If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[rmwilliamsll]

this is in reference to posting #459

the same quotes make the rounds of all the boards. i wonder how many YECists posting them have ever read the books they are from?

there is a rebuttal to Pierre P. Grasse
he was not a creationist but an odd ball evolutionist.
the author of this rebuttal works on YECist quote mining and has a rather nice collection of researched quote mined lists.

MAJ> "The role of natural selection in the present world of living things
MAJ> is concerned with the balance of populations; it is primarily of
MAJ> demographic interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a
MAJ> picture of evolution in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a
MAJ> postulate, that relies on not a single proved fact showing that
MAJ> transformations in the two kingdoms have been essentially linked to
MAJ> changes in the balance of genes in a population. Pierre P. Grasse,
MAJ> _Evolution of Living Organisms_, p.170

I think you need to learn a little something about the people you
presume to quote. Grasse here is attempting to redefine natural selection
to suit his own paradigm. Grasse expressed biological opinions that were
heavily influenced by H. Bergson, who was not a biologist but a philosopher.
Bergson (and Grasse) believed in a sort of "creative evolution" and, in
fact, that was the title of Bergson's text which heavily influenced
Grasse's "scientific philosophy." Bergson attempted to explain evolution
as a result of some sort of mysterious factor called the _elan vital_,
which is best translated as a "vital drive." Bergson was also what
is known as a neo-Lamarckian and Grasse followed suit.

Bergson believed that the mechanism for evolution was not observable
and Grasse agrees with this, as well. The rationale for this rather
odd interpretation of evolution is more chauvanistic than anything else.
Both are French, and France was the only major scientific nation to NOT
contribute substantially to a formation of a coherent evolutionary
synthesis. Since you like quotes so much, allow me to note Ernest
Boesiger, who said, "France today (1974) is a kind of living fossil in
the rejection of modern evolutionary theories: about 95 percent of
all biologists and philosophers are more or less opposed to Darwinism."

from: http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq/c_grasse.html
a little more than 1/2 down

and no, i haven't read Pierre P. Grasse, nor do i intend to, i have lots of modern writers to read.
1974 is generations ago in the scientific world.

there ought to be a rule that you have to post were you got lists like that posted earlier at #459, and if you actually did the work yourself or you were just quote mining. at least give us a from link!!!

i'm willing to bet that the person posted it has never read a single one of the authors he posted quotes from. but rather is merely quoting from some YECist site and thinks this is a suitable way to argue.

at least the person i quoted did his own work....

 

[gluadys]

The following are respected scientists who are highly respected in their various fields who are either not considered "creation scientists" or who became creation scientists because of their studies lead them to doubt evolution and to believe more in the biblical accounts. The names of those who are known as creation scientists are noted as such.

An admirable collection of mined quotes.

See The Quote Mine Project for further information on creationist misuse of many of these quotes.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

another reply to the YECist quote mining list in #459


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

This particular quation is a dozy. It was made up by Kent Hovind:

Hovind attributes this: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” to Professor Louis Bounoure, supposedly the former president of the Biological Society of 'Strasbourg'. A creationist web site actually gives a reference: The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17

Lie #315. E.T. Babinski actually contacted French authorities. They revealed that Louis Bounoure never served as Director or even a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter.

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but adapted from Jean Rostand, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy. Rostand also wrote that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190).

The end of Bounoure's quotation is from his book, "Determinism and Finality." It runs, "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

In other words, Hovind's quote is complete fiction and he is too incompetent and dishonest to correct it or even check up on it.

See: http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/sealedmind.htm

from: http://groups.msn.com/fundiesvsathe...essage=33338&LastModified=4675528937481978482


isn't the net neat? just type in a quote and get all the YECist sites using it and the rebuttals.

the difference is that the rebuttal sites actually do some research, sort of like the difference between YECism and science.

 

[random_guy]

Isn't great to see how often Creationists will resort to tactics like this, and usually it will be the evolutionists that points out this is wrong? How often will the said Creationist retract their statement? Why aren't other Creationists admonishing this behavior? How can we be serious about their arguments if a lot of it is based off of misleading statements? For once, I would like to see a Creationist say, "Don't do that. It's dishonest."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

just to be clear, arguing with quotes like this is not wrong from the start. I can really respect someone like Stephen Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html
who has been working on the issues in the creation-evolution-design debate for more than 10 years.

but the difference with his quotes?
he's read the books!!!!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooks.html

and makes his reading lists PUBLIC.

would only a few more YECists be as honest about their research.

