Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].
You didn't give him enough time to get his hip boots on before you made your claim to speak for Christianity.
How about allowing teachers to teach the "flat earth" theory? What about "Earth, Air, Fire, and Water" instead of the periodic table of the elements? You think those may raise a few protests also?
You realize, of course, that this means that you're getting your "information" from people with an avowed bias, and a track record of error, misrepresentation, and dishonesty?
And that Morris is a young earth creationist who believes, against all evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
I guess the notion of science being the exploration and understanding of God's creation is passe.
It must be, if people prefer to learn "science" from creationist sources intead of from *scientific* sources...
Demonstrating most of Morris's scientific errors would require a great deal of background material, but his dishonesty can be easily demonstrated by comparing some of his "quotes" against the original material that Morris cites for "support".
The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm., with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved [...] strongly suggests that the catfish could have been transported to their site of fossilization.(19)The words are Morris's. Footnote 19, which he provides as alleged *support* for his characterization, is an article in the journal Geology by Buccheim and Surdam. Here's what that article *actually* says:
-- Henry Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, p. 12
The abundant and widespread occurrence of skeletons of bottom feeders, some with soft fleshy skin intact, strongly suggests that the catfish were a resident population. It is highly improbable that the catfish could have been transported to their site of fossilization. Experiments and observations made on various species of fish have shown that fish decompose and disarticulate after only very short distances of transport (Shafer, 1972).They had actually concluded the *exact opposite* of what Morris claimed of their work. So you make the call -- was Morris being dishonest, or just bone-headedly sloppy? Neither option inspires confidence, does it?
Here's another:
"Ross and Rezak say: 'Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many years ago'"Whitcomb and Morris provide this "quote" as alleged support of their assertion that the Lewis thrust is a "bedding plane" (flat, undisturbed layers of sediment). But let's check the original quote:
-- John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, "The Genesis Flood", page 187
Hmm, look at that -- again, the *actual* source cited by Morris in "support" of his claims actually says *the exact opposite*. Additionally, he dropped the word "millions" from his quoted portion without leaving any indication at all (e.g., with "...") that he had removed any text. The reason for the sneaky change is obvious: Morris is a young-earth creationist who believes the Earth is only 6000 years old, and he couldn't let his thesis be tainted by quoting any sources that obviously greatly disagreed with his notion, because that might make his audience wonder about its veracity..."Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in certain zones they are intensely so. From points on or near the trails in the park it is possible to observe places where the beds of the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the softer younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east." (Ross and Rezak 1959 p. 420) (The text quoted by Whitcomb and Morris is bold).
Morris is not to be trusted, either from an honesty standpoint, or a competence standpoint.
For a lengthy examination of only a *single* kind of gross error in geology which Morris repeatedly makes, see . It should make the quality of Morris's "scholarship" pretty clear.
As for A. E. Wilder-Smith (not "Wildersmith", by the way), he seems a much more honest person than Morris, and less prone to bone-headed scientific screwups, but his failings are fatal nonetheless. Wilder-Smith was of the "ivory tower philosopher" school of creationists, who believed that by sitting in an armchair and thinking hard about "basic principles", one could arrive at lofty conclusions which were necessarily correct. Needless to say, the failures of Aristotle and Plato using this method should be instructive -- sooner or later, you need to get out and do a reality-check against the real world. One of Wilder-Smith's bigger boo-boos, for example, was his conclusion that evolutionary methods could not produce "novel" information and/or solutions. Wilder-Smith worked this out in detail in a book he wrote, "The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution" (1970). In it, he specifically concludes that even computer simulations of evolutionary processes would result in a situation where, in his words, "The biologists have mocked from a distance and denied the result proclaimed by the mathematicians -- that the theory will not work but merely jams the best machines."
Gosh, he sure sounds certain of his conclusion.
Too bad it's quite simply flat wrong.
The short rebuttal is that genetic algorithms in computer programs, by following the same evolutionary principles laid out by Darwin, have consistently produced all manner of fantastic results, and are today a very fruitful field for the production of solutions to "hard" problems.
The long rebuttal, which examines in details many of Wilder-Smith's errors, can be found here.
If you think it's just "spin", then you clearly haven't read the statement. Try doing more research before you engage in your own "spin" next time.
I weary of evolutionist platitudes.
And I weary of your simply declaring your "is not!" responses without actually bothering to support them. Oh look, here you go again:
Your statement is plain and simply false.
Uh huh... Nice try, but stamping your feet doesn't prove your case.
If it were true, the article that started this thread would not have been posted.
That's a mighty strange "reasoning" process you've got there, son. "Because someone posted an article to FreeRepublic, science is provably non-introspective!"
Needs work.
As it is, evolutionists are intolerant of criticism directed toward them or their precious fairy story.
Are you really this off-base, or are you just trolling? Science is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM. School classrooms are not the proper place to have that debate. It's not like this is a hard concept, do try to keep up and stop shouting "Eureka!" over the most mundane things.
BTW, self-correcting implies error. If evo were truly self-correcting, it would adjust the theory rather than blackball the critic.
It does adjust the theory, quite often -- and then creationists gibber and dance and giggle, "ha ha, evolution is so screwed up they have to keep fixing it!". You've seen the posts as often as I have, don't deny it.
Critics are not blackballed. The current article, as you would well know if you were as smart as you like to believe you are, is another issue entirely. Anyone who wants to criticize any aspect of evolution is entirely welcome to do so in the peer-reviewed journals which such criticisms are not only allowed, they're welcome. Again, though, school classrooms are *not* the proper place for such arguments, for a variety of reasons (most of which the creationists understand full well, which is why they're trying to force their way into there).
If you can document either of your silly assertions, now would be a great time to do so -- or retract them, if you're honorable enough to do so.
[that's what peer review and the scientific method is predicated upon. mistakes are made over the millenia, then they are corrected with better science.]
Another stale platitude.
Another empty snide remark.
The peer review process is as clean and pure and the Justice Department's investigation of itself under Janet Reno.
So you say, without a shred of support. Typical.
"Peer" has been restricted to those friendly to the evolutionist propaganda.
Horse manure -- this only shows that you haven't a clue how the process even works. It's not like there's a sign-up sheet or membership card which can be denied.
Support your slur, or retract it. Or leave it lie, so we'll know that you have no interest in defending your reputation.
First you need to understand that the truth does not need to be corrected. Only falsehoods need to be corrected. Christianity, therefore, could not be self-correcting.
Wow, speaking of "stale platitudes"...
I'm sorry, but the part where you actually made a case in support of your simple declarations seems to have gotten lost in transmission.
Please re-transmit, and be sure not to lose the part where you correctly define what makes something a "science" or not. There will be a short quiz later.
Why would you want to lie to schoolkids like that?
Creationism _+_ froglok ///// estudio (()(( underling bonus % -( breathmints!
There, I've completely demolished your position. Now go take your medication, you're obviously overdue.
I think those are the ones where people whack each other with sticks trying to drive out the devil.
With all due respect, science couldn't prove any theory if it had forever-and-a-day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.