PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationist Tactics Revealed!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
monster618

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was debating evolution vs. creationism with someone on another board. I think the following text will show that creationists will go to any lengths to bring down evolution and scientific theory. Read on and judge for yourself:

CREATIONIST’S REPLY TO A PREVIOUS POST:
Actually there have been many evolutionists and athiests that have studied the evidence and then became theist. For example Albert Einstein , the smartest man to ever life with the heaviest brain on record.

Check out what evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel has to say about the subject.

“Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel”
 

MY RESPONSE:
It becomes obvious to me that you have no intention of carrying on a serious intellectual dialogue. All you want to do is stir up some ####. That's fine, I'll play.

First of all, I have pointed out to you many, many times that being a scientist does not mean not believing in God. Albert Einstein (one of my heroes) did not BECOME a theist. As far as I know, HE ALWAYS WAS!!!! So is Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest mind of our times - HE BELIEVES IN GOD, TOO - HE IN FACT MENTIONS HIM IN HIS BOOKS!!!  If you do not understand this, you are obviously the one with the chip on his shoulder. Your faith must be WEAK, since all you do is post stuff, but don't really argue your points past a couple of one-liners.

To sum it up, NO, Einstein DID NOT study up on Creationism, and then became a theist. I will NOT let you take credit for that one, because it is a LIE.

Second, you misquoted the good doctor. You copied and pasted the intro to the quote, not the quote itself. This is what he said:

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

I know what creationist website you got that from. Doctor Leslie Orgel should sue them for libel. Why? Because his quote is taken completely out of context, and misused to convey a meaning quite different than what he actually meant. Here is the paragraph that immediately follows:

"In the late 1960s Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois, Francis Crick, then at the Medical Research Council in England, and I (working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego) independently suggested a way out of this difficulty. We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the RNA world - a world in which RNA catalyzed all the reactions necessary for a precursor of life's last common ancestor to survive and replicate. We also posited that RNA could subsequently have developed the ability to link amino acids together into proteins. This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis."

Full article: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html

As you can see, after pointing out that it is "improbable" that proteins arose spontaneously, and that it "seems impossible" to have RNA without DNA, in the very next paragraph he suggests a  theory on how this could be possible WITHOUT ONCE mentioning divine intervention. He in fact was one of the pioneers for the "RNA World" theory that creationists love to ridicule on their websites.

Is this the best argument creationism has to offer? Are slanderous, dishonest taken-out-of-context quotes the scientific core of the creationist argument? This is pathetic, truly pathetic. If the people that set up this site think they are doing the world any good, they are sadly mistaken. Willful spreading of misinformation is one of the most unethical intellectual crimes that can be committed, the type of thing dictators have done to control the masses. As I said before, creationists decided what result they wanted, then set out to find “evidence.” Now I see to what lengths they will go to prove it.

I'm not surprised to see other misquotes on this and other sites. Don't be surprised if that website changes or goes down. I WILL be reporting it.
END

As you can tell, this angers me as a scientist. I had a bit of respect for people that legitimately believed in Creationism. After going through several websites and seeing the misinformation, quotes taken out of context, dishonest presentation of legitimate scientific theories, and half-truths, I seriously question their motives. What they are doing is unethical and immoral, since they are purposely attempting to deceive people. I am surprised that people who supposedly believe in God would do such things.

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:05 AM on November 11, 2004 | IP
scibert

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists have, and still do, use dirty tactics.  A few years ago, someone made an article that critically looked at creationist propganda.

Donald U. Wise (2001) viewed the works of the "professional" creationists at the IRC - especially the PhD holding John Morris and Steven Austin. Wise reveals that they, and other creationists, have to start with their conclusions and selectively pick and distort observational facts to fit those conclusions. That is definately not science.

Wise goes on to mention other things, such as the creationist propoganda regarding the geological time scale, failure to publicize admissions of error while continuing to publicize the false conlusions, discusses Morris's salt input from the oceans and how it is faulty, Austin's bad radiometric dating critique, and the false dichotomies of "us vs. them" approach creationists like to employ.

Oh, Wise also discusses the fossil record, and makes an interesting, though short, arguement.

Wise, Donald U. 2001. Creationism's propaganda assault on deep time and evolution. Journal of Geoscience Education 49(1): 30-35.

Edited to add:

Wise has something online, for those interested:
Wise Website


(Edited by scibert 2/15/2005 at 10:59 PM).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:12 PM on February 15, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That site is Garbage!  "Wise Guy"  

Number 1)  Nobody knows how long a day is to GOD!  with this--(4000 B.C.?) refer to the link above.

