Posted on 09/04/2001 10:28:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Creationists are a strange bunch. They like to use the scientific method (as they interpret it) to justify their claims about the age of the Earth, evolution and so on. However, if anyone uses that same scientific method to refute their claims, then obviously that person is completely wrong. (Note : This article deals with "Young Earth" creationists, although there are many other types.)
Creationists are happy to accept any scientific data that supports (or at least appears to support) their theory, whether it comes from fellow creationists or from the scientific establishment. Where their theory is not supported, or even flatly contradicted by "standard" science, they fall back on faith, ad hoc hypotheses, conspiracy theories, misrepresentations of science or even outright lies.
If you examine creationist articles, they often cite many papers from mainstream scientists, and use these to back up their claims. Interestingly, if you examine the citations, you often find that they are quite old (often at least twenty years, and occasionally over seventy!). Whether or not the theories are out of date, or have changed or even been abandoned since then is irrelevant - it's a science paper that can be interpreted as supporting a young universe, so it will do nicely. The intended audience is unlikely to know the current state of that particular science, so the reference to the paper or journal lends a lot of weight to the creationist argument (which would float off into space otherwise). Also, any controversies in science are good ammunition for the creationists. Whenever scientists disagree over something, that will be used as solid evidence that the theory in question is defunct (unless, of course, it's a creationist theory). Most people recognise that science thrives on debate. All current theories can be, and should be, questioned. If theories were not questioned, and scientists never argued, science would grind to a halt and no progress could ever be made. Could it be a coincidence that creationists rarely disagree with or question each others theories (even contradictory ones), and their "science" has not changed in the thousands of years since Genesis was written?
Here I shall explore some of the blatant problems with key points of Creationism - the doctrine that the Universe was created exactly as described in the Book of Genesis.
[Long article, with good links. 90% is omitted here.]
For the full article, go to the site: Creation Science .
Nope. The reductionist tries to explain the world in terms of known objects and processes. What's wrong with that?
Well, it's kind of hard to be evolving and going extinct at the same time. But we can't upset the applecart, now, can we?If there are not enough creatures (variation) in the 'gene pool', then the line will become extinct.This why we have had human developement stop where an 'endangered specie' is found.
"Must not disturb their habitat: they'll go extinct."
Vast sums of money are being bandied about because of this.
Before you get carried away, I do agree that horrible acts have been done in the name of religion, even Christianity. However, just because people claim to be acting in the name of Christ does not mean they are in compliance with the will of the one Living God. They are either mistaken or lying.
Will I be a better conservative when you show me the error of my views about origins?
91 Posted on 09/04/2001 21:12:23 PDT by UnChained"Yes, for two reasons. First, you will be a better educated*, clearer-thinking** person."
103 Posted on 09/05/2001 03:53:06 PDT by PatrickHenry
*Every educated person since Darwin has labelled themself an 'evolutionist'.
Leon Trotsky
The ABC's of Materialist Dialectics, 1939
As you can see, PH shares this view in common with one of his Commie/materialistic masters. Good company he keeps, don't you think?
**Remember, however, that when dealing with PH, you are not dealing with a rational mind. Upon reading that a dino/bird "missing link" was found to be a hoax last year, PH replied:
"With or without this creature, evolution still makes sense."
78 Posted on 01/18/2000 17:40:53 PST by PatrickHenry
Put another way,
"With or without supporting evidence, evolution still makes sense."
PH is no less one of the "faithful" he disparages others for being. He simply places his faith in a different god. While he is free to do so, no one should view his writings as anything other than the rants of a "religious" zealot
You and Commies share the view that 2+2 is 4.
This whole issue comes down to faith.The man of faith believes God knows what took place, and interprets the phyiscal evidence according to Biblical revelation. The natural man (unsaved) may be learned, gentle, eloquent, fascinating, but the spiritual content of Scripture is absolutely hidden from him; He won't and can't believe God, and the thought of a personal Creator would be disgusting to him ,for he then would have to at least suspect that man is not the measure of all things,(PRIDE)(ICOR 2/14), )
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. HEB.11/3
For this they willingly are ignorant of,(dumb on purpose) that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:II Peter 3/5
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.HEB. 11/6
Tell that to the Genesis crowd. Science-minded people already understand that.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.Matt.22/29
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.DE.29/29
Why would God reveal any more than he has. Faithless men won't even receive what is revealed
Nice try at sneaking one by. One fossil, Archaeoraptor, was discredited as a hoax. Of course, if by "we" you mean YECs, then your statement remains true except the word "now" makes it unnecessarily specific.
by Barry Forbes The Tribune, Mesa, AZ Sunday, December 5, 1999 "Reproduced With Permission"
"Why'd you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"
I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. (Whew.)
Dr. Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
Why, I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?
"It's been building up for a couple of years," Limeback told me during a recent telephone interview. "But certainly the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic."
A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic >> architecture of human bones." >> Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?"
"Mottled and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told me. "In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice.""
One of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback believes, is a proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities. "Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver - which has never fluoridated - has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's.""
And, he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the industrialized world - including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved standards of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and frequent brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada-wide, he said.
Willful idiocy at best, and still your answer raises questions. If there are no intermediate bird-dino lifeforms, what are these "other" things you're waiting and hoping to see discredited? Are they hard to classify between "It's a bird" and "It's a dinosaur?"
I can't make any sense of your post. But, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, you are definitely not quoting anything I ever said.
Galling, isn't it?
To the ancient tune of a child's playground chant:
Va-dee has no gall bladder
Va-dee has no gall bladder
Nyaaa, nyaaa, nyaa-ahhh!
Get ahold of yourself, man! You can take it; you've got the stones. D'oh, there I go again...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.