Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[Eight Foot Manchild]

*double post*

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In view of the fact that creationists gave us this:

Most of those people were dead before the theory of evolution was ever formulated. Some of them centuries before. As such, they can't be called 'creationists' in the modern sense, only in the sense that they believed in a higher power.

You're committing a fallacy of equivocation - 'creationist' in the broadest sense vs. 'creationist' in the very specific, 2012 sense. Your 'point', such as it is, boils down to 'some people who believed in a god entity were able to utilize the scientific method to success'.

Whoopty-doo. This lends absolutely zero credence to creationism, and it undercuts evolution not one iota.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Isaac Newton also practiced alchemy for sixty years. I guess that must mean there's something to it.

 

[Split Rock]

I e-mailed Donald Prothero about this in 2009, and he replied to say that he'd used the images was because he hadn't known they were considered inaccurate. He also said he'd try to find a more accurate image to replace it with for the book's second edition. That's consistent with what I've been assuming to be the case, which is that book authors have been using this image simply because they aren't aware there's anything wrong with it.

I'm glad you did this... it was something I noticed and was very disappointed with. Afterall, the book was directed specifically at the creation-evolution debate. I have meant to contact Prothero about it, but never got around to it. At least he is aware of the problem now, and has said he would fix it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of those people were dead before the theory of evolution was ever formulated.

So? what's that got to do with anything?

Here's what you said: Creationists don't do any science of their own.

I'd say you're quite mistaken.

Some of them centuries before.

Again, creationists kick-started the science that we now enjoy.

As such, they can't be called 'creationists' in the modern sense, only in the sense that they believed in a higher power.

Did you read the list headings ... specifically the first one?

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED by BIBLE-BELIEVING SCIENTISTS

What's this 'higher power' stuff? they were Bible-believing creationists, not members of an Alcoholics Anonymous chapter.

You're committing a fallacy of equivocation.

No, I'm showing you where you're wrong.

Your 'point', such as it is, boils down to 'some people who believed in a god entity were able to utilize the scientific method to success'.

Did you look at that list?

Look at the sixth name from the bottom.

It was Francis Bacon who invented the Scientific Method in the first place.

Whoopty-doo.

Ya ... whoopty-doo ... you won't admit you're wrong, will you?

This lends absolutely zero credence to creationism.

Speaking of absolute zero, look at the first name on the second list: Lord Kelvin gave us the Absolute Temperature Scale.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isaac Newton also practiced alchemy for sixty years. I guess that must mean there's something to it.

I don't care if they were voodoo priests, they were creationists who kick-started science.

And I didn't even mention the Muslims, who gave us the number 0, as well as made great strides in the areas of astronomy and geography.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So? what's that got to do with anything?

Here's what you said: Creationists don't do any science of their own.

I'd say you're quite mistaken.

I'd say you're still making a fallacy of equivocation. 'Creationist' in the broadest sense possible (as a synonym for 'Christian') vs. 'creationist' in the very specific, contra-evolutionary biology understanding of the term.

Yes, they are spelled the same. No, they don't mean the same thing.

Again, creationists kick-started the science that we now enjoy.

Again, fallacy of equivocation. There were no AiG-brand 'creationists' when science got its start as a methodology.

Did you read the list headings ... specifically the first one?

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED by BIBLE-BELIEVING SCIENTISTS

What's this 'higher power' stuff? they were Bible-believing creationists, not members of an Alcoholics Anonymous chapter.

OK. Granted.

This does absolutely nothing to support your claim, which is still predicated on a fallacy of equivocation.

No, I'm showing you where you're wrong.

No, you're actually doing the exact opposite - you're restating the same fallacy, over and over.

Ya ... whoopty-doo ... you won't admit you're wrong, will you?

I gladly admit when I'm wrong. It's part of being a skeptic. I'm not wrong, though. 'Creationists' - as the term generally applies, in specific regard to counter-evolutionary apologetics - don't do science.

If you were to actually prove me wrong, the way to do it would be to summon some legitimate scientific literature put out by, for example, AiG, or Duane Gish, or Eric Hovind, or Way of the Master, or any other 'creationist' of the kind I was referring to in the first place.

Can yo do it?

[HINT: No, you can't.]

 

[AV1611VET]

I gladly admit when I'm wrong. It's part of being a skeptic. I'm not wrong, though. 'Creationists' - as the term generally applies, in specific regard to counter-evolutionary apologetics - don't do science.

