Creation evidence?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by npetreley
That's one. Keep 'em comin' guys.

Uh, no. That wasn't an "ad hominem attack." Those are facts. I didn't say a thing about Hovind's arguments. Hovind is a militant tax evader and his "Ph.D." is totally bogus. These facts do not in and of themselves undermine Hovind's "arguments."

You do know what an ad hominem is, don't you?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

By the way - I thought this thread was for evidence of "creation." Where is the evidence? petreley? Shimon? Let's have it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Shimon
If you're already familiar with Kent Hovind's site, then I'm sure you're probably already aware of this list (shortened because it is too lenghty to post in one message:

Shimon

I love it! This thread should REALLY blossom now! Now we can enjoy ad-hominem attacks not only on Dr. Dino, but against Michael Denton, Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Colin Patterson. But NOT D.J. Futuyma, however. Too many people here quote him in FAVOR of evolution, so they're going to have to claim that he was misquoted and taken out of context. Too bad you didn't quote Michael Behe, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, or Richard Dawkins, or we could have had a real blowout hate-fest going here.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


You do know what an ad hominem is, don't you?

its like what happens when you just repeat a word over and over...
"AD-HOMINEM ATTACK!"

"AD-HOMINEM ATTACK!"

"AD-HOMINEM ATTACK!"

"AD-HOMINEM ATTACK!"

eventually you completely forget what it means and start sounding like a broken record...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist

maybe they can't type... ???

I don't know. Are you an idiot about everything you say because you can't read my name and spell it right?

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Does it ever bother you that even [SOME] fellow Christians dont take you seriously, npetrely? (sic) [/B]

Not in the least.

 

[Shimon]

D. Scarlatti

By the way - I thought this thread was for evidence of "creation." Where is the evidence? petreley? Shimon? Let's have it.

Define the terms. What would be accepted as evidence?

Shimon

 

[Jerry Smith]

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that <B>the only acceptable explanation is creation. </B>I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

This isn't evidence, its opinion..

"The hold of the <B>evolutionary paradigm </B>[theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like <B>a principle of medieval astrology </B>than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

This isn't evidene. Its opinion.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

This isn't evidence, its opinion.

When <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1lace>Darwin</st1lace></st1:City> presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of <st1:City><st1lace>Dublin</st1lace></st1:City> remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been <B>positively anti-knowledge </B>. . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, <B>evolution does not convey any knowledge."</B>—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the <st1lace><st1laceName>American</st1laceName> <st1laceType>Museum</st1laceType></st1lace> of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the <B>serious problems of the evolution theory. </B>These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

This isn't evidence. It is opinion....

 

[D. Scarlatti]

So ... once all this irrelevant name dropping and misuse of logical fallacies is over with, I expect we can all look forward to enjoying all that evidence for creation that the creationists have at their fingertips?

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by npetreley


Are you an idiot about everything you say because you can't read my name and spell it right?

tsk tsk... now do I go after you for typos?&nbsp; seriously, that is the lowest of the low as far as flaming goes... and whats with all the aggression?&nbsp; its as if you have an inferiority complex...

 

[Raging Atheist]

that is a good question... how do you define reasonable Creationism evidence? Jerry?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Shimon
Define the terms. What would be accepted as evidence?

You know, evidence: facts, circumstances, observations that support the bizarre belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and all living things on it were created exactly as we see them today.

Did you find the opening post confusing?

 

[Raging Atheist]

*crickets chirp*

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist


tsk tsk... now do I go after you for typos?&nbsp; seriously, that is the lowest of the low as far as flaming goes... and whats with all the aggression?&nbsp; its as if you have an inferiority complex...

Pay attention, please. "Ah, so I see you have no reading comprehension whatsoever." THAT is called an insult. The previous post was NOT an insult. I wasn't calling you an idiot. I was, in fact, saying that it is just as silly to claim Christians are illiterate because a creation site uses streaming media as it would be to call you an idiot because you can't spell my name right. But I'd be glad to call you an idiot anyway if you insist.

