Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[Remedy]

More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.

The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]

Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.

"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."

Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.

"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."

Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.

[Ichneumon]

but don't give me that BS about 'no current body of valid scientific work'.

So describe some of it for us...

[jennyp]

<sigh> It never helps your side when your references are full of typos & grammatical errors, nor when they conclude with lines like: "This alleged transition would be laughable if it were causing people to reject Christ and go to Hell."

[Ichneumon]

You may be Christian but the term evolution has been taken and is counter to the facts and too many lies are spread to the masses.

Oh really? What part of it is "counter to the facts" and what "lies" are involved? Go for it.

[Ichneumon]

[Science is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM.]

I think that Danish statistitian who questioned Global Warming would beg to differ,

Huh? I've seen plenty of healthy debate on "global warming" in the science journals, on both sides. What exactly did this unnamed statistician do that allegedly caused him friction?

as would Albert Wegner.

Who? I find no relevant information on anyone of that name on any web search.

[Ichneumon]

I get impatient with these evos who pretend to want to discuss the issue but come to the table with their minds chained and padlocked.

Oh, *riiiight*... The reason you can't change our minds is because we're closed-minded, and not because your arguments or evidence are insufficient.

What a... convenient rationaliziation.

[Ichneumon]

[That was your point]

So you have me — BibChr, the actual author of the posting we're discussing, the one who had the idea, and expressed it in words — and you are flatly announcing to me that, no matter what I say, you have figured out what my point is, your mind is closed to any other explanation, your thinking is over, the discussion is over.

No, you goof, he's saying it was your point because he QUOTED YOU VERBATIM. It was your point because IT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

Or are you going to deny *that* now?

THIS is the sort of arrogance evolutionists show with total consistency, only in a microcosm. It doesn't matter what the very author of the process says about the process, you've figured it out, and that's that.

Yeah, damn those evolutionists, they think that if you say something, it's what you actually mean. What arrogance!

And BTW no, that was not my point. It's not even a good guess. You have to read, and think about, the WHOLE posting, all 3-4 sentences of it.

If it wasn't what you meant, why did you say it?

And why have you spent two posts now testily complaining about being allegedly misunderstood while slinging haughty insults and not a single line just clarifying what you actually meant?

As long as you're making generalizations, allow me to make one -- your belligerence, holier-than-thou attitude, unwillingness to clarify your points, and evasiveness are typical of creationists.

[Ichneumon]

Science or the institution of science is wrong about the age of the Spinx but science will cling to it.

Not at all -- Leon Spinks is 39 years old.

Oh, you mean the *Sphinx*... Ok, I'll bite -- exactly how do you know the "right" age of the Sphinx?

[Ichneumon]

Why do the evolutionists here always come off sounding like some kind of import from the Democratic Underground? A little tact, eh?

Do you *really* want me to post a collection of the creationists' "greatest hits" when it comes to acting like obnoxious children?

And shall we do a survey of threads to see who starts throwing inflammatory taunts first more often, the evolutionists or the creationists?

[Ichneumon]

All you have to do is look at the pictures.

Why does it not surprise me that a creationist would think that "just looking at the pictures" like a kid who can't read would bring sufficient understanding?

As another poster has already pointed out, Hitler believed in eugenics, the kind of thing that cattle or sheep or dog breeders do, and which was done and understood long before Darwin ever came along. Hitler never attempted to bring about "new" species of humans through selection, so Darwinian evolution is entirely beside the point.

But then, you'd have to *understand* evolution to grasp a point like that, and again you demonstrate your lack of understanding.

It seems like the people who were butchered by Hitler had no problem understanding his evolutionary motives.

Yawn. See above. Presumably Hitler's victims were brighter on this topic than you were.

Hitler made it very clear that his mythical race of supermen were the only ones that deserved to live and that the rest hadn't evolved as far.

Horse manure -- while he believed that other races were "inferior", I have found no evidence that he based this on an *evolutionary* argument. Need I point out to you that there have been many Christian racists who justified their views on the claim that some races were *created* less than human?

What kind of a closed mind can deny Hitler's ties to evolution?

The kind that understands the issues.

The same kind that denies the holocaust.

Oh, now you're just being an asshole. Grow up.

[Ichneumon]

[Why do the evolutionists here always come off sounding like some kind of import from the Democratic Underground?]

Actually that's good. It lets the lurkers know how vastly superior their reasoning power is.

LOL -- are we going to have to dredge up the compilation of your *own* cheap insult-flinging again? Hypocrite, heal thyself.

[Ichneumon]

["Just out of curiosity, what would the curriculum in a Creation Science class consist of?"]

The Truth, as spoken from the Mouth of Almighty God. The one true God in whom we (Americans) "trust." The Almighty Creator who bestowed upon us the individual rights enumerated in our Founding Fathers' documents, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution.

I'm sorry, where was the "science" or "creation" part?

[Ichneumon]

He is stupid, a fool, not of sound mind, the village idiot, and not very bright. He is a 15 watt bulb in a 75 watt socket. He does not have enough brain power to do anything but repeat his stupidity on the same kind of thread everyday of his worthless life.

Ah, yes, the Christian charity and brotherly love of the creationist...

[Junior]

Shall I dredge up the exact debate again? In your own words you took my claim that the orbits were "nearly circular" (I did not claim they were circles) and ran with it from there. We can (and have) run the entire discourse from last April several times on these threads. Hell, I'm tempted to include it in the next incarnation of The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource as an example of Holy Warrior Syndrome.

[Ichneumon]

"Where's the physical evidence of this flood?"

Everywhere you look.

Okay, let's look at the strata of North Dakota, which contains a *complete* geologic column. Strange, not a single layer in it is consistent with a cataclysmic flood. So it's not "everywhere you look", as promised. Care to try again?

