Creationists and research

[toff]

In my experience, creationists seem to have a very poor grasp of evolutionary theory. They consistently misrepresent it, asking questions and making statements which reveal they know very little about it.

So my question to creationists is this: what research have you done into the theory of evolution? I'm not talking of creationists writings - they don't count. What scientific journals or books on the subject have you read? The theory of evolution is well-served by a number of popular science authors - Dawkins, Gould, Diamond, etc. Have you read any of those?

If your answer to the above is "no", then I ask you if you're being entirely honest? Is it honest to dismiss and attempt to denigrate something about which, by your own admission, you know little? If I came in here and said that Christianity was complete rubbish, full of lies, and then admitted I hadn't read the bible, you might well suggest that since I hadn't even read the source material, what I was dismissing was my own caricature of Christianity, and you would be right. But aren't you doing the same thing with the theory of evolution?

 

[Bushido216]

But to their mind, the only "honest" literature is Christian literature.

{EDIT: I can't believe I used the wrong form of "their"...}

 

[Phred]

Even if they did read it nothing would change. It can't be true. If the Bible is inerrant then anything that contradicts it is false.

Find evolution in the Bible and then they'll listen, beyond that it's a case of willful ignorance.

 

[phaedrus]

Creationism and evolution have one thing in common. They are both philosophy applied to science. Of course the details are irrelevant to both sides, the premise is allready established. Natural selection, special creatition are identical as systematic philosophy. Anyone who argues that evolution is science doesnt know what they are talking about.

 

[MartinM]

Anyone who argues that evolution is science doesnt know what they are talking about

I'm sure you're going to enlighten us...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Creationism and evolution have one thing in common. They are both philosophy applied to science. Of course the details are irrelevant to both sides, the premise is allready established. Natural selection, special creatition are identical as systematic philosophy. Anyone who argues that evolution is science doesnt know what they are talking about.

I see bold assertions, but I don't see anything to back them up. Care to demonstrate why evolution is not science?

 

[phaedrus]

I see bold assertions, but I don't see anything to back them up. Care to demonstrate why evolution is not science?

I thought you would never ask, can you point to the law of natural selection or is it a transendental philosophy?

 

[napajohn]

In my experience, creationists seem to have a very poor grasp of evolutionary theory. They consistently misrepresent it, asking questions and making statements which reveal they know very little about it.

So my question to creationists is this: what research have you done into the theory of evolution? I'm not talking of creationists writings - they don't count. What scientific journals or books on the subject have you read? The theory of evolution is well-served by a number of popular science authors - Dawkins, Gould, Diamond, etc. Have you read any of those?

Ok lets ignore all of the creationist ideas..lets ignore Newton, GW Carver and Galileo..nothing exists unless you read evolutionry peer-reviewed articles of which they do not allow creationist or ID writings..Lets look at any Biology books, do they mention right-handed AA's as only the ones used in nature when talking about the success of Millers experiments? probably not..do they empasize the track record of evolutionists fraud in history: Haeckels drawings, the Horse series, cambrian explosion,the peppered-moth claims,that archaepterix is a bird, the lying in creating Piltdown man, Nebraska man and so on..do they mention the controversy of the Laeotoli footprints or that red blood cells have been found on some dinosaurs?
and i can go on and on...

If your answer to the above is "no", then I ask you if you're being entirely honest? Is it honest to dismiss and attempt to denigrate something about which, by your own admission, you know little? If I came in here and said that Christianity was complete rubbish, full of lies, and then admitted I hadn't read the bible, you might well suggest that since I hadn't even read the source material, what I was dismissing was my own caricature of Christianity, and you would be right. But aren't you doing the same thing with the theory of evolution?

what you fail to realize is that many who have become creationists once were staunch evolutionists..they know the evolutionary claims and evidence, DR Gary Parker, Behe, Morris were at at one time staunch evolutionists and have seen the arguments for evolution..no what you are suggesting is that only an evolutionists can criticize is thoroughly wrong..the evidence whether it is from either side must be presented and judged on its merits...

 

[toff]

Ok lets ignore all of the creationist ideas..lets ignore Newton, GW Carver and Galileo..nothing exists unless you read evolutionry peer-reviewed articles of which they do not allow creationist or ID writings..Lets look at any Biology books, do they mention right-handed AA's as only the ones used in nature when talking about the success of Millers experiments? probably not..do they empasize the track record of evolutionists fraud in history: Haeckels drawings, the Horse series, cambrian explosion,the peppered-moth claims,that archaepterix is a bird, the lying in creating Piltdown man, Nebraska man and so on..do they mention the controversy of the Laeotoli footprints or that red blood cells have been found on some dinosaurs?
and i can go on and on...


what you fail to realize is that many who have become creationists once were staunch evolutionists..they know the evolutionary claims and evidence, DR Gary Parker, Behe, Morris were at at one time staunch evolutionists and have seen the arguments for evolution..no what you are suggesting is that only an evolutionists can criticize is thoroughly wrong..the evidence whether it is from either side must be presented and judged on its merits...

