Help

[Jon]

Last night I decided that I should pretend to be a evoulitonist, but I need some help:

Where is a place like drdino.com that has all the evidence agenst creationism? Or were do I start?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:09 PM Jon said this in Post #1

Last night I decided that I should pretend to be a evoulitonist, but I need some help:

Where is a place like drdino.com that has all the evidence agenst creationism? Or were do I start?

Start with Darwin's Origin of the Species, of course. Duh!
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

Then www.talkorgins.org has FAQ files that go over a lot of creationist arguments.

An extended reading list about evolution and against creationism is below:
Evolution by Mark Ridley
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  These are textbooks and will tell you everything you wanted to know, and some you had no idea of, about evolution and the evidence behind it.
Cells, Embryos, and Evolution by John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett (ignore Dennett's atheism and concentrate on his discussion of Darwinian selection)


Evolution/creationism:
Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller  Great data refuting the new intelligent design.
Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Phillip Kitcher.  Good philosophy of science discussion and creationist positions.
Science on Trial by Douglas Futuyma
Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu
Science and Earth History by Arthur Strahler -- lots of geology and specific YEC arguments about the Flood.

Creationism and theology:
Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye. theological problems with creationism

Science and religion:
The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Feguson
Religion and Science by Ian Barbour
The Fourth Day by Howard Van Till





 

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Creation/Evolution never interested me. I'm here now. How I get here, well, doesn't do anything for me.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 09:09 AM Jon said this in Post #1

Last night I decided that I should pretend to be a evoulitonist, but I need some help:

Where is a place like drdino.com that has all the evidence agenst creationism? Or were do I start?

Hmmm... A respected Scientific site by a guy with a fake PHD who refuses to debate in the standard writen scientific format, who is a tax dodger and feels himself too important to bother following building codes...

I don't know of any.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:44 PM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #4




Hmmm... A respected Scientific site by a guy with a fake PHD who refuses to debate in the standard writen scientific format, who is a tax dodger and feels himself too important to bother following building codes... I don't know of any.

He claims to follow the building codes, but he does not want to allow a inspector on the job to do an inspection. He causes himself a lot of problems.

 

[Cantuar]

You want sites giving arguments against creationism, rather than for evolution?

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/index.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

 

[LadyShea]

The best and most comprehensive website on evolution is talkorigins.org ...lucaspa provided a link as well. Reading books is more in depth, but the site has a ton of information to get you started.

 

[PhantomLlama]

When are you going to give up on mrdino.com? He is a fraud, a cheat, a liar and a tax evader. You don't want to find a site like his to research evolution from.

 

[Jon]

1st April 2003 at 05:11 AM PhantomLlama said this in Post #8

When are you going to give up on mrdino.com? He is a fraud, a cheat, a liar and a tax evader. You don't want to find a site like his to research evolution from.

When you answer all the questions I have from his site with a answer other than "Dr. Dino is a fraud".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1st April 2003 at 11:21 AM Jon said this in Post #9

When you answer all the questions I have from his site with a answer other than "Dr. Dino is a fraud".

Jon, the reason people have little patience for "Dr Dino" is most (if not all) of his claims have been refuted in the past. You're not the first person to present his claims in this forum and you certainly won't be the last. So, you can't really blame people for getting sick of refuting the same stuff over and over again.

For a look at Hovind's claims, I'd recommend spending some time at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html and http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/.

So, you see, his claims are not exactly new.

 

[Arikay]

Not only that, but Even other creationists have refuted Dr Dino's claims.

 

[Jon]

1st April 2003 at 10:49 AM Arikay said this in Post #11

Not only that, but Even other creationists have refuted Dr Dino's claims.

It dosn't matter if people refute Dr. Dino's claims, it only matters if this universe refutes Dr. Dino's claims.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1st April 2003 at 03:30 PM Jon said this in Post #12

It dosn't matter if people refute Dr. Dino's claims, it only matters if this universe refutes Dr. Dino's claims.

Put it this way, Jon: The universe doesn't support Hovind's claims.

 

[Arikay]

It does.

Even when Dr Dino slips up and admits evolution, he says that it happens much much faster than what evidence suggests.

1st April 2003 at 12:30 PM Jon said this in Post #12



It dosn't matter if people refute Dr. Dino's claims, it only matters if this universe refutes Dr. Dino's claims.

 

[Jon]

1st April 2003 at 12:39 PM Arikay said this in Post #14

It does.

Even when Dr Dino slips up and admits evolution, he says that it happens much much faster than what evidence suggests.

Arikay:

You keep on saying that Dr. Dino admits evoultion, I'm just wondering what FAQ dose he admit it in?

 

[Arikay]

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=29

Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor. This is not evolution.

Its funny, he says that "This is not evolution" but it definatly is. The fact that Dr Dino doesnt understand evolution doesnt change the fact that the speciation (one species evolving into another) of one croc into two seperate crocs that are different enough from the original that they cant mate back together is Macro Evolution.
Not only that, but he suggests that it happend in less than 4400 years. Much Much Much faster than evolutionists believe.

1st April 2003 at 12:46 PM Jon said this in Post #15




Arikay:

You keep on saying that Dr. Dino admits evoultion, I'm just wondering what FAQ dose he admit it in?

 

[Jon]

Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor. This is not evolution.

Its funny, he says that "This is not evolution" but it definatly is. The fact that Dr Dino doesnt understand evolution doesnt change the fact that the speciation (one species evolving into another) of one croc into two seperate crocs that are different enough from the original that they cant mate back together is Macro Evolution.
Not only that, but he suggests that it happend in less than 4400 years. Much Much Much faster than evolutionists believe.

You could call this evouliton if you want, however I would say this is "variation of a kind"

 

[Arikay]

Then please, Define what a "Kind" is to me.

1st April 2003 at 01:29 PM Jon said this in Post #17




You could call this evouliton if you want, however I would say this is "variation of a kind"

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 03:30 PM Jon said this in Post #12



It dosn't matter if people refute Dr. Dino's claims, it only matters if this universe refutes Dr. Dino's claims.

Jon, the poster meant that other creationists have used the universe to refute Dr. Dino's claims. Therefore you can't claim "evolutionary bias" for the refutation.  It really is the universe.

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 04:29 PM Jon said this in Post #17




You could call this evouliton if you want, however I would say this is "variation of a kind"

Jon, you wanted evidence from the unviverse, but now are playing semantics. 

"Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor. This is not evolution. "

Notice that Hovind says "fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor"

What did Darwin call his book?  Origin of the Species"  And what was his shorthand defintion of evolution?  "descent with modification".  Here Hovind admits both in the universe.

What Hovind is trying to argue, Jon, is not creationism vs evolution, but theism vs atheism.  Hovind mistakes evolution for atheism.  That's why you get the dodge "This is not evolution."  Not because the data isn't evolution -- it is -- but because Hovind thinks that evolution is atheism, and he won't admit atheism.  You do the same duck when you say it is "variation of a kind".  You have defined "kind" as a separately created group -- proof of God.  So, to admit evolution of a new kind means, to you, admitting there was no creation by God. 

Look at how Hovind words his challenge for prize money to "evolutionists".  He is asking for proof there is no God.

But evolution isn't about saying there is no God.  You have to ditch that first.  Evolution simply isn't atheism.  Never has been. Isn't now.  Yes, some atheist individuals do proclaim that; but that doesn't make them correct.

Darwin viewed evolution simply as the means, or "secondary cause" as it is called in theological circles,  that God uses to create.  Just like Newton viewed gravity as the means, or secondary cause, that God uses to keep the planets in orbit.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  Origin of the Species, pg. 449.