dismissing science

[Rize]

Originally posted by Corey
That's my point. Silicon is the most abundant material on Earth's surface and in dirt, IIRC. If we're created from dirt as per Genesis, we are primary formed of hydrocarbons and not silicates?

It doesn't say we are formed from the dust of the ground using the same percentages of elements found there in.  God could have taken whatever parts were necessary.  It was an extremely simplified explanation of what actually occured I'm sure.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Morat
  Peppered moths, like Darwin's finches, are an example of natural selection in action. That's all they are, and they're excellent examples of it. I'm not sure what Wells was smoking, when he wrote that chapter of Icons, but it's certainly didn't aid his scholarship.



   What? Perpetrating a deliberatly wrong explanation of something is not a strawman? Silly me.



   Sorry. Mistype. I meant XtremeVision, who proceeded to defend abiogenesis as being "Evolution" despite the two branches have nothing in common, save a focus on living things.

   As for the misquote: Let me put it to you this way. If you assume every quote by a Creationist site supposedly written or spoken by a "prominent evolutionist" or "scientist" is either a misquote, from someone who is actually a Creationist, or from someone speaking outside of their field, you won't be wrong often.

   The joke is that the "Research" ICR does is quote-mining. They scour through journals and books, looking for quotes that can be twisted out of context.

   The next sentence of the Lewtonin quote, for instance, is his explanation of why science rejects the divine. Quite simply, he states, because if science allows a divine explanation, then it becomes useless. 'God did it can explain' everything, but is utterly useless for advancing knowledge.

   A divine miracle is simply unreproducable, inexplicable, and unapproachable by science. So science ignores the supernatural, because it's outside the realm of things science can deal with.

   If you want some famous misquotes, Patterson and Gould are frequently distorted.  

  

How can history be studied then?

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by sulphur
Gould is one of prime defenders of evolution .That is why the unbelievers use his works to under mine evolution .It is so obvious when they are wrong

I have not seen any blatant quote mining at AiG or ICR (though there may be some).  I have seen quite a bit of stuff that certainly isn't quote mining though.

There are a lot of dubious creationists out there, but there are a few good ones as well.

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by Rize
It doesn't say we are formed from the dust of the ground using the same percentages of elements found there in.  God could have taken whatever parts were necessary.  It was an extremely simplified explanation of what actually occured I'm sure.

If Genesis is the literal truth, then it means dust, not trace components of dust. If Genesis is literal and it meant the latter, why does it not say so?

Dust is primarily silicon. We are not formed of silicon. So again, I ask, if Genesis is the literal truth, why are we carbon-based lifeforms?

[Editted for syntax.]

 

[Morat]

  Darn. I lost an entire post. In a nutshell: Michael Ruses is quoted, by AiG, as stating (under the title "Leading anti-creationist philosopher
admits that evolution is a religion")

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity

   Here, Ruse discusses his actual statements:

I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science. In this wise, it is often appropriate to speak of evolution as a form of religion, meaning a faith system with a moral message that makes sense of life's ultimate meaning. You have only to look at the writings of a nineteenth-century figure like Herbert Spencer to see that this is true. Or a twentieth-century figure like Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley the novelist). This second evolutionist even went so far as to write a book entitle Religion without Revelation! There is all sorts of stuff about evolution being the key to the mysteries of existence and that kind of thing. Moreover, this brand of secular proselytizing is going on into the twenty-first century. Look at Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson's recent best-seller Consilience.

I should say that it is by no means the case that evolution-as-religion is anti-Christian. Sometimes it is. The English biologist Richard Dawkins (author of the Selfish Gene) is a fiery atheist, speaking of Christians as afflicted by an "unconscionable flabbiness of the intellect." Sometimes it is not. The French, Jesuit, paleontologist-priest Teilhard de Chardin thought that evolution leads up to the "Omega point," something he identified with Jesus Christ. It is true that Teilhard ran into trouble with his Church's authorities, but recently no less a person than Pope John Paul the Second - hardly a softie on matters theological - has come out foursquare in favour of evolution, of Darwinism even.

But what I insist also is that there is no place for this evolution-as-religion in science classes in schools. Constitutional matters aside, it is inappropriate. I would think and hope that social studies might find a place for these idea systems, but that is another matter. (I would want Creationism discussed in this context. It is after all an important part of the history and fabric of modern American culture.) However, my most important point - one which those who misuse my ideas conveniently omit or forget - is that there is no need for evolution, for Darwinism, to be treated as religion. You can talk about evolution without bringing in moral messages and stories about ultimate meanings - and this is precisely what is going on in modern professional evolutionary circles today, including the professional evolutionary circles of Kansas today. When you discuss whether the birds descended from the dinosaurs (they did) or humans descended from gorillas (they did not) you are not giving a guide to action, nor are you talking directly about the existence of the Creator of All. You are talking about the way the world is and how the laws make it operate. No more, and no less.

