Creationist's mistakes (part II)

[Jerry Smith]

This is a repost. To see this discussion with some added Bible passages from gunnysgt - see the original thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16181

I would like to request that when the admissions of mistakes start rolling in, they be posted to this thread, rather than the original.

Randman says that creationists don't defraud or mislead on purpose - they just make "honest" mistakes. Lets list some "honest" mistakes on that have been made by creationists on this board and see how "honest" they were. I'm sure the creationists will be happy to show how honest the mistakes were by coming on this thread and saying "hey - I was wrong on this one."

#1) Evolution is practiced as a religion
There is no hierarchy in evolutionary science. There are various fields of study, and the specialists in those fields are generally expected to publish in their field. No hierarchy is one point against evolution being a religion.
There is no dogma in evolutionary science. Any fact or theory within the field can be challenged at any time by the presentation of a better theory, or by falsification of the existing one.
There are no rituals in evolutionary science.
There are no supernatural beliefs in evolutionary science.
There are no philosophical assumptions behind evolutionary science.

Now all you creationists who have made the "honest" mistake of claiming that evolution is practiced as a religion, just type a quick message admitting the mistake & lets get the air cleared.

#2) There is no evidence for evolution.
Evolution in all its forms has been documented by various means. You may or may not feel the evidence is compelling. You may feel that the evidence must be subject to too much interpretation as it supports evolution. Fine for you to feel that way. Not a justification for saying the evidence doesn't exist.

Let's hear "I was wrong about there not being any evidence".

#3) Isochron dating is fatally flawed.
Either it isn't fatally flawed, some demon is directing the different flaws of different methods to converge on the same results, or it just works extremely well for a mortally wounded dating method.

So - "I'm sorry. I was just running my mouth when I said isochron dating was flawed. I wouldn't know an isochron if it came up and bit me on the rear end."

#4) Evolutionist reaction to Kow Swamp fossils is an example of propaganda
A) Kow Swamp fossils are claimed to be Homo erectus by creationist
B) Someone writes strong refutation of claim
C) Another creationist reads claim and complains that evolutionists don't give KS fossils the attention they deserve
D) a creationist here asserts that this complaint is based on fact, and that evolutionists are burying the evidence that would undermine their theory.

A) KS fossils are demonstrably not Homo erectus
B) It only makes sense to refute the claims that are actually made
C) It isn't difficult to find material about the KS swamp fossils on the internet or in the library. How much attention DO they deserve?
D) The complaint is silly. The evidence is out in the open, and despite the variation present in the K.S. fossils, nothing about them undermines hominid evolution in the least.

"I was wrong. This isn't an example of propaganda and indoctrination."

#5) There is a fossil of a human footprint with an embedded trilobite.

"I didn't bother checking my facts first. I wonder why the creationist web-site I got this from didn't ever post a correction?"

#6) People grow a third set of teeth when they get old...

"Ok, I went off half-cocked on this one. I should have checked my facts first"

#7) The real geologic column (where it exists relatively intact with all of the strata in it) is only 16% of the depth of the theorized geologic column.

"Ok, I trusted a creationist by the name of John Woodmorappe. I won't make that mistake again."

#8) There are fossil reptile footprints that came before the evolution of reptiles?

"I'm sorry, I had been drinking a lot that night and it sounded good at the time. That wasn't right".


Ok, boys - lets jump in here and show our Honesty by correcting these "honest" mistakes!!

 

[Jerry Smith]

If anyone knows of any other errors that need correction, please post them to this thread. I think seebs mentioned one in the original thread, but I wasn't a witness to its commission, so I will leave it to seebs to post that here if he feels it is appropriate to do so.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I think these are good for now. We don't want to flood this thread or the board.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I think seebs mentioned one in the original thread, but I wasn't a witness to its commission, so I will leave it to seebs to post that here if he feels it is appropriate to do so.

I remember that exchange well, it is here.

lambslove: One interesting thing to know about evolution is, while it depends on mutations to make genetic changes that lead to phenotypical changes that lead to the creation of new species, scientists are perplexed about the actual mechanism of those mutations, since all observed mutations have invloved the loss of genetic material, not the creation of new material.

Simply put, scientist can't figure out how new, more complex species can arise out of simpler, older species, since genetic material is constantly becoming less complex, not more complex, within any given species.

seebs: Actually, lambslove, that one's an urban legend. We know of several ways for new genetic material to show up, or for genetic material to change. Outright "loss" of material is unusual.