From the unusual horizontal erosion-marks around the base of The Sphynx

Surely even a creationist should be able to realize that if there were a world-engulfing flood which "covered all the mountains", there would be erosion marks on more than just the *BASE* of the Sphinx...

to the Grand Canyon

I regret to inform you that you are mistaken. There's no sign of a cataclysmic flood in the strata of the Grand Canyon. Do try again...

to the fossil layer found in rapidly deposited sediment,

"The" fossil layer? There ain't no such one, except locally, in places that had, surprise surprise, local floods at some time or another.

all are pure proof of the Global Flood as told in the story of Noah.

Three strikes, you're out.

Just as the recently discovered, charred remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah verify that Biblical account.

Oh come on, no one has claimed that there aren't historical accounts in the Bible. The writers of the Bible would have described events and places in their own past accurately enough (taking into account the vagaries of oral histories). But that doesn't prove that God was behind the disaster.

How do you explain that, of all the lost ancient civilizations mentioned in the Bible, only one was predicted to rise again (Israel), and only one did? Take your time, pup, I'll wait for your answer.

Argue it out with this guy, he thinks the predicted rise of Israel hasn't happened *yet*...

But to answer your question, out of all the predictions in the Bible (many vague enough to fit nearly *anything*, and many demonstrably failed), they were bound to get lucky on at least *one* of them.

Now your turn -- what about the several times that Christ clearly predicted that his second coming and the end of the world would occur within the lifetimes of those he was speaking to? Either they're a few thousand years old now, or the end of the world has happened and we somehow didn't notice -- or the prophecy was wrong.

Then we'll address the 2,400+ other predictions made in The Bible which have come true.

Uh huh... Unless you're counting such "predictions" as "grass is green", you're really overstating the case here.

[Ichneumon]

In the university I have often seen very grave professors asking themselves whether after all their children when they were very young were not animals, but I have never seen in a zoological garden a congress of chimpanzees asking themselves whether their children when they are grown up will become universitarians. I feel there is a difference somewhere.

Was that actually supposed to prove some point?

[Ichneumon]

BTW, we are winning. The frenzied darwinists are out of ideas. The even admit they are losing and suggest creating a Darwin Day to stop the blood loss.

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

[Ichneumon]

[Was the "ancient lake" that carved out the grand canyon filled sulphuric acid? 'Cause that's about the only thing that could have done it in a few thousand years.]

Your naturalist assumptions make sense only if you apply them to a naturalist worldview.

In other words, there's no branch of science (or human knowledge) that creationists won't just dismiss with a hand-wave if it gets in the way of their pet beliefs.

[Junior]

Oh hell, I'll just go ahead and post the entire exchange:

With you evos, the proof is always somewhere else where no one can see it. All you slimers can do is lie about people you can never discuss the facts. Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me. I do not cut anything off from the quotes and I almost always post a link to the whole article. You are just a sliming liar. You cannot refute my evidence so all you can do is attack the messenger.

You want proof? Fine. For all the world to see:

283 posted on 4/5/02 12:06 PM Eastern by Junior:

The basic problems of Saturnism include a short list of things sufficient to demolish any normal theory, i.e. any theory which was not being held for irrational reasons. Such things include the current, nearly circular orbits of the planets, the improbability of rocky planetary formation in any system where a gas giant is as close to the Sun as the proposed proto-Saturn, the fact that the proposed proto-Saturn would exist outside the habitable zone of the Sun and would be (and still is) a major radiation source, thus rendering a nascent Earth an irradiated snowball.

472 posted on 4/6/02 1:26 AM Eastern by gore3000:

Where did you go to school? The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun. You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.

[This was followed by a list of corrections, orbit data, expanations of the relationship of circles to ellipses, and so on, by a slew of different posters, the specifics of which are available by clicking on the "472" link above and following the thread. It eventually culminated with this "retraction."]

531 posted on 4/6/02 11:39 AM Eastern by gore3000:

All the orbits are elliptical as radio astronomer's post shows. As to how "wild" they are is pure semantics, sort of like the meaning of 'alone' (in a room, in a building, in a city, in a country, on earth, in the universe). I will not waste my time with such hair-splitting.

[However, it was not too long before the following was posted.]

671 posted on 7/10/02 8:30 AM Eastern by gore3000:

Actually the wildly elliptical comment is a true example of the total dishonesty of the evolutionists on these threads. [Junior], totally moronically, said that the paths of the planets were all circular. I pointed out that they were all elliptical and some were wildly elliptical. Of course all the morons of evolution came out to "prove" through some one hundred posts that an ellipse is a circle. Some of the morons of evolution even stated that a square is a circle. So much for the utter dishonesty and sophistry of the morons of evolution.

At your request, these are the facts. For all the world to see. Based on these facts one is led to the seemingly obvious conlusion that you are engaging in mischaracterization, misquoting, and dishonesty bordering on pathological. This is your opportunity to discuss the facts, and offer an alternate theory, additional information, or some other rational explanation for your behavior. You have the floor.

424 posted on 10/21/2002 11:38 AM CDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Ichneumon]

have a meeting in 20 minutes so I'll be brief and give a few reasons why the earth is young:

Wow, a list of most of the "golden oldies". These "young earth reasons" are so old they "why did the chicken cross the road" joke is a youngster in comparison.

This covers most (perhaps all) of them. If I missed any, though, let me know and I'll point out their errors as well.

[Ichneumon]

Who in their right mind would deny that Hitler was a social darwinist? He compared Jews to Apes in Mein Kampf and compared modern man with ape men in Table Talk.

Is it somehow your contention that one has to be an evolutionist to believe in the existence of apes or use them in comparisons?