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.

[xzins]

This is the penalty box for NASTY threads. This is where the deleted ones last week should have been taken. There should be very little that can't be said back here....nothing racist, nothing violent.

[PatrickHenry]

Admiring placemarker.

[Ichneumon]

Oh, I get the rules now. We discard findings that don't fit our faith.

Hardly -- that's the creationist way. Look, for example, how often they try to hand-wave away various dating methods that give results they don't like.

Living material would disintegrate in thousands of years...not millions.

Horse manure. Fragments of DNA have been successfully recovered from several-million-year-old specimens.

What about river deltas? Is the Mississippi or Nile really showing a muddy mouth that is millions, or just thousands, of years.

The Mississippi river as we know it today is about 12,000 years old. What of it? Before that were other rivers, in other places, as the landmasses of the Earth continued to move (as they do today) around forming differently shaped and elevated landmasses.

This is not just conjecture, many geologic columns have "fossil" riverbeds embedded deep within them. In fact, most coal beds were formed by riverborne organic silt deposites.

I look at questions and evidence. Why is there still helium on the earth after billions of years.

Because new helium is being formed by radioactive decay in the Earth and released into the atmosphere. Take it up with the creationists at ICR, they claim that there's too little helium. You creationists have to get together one of these days and get your stories straight.

Why aren't the oceans MUCH saltier?

Because although there are processes adding new salt to the oceans daily, there are also at the same time processes removing existing salt. Spectacular numeric analysis of salt influx/removal rates from various sources for the oceans

[Ichneumon]

I am not interested in name calling with an immature brain. Find someone else to play with.

This was, the astute reader will know, in response to my challenge for Metacognative [sic] to:

But just for fun, give us you *best* "interesting evidence" for a young earth, and we'll show you why it hardly deserves to be uttered in the same breath as the word "science".

...which was issued in response to *his* snarky broadsides against "Darwinites".

Nor did I do any "namecalling" in that post, as you can see for yourself by following the links back.

So again, we see a creationist lamely dodging a challenge to provide support for his insults, by the creative tactic of spewing more insults.

[Ichneumon]

It must be really sad to be you

Not at all, but I'm curious why you would presume so.

(Everyone watch closely, this should be a good one.)

[Ichneumon]

You said "250,000,000 year old bacteria". That's 250 billion years old.

Uh, no, that's 250 million...

250 billion would be 250,000,000,000.

[Ichneumon]

[As further confirmation, over the past thirty years I've examined every creationist attempt to poke a hole in the theory and found that in every single case the argument failed because the creationists making the proposal were a) ignorant, b) idiots, or c) dishonest (or some combination thereof).]

If someone believes that there is a primary and intelligent cause for life, the universe, and everything; would that make the individual ignorant, an idiot, or dishonest?

By itself, none of the above.

Try reading my post again. I made no aspersions at all against people who believe any particular thing.

I did, however, describe the nature of the folks who make a habit of making quixotic crusades against evolution with various attempts to "disprove" it. To date, as I said, those attacks have been almost without exception perpetrated by the foolhardy.

I stand by that statement.

I also took care to mention that there have been a few honest, intelligent folks in that same crowd, although they are depressingly rare. Is there any reason you chose to snip that out when you quoted my post for your reply and then asked a question that implied I thought the idiots were the *only* possibilities?

[Ichneumon]

Okay, let us have a real discussion. The problem that I have with Darwinism is that it is based on natural selection, i.e. only the strong survive, the weak die. Fine. But then please tell me how a single celled organism, which does not “select” to reproduce, but instead divides itself, evolves into a multi-celled organism. And how an organism with 2 cells divides to become a four celled organism, and so on and so on until we reach humans. Has science ever noted a single cell ameba divide into a multi celled organism? Hope you understand all of that.

Good questions (some of the first in this thread, there's hope yet!), but I'm up *WAY* past my bedtime and I don't have time to give it the attention it deserves right now. So this is my "bookmark", I'll get back to you after I get some sleep.

[gore3000]

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

Well, you show again that you cannot even talk in a civilized manner. You show again your insistence in trying to prove that something is not what it is. But more importantly you show your (and other evolutionists desire) to distract from the facts being presented to you regarding evolution and go off on a complete tangent of blather and character assassination. Talk about the subject at hand lamer, refute my statements lamer. All you and your friends can do is make up garbage to insult opponents.

[Junior]

In other words, when you are caught out, in your own words, it's all your enemies' fault. How thoroughly Clintonian of you.

[gore3000]

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

Only an evolutionist would have such a low disregard for humanity (and himself) as to compare apes favorably with humans. The charlatan Darwin did that for chapeter after chapter in the descent of man showing absolutely his considering man no more than a beast. It is such attitudes, such beliefs that lead to the disregard for human life exercised by mass murderers of all ilks.

[biblewonk]

Yes, indeed, that passage is very revealing and also shows why evolution = atheism:

They ... who say to a tree, "You are my father, and to a stone, "You gave me birth".

Isn't that great! The Lord knew that the idea/spirit of evolution existed way back then. He reduces it to it's simplist form and shows it for what it is. We can easily picture a university auditorium full of profs and experts speaking so haughtily about "foam fractionation" and yet it is merely the same thing as in Jer 2:27 with modern day trimmings.

[Dataman]

Once you said Hitler was not an evolutionist (post 345), I knew your server was down. I guess that leaves you on another planet.

[bmwcyle]

And your humor is as empty as your facts.

[Dataman]

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

Now that's what makes you look brilliant. Earlier you were referred to as Icky. Fits.

Put me on you "do not call" list. I prefer to deal with adults.

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's a good question. The cells are specialized; some do one thing; some do another.

[BibChr]

You are quacking about posting #243, evidently helpless to understand it. It would have been too much, I suppose, to think that you might have read back as far as... #242?

Now yours adds to it.

Your point?

Dan

[BibChr]

You guys are great. So inflated with yourselves, with your own arrogance, that when exposed, you simply double your efforts.

So, per your request, we'll put you in the column of those who know better than I what I meant, and who feel that being asked to think through 3-4 whole sentences is asking too much.

Dan

[Dataman]

You guys are great. So inflated with yourselves, with your own arrogance, that when exposed, you simply double your efforts

Good morning Dan! I think if FR added an autoreply feature it would save guys like Icky a lot of time. It could look like this:

Autoreply Posted by Ichneumon to Dataman
On The Smokey Backroom ^ 02/26/2003 5:12 AM CST #1560 of 2578

SO???? What's your point? So's your mother.

[BibChr]

What makes you sure they don't already have it?

Honestly, isn't it simply amazing when one of them flatly tells you that you're wrong about what you meant, he's going to TELL you what you meant -- and then, after that's exposed, another comes along and does the exact same thing? I mean, doesn't this exactly mirror what they do with God's own verbal account of Creation?

It is such self-parody... you couldn't have made it up!

Dan