Skip to comments.Creationism makes a comeback in US
Posted on 06/25/2007 5:55:14 PM PDT by Alien Syndrome
click here to read article
One of the recent bird/dinosaur fossils was found to be
a hoax...even National Geographic magazine ran with it
for a while, then had to retract their statements. I
think this was in the late 90’s or early 2000’s.
Some of the drawings of Ernst Haeckel(sp?) in his famous series
of the embryological development of different species
were found to have been falsified. Even as early as 1972
my textbook on embryology recognized that the drawings
left much to be desired. I think one can remember the
phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”...I don’t
think that concept and it’s proof(the drawings) are taught
anymore, cause later research has shown that there are
great differences if the embryos of different species
at the same “stage”, and the drawings were glossed over
to make the theory of “orp” seem true.
Not that it really matters, but that’s a total of three
...can anyone remember any more off the top of their head?
So, you claimed there were hoaxes all over the place and you can't come up with more then two?
But what about that Chinese "hoax"? That was a fraud by a local Chinese fellow trying for a few extra bucks for his fossil. That fooled National Geographic for a while, but scientists quickly sniffed out the fraud and exposed it. To try and claim that as a "hoax" by evolutionary scientists is absolutely incorrect. It was scientists who detected the fraud.
As for Haeckel, here is what appears to be a straight story. Make as much hay of that as you want.
Lets have all the rest of the hoaxes! Bring them on (if you can).
How do you define "competent science?" Is it only that which is explicitly stated in the Bible?
Can we retain the current model of the universe, or do we have to go back to Ptolemy's epicycles? Do we have to reject the Apollo missions, the Martian Rovers, all the numerous probes that have supposedly been sent out to study the solar system? The Bible says all that stuff out there is just lights - how can men or machines land on and study a speck of light? All that space stuff must just be a hoax, right?
A few weeks back there was a poster on another thread who stated that scientists can't prove the Sun converts hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, because no one has landed on the Sun and brought back a sample. (Link). His rejoinder was that the current knowledge of the Sun was "a figment of some eggheaded geek's hypothesizing about crap imagined do (sic) to his lack of testosterone." Does that fit your definition of "competent science"?
And that's just basic astronomy and stellar mechanics. I haven't even mentioned fields like chemistry, classical and modern physics, medicine, etc. Is it "competent science" to condemn modern medicine as a tool of Satan, as has been done by some posters here? Maybe we should just go back to drilling holes in peoples' heads to let the evil spirits out. Hey, that's how it was done in the Dark Ages.
There was one I just saw on FR recently, I think within the last week or so. Some guy in England? Maybe Dave knows. I think it was an article he pinged.
I’d pay $12 to see that movie.
If evolutionists are doing so much damage to this country, why wait around for some future awakening that may never even happen in the first place? The longer you wait, the more damage they do to this country, right? Sounds to me like you believe they need to be silenced, one way or another, and sooner rather than later.
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning
the Creation-Evolution Debate
by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch
Science and Its Limits:
The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective
Oh, He could have. But if He did, He lied about it. On the other hand, is He not capable of creating everything exactly as He said He did?
The Darwin gang from the antifreeper site are here again showing their classy act. Check out the keywords. Their collective IQ is about a 4
Biblical creation fact:
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
There's absolutely no excuse for using such personal insults. I''ve come to know this person through personal emails, and she is a very fine person indeed.
If someone doesn't agree with another poster's point of view, then take it up on the debating floor.
This however, is simply childish, and not worthy of someone who calls themself an adult...least of all an educated adult.
I wouldn’t know, I only look at the pretty pictures.
Creationism isn't science any more than astrology is science.
The various scientific theories for evolution are explained in the science classroom. And I might point out that science is taught not as an absolute unlike your religion. Scientists continually run experiments and look at observations to either confirm our hypothesiss or disprove the scientific theory.
Creationism can be taught in the school and scientists such as me won't complain. However, it must be taught in the philosphy or religious classroom and not the sceince classroom since ID/creationism make initial absolute conclusions prior to running any expernments.