Suit yourself.

You first said 'creationists', then when I chimed in, you moved the goalpost all over the place.

I'm not going to play that game.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Let's take a poll right now.

To anyone reading along: When I said 'creationists don't do any science of their own', did anyone think I meant 'Christians don't do any science of their own'?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Suit yourself.

You first said 'creationists', then when I chimed in, you moved the goalpost all over the place.

No, you moved the goal post. I said creationist, and I meant 'creationist' as just about anyone on this board understands the term, in its relationship to counter-evolution apologetics. Plainly obvious to anyone reading along, especially considering the title of this particular forum.

You said 'creationist', and you meant 'Christian'. That's not only a disingenuous goal post switch, it's completely asinine.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you moved the goal post. I said creationist, and I meant 'creationist' as just about anyone on this board understands the term, in its relationship to counter-evolution apologetics.

You said 'creationist', and you meant 'Christian'. That's not only a disingenuous goal post switch, it's completely asinine.

Then why did I include the Muslims in Post 66?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then why did I include the Muslims in Post 66?

Oh, I'm so sorry. You didn't mean 'creationist' as in 'Christian'. You meant 'creationist' as in 'theist'. That's totally not asinine. Not at all.

So, did anyone reading along think I meant 'theists don't do science' when I said 'creationists don't do science'?

 

[CabVet]

Oh, I'm so sorry. You didn't mean 'creationist' as in 'Christian'. You meant 'creationist' as in 'theist'. That's totally not asinine. Not at all.

So, did anyone reading along think I meant 'theists don't do science' when I said 'creationists don't do science'?

I will have to side with AV on this one. Many scientists were (and some are) in fact creationists. That however does not mean that any of them used creationism in their science, but that is not what AV said.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I will have to side with AV on this one. Many scientists were (and some are) in fact creationists. That however does not mean that any of them used creationism in their science, but that is not what AV said.

Now, see, that's more like it. This actually addresses my initial point. My words were chosen poorly, and I stand corrected.

I should have included the stipulation from the start that no creationist has provided any science in support of creationism - i.e. there is no such thing as a 'creation science lab', 'creation science field work', etc. It's a less personal accusation.

Did you catch that, AV? Someone corrected me on a factual error in how I phrased the challenge, and I admitted it. That's how this is supposed to work.

Why didn't you correct me, I wonder.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Oh, and now that you know the real challenge, you can hop to it. Isn't that a relief?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Now, see, that's more like it. This actually addresses my initial point. My words were chosen poorly, and I stand corrected.

I should have included the stipulation from the start that no creationist has provided any science in support of creationism - i.e. there is no such thing as a 'creation science lab', 'creation science field work', etc. It's a less personal accusation.

Did you catch that, AV? Someone corrected me on a factual error in how I phrased the challenge, and I admitted it. That's how this is supposed to work.

Why didn't you correct me, I wonder.

Oh, and one more thing. This doesn't change the fact that none of the 'creationists' he named are 'creationists' in the definition relevant to this forum, so he still didn't actually meet the challenge as initially stated.

 

[driewerf]

2. Yes ... I refuse to be called a Homo sapiens, just as Moses refused to be called by the ancestry the world (Egypt) gave him.

You might refuse that, it doesn't change the fact that you ARE a Homo sapiens.
Just like Bask separatists don't like to be called Spanish, they are Spaish nonetheless.

 

[Aggie]

I should have included the stipulation from the start that no creationist has provided any science in support of creationism - i.e. there is no such thing as a 'creation science lab', 'creation science field work', etc. It's a less personal accusation.

This isn't strictly the case either. RATE has done both field research and lab research about radiometric dating from a young-earth perspective. In an indirect sense, RATE is responsible for most of the current research that exists about radiohaloes. Further research from mainstream scientists has shown that RATE's conclusions were wrong, but the research in this area wouldn't have been done at all if creationists (and I mean creationists in the modern sense) hadn't initiated it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This isn't strictly the case either. RATE has done both field research and lab research about radiometric dating from a young-earth perspective. In an indirect sense, RATE is responsible for most of the current research that exists about radiohaloes. Further research from mainstream scientists has shown that RATE's conclusions were wrong, but the research in this area wouldn't have been done at all if creationists (and I mean creationists in the modern sense) hadn't initiated it.

Haha. 'Science by proxy'. Points for creativity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you catch that, AV?

I caught it.