 

[Jerry Smith]

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Now, the point that we have all been making is that Hovind is known to be dishonest and that therefore his facts are not trustworthy. He can't be relied upon to accurately portray the facts, so we need not even consider the arguments he makes based on them. In this case, Hovind's character does bear strongly on the truth or falsity of the claims he makes, so while it may be ad hominem, our response to him is not fallacious.

Furthermore, I have asked Shimon to quote the "evidence" he thinks is reliable from Hovinds cite so that we can actually consider his arguments too.

 

[Shimon]

D Scarlatti:

You know, <I>evidence</I>: facts, circumstances, observations that support the bizarre belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and all living things on it were created exactly as we see them today.

Did you find the opening post confusing?

I've been in enough of these discussions in the past to know that just about any evidence that is provided will be tossed out unless a solid definition of acceptable evidence is provided first-hand.

Shimon

 

[Morat]

That's a pretty hypocritical statement, don't you think? Evolution is founded upon literally dozens and dozens of known liars. Remember "Nebraska Man?" A pig tooth was claimed to have been a human tooth.

&nbsp; You mean the "Nebraska Man" that was considered suspicious and unlikely by paleontologists at the time, and whose own discoverer was the one that ultimately debunked it?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm not sure I see the "lie" there. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Remember "Peking Man?" Some monkey bones were found in the same area with human tools, and no mention was made of the human bones found in the same area. The list goes on and on.

&nbsp; You mean this Peking Man? How is it a lie again? Perhaps you could elaborate.

Bowden's claim that the Peking Man skulls were not even of apes, but of monkeys, is ridiculous. Four of the five skulls are over twice the maximum brain size of a chimpanzee, and monkeys are considerably smaller than chimps. Worse, Bowden says that "in his book <CITE>Fossil Men</CITE>, [Boule] is clearly unconvinced that Sinanthropus was other than a monkey", but the quote from Boule and Vallois (1957) that Bowden gives in support of his assertion implies nothing of the sort; it is Boule's claim that Sinanthropus had been hunted by humans. In fact, Boule, as the quotes given above show, made it quite clear that Sinanthropus was not a monkey, or even an ape, but intermediate between apes and humans. The effort Gish and Bowden expend in discrediting Peking Man seems totally wasted, as it is all nullified by the far more competent work of Lubenow (1992), another creationist. Lubenow accepts Peking Man as <I>Homo erectus</I> as a matter of course, and, although he must have been familiar with Gish and Bowden's criticisms, apparently (and rightly) did not consider any of them worth repeating. In recent years, Lubenow's interpretation appears to be gaining ground over that of Gish and Bowden among creationists.

&nbsp; I notice you did not address my objections to the quotes used, and even proceeded to cut and paste them without answering my objections. Do you think ignoring the obvious flaws will make them go away?

&nbsp;

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Shimon
I've been in enough of these discussions in the past to know that just about any evidence that is provided will be tossed out unless a solid definition of acceptable evidence is provided first-hand.

Then you must have loads of evidence at your fingertips. Evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Let's go.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

See, Jerry knows what an ad hominem is.

Accordingly, Kent Hovind's claim that the goal of evolution is represented by the number of chromosomes that individual organisms possess and that "identical twins" chimps and tobacco plants are on their way to evolving into the ultimate pinnacle of evolutionary development, the fern, has nothing to do with the facts that he is a militant tax evader and the holder of a completely fraudulent "Doctorate."

 

[Jerry Smith]

Jerry:
I have yet to find any evidence that supports creationism in either place, except that which was made up, borrowed uncritically from folk-lore, exagerrated, quote-mined or some such.

Nick:
Chalk up another one. How many is that now - 6?

And how exactly does a criticism of the "evidence" at his cite constitute ad hominem?

 

[seebs]

So, what you folks are saying is, there's nothing I can go and observe that actually *supports young-earth creationism*, although there's lots of claims that people have found ways to dispute old-earth and evolution.

I still want to see evidence *FOR* a young earth. Surely, there's some nice accurate dating method that reliably indicates that nothing is more than 6000 years old?