Believing in a abysmally ignorant and lying person on the Internet, is not good, mark kennedy, because it reflects badly on your knowledge of the topic.
It never fails, introduce a creationist website and the automatic response is liar, liar, liar. They must be doing something right to invoke such a sever reaction that this comes with such venom without any reference to anything relevant, there isn't so much as a quote just the inevitable ad hominem attack which is the bottom of the barrel for evolutionist trolling. These debates inevitably end up there but when they start with them it means they have nothing to begin with.
The web page starts with a lie in its title of "Evolution: Not Fact, but a Fraud and Faith!". Evolution has such an enormous body of evidence for it that it is often described as a fact. Relational, knowledgeable people know that the modern evolutionary synthesis is a scientific theory that explains the existing evidence and make testable, falsifiable predictions (e.g. no Precambrian rabbits so far!), A rational person does not accuse millions of scientists of fraud without actual evidence. Plenty of other craziness on that page from Don Boys.
I would say this is directed at you except you don't have any evidence:
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position...In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Evolution: Not Fact, but a Fraud and Faith!
An apt description of the typical Darwinian drive by poster but on to the more important point you demonize without addressing:
Science means to
know and
systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation....Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests. World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.”
Evolution: Not Fact, but a Fraud and Faith!
I go to a bakery and by some fresh backed bread and muffins. I would have to be some kind of a baker to make them but it's not required in order to eat the product. You keep saying science but you have nothing from science except the word and as far as I can tell what you are calling science is nothing more the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.
Define the word, define science. Otherwise it's easy enough to ignore these rambling rants.
Actually the web page starts with a discussion of the definition of science, something no pseudo-evolutionist on these boards will do despite the fact they want to say science every other word:
-
The delusion of a "failure of the fossil record" followed with quote mines (lies):
- Niles Eldredge talking about punctuated equilibrium: The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines: Quote #52
- Patterson Misquoted A Tale of Two 'Cites'
- Lord Zuckerman's no "fossil traces" is an opinion from 1970 and wrong!
- A lie that Darwin also stated the same fact - he discussed the obvious reasons why at the time there was not a continuous fossil record.
[*]The delusion that science does not progress which means that as new evidence becomes available things such as the lineage of the horse changes!
[*]Some idiocy about
Nebraska Man which was an inconclusive find of a tooth published as that of a manlike ape in 1922 and retracted when field work in 1925 and 1926 discovered more of the skeleton - a fossil of an extinct species of
peccary.
[*]The lie that "
Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis".
[*]Ranting about "Darwinism" as if 150 years of science did not exist!
[*]The stupidity of thinking that "
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" should be about abiogenesis.
[*]Insulting "Darwin and his followers", by accusing them of being racists as if that invalidated the science!
In the 1860's most people were racists when judged by our standards - just ask members of the Confederate states (not their slaves!).
Darwin was in fact less racist than most of his contemporaries including some creationists.
[*]Outdated and debunked creationist claim about First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
[*]The idiocy of the origin of the universe being part of evolution.
[*]Ignorance about " life from non-living matter" - abiogenesis has no problem with this.
[*]Outdated and debunked creationist claim about the
Cambrian explosion.
What is interesting here is that you don't quote a single solitary creationist just some random links to Talk Origins to articles I thought were stupid the first time I read them. Some of these pedantic fallacious attacks seem worth addressing, just for fun:
Ranting about "Darwinism" as if 150 years of science did not exist!
Darwinism was never and never will be science since natural selection is an effect without a cause. Darwinian science never happened, during the modern synthesis it wrapped itself around genetics like a boa constrictor but never contributed anything scientific aside from some convoluted terminology. Mendelian genetics never needed Darwinism, removing Darwinian atheistic materialism from genetics would leave it unchanged. Darwinism on the other hand would wither and die over night.
Insulting "Darwin and his followers", by accusing them of being racists as if that invalidated the science!
In the 1860's most people were racists when judged by our standards - just ask members of the Confederate states (not their slaves!).
Somehow you managed to miss the actual title of the book your defending. "
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Favored Races in the struggle for life sounds like pure undiluted racism to me and he is even more strident in the Descent of Man.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)
How can anyone read that and not see the racist germ of genocide. Nazis were Darwinian, eugenics was Darwinian to the highest degree.
Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense...In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
HNN article
There is no question that Soviet Russia and Communist China were profoundly Darwinian but they rejected Mendelian genetics which is a science born in the twentieth century.
They were not receiving Western journals. And Western ideas were considered bourgeois, erroneous and that they had to be abandoned, including - and this is what shocked Monod - 50 years of genetics. So this - there was a public announcement in the Soviet Union that Mendelian genetics, the genetics of Gregor Mendel and the chromosomal theories of genetics...It gutted Soviet biology, I would say, really, since that time; that Soviet biology never really recovered from this long episode of genetics being suppressed in the Soviet Union...And it had disastrous consequences for Soviet agriculture and Chinese agriculture because China adopted the same sort of ideological approach to agriculture and had miserable crop failures and famines in the 1950s. So, you know, sounds like a bizarre academic, you know, point, but it had profound consequences. (
'Brave Genius': A Tale of Two Nobelists NPR)
This is what Darwinism is and this is what Darwinism does, it says science but it means ignorance with a vengeance. There is an army these venomous apologists for science, falsely so called. They cannot so much as read the scientific literature so now the scientific illiterate pontificate the sciences as if it were their private domain.
The idiocy of the origin of the universe being part of evolution.
First of all this is nothing more then an
ad hominem fallacy and fallacious rhetoric appears to be all you are capable of. Secondly, Darwin was explicit about his thoughts on origins:
All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
Not only all life but the entire inorganic world. There are two meanings for evolution, Darwinian evolution is the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Then there is the scientific one that focuses on the change of alleles in populations over time. Equivocating the two is what Darwinians spend all their time doing.
If your going to put all your faith and credibility on Talk Origins at least have the integrity to actually quote something they said. Your post is riddled with words like; 'delusion', 'idiocy', 'stupidity'...etc. What is truly fascinating about this blatant ad hominem attempt at character assassination is that you don't quote any creationist, not even once. The only source material is Talk Origins that you never bother to quote, just throw in some random links. So what am I supposed to think about your knowledge of the topic?
Your indictment of, 'a abysmally ignorant and lying person on the Internet', sounds like classic projection to me. You know what projection is right? Condemning in others the thing you most fear about yourself. Classic example.
Have a nice day
Mark
