|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2002 : 05:36:45
|
Scientific America has an interesting article on its webpage about creationism and 15 answers to creationists most common arguments.
The Article does not contain much news, but summarizes the situation well. I espescially liked the explanation at the end, why "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms.
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2002 : 09:21:10 [Permalink]
|
I've seen it; so has AIG. Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis has written a rebuttal called: "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:
A point by point response to Scientific American"
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
Given that Sarfati (and AIG in general) has a long history of name-calling himself (ie. calling his opponents "apostates", religious evolutionists "useful idiots", or "darwin's quisling") and stuff like that, or quote:
any are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It's quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin's strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. See also The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies
from: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
It's obvious that people like Sarfati are the bigots; it's even more apparent when you take into account that the Scientific American article doesn't go into the name-calling that he does.
The technical arguments I'll have to leave to others for now...but there's always the http://www.talkorigins.org site for that.
|
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2002 : 21:45:52 [Permalink]
|
Good stuff, but I'm a little confused. The words 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' were bandied about frequently. I was under the impression that these two words were invented by creationists and used to obfuscate the issue.
Oh well, if we can co-opt their terms and use it against them, that's only fair play, right? They've been doing it to us for years.
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2002 : 22:04:39 [Permalink]
|
Good stuff, but I'm a little confused. The words 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' were bandied about frequently. I was under the impression that these two words were invented by creationists and used to obfuscate the issue.
Oh well, if we can co-opt their terms and use it against them, that's only fair play, right? They've been doing it to us for years.
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2002 : 22:11:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Good stuff, but I'm a little confused. The words 'microevolution'....
I think they had to admit some sort of evolution because the story of Noah says that all the races of the world from 3 ft 6 African Pygmies to 7 ft 10 Chinese basketball players are all decended from Mr & Mrs Noah's little boys.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 03:41:32 [Permalink]
|
I've already used it in a couple of discussions elsewhere. It's very good.
Micro / macro evolution is all the same thing except macro has more of it. As in several micros = a macro. Therefore, it follows that several macros equals a Creationist, and a few more macros will result in the evolution of someone able to think for himself.
See? Clear as the ancient water canopy, is it not?
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 04:13:03 [Permalink]
|
From the AIG web-site, and a description of rapid "speciation" from "kinds" (as required by the Creationists' post-flood model):
quote:
"But again, it's important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information."
My interest in this quote is that this thread recurs across the AIG web-site many times (including in the rebuttal of the "Scientific American" article mentioned above), and seems to be a central plank of its anti-evolutionary stance.
Does anyone have more information on this from an evolutionary perspective?
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 04:13:49 [Permalink]
|
I just finished scanning (I have difficulty reading tripe) the AiG's "rebuttal" to SA. I'll save you some time.
It's all of the same, tired, old crap wrangled into one corral. We've all seen it before.
But, I saw that it started off with a whine and a snivvle about how there was no point in submitting it to SA, even as a letter to the editor, and how the ORIGINAL editor was a True Christian (tm) now desecrated by secular evo-nazis, or something to that effect. Brought a tear to me eye, it did.
Aparently AiG has yet to understand that SA and other journals of the sort prefer works that are backed up by evidence produced by serious studies, rather than tarted-up dogma.
They also go for somewhat higher quality writing.
Well AiG, "'Tough titty!' sez the kitty, but y'all gotta chew it!"
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 06:22:40 [Permalink]
|
OK, bear with me, I'm a Brit (and hence pretty new to Evolution v Creationism debates) who flunked biology, although I'm at least fairly handy in the physical sciences.
My point here is that Creationists have had to "admit" speciation in order to attempt to make sense of their Flood-Noah scenario. In order not to have to accept evolution per se, they then have to qualify this by asserting that these genetic changes involve no increase of genetic information, otherwise evolution in their view becomes possible.
If it can be shown that their argument is false, their whole house-of-cards comes tumbling down (at least until they discover another specious argument).
So what is a standard de-bunk to that argument?
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 07:50:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
OK, bear with me, I'm a Brit (and hence pretty new to Evolution v Creationism debates) who flunked biology, although I'm at least fairly handy in the physical sciences.
My point here is that Creationists have had to "admit" speciation in order to attempt to make sense of their Flood-Noah scenario. In order not to have to accept evolution per se, they then have to qualify this by asserting that these genetic changes involve no increase of genetic information, otherwise evolution in their view becomes possible.
If it can be shown that their argument is false, their whole house-of-cards comes tumbling down (at least until they discover another specious argument).
So what is a standard de-bunk to that argument?
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily."
You mistakenly assume that creationists are bound or limited by logic. This is not the case. Thinking things through to their logical conclusion is not part of the creationist mindset.
By definition everything that they can not deny to have happened or be happening is microevolution; everything that they can deny is macroevolution. The part about the loss or gain of information is just thrown in for fun and will, if people continue to point out its stupidity, end up on the we-don't-claim-this-anymore pile with stuff like their interpretation of the laws of thermodynmics. You also have to realise that AIG is not really representative of the usual creationist nonsense. Most of the arguments in their no-longer-use list are still common from normal creationists.
|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 08:23:13 [Permalink]
|
> Most of the arguments in their
> no-longer-use list are still common from
> normal creationists.
Yes, and they're making it seem like Scientific America had specifically AIG in mind. Take a look at how they talk about the "'straw man' arguments."
Ian Andreas Miller. DIES GAUDII. |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 08:49:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, and they're making it seem like Scientific America had specifically AIG in mind. Take a look at how they talk about the "'straw man' arguments."
I thought that was quite humorous actually. They need to look up "Strawman argument" up somewhere... lol
Boy are creationists infuriating...
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 11:55:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You also have to realise that AIG is not really representative of the usual creationist nonsense. Most of the arguments in their no-longer-use list are still common from normal creationists.
Well, yes, that was rather my point, actually. I've seen (and accept) the standard rebuttals to the usual "tired old" creationist nonsense, but not to some of the arguments that AIG use. To a well-qualified evolutionary bioligist (or perhaps just a well-read layman - I am neither in this field, however), AIG's objections are probably just as nonsensical as that "tired old" stuff.
I suppose my point is that I'd like to see a rebuttal to the rebuttal. Perhaps I should be over at Talkorigins instead?
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 11:59:21 [Permalink]
|
I would like to see a rebuttal to that as well. Good luck!
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:18:32 [Permalink]
|
If all of you beg me, I'll rebut it.
Or if one of you begs me.
Or if a lot of people ask.
Or if even one person asks...
Would someone please ask me to rebut it?
----------
Every problem has a solution. Only sometimes the solutions involve imaginary numbers and make my head hurt. |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 19:48:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The part about the loss or gain of information is just thrown in for fun and will, if people continue to point out its stupidity, end up on the we-don't-claim-this-anymore pile with stuff like their interpretation of the laws of thermodynmics.
Actually, I thought the "no gain of information" stuff was just another application of their mistaken interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. you can't have more genetic information accruing because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics).
quote:
Would someone please ask me to rebut it?
OK Xev, rebut that puppy! Purty please.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