Number 2)  How do you know God didn't plan on (all) animals evolving into better forms of their old self? (including man)

Number 3)  Somewhere along the time line Man learned how to (cultivate crops),  before this there is no proof of man being intelligent at all!  Even Monkey's use basic tools.   (Something happened around this time period, evolution cannot explain)

Number 4)  Just because we can't find good records before 4,000 B.C.  does not mean people were un-intelligent.  Or that's when time began

Number 5)  We are still evolving now!  Just take a look around.  We are the smartest people the world has ever seen.

Number 6)  Why can't Evolution be a part of Creationism?

Number 7)  How do you know that God isn't so far ahead of the scientist that he planned it all out this way,  to test your faith?

Number 8)  Religion is the only thing that keeps people civil, and that's a fact!

Number 9)  If there is no God, then when you die that's it.  You just rot and decay.  Also that would mean that the only thing keeping someone like me, from robbing or killing someone and taking everything they had would be my conscience.  

Conscience;
        1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
        2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.
        3. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.
 
What good does that do if there's no God?

Number 10)  For all who are concerned,  Let's pray to GOD  and thank him in his infinite wisdom for allowing us (Humans the smarts to even debate this)  after all,   the plants, trees, and animals are evolving all around us and you don't see them inventing the computer so they can argue their own creation over the internet!

I'm just trying to help you both see!



-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 12:12 AM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh!  and another thing:

To suppose that DNA randomly formed into an organism that eventually formed into an intelligent human is saying that there is no GOD!

The theories are one and the same!  

So when you argue this,  you are really arguing whether there is a God or not!

Should just change the topic to a poll that reads:  Do you believe in God?  (Y) or (N)


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 12:20 AM on February 16, 2005 | IP
scibert

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1 and 2 are outside of science's realm, so to speak. I will let theologians argue over how long a "day" is to their diety, and how their deity works.

3: Where humans intelligent before or after agriculture? Let us examine this.

One site places human tool making at approximately 100,000 years ago. Another site states that agriculture arose about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Clearly some intelligence was needed to even make crude tools early on before the advent of agriculture and cultivation.

Early tools

Early Agriculture

Besides, how could an unintelligent species just come up with agriculture and then suddenly become intelligent? That is a rhetorical question, really. Some harvester ants could be said to "practice" cultivation, yet we do not expect them to become intelligent beings equivalent to us due to their food gathering behavior.

4: Our species has been around well before 4000 BC/BCE; just ask an anthropologist. Tools were used in a time well before 4000 BC/BCE (see above and link below).

Blombos Cave

5: Care to elaborate? Humans are the only "people" left. Not much competition, is there, now that we are the last of the hominids.

6: "Theistic evolution" is accepted by some groups, but ultra-conservative groups won't have anything to do with evolution as they see it as a counter to their ideology.

7: Irrelevant to science, but a nice philosophical question.

8: Talk about an arrogant claim. I'm quite civil without religion of any kind, as are every atheist and agnostic I ever met. Considering the history of religion, I'd say religion can lead to uncivil behavior. Ah, but so can political ideologies! Perhaps moral behavior lays with the society one is in, and such view change over time. But that is another topic.

9: If someone is that weak minded, then I feel sorry for them. I, and other non-religous folks, seem to do quite well not going around looting and sacking, and otherwise rampaging. In any case, I find this to be off topic.

10: Irrelevant to science, but relevant to theists. Enjoy your prayer time.

Whether any deity exists or not is not up to science, nor will it ever be. Those who know what science is already know that.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 02:53 AM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Atlantis at 12:20 AM on February 16, 2005 :
Oh!  and another thing:

To suppose that DNA randomly formed into an organism that eventually formed into an intelligent human is saying that there is no GOD!


Well yes, apart from your mis-concieved idea of evolution, it doesn't surgest DNA sudenly apeared. I'm not going into a discussion of what evolution is and isn't (most thiests don't under stand (sorry to genralise)). If your bothered read Darwins theory of evolution, but if you choose not to then don't talk about evolution when you don't understand it.




-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:03 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In response to Number 3,  

This is when God blessed man with the ability of reason and problem solving.  Like I said even monkey's can use basic tools.  Man did not truly begin to become really intelligent until he had time to actually think about things.  The crops allowed man to do this, they created alot of free time, (not devoted to hunting all the time!)

Let's hope for your sake that God does exists,  because like I said before, yes religion has had it's persecutions, but for the common good of "keeping people in line."  Religion accomplishes this!  If you were to prove somehow that their was no GOD,  Then I ask you just why do you think all the religious people would follow any laws?  There would be anarchy, everywhere.  I'll tell you this, my morals which come out of a belief in a God and an afterlife are what keeps me a law abiding citizen!  If someone (you) were to prove to me their was no god, and it's actually survival of the fittest.  I would hope for your sake you were nowhere near a city.  What would keep me from robbing every rich guy I see?  
Laws?   Why follow laws?  Believe me the police stations would be the first thing taken over!  By me, no not just me!  There's millions of us Christians and others

You may say laws will keep us inline.   But I say without religion the laws we have now would have never been formed.  No one would have ever been truly free.  God says to follow the law of the land.  Without God commanding this.  Man would still be living like the cave men with their (clans and gangs) for protection!  You have the freedom of being an atheist.

Because no one would have followed any of the laws.

In response to number 5,
Are you insinuating that there were some other kind of people here sometime?  I hope not!  "We are the only ones left"  I don't quite get this statement.  Of course, we are, who else would their be?  If your talking about man vs. animals, then yeah we killed a bunch of them to make our world safer.  But as far as Man as a species, we are the smartest people's on the planet yet!  We have technology that would have blown earlier mans mind.  My niece for instance can turn on a computer and load her frogger game and play it all on her own.  She's only 3.  That's amazing!  Think of your childhood and what you were doing when you were 12.  That's about 6th grade, these kids now all have a playstation, computer, cell-phones, cordless-phones, microwaves, and so on.  We are more connected than ever.  I don't know if this is the greatest thing but, I will say that we are growing some of the best, and smartest minds the world has ever seen right now!

Finally as a scientist's point of view,  you can believe in a big bang but cannot believe that God had some divine intervention with man's brain somewhere around the time he started planting wheat?

And for question 6 and 7 I ask again, I think everyone should entertain this thought and maybe you should try to answer it for me!

*Why can't evolution be apart of creationism?

*And how do you know that in God's infinate wisdom he's not testing your faith right now?

Thanks for entertaining my thoughts I love a great debate and we could go for ever with this one I'm sure!  I am a college grad and I'm a C.A.D. architect, so you have some background on me.  I'm well read and open-minded about most everything.  I do love a good debate though!

Yes,  I'm familiar with Darwin's Theory of Evolution and I differ you to my question above!


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 3:45 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok well if your familiar with the works of darwin, then you know that the theory doesn't surgest DNA apeared from no where, and much more basic DNA existed prior to current DNA, however  I wont go into this, because we all know it, and we don't then read up on it.

I don't know if god is testing my faith, if he is then I failed. All I know is that from my experiances, I became an athiest when I started questioning faith, as everyone should, you should question everything, science religion social norms etc. And I couldn't find an answer to my questions, the way I saw it god wasn't "talking" to me. And christian teaching says if you open your heart then jesus will enter, well I did and it didn't happen so, after a couple of years of being christian through habbit I became an athiest. But nobody knows if god is just testing us, but if he needs to test us and he is all knowing then he isn't worth worshiping.
Oh and what your saying about produceing the greatest minds the world has ever seen, thats because its based on previous knowledge, as a whole we are getting progresivly more inteligent.
I presume the "others" that were previously refered to are, other inteligent humaniod creatures such as neanderthals (sorry for spelling).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 4:00 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have found that in order to actually see God's work, you have to have an un-questioning faith in him!  It's part of the surrendering of all control, were we find him.  Yes I agree, with you about questioning the teachings.  But after a while you reach a point where all there is left is faith.  Everything cannot be explained with hard facts.  This is good on one hand because it forces you to look deeply into your-self and really examine what is important.  Some of those hard facts that cannot be found are really un-important, when you compare them to the whole point of christianity.  Which is to be kind to others and they will be kind to you,  help those in need when you have abundance,  for  there will be a time in which you are the one in need.  And hopefully someone will in return help you.  

Do you believe in reciprocity?  This law states that  People in debt or in poverty especially need to understand a rule of God's kingdom that is called the Law of Reciprocity. This is a law of cause and effect, of action and reaction. In the area of money, the law is simple: "Give, and it will be given to you: Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you" (Luke 6:38).

