Replies

EXHIBIT A: Michael Behe:

The quotes I posted on Mr. Behe shows the level of disrespect he received on this forum. He postulated something that is unpopular with your camp and was called a joke, a member of a lonely little group (or however it was worded), and a person who puts forth presentations that are a joke. This was highly disrespectful of another member of the scientific community. I would not show this kind of disrespect towards Darwinists (even though Francis Crick's Directed Panspermia idea does strike me as desperately NUTS- I still would not say Crick himself were a joke, or belittle him based upon the number of other people who agree with him that seeds came here maybe on spaceships from other planets and made what we see today).

Exhibit B: Dr. David Menton
He is an example of creationist resources being ignorred. He wasn't attacked specifically, but his articles that were answers to certain posts were just glossed over.

Exhibit C: Dr. Damadian Responses regarding Dr. Damadian on this thread:
You implied that Damadian single-handedly invented the MRI. People pointed out that there was a lot of ongoing dispute about that. What does any of that have to do with evolution?

Give me a break! I answered a post by someone who wanted me to name one useful medical product that didn't come from the worldview that assumes man came from animals. Then I posted Dr. Damadian's MRI as a pretty significant example. Sanitize the conversation however you like, but the record will show that Damadian was a crank who basically has been using his money to try to convince folks that he came up with the technology first when in reality some other professor did so (making Damadian the apparent thief of intellectual property). When I posted a source stating that he was working on this technology 4 years prior to when the other fellow wrote the paper, and then posted further information stating he applied for a patent concerning MRI technology a year before the other guy's paper was written, received his patent the year after the paper was written and went on to build, apparently, the first MRI machine, I was told to provide proof that it was for IMAGING that his patent was for. Then, I went to the U.S. Patent office website and found that it was for an NMR Scanning device that the patent was for. I posted evidence that Damadian's claims have stood up to Supreme Court review verses the high powered attorneys at GE, and showed links from all over the place that he is considered the inventor. And yet, Damadian is still called a "big crank" and shown a childish level of disrespect on the thread. What it has to do with evolution is that it answers the post regarding useful medical equipment and shows that some people with a strong understanding of science indeed see a young earth as plausible.

Now, I post something from a website where the person does have some knowledge of science, but may not have the credentials you desire (i.e., he isn't an evolutionist), and you dismiss what he has to say as lacking authority.
*Where* have we allegedly done what you describe? Your above three examples don't fit your allegation.
How about in the post I was replying to. I posted a link from Scientists against Evolution and attacking the credentials of the website's author was a response I was given.

I don't know why I should bother posting ANYTHING to you all any more because if it is not evolutionist you aren't going to accept it.

We'll accept it if it makes a good case. If you think we have unfairly dismissed an actual argument or evidence, please point it out. But mentioning that Behe wrote a book, or that Damadian was involved in the the MRI, isn't an argument or evidence. And failure to address Menton's links is no kind of dismissal, it seems to have just gotten lost in the flood of posts and dozen+ links that were flying around. We can't address everything if there's too much to focus on, which is exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.
I have answered a great many posts singlehandedly. There are probably a dozen or so of you. You would think that my having mentioned Menton's work several times would have been noticed and picked up on by someone. Menton works with AIG and their work has been repeatedly groaned at and dismissed. AIG has several well qualified men working on their staff. Yet, because you don't like some of the things you have read, you may have found errors in others, you have had links posted to the stuff a lot, you seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. Menton (and others) are just as qualified to publish their assertions as evolutionists are- but for the lurker's ears, to correct the record, creationists are not just a group of unqualified, pseudoscientists. Many of them are very well qualified and experts on the material they are commenting upon.

You mean this idiot who thought a comparison of modern bird feathers and shed snake scales would mean something about evolutionary trends 165 million years ago?

Question: Of course, evolutionists have long argued that feathers evolved from reptile scales and are thus fundamentally the same structure — very similar.
David Menton: Yes — so I became interested in comparing them myself. I had a laboratory technician at the time who had a ‘pet’ boa constrictor, so I took a look at some of its scales from shed skin. I was amused that they were, of course, not even the slightest bit similar to feathers, as these photographs show. The only similarity is that they are both made of the protein keratin — like hair, nails and our skin.

If you are going to introduce individual persons as evidence, you have made the argument by definition ad hominem. If you claim X and Y are great scientists and support creationism, then the only reasonable rebuttal is 'X and Y are not great scientists'. I agree ad hominems are in general unacceptable, but if a positive ad hominem is introduced as evidence for a point, a negative ad hominem in rebuttal is only to be expected.

Regarding the individuals: Behe's Darwin's Black Box book is unconvincing and sloppy. However, I am familiar with his previous physical chemistry work on DNA, and it was scientifically rigorous. Damadian's 1972 patent does not include an NMR imager as it is understood by either the NMR or the more general imaging community.