For Creationists.....

[FoeHammer]

Often in this forum you will be directed to talk.origins web site by the evo faithful as if it has all the refutations to all the criticisms you may have with regard to their dogma but before you click on that talk.origins link click on this one.....
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
..... Fore-warned is fore-armed.

FoeHammer.

 

[Loudmouth]

The truorigin site makes the same mistake that all creationists make. They assume that there is scientific evidence supporting creationism. A exhaustive search of the peer reviewed scientific literature says otherwise. Trueorigins states that "Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” The fact of the matter is that there is not a controversy in the scientific community. Talkorigins is a science based site, not a theology based site. Because of that there is only one side to choose: evolution. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains biodiversity. THE ONLY ONE. If you don't believe me, go to www.pubmed.com, the largest database of biologically related peer reviewed literature. Search for "creationism" and you will get 59 hits. The authors of these articles are very critical of creationism stating that it is a political and religious movement. Now search for "evolution". This returns nearly 200,000 peer reviewed articles. Where is the controversy?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Often in this forum you will be directed to talk.origins web site by the evo faithful as if it has all the refutations to all the criticisms you may have with regard to their dogma but before you click on that talk.origins link click on this one.....
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
..... Fore-warned is fore-armed.

FoeHammer.

It would take far too long to refute all the garbage on the grossly misnamed "TrueOrgin" archive. It should be called the True Hogwash archive. We can start with this nonsense on the link you posted.

TO is here propagating one of the most odious of all myths in the creation-evolution controversy, this being that the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics is either invalid or has been amply refuted. This is simply not true

Of course the TAlk Origin statement is true. No creationist has even shown how evolution violates the second law and there are many creationist who are willing to admit that evolution can not be shown to violate the second law. I don't have time for more right now but the last time I looked at the Tim Wallace's True Hogwash page on the second law it was full of out of context quotes and total misstatements about Thermodynamics and the meaning of the second law and I doubt if it has changed.

So let me clue in young earth creationists. If you bring garbage from the True Hogwash archive here prepare to see it demolished quickly. Fore-Warned is Fore-Armed.

 

[LeeC]

It is the usual rubbish that merely "slows" us down.

I am sure every point made in this link could be shot down - but it takes time and a lot of typing.

This means then, until you "disprove" ALL - they will still believe in the 6,000 year old Earth - without evidence.

A question I am asking to all young earthers (please tell me if I am being stupid here) is this.

Without using the bible, please prove the Earth and that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?

When I try this I get an age of 4.5 billion years for the Earth, and 13.7 billion years for the universe. I have a lot of evidence to back this up, so your theory have better show me where I am wrong and to be able to answer the observations that we see in the universe. Not just ignore them by wishful thinking.

Good Luck.

Lee

 

[TheOutsider]

Of course the TAlk Origin statement is true. No creationist has even shown how evolution violates the second law and there are many creationist who are willing to admit that evolution can not be shown to violate the second law. I don't have time for more right now but the last time I looked at the Tim Wallace's True Hogwash page on the second law it was full of out of context quotes and total misstatements about Thermodynamics and the meaning of the second law and I doubt if it has changed.

Holy crap, people are still using the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument against the theory of evolution? And people expect us to take Talk Origins seriously?

 

[metherion]

Tell ya what. Show me where, in the Index of Creationist Claims, it pulls the evolution as a science versus the "meta-evolution" that anti-evolutionists have made switcheroo.

Show me.

Metherion

 

[Oncedeceived]

The truorigin site makes the same mistake that all creationists make. They assume that there is scientific evidence supporting creationism. A exhaustive search of the peer reviewed scientific literature says otherwise. Trueorigins states that "Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” The fact of the matter is that there is not a controversy in the scientific community. Talkorigins is a science based site, not a theology based site. Because of that there is only one side to choose: evolution. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains biodiversity. THE ONLY ONE. If you don't believe me, go to www.pubmed.com, the largest database of biologically related peer reviewed literature. Search for "creationism" and you will get 59 hits. The authors of these articles are very critical of creationism stating that it is a political and religious movement. Now search for "evolution". This returns nearly 200,000 peer reviewed articles. Where is the controversy?

Is this the website?

http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

[sbvera13]

Same ol, same ol. P.R.A.T.T. stands for what, exactly? I seem to have forgotten. Oh wait now I remember.

