Presumptuous Creationists

[TheBear]

http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hermitagemuseum.org%2Fhtml_En%2F03%2Fhm3_2.html

 

[TheBear]

European Artifacts:

http://www.beloit.edu/~museum/logan/paleoexhibit/menueurope.htm

 

[Christian Soldier]

"I notice all creationist proofs/articles are never, ever published in a repsected scientific journal, like scientific america."

Because they refuse to publish any Creationist articles. This fact doesn't disprove Creation. It only proves evolutionist bias.

"In fact the only place creationist theory is taken seriously is in churches and religious journals. That to me in itself speaks voulmes."

Actually, a significant minority of Ph.D scientists in a number of fields question evolution. And many aren't Creationists or even Theists.

"Do you really believe that 1 or 2 posts are going to refute a 120 year strong theory supported by 99.9 percent of biologists? Doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous?"

Actually, there are thousands of books and articles critical of evolution. Many written by non-Creationist Ph.D's.

"If someone made apost saying they could "disprove einstein" like the one here: ttp://www.thedeepdark.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=184&replies=31"

Your logic stinks. What does questioning the theories of a physicist have to do with the validity of a biological theory?

"wouldn't you be more then a bit apprehensive?"

Not at all. Many fine scientists have questioned Einstein's theories. Niels Bohr destroyed Einstein in debate. A Vatican scientist once corrected Einstein's mistaken calculations. Einstein's theory that the speed of light has always been constant has recently come under serious scrutiny by several top scientists. There is now significant evidence that the speed of light is gradually slowing.

"Isn't such a belief more then a bit presumptuous?"

No, but the belief that nobody should question evolution is indeed presumptuous.

"It seems odd that Xians talk about the value of trust and faith, yet believe that the world's top biologists are spreading falsehoods for no really reason other then the fact that some fringe scientists have questioned the theory."

Not odd at all, if one understands enough about Christianity to know that Christians are expected to put their trust and faith in God---not man. A significant number of non-Creationist Ph.D scientists question the theory of evolution. Science should always question theories, or it becomes mere dogma. The odd-ball notion that evolution shouldn't be questioned is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

"I mean, do they not realize in light of every scientific theory, there are a few quacks who question it? Vilovosky and modern astronomy for example. It seems thus their faith and trust are very selective indeed."

Your logic again fails miserably. Your example does absolutely nothing to prove the validity of evolutionary theory.

Only "quacks" question evolutionary theory? So Louis Pasteur was a "quack"? 5-time Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaeffer is a "quack"? Soren Lovtrup is a "quack"?

Your topic should be entitled "Presumptuous Evolutionists".

 

[chickenman]

"I notice all creationist proofs/articles are never, ever published in a repsected scientific journal, like scientific america."

Because they refuse to publish any Creationist articles. This fact doesn't disprove Creation. It only proves evolutionist bias.

its because creationist research doesn't pass peer review. Actually, can you even give me an example of any research being done by creationists?

"In fact the only place creationist theory is taken seriously is in churches and religious journals. That to me in itself speaks voulmes."

Actually, a significant minority of Ph.D scientists in a number of fields question evolution. And many aren't Creationists or even Theists.

or biologists.

"Isn't such a belief more then a bit presumptuous?"

No, but the belief that nobody should question evolution is indeed presumptuous.

nobody is worried about people questioning evolution, go ahead.
Flatly stating that it is wrong without any alternative explanation for the evidence isn't questioning it, its flat out rejecting it for religious reasons.

"It seems odd that Xians talk about the value of trust and faith, yet believe that the world's top biologists are spreading falsehoods for no really reason other then the fact that some fringe scientists have questioned the theory."

Not odd at all, if one understands enough about Christianity to know that Christians are expected to put their trust and faith in God---not man. A significant number of non- Creationist Ph.D scientists question the theory of evolution. Science should always question theories, or it becomes mere dogma. The odd-ball notion that evolution shouldn't be questioned is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

there is much debate about the specifics of evolution in scientific journals, but there isn't any doubt that it occured.

