Posted on 09/08/2001 10:11:49 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 Whether or not the theories are out of date, or have changed or even been abandoned since then is irrelevant - it's a science paper that can be interpreted as supporting a young universe, so it will do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.
So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6.0].
The answer is no, it [recent lack of new phyla] doesn't imply intelligence. Let's consider a freak mutation -- a 10-legged insect. Beetle, or grasshopper, doesn't matter. This mutation, if it survives and breeds, has the potential to spawn a whole new body type. No "intelligence" so far, just a mutation. Okay, now the world is full of beetles and grasshoppers, all competing for food. And the world is also full of lizzards and birds who eat beetles and grasshoppers. So far, still no "intelligence" involved. In such a crowded, competitive world, our little 10-legged friend may not make it to maturity, and it may breed no more of its deci-digeted ilk. Gone. Down the shute. No "intelligence" involved, just no opportunity to survive. See how it works? (Unless, of course, you believe that every blade of grass, every bug that hops, is guided by some supernatural force, in which case -- given that unproven assumption -- everything that happens every moment is indeed the result of "intelligence", but I'm not using that hypothesis.)200 Posted on 09/08/2001 09:59:07 PDT by PatrickHenry
From you:
I understand HOW it could happen, I do not understand why it is NOT happening now. What out there, knows that the niches are filled, therefore no new species are appearing?201 Posted on 09/08/2001 10:12:58 PDT by dubyagee
I'm really not understand your question. Or if I do understand it, I can't believe that you're asking it. When a mutant bug starves, or is gobbled up by a preditor, and that bug therefore fails to breed more of its mutated kind, you want to know who knows this and who tells the progeny of the dead bug not to exist? Is that your question?
Right. I think that's probably the position of most Christians. Jews too, I believe. And Deists. Creationists are in their own little world on this, but they're vocal and active and school boards pay attention to them. The media like to pretend that all republicans are creationists, so it's important to burst that little bubble.
1 Timothy 6 20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
You mean six days, don't you? Either way is fine with me. I don't believe in miracles.
We see mutations all the time. There are six-fingered humans born from time to time. People with webbed hands, etc. Mutations are not unknown, or unseen. But a mutation that could result in a whole new body type? Rare. And as I said, the ecological niches are full. Tough for a "pure" frog to make it in this world. A freaky one has a rough road. Mass extinctions will eventually make it easy for the freaks to survive. It's happened before. And it will probably happen again. I still don't understand your question.
Creation "science" has the same standing as astrology. That is, none. None at all. The devotees of these odd doctrines, however, don't understand that.
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.