 

[RichardT]

Same ol, same ol. P.R.A.T.T. stands for what, exactly? I seem to have forgotten. Oh wait now I remember.

Point Supposedly Refuted By (People who "accept the ToE? Why not just call you an evolutionist, it's a lot easier) a Thousand Times.

 

[RichardT]

Is this the website?

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Yeah. The "Talk" Origins archive.

 

[The Bellman]

Point Supposedly Refuted By (People who "accept the ToE? Why not just call you an evolutionist, it's a lot easier) a Thousand Times.

There's a much easier term than "person who accepts the theory of evolution." It's "scientist".

 

[RichardT]

There's a much easier term than "person who accepts the theory of evolution." It's "scientist".

No. Not all evolutionists are scientists and not all scientists are evolutionists.

 

[The Bellman]

No. Not all evolutionists are scientists and not all scientists are evolutionists.

Certainly, not all 'evolutionists' are scientists; however, virtually all scientists are, indeed, evolutionists.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Often in this forum you will be directed to talk.origins web site by the evo faithful as if it has all the refutations to all the criticisms you may have with regard to their dogma but before you click on that talk.origins link click on this one.....
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
..... Fore-warned is fore-armed.

FoeHammer.

This is the same old dogma, if creationists are right, then they should be able to support their creationist position with empirical evidence. I have taken the following for the linked site you provided, as I love it.

“The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.”

Creationists are right the odds of a simple cell coming into being are staggering. For argument sake lets say 1000,000,000/1. There are 500,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy, therefore at these extreme odds simple cells would have come into being 500 times in our galaxy.

The universe is estimated to contain 500, 000,000,000 galaxies, so using the same odds of 1000, 000,000/1 in the universe as a whole cells should have come into being

500 x 500, 000,000,000 = 250,000,000,000,000 time at a billion to one odds


Let’s make the odds even greater, let’s say 100 billion to one. We would still have cells forming 250,000,000,000

The odds needed for this to only happen one are as follows

250000000000000000000000/1

If these are the odds for a simple cell forming, please give me the odds for an all knowing, all powerful, all creating entity to spontaneously form. I would say about the same odds as creationists ever getting something right.

∞/1

 

[FoeHammer]

This is the same old dogma, if creationists are right, then they should be able to support their creationist position with empirical evidence. I have taken the following for the linked site you provided, as I love it.

“The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.”

Creationists are right the odds of a simple cell coming into being are staggering. For argument sake lets say 1000,000,000/1. There are 500,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy, therefore at these extreme odds simple cells would have come into being 500 times in our galaxy.

The universe is estimated to contain 500, 000,000,000 galaxies, so using the same odds of 1000, 000,000/1 in the universe as a whole cells should have come into being

500 x 500, 000,000,000 = 250,000,000,000,000 time at a billion to one odds


Let’s make the odds even greater, let’s say 100 billion to one. We would still have cells forming 250,000,000,000

The odds needed for this to only happen one are as follows

250000000000000000000000/1

If these are the odds for a simple cell forming, please give me the odds for an all knowing, all powerful, all creating entity to spontaneously form. I would say about the same odds as creationists ever getting something right.

∞/1

What makes you think that God spontaneously formed?

FoeHammer.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

What makes you think that God spontaneously formed?

FoeHammer.

Are you saying she was created?

 

[Tomk80]

Are you saying she was created?

Perhaps it evolved?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Perhaps it evolved?

From a single celled life form.

Thats an interesting concept.

 

[Raydon]

Point Supposedly Refuted By (People who "accept the ToE? Why not just call you an evolutionist, it's a lot easier) a Thousand Times.

"Evolutionist" is a name coined by Creationists as far as I know. I bet most people would be fine with the term were it not for the fact that Creationists don't use it to describe people who accept the ToE, but rather to describe people who don't believe anything that they believe or live the lifestyle they think they should. I've read several quotes (mostly on FSTDT) that link "Evolutionists" to abiogenesis, homosexuality, pro-abortion views, US style liberal and/or democrat views etc etc. This is why I at least do not like the term.

 

[KCfromNC]

What makes you think that God spontaneously formed?

FoeHammer.

Probably the same reasoning that causes people to believe that a simple cell spontaneously formed. You know, improper reasoning, failing to look at what proponents of the theory state, lack of knowledge of chemistry and physics and so on. Actually, scratch that last one, since there's no way to apply chemistry and physics to a magical being, but you get the idea.