   Notice a big difference? Especially between the title (their interpretation) and Ruse's own statemetns? Also, both the ICR and the AiG push The Revised Quote Book (problems detailed here) and numerous other books full of bad quotes.

   Heck, if you want, we can look up the thread on AiG's "Whale of a Tail" where the blatant dishonesty of those involved is quite clear.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Corey
If Genesis is the literal truth, then it means dust, not trace components of dust. If Genesis is literal and it meant the latter, why does it not say so?

Dust is primarily silicon. We are not formed of silicon. So again, I ask, if Genesis is the literal truth, why are we carbon-based lifeforms?

[Editted for syntax.]

So you think God should have explained atomic physics to the Israelites?

 

[lithium.]

Yeah he should have... duh.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Morat
  Darn. I lost an entire post. In a nutshell: Michael Ruses is quoted, by AiG, as stating (under the title "Leading anti-creationist philosopher
admits that evolution is a religion") 

Here, Ruse discusses his actual statements: 


   Notice a big difference? Especially between the title (their interpretation) and Ruse's own statemetns? Also, both the ICR and the AiG push The Revised Quote Book (problems detailed here) and numerous other books full of bad quotes.

   Heck, if you want, we can look up the thread on AiG's "Whale of a Tail" where the blatant dishonesty of those involved is quite clear.

I saw no dishonesty.  The man repeated the exact some thing that AiG quoted him on but in weaker words.  He believes that evolution has religious philosophies associated with it, but of course, that it is based on science.

Creationist believe a similar thing that creation science (though initiated by the Bible) rests on it's own science without the Bible and that it also has religious ties for very obvious reasons.

Who can blame AiG for blowing up the religious nature of evolution when scientists do the same with the religous nature of creationism?  They try to pretend that it is mere religion being disguised as science and such.  I think it's wrong for them to resort to the same tactics, but it is not entirely untrue.  I think there is quite a bit of religion dogma attached to evolution (though the adherents don't even realize they've been tricked).  I was a believer in evolution from the moment it was taught to me until eight years passed.  I know how much of my previous belief was based on faith.

I really liked (sarcasm) the part where he tries to analyze the religious history of creationism.  That was quite humorous.  It is quite obvious that the story of creation leaves out a lot of details (and it's remotely possible that the six days aren't literal days), however, the rest of genesis absolutely stands as literally important due to the uninterrupted geneology that is presented in the NT from Jesus back to Adam.

 

[Morat]

 No. Ruse has stated that some people take evolution and form a religion of it. That is, they treat evolution religiously, but that evolution itself is simply another scientific theory.

  AiG claims Ruse states that evolution itself is a religion.

  These are distinct ideas, and the difference is enormous. Ruse's entire point was to differentiate between them, then AiG comes along and pretends that Ruse does no such thing.

  In other words, AiG's "quotes" Ruse as saying the one thing Ruse is adamantly not saying.

   As to Creationism being religion: Do you know a single Creationist who isn't a Christian? Is there anyone working for AiG, ICR or any prominent Creationist who isn't Christian? Anyone?

   Didn't think so. Would you like to know how many population biologists are atheists? Christians? Hindu? Muslim?

  

 

[LouisBooth]

"Dust is primarily silicon. We are not formed of silicon. "

Just wondering if you have acutally taken the time to look up the real words used there....the bible wasn't written in english ya know

from 06080; TWOT - 1664a; n m

AV - dust 93, earth 7, powder 3, rubbish 2, ashes 2, morter 2,
ground 1; 110

1) dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
1a) dry or loose earth
1b) debris
1c) mortar
1d) ore

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by Rize
So you think God should have explained atomic physics to the Israelites?

If the Bible is literally correct, then yes.

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Dust is primarily silicon. We are not formed of silicon. "

Just wondering if you have acutally taken the time to look up the real words used there....the bible wasn't written in english ya know

from 06080; TWOT - 1664a; n m

AV - dust 93, earth 7, powder 3, rubbish 2, ashes 2, morter 2,
ground 1; 110

1) dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
1a) dry or loose earth
1b) debris
1c) mortar
1d) ore

Since it is the beginning of the world in which Adam was created, that means there was no rubbish, mortar, or ashes. Those things had not been formed yet. That leaves dry eart, dust, powder, debris, and ore.

However, I have taken time to look up the word or its context. What context is the original Hebrew word used in?