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

[dread78645]

It’s nice that you and that site you listed both can escape the real world and delve into hte minds and see the intentions of of the poster at AIG and determine with absolute certainty their real intentions- you’ve missed your calling- you should call the psychic hotline and tell them you and hte site you listed can read minds and determine absolutes and intentions-

Yet their lie still remains.

From your second link Serfati states “For example, since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis”

And Jonathan Sarfati's lie is still there.

One would think that 10 years is more than enough time to correct a honest mistake! Unless of course, one had no intention of being honest ...

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thank you for your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[dread78645]

> "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.

Bloodletting is evidence for a Young Earth? Oh do tell ...

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You sure you want to know? [followed by links]

Are you kidding? Those links just list uses of the word "lie" or "untrue" or whatever on TrueOrigin.org. The first one for "lie" is an article accusing the NY Times of lying. And the first one for "untrue" is an article sent to the Australian magazine The Skeptic that contains the statement "This is untrue." I don't have time to look through every use of the word to find one that fits your description.

You promised "exposed blatant lies." Can you find me one, or not?

[dread78645]

Your so right!
Our Heavenly Father must be a psychotic drunken bully!

That's the Old Testament.
Not the new and improved "New Testament"!

[Fichori]

You said:
"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."
(emphasis mine)

To which I replied: "It wouldn't be the first time."


I was saying that it would not be the first time the 'current science' was proven total wrong.

My example being bloodletting.

[Fichori]

I am not amused by your quoting of my satire out of context.

[dread78645]

Ok, how about this:

Fichori: Your so right!
--: Our Heavenly Father must be a psychotic drunken bully! < /sarcasm >

Me: That's the Old Testament.
--: Not the new and improved "New Testament"!

Better?

[Fichori]

Yes, thanks.

I’m unsure what you meant by ‘new and improved’ New Testament.

My reading of both the old and new has never left my with the impression God has ever been psychotic, drunken, or a bully.

Are you referring to how hard he was on Pharaoh & Friends?
(or perhaps Noah’s flood.)

[mrjesse]

Astronomy Botany Geology Physics

What would you say was the very best evidence from these 4 areas, and how would you rank each of them on a scale of "Plausible" to "unquestionably certain" ?

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.

I don't think that's exactly true. At least it's an exaggeration. Or perhaps I misunderstand your statement, since I'm not sure what you mean by scientific thinking. Your scientific thinking? That of another? Me? Someone you trust?

Anyway, the majority of each of the majority of sciences could function just as well without old-earth ideas. Think about it: Rocks are still made up of the same things, they are still hard, chemistry still works the same way, physics still work the same way -- really the only part of the physical/empirical sciences that even relate to the age of the earth or origins is when they are used to try to prove what happened long long ago, far far away. I will concede that the science of radiometric dating is a science which would have to change in order for the earth to be young, sort of like the science of acting would change if all the theaters went out of business, since the whole field is designed to prove an old earth. :-) (By the way, I'd love to try some radiocarbon dating myself just for kicks, if anyone knows of a DIY site explaining how it's done. My particle detector quite happily detects alpha particles so it ought to work.)

I have always been fascinated with science (as in empirical sciences) since I was a child, and I enjoy learning. Thanks very much.

-Jesse

[CottShop]

[[One would think that 10 years is more than enough time to correct a honest mistake! Unless of course, one had no intention of being honest ...]]

Yes Yes, ‘no intention’ of clearing it up- The post script cleared it up, but to you, it’s not cleared up- whatever-

[[Yet their lie still remains]]

And just for hte record- a mistake isn’t a lie

[CottShop]

[[I don’t have time to look through every use of the word to find one that fits your description.]]

You asked for some I gave them to you- Johnathan exposes folks from TO and from other sites in many of htose links- either look them up or not- whatever- As well if you read through most of his articles, they expoise the half-truths, the sins of ommissions committed by TO and PA and other sites as well- His site is full of such- knock yourself out

[CottShop]

A mistake isn’t a lie- and a correction postscript- hwether doen by himself, or in regards to his article is a corection unlike the site I spoke of earlier

[[One would think that 10 years is more than enough time to correct a honest mistake! Unless of course, one had no intention of being honest ..]]

I explained why articles aren’t manipluated after the fact- accept it or don’tr- I don’t really care- but a mistake does NOT render a whole site invalid contrary to your accusation

[CottShop]

[[You promised “exposed blatant lies.” Can you find me one, or not?]]

