Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[atlaw]

Would you like me to start posting the BLATANT LIES by sites such as talk-origins, Panda’s thumb, and others?

Sure. It would be educational, not to mention entertaining.

[CottShop]

fine- I will- Here: http://trueorigin.org

The exposed blatant lies are numberous- and htese were no simple fallible gaffs- these are outright lies that are exposed

[CottShop]

http://crestionsafaris.com as well- which exposes the blatant misrtepresentations from well known science publications and exposes the deceits used to mislead readers

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

the site you list claims he ‘lied’ when Serfati’s old article predated more complete finds.

But the thing about the Web is that you can go back and correct errors when you find out about them. Sarfati has had ample opportunity to correct his out-of-date statement (I'm being charitable here), and in fact has gone in and added a reference to an addendum on another page written in 2002. But for some reason he hasn't bothered to change the text of what he originally wrote to reflect what he should now know. The original material is still there, uncorrected, and it's still being quoted on other creationist sites as fact. How dishonest do you have to be before "liar" is an accurate description?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The exposed blatant lies are numberous- and htese were no simple fallible gaffs- these are outright lies that are exposed

If you could point me to a specific lie that is exposed, I promise to go read it. I followed a few links, and most of them just argue against the Talk.origins conclusions without actually exposing any lies, or even accusing TO of lying.

I did find one that made an accusation of deception. There's a link that makes the case for a young moon, and it claims that a paper cited on Talk.O is deceptive because it bases its calculations on the premise of a single continent at the earth's pole. (Note: the paper doesn't say that ever actually happened--it's just a starting point for general calculations.) The True.O author claims that because the tidal bulges could sweep around the earth without obstruction, the calculations of the moon's recession that result are untrustworthy, and implies that the premise was chosen in order to get the old-moon results.

But the Talk.O post also cites other papers that "treat the oceanic tidal dissipation with fully mobile and arbitrary continents" or "with plate tectonics fully integrated into their models of Earth-moon tidal evolution." In other words, there are sources that do not depend on a single continent. But although the True.O author says he has possession of those other papers, he only addresses the first one. He doesn't give any hint of what the other two say, or address how having arbitrary continents might destroy his argument about nothing getting in the water's way.

So I ask you, which is more deceptive: an author that clearly says "we're going to base our calculations on a situation that probably never existed but will give us some numbers to start with," or an author that conceals information in his possession without giving any hint what it is?

[tokenatheist]

They appear to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Isn’t that just a little bit removed from almost all the evidence?

[Fichori]

The selective use of Evidence can prove Anything.

So the question is, who's Evidence are we going to use.

Young earth Creationist's don't want to be limited to the Evidence that the Evolutionists want to use, and the Evolutionist's want to exclude the Evidence that Young earth Creationists want to use.

And to allow the use of all evidence that can pass empirical muster, would be Unfair.

[tokenatheist]

Ok - let us exclude the evidence of the evolutionists.

That still leaves the following fields of science that have evidence that the Earth is > 6000 years old.

Astronomy
Botany
Geology
Physics

Along with quite a few more that I do not currently have time to name.

I guess what I am trying to say is that for YEC to be correct nearly every aspect of current scientific thinking has to be, not only incorrect, but incorrect in a way that is almost beyond description.

Now if you will excuse me I have a .net application that I have to work on.

[Fichori]

"I guess what I am trying to say is that for YEC to be correct nearly every aspect of current scientific thinking has to be, not only incorrect, but incorrect in a way that is almost beyond description."

It wouldn't be the first time.

Take for example: Bloodletting.

Lots of people were cured by bloodletting... permanently.

I was not making a case for the exclusion of any empirical evidence whatsoever.

Evidence for YEC is not limited to any one field of science.


You are most graciously excused!
(I enjoy writing an occasional app myself)

[Coyoteman]

Evidence for YEC is not limited to any one field of science.

Evidence for YEC is seen only by extremists within a narrow segment of Christianity.

Non-Christians, such as scientists in Indian or China, don't support the idea of a young earth because the scientific evidence simply is not there.

On the other hand, the evidence against a young earth is overwhelming.

The same goes for the purported "global flood" about 4,350 years ago. It is a religious belief, not an event supported by scientific evidence.

