Evolutionists: What have you studied re: creationism/ID? What resources have you specifically used?

[loveofourlord]

It appears you're claiming your research into creationism has been watching videos of creationism being debunked.

You have nicely demonstrated the creationist propensity for ignoring the question that was asked and answering, instead, a question nobody is interested in. Your research also makes perfect sense of your posts in these forums - you don't understand the science that is used to debunk the creationist argument you similarly don't understand.

You do know the video of creationism being debunked include the creationist arguments. I hear their arguments and then why they are wrong. I'm talking like aronra and such that play most of the creationist video then explain why they are wrong.

I 100% accept evolution, why I don't like listening to creationist argument unfiltered. So many arguments that use Gottaservent level arguments without any understanding of what evolution actually says. Or worse WLC that butchers everything about philosophy, science, and logic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

My conclusion from reading these books and creationist websites is that young-Earth creationism is on the same intellectual level as astrology, flying saucers, UFOs and ancient astronauts, the Bermuda Triangle, fortune telling, the occult, and all the other stuff that goes under the name of the paranormal, and that it is a waste of time studying it.

Yes, my introduction to YEC was through being a part of the 'skepticism' movement, which addresses all of those issues in a very similar way. There should be nothing particularly different in the way one assesses these claims about reality, even if there is a religious motivation in the case of creationism that isn't there for the Bermuda Triangle. It's a matter of facts and evidence.

It's fair to say that most of my reading about YEC/ID comes from skeptical and scientific sources, which are not necessarily friendly to the ideas. But I've picked up a number of creationist and ID books at used book sales. The Genesis Flood, I know I have, and a few others. When I was on the Crosswalk forums, one of the creationist members sent me a copy of Behe's Edge of Evolution (and a book by 'Antony Flew') on the condition that I read and review it. And obviously, I've followed many a link to AIG and the other creationist sites as they come up here on the forums and elsewhere.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You do know the video of creationism being debunked include the creationist arguments. I hear their arguments and then why they are wrong. I'm talking like aronra and such that play most of the creationist video then explain why they are wrong.

I 100% accept evolution, why I don't like listening to creationist argument unfiltered. So many arguments that use Gottaservent level arguments without any understanding of what evolution actually says. Or worse WLC that butchers everything about philosophy, science, and logic.

I owe you an apology. I read your post several times trying to understand what it meant (it's very ambiguous), and had you confused with another poster. I am sorry for misunderstanding what you were trying to say - next time I shall ask for clarity before coming to a conclusion.

 

[loveofourlord]

I owe you an apology. I read your post several times trying to understand what it meant (it's very ambiguous), and had you confused with another poster. I am sorry for misunderstanding what you were trying to say - next time I shall ask for clarity before coming to a conclusion.

heh np :> See that's why I can't watch creationist videos, they drive me insane :>

only so many times I can hear creationists ask, "Why are there still monkeys." and then us evolutionists say, "Were apes not monkeys." heh.

 

[Astrophile]

Basically, the inverse of my other thread here: Creationists: What have you studied re: evolution? What resources have you specifically used?

For the 'evolutionists' (e.g. those who accept evolution as an explanation for diversity of life on Earth) and you've studied creationism and/or Intelligent Design, what have you specifically studied? Have you read any books on creationism/ID? Which ones? Do you use online publications? Courses? Journal papers? Etc.

In short, as a evolutionist, what resources have you used to learn about creationism and/or Intelligent Design?

Further to my previous post (post 14), when I was in secondary school (during the 1960s), the school library had several books by a 'partly creationist' author. The author was clearly an educated man (I am fairly sure that it was a man) and well informed on the subject, although I got the impression that he was rather out of his depth in biology. So far as I understood them, his views belonged to the British rather than the American school of creationism, the Victoria Institute or the Evolution Protest Movement rather than the Creation Research Society.

Unfortunately, I cannot recall the author's name or the titles of any of his books, or his detailed opinions on the question of creation and evolution; so far as I can remember, he seemed to be advocating an early form of intelligent design or fine-tuned universe. I have never found any of these books in second-hand bookshops, and the names of British creationist authors and the titles of their books that I have found on the internet do not ring any bells.

More recently, I have been reading The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. This book is a history of creationists and creationist movements rather than an analysis of creationist ideas, but it shows that at least between 1900 and 1960 there was a great diversity of scientific and theological opinions on such questions as the age of the Earth, the limits of micro-evolution, and the nature of the fossil record. The Genesis Flood drowned and washed away these other varieties of creationism and left in their place the scientific aberrations of a creation in six literal days, a young Earth, and flood geology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

heh np :> See that's why I can't watch creationist videos, they drive me insane :>

only so many times I can hear creationists ask, "Why are there still monkeys." and then us evolutionists say, "Were apes not monkeys." heh.