 

[blader]

A significant number of non-Creationist Ph.D scientists question the theory of evolution.

Really? How many? Please name a few and where and how they question the theory. I presume that these questions are questioning the very possibility of evolution, the foundation of evolution itself, rather than just disagreeing with a small detail of the theory. So they're questioning the theory itself, rather than just revising it a little bit.

Eagerly awaiting some examples to back up your claims.

 

[chickenman]

hmmm, pasteur was dead before DNA was discovered

schaeffer is a physical chemist

and soren lovtrup has this to say

"Indeed, the nature and the wealth of the corroborating evidence are such that the theory on the reality of evolution turns out to be one of the best substantiated theories in biology, perhaps in the natural sciences."

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"I notice all creationist proofs/articles are never, ever published in a repsected scientific journal, like scientific america."

Because they refuse to publish any Creationist articles. This fact doesn't disprove Creation. It only proves evolutionist bias.

Actually, it doesn't 'prove' that either.  It only proves that such journals don't publish creationist articles.   The reason could still be a host of explanations.  It couldn't perhaps be that such articles are rarely submitted to mainstream journals could it?  Or perhaps such articles are not well-documented or their research is not complete.  You jump to an unwarranted conclusion, CS.   For someone who complains about poor logic later in you post, you seem to suffer the same affliction.

Not odd at all, if one understands enough about Christianity to know that Christians are expected to put their trust and faith in God---not man. A significant number of non-Creationist Ph.D scientists question the theory of evolution. Science should always question theories, or it becomes mere dogma. The odd-ball notion that evolution shouldn't be questioned is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

I don't recall anyone ever saying this.  Perhaps you are being a bit senstive about your beliefs.  Actually, evolutionists question evolution every day.  We are constantly acquiring data and testing the theory.

Your logic again fails miserably. Your example does absolutely nothing to prove the validity of evolutionary theory.

Hmm, you seem a bit concerned about proof here.  Actually, no one is trying to 'prove evolution' any more.  It is simply an accepted theory. 

 

[Christian Soldier]

"hmmm, pasteur was dead before DNA was discovered"

DNA does nothing to prove evolution or disprove Creation. Your statement is irrelevant.

"schaeffer is a physical chemist"

Schaeffer is one of the top scientists in the world, and understands far more about biology than you ever will.

Please give us your academic credentials. Don't anybody hold their breath.

"and soren lovtrup has this to say"

As is virtually always the case, yet another evolutionist presents a clearly out-of-context quote.

You don't appear to be familiar with the scientific literature, or you would know that Lovtrup is the author of The Refutation of a Myth, where he gives Darwinism a thorough and well-deserved thrashing.


"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science".

Soren Lovtrup, The Refutation of a Myth

"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary--'adaptation', 'selection pressure,' 'natural selection,' etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution."

Soren Lovtrup, ibid.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
5-time Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaeffer is a "quack"?

When it comes to evolution he is. He is at my university and has never done any research on evolution, is not on any of our evolutionary biology mailing list, never comes to any evolution seminars. Basically. Schaeffer is a physical chemist who doesn't understand evolution and has theological problems with it, not scientific ones. My advisor is a Christian and even she thinks he is a nut.

Schaeffer is one of the top scientists in the world, and understands far more about biology than you ever will.

Really now? How come he isn't a member of the National Academies of Science?

UGA has six living members, two of which are evolutionary geneticists. In fact four of the six are in the my department (Genetics).

 

[Live!]

Originally posted by LightBearer
Do you think a 120 year old Theory is going to refute a 6,000 year old Fact.

No way.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by blader
Let me think.

Satanism isn't Christian, so it's not being published in Christian magazines.

Creationism isn't science, so it's not being published in science journals.

Hey, makes sense to me. Glad we're on the same side. *High fives Nick*

WOW!!!

At least Christian magazines sometimes publish accurate articles ABOUT Satanism.

I've never seen an intellectually honest article about evolution in a creation magazine.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Cantuar
Says so in the Bible. Who needs science?

So what your telling me is that it is intellectually illegitimate for Christians to study the natural world.

