• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Creationist: Darwinists Growing Desperate to Defend Theory

Status
Not open for further replies.

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
from: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1329991.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica]Creationist: Darwinists Growing Desperate to Defend Theory[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1]Jim Brown[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1]Agape Press[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1]May 13, 2005

"Intelligent design advocates are drawing attention to what they call a "smoking gun" memo that outlines the strategy of pro-Darwinian forces in the debate over science standards in Kansas.

At issue is an Internet post by Liz Craig, a spokeswoman from the group Kansas Citizens for Science. In it, she delineates her plan for dealing with those on the Kansas Board of Education who fall on the creationist side of the science standards debate.

In the online discussion, Craig described how she intended to use the press in an effort to portray creationist and intelligent design advocates as uninformed and foolish. Her strategy, she remarked, is "the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray [critics of evolution] in the harshest light possible as political opportunists, Evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc."
spacer.gif



Dr. John West of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the nation's largest intelligent design think tank, believes Darwinists do not want to talk about science but instead want to demonize their opponents. What is happening in Kansas is "supposed to be a science debate," he says, "but the pro-Darwin groups seem allergic to talking about the science. They'd rather sling mud, and it makes you sort of wonder whether they have any scientific arguments offer at all."

According to West, Darwinists are engaging in little more than a smear campaign. "I think that's something the public ought to wonder about," he says. "If all they can do is sling mud, then what's going on here?"

The Discovery Institute spokesman says the evolutionists are showing their desperation. "For months they've been saying there aren't any scientists who challenge any part of Darwin's theory," he notes. "And then, lo and behold, we have these hearings where we have a parade of scientists with PhDs in biology, geneticists from Cornell University, a biochemistry professor from the University of Georgia."

Laymen creationists and intelligent design supporters have plenty of well-informed and well-respected scientists echoing their criticisms of evolution science, West points out. There are numerous experts, he notes, from "major secular research institutions, who are in fact saying, 'Yeah, there are some really significant problems with Darwin's theory.' These are the scientists that weren't supposed to exist."

West believes many in the pro-evolution scientific establishment avoid true debate with creationists because the evolution supporters are not prepared to defend their position. Ironically, he adds, the very language many Darwinists use to attack their opponents instead is a good description of their tactics."[/size][/font]
 

CPman2004

The Carnivorous Plant Evangelist
Aug 11, 2003
3,777
285
39
Kentucky
✟6,488.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well first off Evolution is not a scientific theory. It fails on all accounts of being a legitament theory. What people are defending when they defend evoultion is a scientism (worldview parading as science). Evolution is no more then an presuppostion by which they inturpret all data. That is why it is so hard to debate them for although it can be shown that their presuppsiton and worldview are wrong, they will still hold on to it with a religous faith (not to say they worship it, but believe in it like we believe in God) and will dismiss the problems by saying that in the future more eviedence can be shown. However, the quest for evidence has been going on since Darwin who didn't really have any evidence to begin with when he first formed the "theory."

If you want to know more about what I am talking about I would HIGHLY recomend you buy a couple MP3s (or CDs) of Greg Bahnsen's lectures "Is Evolution Science?" and "Can TE save the Theory?" Both are wonderful, and have really confirmed what I have known all along, evolution is no more scientific then I am an princess ;)
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is a difference between the theory of evolution which is:

1. Changes in populations over time and
2. The single common ancestor model.

The single common ancestor model is simply presumed while the changes in populations over time just a matter of degrees. They draw their charts up in such a way as to show lineage from the single common ancestor. The first one to do this was darwin and this is his famous 'tree of life'.

icons3-1.gif


Here is a commentary from Icons of Evolution with a couple of telling quotes that indicate just how unquestionable universal descent has become:

"Darwin wrote: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited.” Darwin thus used the illustration of a tree to picture the descent of all living things from possibly “one primordial form, ” with the “green and budding twigs” representing modern species and the root being the presumed universal common ancestor. Harvard neo-Darwinist Ernst Mayr stated in 1991 “there is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.”

Commentary on Icons of Evolution

ICR has offered the creationist view which frankly makes a lot more sense then the Darwinian model:

btg-150b.jpg

"Within each separate lineage there is some variety, but separateness is the rule. There is no evidence for common ancestry. The "branches" and the "trunk" are non-existent. Rather than a continuous out-folding of new and ever more complex life, we see complexity at the start which continues into the present with some extinction along the way.

No new basic types since the start? How could anything be more embarrassing to evolution theory? The fossil record stands as stark confirmation of creation, not evolution. The only question which remains is when will this demonstrably false piece of propaganda be removed from our textbooks? "

*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

John Morris on the Darwinian Tree of Life

This is what they do, they draw up their charts, graphs and clades in such a way as indicate a single common ancestor but none of this is acutally proven. That is the sense in which the Theory of Evolution is both facts and fantasy.

Here is one way that evidence has been twisted to suggest common anceostry. Notice how Haekel has exagerated the simularties, it should be noted that Haekel's fradulant sketches they still appear in science textbooks:

Picture%200041.jpg


When the premise of a single common ancestor became impossible to prove they simply redefined evolution as the change in genes in populations over time. What is important to realize is that the single common ancestor is still implied even though it's not a part of the modern definition. It is what they call in Christian Apologetics a 'naturalistic presumption', they don't have to prove anything or explain why we should accept a single common ancestor as the only explanation. They do this with a definition of science, they will say science is the testing of hypothesis to confirm truth. What they don't tell you is that this definition is suppose to reject all supernatural explanations for absolutly everything. The scientific definiton for evolution is perfectly consistant with the creationist model as does the definition of science most often used. What you have to do is read between the lines.

One example of how something can be true and a dangerous deception at the same time. Remember the Garden of Eden and the tempation by the Serpent? Do you realize that everything the Serpent said was true but the whole thing was still a lie?

Ye shall be as gods...true there eyes were opened to discern good and evil.
Ye shall not surely die...true they did not fall over dead as a result.
 
Upvote 0

Knowledge3

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2005
9,523
18
✟9,814.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Most of the support from support from the theory stems comes from not realizing the possibilities of a Creator. When you remove that aspect, the line of reasoning stems from trying to make sense of how we came to be.

I came to a pretty good understanding of it yesterday, it seem rather lacking and wasn't that impressive. The reason "evolution" has an appearance with all the evidence and scientific backing is because it was allowed to be studied in a progressive environment. It was giving the appearance of bieng valid to the point of being a "valid" hypothesis" and "reasonable" explanation.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
TwinCrier said:
And don't we see this method emplyed on this message board as well? It's hard to debate with those who just spout a proverbial (or sometimes literal) "whatever" then walk away from the discussion.
Most of the debate here by evolutionist seems to target YEC on the age of the planet and the flood. They ask YEC explain this ..... I bet you can't then fail the realize this also works againest evolution as well. When you point out they can't explain how this evolve (like the eye) then they reply "We haven't figure out the mechanics yet but with enough time (and billions of dollars) we figure it out in the future. Evolution is a fact. Resistance is futile. We are the Borg".
Sometimes I feel like give them the same reply" YEC hasn't figure out how this fits into the flood model yet but give us enough time and half the money going to evolutionist we can find out. If not, We will tell you a billion dollar story with big impressive words."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.