 

[Willtor]

just to be clear, arguing with quotes like this is not wrong from the start. I can really respect someone like Stephen Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html
who has been working on the issues in the creation-evolution-design debate for more than 10 years.

but the difference with his quotes?
he's read the books!!!!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooks.html

and makes his reading lists PUBLIC.

would only a few more YECists be as honest about their research.

Well, if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

I'm extremely frustrated by the dishonesty I've found in YEC books. These were the very sorts things that convinced me of a young Earth. How can they even rationalize doing this? Aren't they supposed to be interested in the unfettered truth?

 

[TexasSky]

Instead of a bunch of quotes, why don't you cite evidence. You are aware the science works through evidence, not authority. If Steven Hawkings said, "Special Relativity is wrong," scientists would not pay any attention unless he backs it up.

I did not present their arguements because they take up volumes and volumes of work.

As to "quoting out of context" - may I suggest that it is MY contention that it is YOU are quoting out of context, and that the "that isn't what they really believed" arguement is a frequent arguement of athiests and agnostics when they don't like the facts they are presented with.

 

[TexasSky]

Okay. Let me try THIS.

Will those of you who are strong evolutionists present your "scientific evidence" that "winding down" does NOT contradict "old earth" theories?

What about your evidence that the layer of silt on the ocean floors do not contradict "old earth?"

How about "radioactive decay" in terms of "old earth"?

Where is your evidence that supports "spontaneous, random creation of life from mere random chemical reactions?"

 

[TexasSky]

This is the, by the way, one of the MAJOR problems that I have with individuals who are adament about only teaching evolution - they do not present scientific evidence, they only insult and try to belittle and tear down those individuals who question their beliefs, while screaming at young earth, intelligent design, and Creationists that we need to present you with evidence.

When we say, "This doesn't fit with scientific theory," you don't argue theory, you say, "You're just uneducated," or "you don't know," or "that scientist isn't credible."

 

[Dannager]

This is the, by the way, one of the MAJOR problems that I have with individuals who are adament about only teaching evolution - they do not present scientific evidence, they only insult and try to belittle and tear down those individuals who question their beliefs, while screaming at young earth, intelligent design, and Creationists that we need to present you with evidence.

When we say, "This doesn't fit with scientific theory," you don't argue theory, you say, "You're just uneducated," or "you don't know," or "that scientist isn't credible."

I think that if you read some of the vast majority of previous threads here and in the public CvE section you will find that mountains of evidence has been presented or linked to be supporters of evolutionary theory. We don't use ad hominems like "that scientist isn't credible" until after we've already dismantled the argument. The personal attacks are intended to discourage further use of that particular person's arguments by showing that, not only has he made one fallacious argument that we've already refuted, but that he's not really qualified to make them in the first place.

If you don't care to find the evidences yourself in previous threads, allow me to link you to some excellent repositories for such information:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

 

[Dannager]

Where is your evidence that supports "spontaneous, random creation of life from mere random chemical reactions?"

This is called abiogenesis and isn't part of evolutionary theory. Why would we need evidence to support something that isn't a part of our position?

 

[Dannager]

As to "quoting out of context" - may I suggest that it is MY contention that it is YOU are quoting out of context, and that the "that isn't what they really believed" arguement is a frequent arguement of athiests and agnostics when they don't like the facts they are presented with.

No, I think it's really quite obvious that the quotations you used were used out of their original context and were intended, by you or your sources, to be misconstrued in many cases as supporting a position that they in reality did not support.

 

[Dannager]

Will those of you who are strong evolutionists present your "scientific evidence" that "winding down" does NOT contradict "old earth" theories?

I'm not sure what you mean by "winding down". Could you please explain that in more detail?

What about your evidence that the layer of silt on the ocean floors do not contradict "old earth?"

You'll have to explain this in more detail as well, but for starters I'd suggest checking out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html.

How about "radioactive decay" in terms of "old earth"?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html. The most interesting point made: "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)."

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html. The most interesting point made: "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)."