And Aron Ra will explain why we still are monkeys.

 

[loveofourlord]

And Aron Ra will explain why we still are monkeys.

I will take a million arguments defending why were still monkeys over 10 arguments of, "Y WII DERE STLL MNKYS!!!.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will take a million arguments defending why were still monkeys over 10 arguments of, "Y WII DERE STLL MNKYS!!!.

He makes a good argument since he bases his claim on cladistics. And I could not agree more with your post. It was a toss up for a winner or a funny label. They both work.

 

[loveofourlord]

He makes a good argument since he bases his claim on cladistics. And I could not agree more with your post. It was a toss up for a winner or a funny label. They both work.

I have heard one argument against it, which feels like pendantics, which is that there is no clad monkey, it's primates. so we did not evolve from monkeys as that group doesn't exist within cladistics. which is one of those things that confuse and annoys me heh :> there seems to be too much marrying of cladistics to current animals. Like the whole a dog will always be a dog, even if 100 million years from now it looks more like a dragon. I get it still be a mammal, but that's feels like saying birds will always be archeorapteryx rather then dinosaurs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have heard one argument against it, which feels like pendantics, which is that there is no clad monkey, it's primates. so we did not evolve from monkeys as that group doesn't exist within cladistics. which is one of those things that confuse and annoys me heh :> there seems to be too much marrying of cladistics to current animals. Like the whole a dog will always be a dog, even if 100 million years from now it looks more like a dragon. I get it still be a mammal, but that's feels like saying birds will always be archeorapteryx rather then dinosaurs.

I know what you mean. Part of the problem arises from who we are debating with. Their understanding is often so bad that it drives us to take groups that are not monophyletic and try to define them so that they are monophyletic. The common definition of monkeys does not form a monophyletic group. If they are redefined so that they are monophyletic then we are in that clade. I do like looking at species as being time dependent. That is a reasonable idea. Cladistics traces how a particular species arose.

Of course due to evolution the hard boundaries that people like to see between groups will never really exist. The various borderlines will always be a fuzzy line that is at least somewhat arbitrary.

 

[loveofourlord]

I know what you mean. Part of the problem arises from who we are debating with. Their understanding is often so bad that it drives us to take groups that are not monophyletic and try to define them so that they are monophyletic. The common definition of monkeys does not form a monophyletic group. If they are redefined so that they are monophyletic then we are in that clade. I do like looking at species as being time dependent. That is a reasonable idea. Cladistics traces how a particular species arose.

Of course due to evolution the hard boundaries that people like to see between groups will never really exist. The various borderlines will always be a fuzzy line that is at least somewhat arbitrary.

yeah, I've often thought of it as species is more a snapshot of evolution. We think of dogs as being a species because that's what exist now, but in the future dogs will be lost within the tree of life. If we die off and ravens evolve intelligence in a hundred million years, they might not even see dogs, just the wolf like creatures and such.

 

[Shemjaza]

yeah, I've often thought of it as species is more a snapshot of evolution. We think of dogs as being a species because that's what exist now, but in the future dogs will be lost within the tree of life. If we die off and ravens evolve intelligence in a hundred million years, they might not even see dogs, just the wolf like creatures and such.

It'd a be a trick question for Corvid paleontology students.

The massive set of weird birth defects found in the Canis lupus species that lines up with the Anthropocene.

 

[loveofourlord]

It'd a be a trick question for Corvid paleontology students.

The massive set of weird birth defects found in the Canis lupus species that lines up with the Anthropocene.

Especially since little to none of our civilization would still exist after a hundred million years :> We would just be a weird extinct ape :>

 

[Shemjaza]

Especially since little to none of our civilization would still exist after a hundred million years :> We would just be a weird extinct ape :>

There'd be some really weird atmosphere markers... and that most of the human remains found would be weird rich people in titanium coffins.

 

[loveofourlord]

There'd be some really weird atmosphere markers... and that most of the human remains found would be weird rich people in titanium coffins.

true some of it might survive, but so many of our structures and tools we use now a day are the kind that wouldn't survive the elements, maybe the stuff buried underground but yeah.

As much as I loved that docuseries life after people, the most depressing part is how quickly everything we've made would vanish.

 

[Shemjaza]

true some of it might survive, but so many of our structures and tools we use now a day are the kind that wouldn't survive the elements, maybe the stuff buried underground but yeah.

As much as I loved that docuseries life after people, the most depressing part is how quickly everything we've made would vanish.

Well there are a lot more humans then there were Tyrannosauruses, and a lot of us are already buried and preserved.

Not to mention some truly horrendous natural disasters with sections of cities buried under mudslides ready to slowly turn into fossil rich mudstone.