Now this may seem a load of crap, but I'll tell you that when I was having some major problems with debt when I was 22.  I read this and decided to try it out.  I gave 10% (to my local church) of my check even though I was needing all of it bad.  I did this for 2 weeks in a row.  One day I checked my mail box and there was a check in there for $1,800 from the U.S. Treasury, apparently I had over payed on my taxes?  I thought hmmm...  this is odd because I thought I had filed correctly.  Now call it a fluke if you will, but that's not all.  Within another 2 weeks of giving my 10% I was offered a job of a lifetime working for Century 21  designing house floor plans.  They contacted me!  I had to move, but still what a deal!  After this I was sold on the "law of reciprocity"

My life is good now and not lacking in any area.  I continue to give 10%  and I still see little things God has blessed me with,  occuring all around.

It makes sense don't it?  If everyone were to give their surplus to someone truly in need, that person will remember and when their time has come, they in return will bless someone else in need.  Now maybe it won't be you, but that's kind of selfish is it not.  Your blessing will come from where you least expect it, sometimes in the form of money and sometimes in another form.

This I truly believe and the only way this will happen is if you believe it.  

Just have faith that your turn is coming!


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 6:28 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, but its still all based on faith, and there is no realy proof that what happened was an "act of god", did you check your tax form to see if you had made a mistake, or inform into why you were chosen for the job. In the same way I have had many good/great things happen to me and I don't have faith.

Oh and somthing you were saying earlier, if there wasa sudern anouncement that there was no god then yes there would be out cry, but if people gradualy acepted it one by one, then society would still hold up and peopel would be "kept in line" via laws, the desire for self improvement and the desire to look after there family. But I would hope that most peoples morals are based on more than religion. Before organised religion there were still morals and laws.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 6:52 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know people had morals before religion?  I doubt that

Before the oldest religion of sun-worship, I don't believe there were many morals around.

Religion was a way of creating morals and guidelines of acceptable ways to behave!

Faith is exactly what it is Faith,  one needs no proof if you have Faith!  please see def. above

Yes, I did check into this check thing and I still can't explain it!  You can bet your ass I didn't give that money back though!


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 7:25 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You make a great deal of mistakes in discussing the theory of evolution and the deelpement of man, let's touch on some of your biggest errors.

Man did not truly begin to become really intelligent until he had time to actually think about things.  The crops allowed man to do this, they created alot of free time, (not devoted to hunting all the time!)

This is partially untrue,  we have the same brain power as our first homo sapien ancestors.  The advent of farming gave us the time to develope our technology.

Let's hope for your sake that God does exists,  because like I said before, yes religion has had it's persecutions, but for the common good of "keeping people in line."  Religion accomplishes this!  If you were to prove somehow that their was no GOD,  Then I ask you just why do you think all the religious people would follow any laws?  There would be anarchy, everywhere.  I'll tell you this, my morals which come out of a belief in a God and an afterlife are what keeps me a law abiding citizen!

So you're basically saying that if there was no God to punish the sinners, there'd be anarchy?!?  What a horrible view of mankind!  Sorry, morals predate religion, other animals have complex morals.  And further more, I think the person who chooses to live by a moral code solely because it's the right thing to do is a far better person than one who feels they are forced to live a moral life or they will be eternally punished.  Let's see some evidence for your claim that without religion there would be no laws, because without any support, it's just your ill informed opinion.

Finally as a scientist's point of view,  you can believe in a big bang but cannot believe that God had some divine intervention with man's brain somewhere around the time he started planting wheat?

Absolutely no evidence for God magically fiddling with primitive man's brain.

To suppose that DNA randomly formed into an organism that eventually formed into an intelligent human is saying that there is no GOD!

First of all, no scientist is saying DNA randomly formed and second of all, the first life forms were not composed of DNA.  And the majority of the worlds Christians accept evolution, so you're wrong in your assertion.


How do you know people had morals before religion?  I doubt that Before the oldest religion of sun-worship, I don't believe there were many morals around.

We know that people had morals before the oldest sun worshipper religions because we know people had primitive communities.  To live in a community requires social rules, morals, so morals predate organized religions.
Heck, we see other animals have moral codes for their communities, chimpanzees and gorillas have complex moral codes and I can't ever remember them practicing any religion.

Religion was a way of creating morals and guidelines of acceptable ways to behave!

Historically religion has been a way of oppressing people, making them behave the way their rulers wanted them to behave, of keeping the masses under control.  But I guess that's all right to someone like you who has such a low opinion of humanity...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:13 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
scibert

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Response to Atlantis.

None of what you ask really has much to do with the topic of this thread (creationist tactics), but I will respond again if I can.

In regards to human intelligence: what would make you think hunter-gathering groups were not as intelligent as those who began agriculture? The mental ability may have been there, but the lifestyle may not have allowed them to exploit it to its fullest potential. A change to agriculture might have been responsible for the change. However,  I have not read any anthropology articles on the subject, so I am not sure what the professionals think on this matter.