Ah but you invoke a miracle to put all the decay on the 2nd day (before plants or animals are created) and then invoke another miracle to clean up all the radiation this created and yet another to cool down the earth.

 

[Dannager]

Ah but you invoke a miracle to put all the decay on the 2nd day (before plants or animals are created) and then invoke another miracle to clean up all the radiation this created and yet another to cool down the earth.

Ah, gotcha. Man, all these undocumented miracles are getting tough to keep track of.

 

[TexasSky]

This is called abiogenesis and isn't part of evolutionary theory. Why would we need evidence to support something that isn't a part of our position?

Abiogensis is required in order for evolution to be used as an explanation for creation.

 

[TexasSky]

Ah but you invoke a miracle to put all the decay on the 2nd day (before plants or animals are created) and then invoke another miracle to clean up all the radiation this created and yet another to cool down the earth.

No, not at all.
Creationism does not require that all decay happened on the second day. Where did you get such an idea? It only requires that earth be "younger" than the billions of years evolutionists claim it is.

 

[TexasSky]

I'm not sure what you mean by "winding down". Could you please explain that in more detail?

You'll have to explain this in more detail as well, but for starters I'd suggest checking out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html. The most interesting point made: "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)."

Winding Down is Entropy. It involves the most basic laws of thermo dynamics. Given the Milky Ways current rate of entropy, and its current spiral - even if it "held steady" from the moment of Big Bang until today, our galaxy would be a black hole if it had existed for billions of years. The laws of physics say it actually would have been going at a much faster rate in the early days. This supports a "young earth" view point.

I love the site you listed. Notice the quote on that site that says, A young earther would object to all of the assumptions listed above. It then goes on to use another assumption as its justification for the assumptions it is trying to justify. That's a rather "neat" albeit very unscientific manner of approaching a scientific equation.

If I "assume" that all trees are rocks, and I "assume" that all rocks are "fruit." I cannot justify saying all trees are fruit by saying, "I can prove this by using the assumption that everything that comes naturally out of the earth is a tree." Somewhere you have to stop using "assumption" to justify your "data" or you don't have any foundation.

 

[TexasSky]

I'm not sure what you mean by "winding down". Could you please explain that in more detail?

You'll have to explain this in more detail as well, but for starters I'd suggest checking out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html. The most interesting point made: "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)."

First - winding down = entropy. If Big Bang is Correct, the rate of "winding down" would be faster in the beginning of time OR.. at the very least, equal to the current rate. At 4.6 Billion years, that would require that the current Milky Way be a black hole, not the spiral it is.

Second - Your site is amusing at best. It is horribly in error at the worst.

In one section it justifies its stance with tons of assumptions, then uses ANOTHER unproven assumption to justify defending the first assumptions. I can "assume" that all fruit is a rock, and I can "assume" that all rocks are fruit, and I can assume that all trees grow rocks, and I can defend it by "assuming" that everything the earth produces via natural phenomenon is a rock, but that won't make it right. You can't defend your assumptions by using other assumptions.

Also, it inaccurately presents arguements as fact that are NOT fact. It states that the rate helium is released from the atomosphere matches the rate that helium is created via radioactive decay. THAT IS FALSE. The current rate of helium escaping into space is 1/40th the rate of that entering the atmosphere. Based on the rate that helium enters vs the rates it escapes, given 4.6 billion years, the helium in the atmosphere would be 2000 times greater than it is.

C. G. Walker and J. W. Chamberlain both expressed concerns with how the fact that these facts created problems with "old earth" theories. (Walker is an Ph.D. who specializes in carbon dating as it relates to geological change. He is considered an expert in the field.) (J. W. Chamberlain wrote "Theory of Planetary Atmospheres", "Physics of Aurora and Airglow." )

 

[chaoschristian]

Abiogensis is required in order for evolution to be used as an explanation for creation.

Wrong.

(sorry, I had to run down the block to get the kids from school.)

Theistic evolution does not require abiogenesis for any part of its theology or philosophy. If you examine the wide range of views that encompass the spectrum that is theistic evolution, you will discover that there are those of us, like myself, who accept abiogenesis (while recognizing that the scientific court is still not yet fully ruled on this), while others subscribe to 'divine-biogenesis' and others to special creation.

To emphasize again, no part of either evolutionary theory or theistic evolution theology requires abiogenesis.