Can you do your own research or not? I did a great deal of leads for you already- that’s enough- My statement stands whether you check it out or not

[AndrewC]

And so why hasn't he? Rather than address the issue (much less post a correction) himself, he refers readers to another page, whose author doesn't address it either.

He sure did and so does the page he cites.

QUOTE

See also A Whale of a Tale?, including the addendum addressing claims of subsequent Ambulocetus bones and their (ir)relevance to evolution.

ENDQUOTE

Sarfati is rebutting episode 2 of the PBS series on evolution. He rebuts the whale evolution portion by addressing each fossil animal in order. Ambulocetus is mentioned only briefly, "This was mentioned fairly briefly in this episode, but it features prominently in the anti-creationist book Finding Darwin’s God, by Kenneth Miller"

He takes that as an opportunity to address Miller's book. Using evolutionists' own criteria for acceptable scientific evidence, he obviously rejects data which has not been peer reviewed. Things found two years after the fact do not gain automatic approval. The drawing used indicating the bones found come from the peer-reviewed article. You can find that article here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/263/5144/210. You might have to pay for the article but google is your friend. On page 210 a picture of the fossil find(partial?) is available. On that page is the peer-reviewed diagram used by Sarfati. An evolutionist can argue about acceptable evidence, but cannot honestly call Sarfati a liar. Now tell me which I should accept as correct from these two images of the "same" fossil.

[CottShop]

I have spent a great deal of time on wallace’s (Tim- not Jonathan- made a mistake) site and it has become clear to me that Talkorigins commits the sins of ommissions hwen making hteir case for Macroevoltuion. Tim has a great many articles exposing htese intentional cover-ups, which are lies, and he exposes their negligatory articles for what they are. While he may be wrong on some moot points from time to time- He has shown a great deal more integrity that TO or PA in dealing with his mistakes in a timely and honest manner, and it is clear to anyone who takes the itme to read through his articles that TO and PA and other sites indulge in and inflate just so stories trying to make hteir case for Macroevolution. The deceit is blatant, and intentional, and it is meant ot mislead and deceive, as you will soon discover if you decide to read throguh the many articles that address exactly what I’ve said they address. The ‘differences aren’t just simple ‘differences of opinion’ aws you claim, the artivcles on those site are seriously negligent in telling hte whole truth becuase the whole truth refutes what they are claiming and they know it, and they don’t want you or anyone else knowing it- this is deciet when you itnentionally cover up serious problems and opposing evidences. Noe, you can either beleive what I am telling you, trust what I am saying, or you can refuse to look any furhter- I don’t really care one way or the other- I’ve doen my part, and I’ve played this game far too long- giving link after link after link after demand after demand after demand only to have the facts ignored, brushed aside, and pretended that they aren’t as serious as they really are- only to have folks turn right around and hold soemthign like AIG’s mistakes up as though they rise to the levels of intentional deceits on site liek TO and PA, and if you wish to continue engaging in this type of game- you’re on your own- but the comparisons between what AIG had happen to them and what TA intentionally does time and time again don’t even compare integrity wise!

[CottShop]

thanks for finding that- but I’m sure it will do absolutely nothing in the minds of those convinced that anythign AIG says can possibly be true as they’ve already made their minds up a mistake rises to the level of deceit that TO and PA engage in (all the while fully excusing TO and PA’s actions and fully accepting what they write as gospel truth regardless of how many articles get exposed for hte blatant deceits that they are)- but thanks anyways for finding that- I for one appreciate it.

[js1138]

fractal wrongness

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

[js1138]

It's sometimes called calculating MTBF.

And my reference to paranoia refers to a badly expressed sense of MTBF. Anyone who worries about everyday contingencies has not done his math.

We are all going to die. How one copes with this fact is personal, but obsessive concern for contingencies over which we have no control is sick.

Saying that one relies on miracles to get through ordinary days is, at the very least, bad writing.

[Coyoteman]

(By the way, I'd love to try some radiocarbon dating myself just for kicks, if anyone knows of a DIY site explaining how it's done. My particle detector quite happily detects alpha particles so it ought to work.)

Radiocarbon dating is a lot more complicated than just counting beta decay.

As an archaeologist I send a lot of samples off for dating, and most of the tricky parts are in sample selection and interpretation of the results. The laboratory process is straightforward, but great care needs to be taken in sample preparation to eliminate contamination.

But if you are really interested, here are some good links:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.