Over time, genetic material becomes more complex, not less complex, in most cases.

lambslove: Wow! Do you still believe that lie? That's what science thought 40 years ago, but hasnn't been true for decades. Man, I knew the public school system was behind the times in science, but I had no idea how bad it really was!

You ought to try to keep up with science, especially if you are going to procliam it to be the ultimate truth.

I too would love to see lambslove come back and admit to be mistaken, especially having displayed such snotty attitude towards seebs.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

There is no dogma in evolutionary science. Any fact or theory within the field can be challenged at any time by the presentation of a better theory, or by falsification of the existing one.

Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.... To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.

You can't get much more dogmatic than that.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Yes, how dare science restict itself to things it can measure and test. Apparently, Nick would like science to start answering theology. Or would he rather science to entertain the answers of theologians?

Come on. It's no more a flaw in science to not consider supernatural explainaitons as it is a flaw for an English Literature class to not cover Sun Tsu's The Art of War.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Yes, how dare science restict itself to things it can measure and test. Apparently, Nick would like science to start answering theology. Or would he rather science to entertain the answers of theologians?

Come on. It's no more a flaw in science to not consider supernatural explainaitons as it is a flaw for an English Literature class to not cover Sun Tsu's The Art of War.

Typical creationist apologist.

Tries to use hammer as a paintbrush.

"Crap. This doesn't work. Obviously hammers are defective, since they don't work in the way I wanted them to."

Never stops to consider that hammers were never *intended* to be paintbrushes....

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sauron


Typical creationist apologist.

Tries to use hammer as a paintbrush.

"Crap. This doesn't work. Obviously hammers are defective, since they don't work in the way I wanted them to."

ROFL!!! Look who's talking!!!

Evolution works by gradual step-by-step mutation and selection. Crap. The fossils don't support that. Obviously, the fossils are defective, since they don't show what I want them to. So I'll change my evolutionist hammer into a punk eek paintbrush...

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Evolution works by gradual step-by-step mutation and selection. Crap. The fossils don't support that. Obviously, the fossils are defective, since they don't show what I want them to. So I'll change my evolutionist hammer into a punk eek paintbrush...

Nice cartoon of the history of biology. Like most cartoons, it's pretty, appeals to children, and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by npetreley
ROFL!!! Look who's talking!!!

So show me where the tool is being mis-used. Don't worry; I won't hold my breath.

Evolution works by gradual step-by-step mutation and selection.

Not quite. Evolution uses step-by-step mutation. But it is not confined by that. You mistake the use of one mechanism for being restricted and confined to a single mechanism.

Typical simplistic creationist mistake. You are forgiven, my child. :razz:

Crap.

Are we talking about creationism already? I was saving it for later...

The fossils don't support that.

Yes, they do.

Obviously, the fossils are defective, since they don't show what I want them to.

1. They do support it - your conclusion is busted, because your initial premise is bogus; and

2. Even your conclusion is not a position of science.

Evidently, poptart, your expertise isn't hammers or paintbrushes at all; it's strawmen.

So I'll change my evolutionist hammer into a punk eek paintbrush

Except that PE is supported by direct observation of speciation in our lifetime. When sudden changes in environment happen, or when populations of creatures are isolated and removed from the selective processes that exercised control on previous stable populations, then there is no trimming/culling effect on mutations. Amazing things can happen.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Starscream

I too would love to see lambslove come back and admit to be mistaken, especially having displayed such snotty attitude towards seebs.

Me too, just because I think the "no new information" mantra is a particularly dangerous one, because it relies on terminology and understanding that's pretty hard for most people to approach or understand.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley



Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997

[...quote from Lewontin on the scientific method...]

You can't get much more dogmatic than that. [/B]

So, you falsely conclude that Lewontin's position on methodological naturalism constitutes a dogma of science. Let me ask you, what position does Lewontin hold in the "church" that his personal assessment of the scientific method constitutes "dogma"?

 

[Jerry Smith]

My goodness! What an overwhelming response! Not everybody at once now....

 

[Jerry Smith]

Hey, a direct observation of macro-evolution:

Watch these honest mistakes evolve into false and dishonest claims! It only takes days - every day that goes by without a correction from the people who made these honest mistakes finds these mistakes with novel new features:

Day 1: Mistakes go into brief period of denial
Day 2: Mistakes grow longer noses
Day 3: Mistakes grow horns
By day seven, we may even see the evolution of a complete dishonest false claim.

The Mistakus dishonestus often makes rapid and excited movements with its hands and screams aggressively - so be sure to observe closely or you may be distracted from its novel features!

 

[randman]

Yawn.