In a sense creationism is like global warming. They’re both religion. They both totally ignore the scientific method of fitting your conclusion to the observations, but rather they start with the conclusion, and work backward ignoring or trying to discredit any facts that don’t fit with ther belief. Neither one can stand up to the light or reason. Their supporters try to shout down the opposition frequently insulting those who disagree with them. And above all they’re both wrong.
That much? I’ve come to expect that sort of thing from DC from what I’ve seen on my forays there. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see it spill over here.
I guess that’s what being a highly educated scientist type does to you?
How can it be determined that creationism is wrong using a system that is always self-correcting, meaning that what was previously taught was wrong? How can you use something that's wrong, or you're never sure is right, to disprove something else? The only way to demonstrate something is wrong, is to use something that is true or right. Since we've been told that science isn't about truth, then there must be something else. What is it?
Hey Compadre, it was intended for you. You did post #2 didn't you? Or was it the other BipolarBob.
Nope, I posted post #3.
Who told you that a creationist? I have to confess you've totally confused me. What are you talking about?
Why are you provoking AS so much? What kind of response are you looking for?
You said creationism is wrong. On what basis do you make that decision? What evidence do you use to determine that?
Who told you that a creationist?
Now I'm confused here.
Double Dog Call Tou
Cite one recognised respected Creationist who states "Neanderthal was a gorilla"
And to make it possible I will accept "recognised respected" by the Creationist community - whicch means you can sue the usual clowns - Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, or similar (I'll even give you Walter Brown and Kent Hovind)
I meant "use"
|D = Destruction by Water|
|.||G = (God) Divine Cause|
|.||W = Warning Given|
|.||H = Humans Spared|
|.||A = Animals Spared|
|.||V = Preserved in a Vessel|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||01 Australia- Kurnai|
|D||.||W||H||A||V||02 Babylon- Berossus' account|
|D||G||W||H||A||V||03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic|
|D||G||W||H||.||V||04 Bolivia- Chiriguano|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||05 Borneo- Sea Dayak|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||06 Burma- Singpho|
|D||G||.||H||A||V||07 Canada- Cree|
|D||G||W||H||A||V||08 Canada- Montagnais|
|D||G||.||H||A||V||09 China- Lolo|
|D||.||W||H||A||V||10 Cuba- original natives|
|D||G||W||H||A||V||11 East Africa- Masai|
|D||G||W||H||.||V||12 Egypt- Book of the Dead|
|D||G||.||H||.||V||13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition|
|D||G||W||H||A||.||14 French Polynesia- Raiatea|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||15 Greece- Lucian's account|
|D||G||.||H||A||V||16 Guyana- Macushi|
|D||G||.||H||.||V||17 Iceland- Eddas|
|D||G||.||H||.||V||18 India- Andaman Islands|
|D||.||W||H||A||V||19 India- Bhil|
|D||.||W||H||A||.||21 Iran- Zend-Avesta|
|D||G||.||H||.||V||22 Italy- Ovid's poetry|
|D||G||.||H||.||V||23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun|
|D||.||W||H||.||V||24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca|
|D||.||W||H||A||V||25 Mexico- Huichol|
|D||G||.||H||.||V||26 New Zealand- Maori|
|D||.||W||H||A||.||27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri|
|D||.||W||H||.||V||28 X . Russia- Vogul|
|D||.||W||H||A||V||29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches|
|D||G||.||H||A||V||30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit|
|D||.||W||H||A||V||31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago|
|D||G||.||H||A||V||32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||33 Vanualu- Melanesians|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||34 Vietnam- Bahnar|
|D||.||.||H||A||V||35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend|
|35||18||17||35||24||32||Total Occurrences out of 35|
On the fact that there is not any physical evidence to support creationism nor can there ever be any evidence to support it. By the very nature of it, it is not science, but rather religion. There is plenty of physical evidence to support evolution. Creationism, at least as I understand it, basically says "here a miracle occurs."
When you're talking about scientific theories those without evidence are usually considered to be wrong. For that matter how can you prove that we all weren't created with our memories and history just five minutes ago. You can't, but I still maintain that is also wrong.
You said science is not about truth. Au contraire, science IS about truth.
You may find this interesting. Rather than regurgitating an item some untrained “researcher” cites as PROOF for whatever hairbrained idea they support, you can actually learn from folks who study this type of thing for a living.