This talk of "laws" is way off topic. I seriously doubt that, in the event the Christian god was disproven (which probably won't happen), most Christians would become murders.  I think you over-estimate religion's role in the modern world. People have sense of what is "right or wrong" based on the society they live in, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. After all, at one time in the USA it was not anti-moral for good Christians to hold slaves, but not any more. I truly hope religion is not the only thing keeping you from acting in a criminal manner.

There is no evidence that, if religions did not arise, that humans would remain "in caves." None that I have seen from any legitimate scientific source anyway. Oh, and I am a secular agnostic, not an atheist (at least not a "stong" atheist - one who actively denies the existance of any gods).

In regards to number 5: the other "people" I was refering to would be other hominids that existed along with out early human ancestors. But our species replaced them, though not everyone agrees on how we did so. Perhaps we simply out-competed them. I don't buy the cross-breeding ideas some people have mentioned in other boards.

In any case, we certainly know more about the world and the universe, and can do more than the earliest of our modern human ancestors. Yet this does not imply more intelligence. There is no reason for me to think that, given the opportunity, an early human could not operate a computer if he or she had the same training or experience a youth of today does. They could learn, and they did.

I accept the "big bang" based on the evidence cosmologists have for it. Yet you are right, I do not believe any deity tinkered with the human mind during the period they in which they developed agriculture. That was a human discovery and advent, just as industrialization was. Science can not, of course, disprove your god did spark extra intelligence into humans, as that would have been a supernatural event. Science only studies natural events.

"Why can't evolution be apart of creationism?"

I answered this question. Have you sent this query to a "professional" creationist? I am sure they could answer this question better than I can. After all, it is their ideology that rejects evolution and other scientific views (e.g., mainstream geology and cosmology). Science rejects creation "science" since none of it matches the evidence. If I held beliefs, I wouldn't try to turn them into science where they could be scrutinized, but that's what the people at ICR and similar organizations are doing to their beliefs when they attempt to persuade others that their beliefs are scientifically valid. (I think that negates the purpose of "belief.")

"...how do you know that in God's infinate wisdom he's not testing your faith right now?"

I do not believe in this god. However, there is no way to scientifically show it does or does not exist and is testing people's faith.

Thank you for your background. I came to the boards not so much to debate, but to add what I know to that of others. Those who dispute it may do so, as I am well aware not everyone accepts every part of science. In any case, my time online is limited by my job - sometimes I go months without internet access, so I would hope no one expects me to stick around for long. Sorry to dissapoint those who seek long debates. But there are other internet boards that also host debates with no shortage of long-term regulars. I can recommend some, if you wish, so long as the Admin does not see it as spamming/advertising.

Since you gave me some information, here is mine. I have a B.S. in Enviromental and Forest Biology, and I am considering going for an M.S. in a similar field. I read a lot on evolution and other topics. I am more interested in invasive species ecology and management than evolution vs. creationism, though I have read books and articles on the subject. Certainly no shortage of websites, however only one or two seems to have been worth my time reading. Like everyone else, I have my biases.

I have read some of Darwin's works, though I found Victorian English harder to read than I had expected. Plus I think he was long-winded. In any case, his work is about 150 years old, and modern biologists rely on modern information, not on Darwin himself.



(Edited by scibert 2/19/2005 at 8:03 PM).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:30 AM on February 17, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from scibert at 8:12 PM on February 15, 2005 :
Creationists have, and still do, use dirty tactics.  A few years ago, someone made an article that critically looked at creationist propganda.

Donald U. Wise (2001) viewed the works of the "professional" creationists at the IRC - especially the PhD holding John Morris and Steven Austin. Wise reveals that they, and other creationists, have to start with their conclusions and selectively pick and distort observational facts to fit those conclusions. That is definately not science.


All scientist have presuppositions. To think ohterwise is naive.
An evolutionist "knows" that the world is billions of year old and when a fossil is found that dosen't fit  the date he assumes the date must be wrong. It never occurs to him it may be his theory is wrong.
You obviously assume Steve Austin is wrong because he is a creationist so anything anyone says to refute his work you do not question.
If that scientific?
Does it ever occur to you that if there are numerous cases of fraud to prove a theory there may also be suppression of evidence that refutes it?
Were you taught how to think or what to think.
If you accept what you are told because it's cool you are naive.
Instead of just spouting the party line why don't you read Dr. Austins book, Grand Canyon-Monument to Catastrophe.
You might find he has a point.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:06 PM on April 4, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.