[onewhowatches]

Now suppose you’re on the ride to a destination and your father tells you that if you’ll just beleive him, trust him, you’ll go to disneyland, and that he will personally confirm to you during hte ride that you’re indeed goign to go there by showing you evidences that he will reveal to you personally during hte ride- but if you refuse, you’ll go to a dungeon somewhere- never to be seen again- all alone, isolated- for an eternity of suffering? What is the prudent thing to do?

Get out of the car, call 911, and tell them your father is drunk and threatening you.

[tokenatheist]

Can’t use the phone - modern cell networks tower layouts are partial determined by evolutionary algorithms.

[js1138]

Suppose you are a child, and suppose your father says “Get in the car- we’re going someplace” Wouldn’t you want to know where you’re going?

Now suppose the destination could be disneyland, or it could be prison- you have no way of knowing which. Your father could very well drop you off at some Hell-hole, tell a guard to lock you up forever, and tell the guard he never wants to see you again...

I'm really sorry about the problems you have with your father. Mine died recently at age 96, but in my wildest nightmare I could not visualize distrusting him. I really don't have a frame of reference for understanding your point.

[onewhowatches]

Can’t use the phone - modern cell networks tower layouts are partial determined by evolutionary algorithms.

Just run away like the Devil is after you, then. Because that's what Cottshop's "father" sound more like than God.

[Fichori]

"Non-Christians, such as scientists in Indian or China, don't support the idea of a young earth because the scientific evidence simply is not there."

Saying something does not exist because you have not seen it is not empirical evidence that it does not exist, but is entirely speculative opinion.


"On the other hand, the evidence against a young earth is overwhelming."

I agree wholeheartedly with you; When you only consider the evidence against YEC, it is overwhelming.


"The same goes for the purported "global flood" about 4,350 years ago. It is a religious belief, not an event supported by scientific evidence."

If you only consider Evidence against the Flood, then the evidence, would be, once again, overwhelmingly against the flood.


You might want to do some research on this before commenting, but one theory holds that the Grand Canyon in Arizona is a direct result of the recession of the Global Flood of "about 4,350 years ago".


You must be fully aware that the Evidence for/against Evolution is inextricably linked.
When empirically evaluated, it is, metaphorically speaking, a self terminating two headed monster.

[Fichori]

Lighten up will ya....

I believe it was intended as a logical analogy!
(NOT literally.)

As an aside, attacking his character only makes him look right.

If he is wrong, refute his claim.
Otherwise, take it like a mature adult.

[tokenatheist]

So evidence is now a bad thing? And speaking of ‘theories’ another theory holds that the world is secretly ran by a lot of lizards from space.

That ‘theory’ has more evidence then the one that says the Grand Canyon is less than 5,000 years old.

‘theory’ is used in the colloquial sense, not the scientific.

[Coyoteman]

You might want to do some research on this before commenting, but one theory holds that the Grand Canyon in Arizona is a direct result of the recession of the Global Flood of "about 4,350 years ago".

Look up the definition of a theory. It is not an "idea" or a "guess" when the term is used in science. A theory is the highest form of documentation -- as there is no way within science to "prove" something.

Calling the idea that the Grand Canyon is 4,350 years old and was created by Noah's flood a "theory" is absolutely incorrect, and is designed to falsely equate that "idea" or religious belief with a scientific theory. Sort of like the old, "they're both theories" nonsense when comparing the theory of evolution and ID.

Also like the attempted redefinition of "science" so as to include various religious beliefs. Didn't Behe have to testify in the Dover case that his definition of "science" was broad enough to include astrology? And this is all done to try to sneak religious ideas into science, and hence into the science classes.

Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves: co-opting the terms of science in an effort to gain false respectability for non-scientific ideas or religious beliefs. In many cases lately this is done to fool school boards.

See my FR homepage for some good definitions of these terms.

[Fichori]

The Selective use of Evidence allows me to empirically prove that I am the only person who really exists and that everyone else is just part of a very bad dream I am having and it will all go away when I wake up.

Evidence is Science; Selective Evidence is Theism.

[onewhowatches]

Lighten up will ya....

I believe it was intended as a logical analogy!
(NOT literally.)

So Cottshop sees God as being logically analogous to a parent who is a bully and, most likely, drunk?

Good thing I already believe in God. Cottshop is making a better case for the other side.