What makes you so sure this is literal and not poetic?

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Facts are provable, so it is still just an guess.

You have a direct contradiction here. IF the facts of radiometric dating are provable how could they be a guess?

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by TheBear
Actually, man dates back to well beyond 6000 years. One example that comes to mind is in the Tibetan mountains and plateaus. There are plenty of artifacts and remains, dating before the last Ice Age.

John

As a Christian I'd rather look at the evidence (as you have done, John) and be able to accept it.

Christianity and logic don't have to be in conflict.



Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by blader

Eagerly awaiting some examples to back up your claims.

Ditto.

Sitting here with Peanuts and Coca-Cola in hand awaiting a reply.

Please also provide the university where the scientist has done his/her PHD work as well as the university they are currently teaching at.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

UGA has six living members, two of which are evolutionary geneticists. In fact four of the six are in the my department (Genetics).

Glad your able to study some real science with these guys.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Live!
No way.

Your absolutely correct. It's a fact that the Chinese had a developing civilization 6000 years ago.

No amount of science is ever going to refute this fact.

6000 years ago Niagra falls was back several hundred feet from where it is now.

No amount of science is ever going to refute this fact.

6000 years ago the tribes that built stonehenge were populating England.

No amount of science will ever refute this fact.

See, Science really can't refute 6000 year old facts.

It explains events billions of years in the past extremely well, however.

Chris

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by TheBear
Here's how it works in the scientific community. (roughly)

When observations and measurements are made by a scientist, he/she may develope a hypothesis. If so, the scientist 'tests' his/her hypothesis by trying to disprove it. When satisfied, confidence gets higher, and the hypothesis is then tested by his/her colleagues, again trying to disprove it. When satisfied at this point, confidence gets even higher, and the hypothesis is sent to a board of referees, who look at various methods used, flaws in testing procedures, etc. When accepted at this level, confidence begins to soar, and the hypothesis is published in international juornals, to be scrutinized by worldwide scientific peers. If accepted at this level, confidence goes through the roof, and maybe it will be accepted as a scientific 'theory'. 

Comments and a rant to follow...

True. Most people outside the scientific community have no idea how brutal a "peer review" can be. it's the intellectual equivalent of a gang initiation. The idea in question is torn to shreds. It is attacked on all sides by people looking to disprove it. the hypothesis is beaten, torn, bent, folded, and mutilated. If it get through the process intact, which can take months, years, or even decades, then it's a "theory," but it's still not safe. Another, completely contradictory theory can come along, survive the "peer review, and prove that the old theory was wrong all along. Out with the old, in with the new.

Through the years, many evolutionary ideas have made it through the scientific gauntlet. They are accepted scientific theories until someone proves them wrong. Many other evolutionary theories have not survived. The scientists accepted this, and abandoned their old ideas for the simple reason that they didn't work. Even some of Darwin's own ideas have fallen by the wayside, thanks to what we now know about such things as genetics and DNA, much of which was unknown to Darwin himself.

*RANT MODE ON*

NO creation science idea has, to date, survived a peer review from the established scientific community. Do the creationists change their ideas for ones that fit the facts? No. They cry foul. They claim "evolutionary bias." The worst of them spin stories of elaborate "liberal atheistic evilutionary" conspiracies in the scientific community, educational system, government, and of course, the media.

With no other recourse, they attack the evolutionary theories again, and do so poorly. Most of the "proofs" are laiden with ad hominem, post hoc, circular resoning, straw man arguments, and fallacious appeals to authority, fear, and ignorance.

At best, it's well-intentioned, but poor science. At its worst, it's a throwback to the dark ages.

*RANT MODE OFF*

 

[Chris H]

A very worthwhile rant.

Chris

 

[chickenman]

christian soldier, its clear that soren lovtrup isn't arguing about common descent, or the fact that evolution happened, he merely disagrees with darwin about the mechanisms of evolution. He doesn't believe "micro-mutation" can accomplish macroevolution.

DNA does nothing to prove evolution or disprove Creation. Your statement is irrelevant.

this just goes to show how little you really know about evolution