusions, and epithets, agressivity towards me by the evolution side. I have noticed this since 2003, which shows there is a generally low IQ at these types of forums which could represent a kind of condensed group of bullies, you could say.Not all evolutionists are the same of course, I would never argue that. There are certainly the eloquent few that have a good grasp of reasoning and tend to not fall into the trap of emotive language or caustic cursing. Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of the Question-Begging Epithet | Answers in Genesis I would agree, that has been my experience. And: Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Pot meet kettle.

That's a prime example of a question-begging-epithet, thanks. But did you know that, or did you read the link? In the link he gives examples just like your one.Because this is a way of accusing me using rhetorical words, instead of a cogent argument. That's the exact rhetoric Jason Lisle expounds. He gives examples from real forums/blogs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your knew what you were saying.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Again from the linked article since it's topical: (I really don't have any beef with you, I'm just showing you how this attitude is very apparent.)