There's plenty of corroboration of the creation account in the Bible by science. See post 64.There's the same physical evidence to support creation that there is to support it just happening, out of nothing, by itself.
You said science is not about truth. Au contraire, science IS about truth.
Not according to some of your compatriots. Besides, science may be about the search for truth, but it is not truth itself. It hasn't arrived yet. What has been accepted to be fact in the past is now shown to be wrong. How are you so sure that what we know now is true?
If that's the case, then you can't use science to disprove anything else, because there's no way of being sure that the science you're using is correct. You can't use something that is wrong, or even that might be wrong, to disprove something else.
If you can't figure out the obvious, you really shouldn't be writing a book about it.
The point was that the people looking for the planes worked on the assumption of a relatively small amount of ice buildup based on what science said it should be. They were working in assumptions, therefore, some processes occur faster than previously thought. They were working on assumptions that weren’t true. If you start out with wrong assumptions, then how can your conclusions be reliable?
You follow the evidence. If scientists did not routinely correct their assumptions based on evidence, you would have nothing to talk about.
The difference between science and other ways of attempting to acquire knowledge is that science is iterative.
It’s an amazing section and fills me with awe everytime I read it. Now, I can’t really say the same for NUMBERS (LOL). Mxxx
No, I can’t. I’ve read it over the years and been amazed that so many religions have the same story of the flood. I believe it to be true because the Bible says so, but it’s also written in other places. Google it.
It’s as if floods were fairly common.
Source of chart?
That isn't evidence. Just someone's opinion.
There's the same physical evidence to support creation that there is to support it just happening, out of nothing, by itself
Well if you define creationism as the big bang, because there isn't any physical model that explains the initiation of the universe (hand of God is as good as anything) then I'll have to agree; however, if you define it as some arbitrary event that happened within human history, then I'll have to say you're wrong. Like I said earlier, neither you nor I can prove that creation didn't happen 5 minutes or 5 seconds ago, but conceptually that's just silly.
There is good consistent physical evidence for everything that happened right back to the inflationary stage, and then earlier than that who knows. so if you're defining that God created the universe with the big bang, then that is the sort of creationism that makes sense. otherwise I can't agree.
Your posts are interesting. Do you think the universe had a beginning?
Yet somehow when I present you with some of that evidence and ask for the creationist explanation, no answer is forthcoming.
Neanderthal man—Not a hoax.
carbon 14 dating—Not a hoax.
sediment layers—Ehh wot? Not a hoax.
dinosaurs and humans living in different time periods—Not a hoax.
Lucy—Not a hoax.
Thanks for trying!
Are you funning me?
Do you think that's why he put "and the evening and morning..." in there? Oh well, since we don't believe that, we'll just ignore that little bit.
"The advent of man I find misread as well Genesis states that man was created on the sixth day and that G D then rested. Then it tells of how G D saw that of the men he created that there was no man that tilled the soil. He then create a new man slightly different from the others, ergo Adam and Eve were created on the eight day or after. This explains where Cain got his wife from."
"Oh rats!", God said, "I forgot to create a man to till the soil!" (slaps forehead). Course, he didn't want to put that in Genesis, so he conveniently left that out.
yes, these are the people who want to get a hold of your children at 5 or 6 years old.
This article, IMO, is designed to paint the religious right as lunatics, to scare people away from voting republican.
Emphasis on *routinely*.
"The difference between science and other ways of attempting to acquire knowledge is that science is iterative."
Er, have they been moving elements around on the periodic table again? Has the electromagnetic spectrum been moving around again? Have they changed the laws of chemistry again?
Or are you incorrectly equating science with metaphysics?
I’m not sure what post you’re referring to, but as can be expected, I am not an expert (not even heavily informed) on many scientific aspects of creationism. A lack of response from me cannot and should not be interpreted as proof for evolution.
I refer to myself as an informed layman. You all refer to me as a blithering idiot, and that’s on your good days. Yet for all the raving accusations of stupidity, you still think you score a point by challenging me, the ignorant twit, with your facts for your interpretation and then do a little doggy dance of joy when I don’t respond.
It seems you are either delighted with stumping an “idiot” or you don’t buy your own accusations, and only spew them to vent. Which is it?