Thanks, you've demonstrated that YOU, at least, are not in the least interested in actually studying the subject you attempt to denigrate. Lots of excuses for it, though.

 

[toff]

Creationism and evolution have one thing in common. They are both philosophy applied to science. Of course the details are irrelevant to both sides, the premise is allready established. Natural selection, special creatition are identical as systematic philosophy. Anyone who argues that evolution is science doesnt know what they are talking about.

Anyone who argues that evolution isn't science doesn't know what they are talking about.

Gee, it's real easy to make unsupported assertions, isn't it?

 

[Heathen Dawn]

Creationism and evolution have one thing in common. They are both philosophy applied to science.

How can a philosophy be applied to science, as science already operates under a built-in philosophy of its own (methodological naturalism)?

 

[toff]

Ok lets ignore all of the creationist ideas..lets ignore Newton, GW Carver and Galileo..nothing exists unless you read evolutionry peer-reviewed articles of which they do not allow creationist or ID writings..Lets look at any Biology books, do they mention right-handed AA's as only the ones used in nature when talking about the success of Millers experiments? probably not..do they empasize the track record of evolutionists fraud in history: Haeckels drawings, the Horse series, cambrian explosion,the peppered-moth claims,that archaepterix is a bird, the lying in creating Piltdown man, Nebraska man and so on..do they mention the controversy of the Laeotoli footprints or that red blood cells have been found on some dinosaurs?
and i can go on and on...


what you fail to realize is that many who have become creationists once were staunch evolutionists..they know the evolutionary claims and evidence, DR Gary Parker, Behe, Morris were at at one time staunch evolutionists and have seen the arguments for evolution..no what you are suggesting is that only an evolutionists can criticize is thoroughly wrong..the evidence whether it is from either side must be presented and judged on its merits...

I am not asking Parker, Behe, or Morris. None of them, as far as I know, post on this forum. I'm asking YOU. And by not even answering the question, you've answered it. Thanks for playing; your intellectual dishonesty is revealed.

 

[phaedrus]

How can a philosophy be applied to science, as science already operates under a built-in philosophy of its own (methodological naturalism)?

The same way philosophy can be applied to religion resulting in a theology. Of course philosophy is built into naturalism, thats the whole point. The transendantal philosophy is the substantive element that transends reality, so it follows, natural selection is philosophy not science.

 

[phaedrus]

I am not asking Parker, Behe, or Morris. None of them, as far as I know, post on this forum. I'm asking YOU. And by not even answering the question, you've answered it. Thanks for playing; your intellectual dishonesty is revealed.

These people did empirical research and concluded that God made the heavens and the earth. Your conclusion on the other hand lacks any real substance.

 

[MartinM]

The transendantal philosophy is the substantive element that transends reality, so it follows, natural selection is philosophy not science.

Right. What you've got hold of there is called a n-o-n s-e-q-u-i-t-u-r. Try making your point again, only this time connect the premises with the conclusion in some way.

 

[phaedrus]

Right. What you've got hold of there is called a n-o-n s-e-q-u-i-t-u-r. Try making your point again, only this time connect the premises with the conclusion in some way.

For some reason it allways comes down to cluch phrases. The premise of both natural selection and special creation are allready self-evident (aka transendental)

 

[MartinM]

If by self-evident you mean analytic truth, then cobblers.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I thought you would never ask, can you point to the law of natural selection or is it a transendental philosophy?

Wow, a leading question and false dichotomy all in one.

But if you are implying that there is no empirical support for natural selection, you might want to go here, run a search for "natural selection", then return after reading the 1500+ papers on the subject.

 

[phaedrus]

Wow, a leading question and false dichotomy all in one.

But if you are implying that there is no empirical support for natural selection, you might want to go here, run a search for "natural selection", then return after reading the 1500+ papers on the subject.

More verbage that ignores the main point without even answering the question. Can you point to a law of natural selection or is it transendental philosophy. If its false you should have no trouble showing how, without me reading 1500 pages of philosophy.

 

[phaedrus]

If by self-evident you mean analytic truth, then cobblers.

By self-evident I mean obvious and I have no idea what 'cobblers' means.