Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Heartlander; Right Wing Professor; TN4Liberty; Liberal Classic; PatrickHenry
Thank you for providing a handy list of useful rebuttals for the times when the AECreationists exhibit "Ignorance & Lies", "Stupidity & Lunacy", "Topic Switches", or "Cluelessness & Misc."

For example, when the AECreationists indulge in the common habit of dishonestly using outdated, out-of-context or doctored quotes in order to dishonestly pretend that some expert agrees with them, it will be *much* handier to simply refer them to "A6!" instead of having to tediously point out their dishonesty.

Similarly, when an AECreationist tries the dishonest "Topic Switch" ploy by trying to discredit evolutionary biology pointing out that there are many gaps in abiogenesis research, it is much easier to respond "C7!" than it is to, yet again, try to explain to them that these are independent fields of study, and that one in no way depends upon the other.

And so on.

But your "Tool Kit" is only preliminary and leaves out many forms of AECreationist ignorance, fallacies, lies, lunacy, tangents, cluelessness, etc. Perhaps you could save yourself more work and simply refer people to this catalog of AECreationist flawed claims instead:

Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2005
[Last update: 19 Aug 2005]

Introduction

CA: Philosophy and Theology

CB: Biology

CC: Paleontology

CD: Geology

CE: Astronomy and Cosmology

CF: Physics and Mathematics

CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution

CH: Biblical Creationism

CI: Intelligent Design

CJ: Other Creationism

Authors

143 posted on 11/22/2005 5:20:03 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]


To: Ichneumon
OOOOOH, Ichny dumped the big nuke on 'em.

That's a lot of reading. But, most likely, none of 'em will read a word of it, let alone check out the links. (We don't need no stinking data, whadda you think we are, scientists?)

145 posted on 11/22/2005 5:26:20 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

To: Ichneumon

Please don't post to me anymore. You have some issues and I don't want all your crap in my ping list. Thanks!


151 posted on 11/22/2005 5:41:17 PM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

To: Ichneumon
ID does not equal creationism… Try to get that through you head… If the entire account of Genesis were found false it would have no impact on ID – spam away if you desire but your link equates ID with creationism – this is false – it is a lie.

But hey, if that is the ‘game’ you would like to play…

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.
Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin with original omissions restored. New York, Norton, 1969 (p.87)

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
- William Provine (from Darwin Day speech)

I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.
- Dawkins

The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called “ethical principles.” The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will.... In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.

Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
-Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, ed. J. E. Hutchingson (Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt and Brace, 1991)

The Bright Movement

The movement's three major aims are:

A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Brights

This is different from the wedge document? Look at the signers…

Hmmm… What is your stance in regard to these ‘beliefs’? They are only ‘beliefs’… Go ahead and justify them with your ‘spam’ but know this – A steady state universe and gill slit theories were taught and believed recently. Are you suggesting all should accept this ‘new doctrine’ without any questions? Do you believe your material mind ultimately comes from mindlessness?

"Since Darwinian evolution seeks to promote 'no-design' as a scientific concept, and since all scientific concepts are tentative and refutable, then the disagreement with the hypothesis of no design is scientific. It simply reflects the alternative. In other words, if it is scientific to argue against design, it necessarily is scientific to disagree and argue for it."
- John H. Calvert

379 posted on 11/22/2005 9:19:21 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

To: Ichneumon; All
The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences

Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified.

652 posted on 11/24/2005 5:56:04 PM PST by NewLand (Posting against liberalism since the 20th century!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson