Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This critique on the Creationist book "Explore Evolution" exposes the creationist “evidence against evolution” and “teach the controversy” strategies to misrepresent scientific consensus and distort the conclusions of legitimate scientific research. Explore Evolution offers anonymous “critics” in place of substantive analysis.
Four of the book’s five co-authors are closely tied to the “intelligent design” creationism movement. Lead author Stephen C. Meyer is a Discovery Institute (DI) vice president and program director of the DI’s Center for Science and Culture. Paul A. Nelson is a fellow of the DI. In 2005 in the Kitzmiller trial, Scott Minnich testified in favor of teaching “intelligent design” in public schools.
Beneath all its distortions, all its misrepresentations of modern evolutionary science, Explore Evolution uses familiar and long-refuted creationist anti-evolution arguments. Students who are required to read this book in a science classroom will be confused by its flagrant inaccuracies, and will be put at a disadvantage in standardized tests which require an understanding of modern biology.
This book must be Euse/Omega's anti-science bible.
It's remarkable (apart from the "suck -in" title implying that it is an educational book explaining evolution rather that a non -educational book trying to debunk it) that the arguments are vague and backed up by nothing. It anounts to little more than dismiss all the evidence on the grounds of 'Interpretation" which is a weasel -word for saying 'That may be how the evidence looks, but it could be wrong".
Even if that was correct, the logical thing to do is acceot the theory as the best explanation until some coherent alternative explanation backed up by evidence comes to hand. There is no reason to reject evolution other than religious - or Creationist, rather, indoctrination.
Now, they may not care that it is misinforming about the evidence, but exposing the misinformation is going to harm them in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Look at this. It has to be a Poe's Law troll. Really? Calling expert biologists "so-called whale experts"? A so-called genetics-non-expert dictates what is genetically possible, I think not... LMAO.
Is this guy asking for pity and leniency as a response to his ridiculous self-absorbed hubris now? Did he forget that he was one of the very people insulting the views of others (without any backup) thinking they would strengthen his non-empirical (due to, among other things, mutants that are born unable to reproduce "after the kind" of their parents) and irrational (due, among other things, to evidence from dog-breeding) views?
Everyone else, the forum explicitly bans personal insults, please report these "insults" as you see them and the moderators will redact or ban them at their discretion.
Everyone, else, I have already explained my advance credentials in Genetics, and I can assure you, the vast consensus among Genetics experts is that evolution is true and parts changing through mutation through successive populations is true.
I'd rather (politely) show up where the facts and reasoning are false. Gert him banned and he'll be screaming "Percecutuion! -I am a martyr, therefore I'm right!"
These people love a flame war as it's the only way they can score (cheap) points. In polite and rational debate, examining the evidence, they lose every one.
10-07-2017, 01:28 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Hey everyone, you can definitely link them together because of Chicken and Parrot embryos:
A simple question that he can't answer self-supportedly is now "an ignorant response" guys. LOL
Everyone else,
Canines are a type of tooth. Colloquially, feline and canine now mean the taxonomic families of Felidae and Canidae (often further restricted to only the Canis) .
K9 is the police code for dogs. Canis lupus familiaris is a genetic family that includes mastiffs, shepherds, bichons, chihuahuas, etc. Canis is a genetic family that includes Dogs, Wolfs, Coyotes, Dingoes, Etc.
Canidae is a genetic family that includes Dogs, Foxes, Wolfs, Dingoes, Raccoon-dogs, Etc.
Caniformia is a genetic family that includes Dogs, Otters, Foxes, Raccoons, Skunks, Etc.
Carnivora is a genetic family that includes Dogs, Cats, Dingos, Otters, Tigers, Bears, Hyenas, Etc.
I began to reply then cancelled the post. It is why I prefer to use evidence of undeniable changed critters rather than dicker about changes within species or clades.
All he could do was dismiss the In his face evidence of macro -evolution in the Cetan sequence without even looking at it (and not for the first time) by sneering at 'so called whale experts'.
That is as blatant an example of refusing to look at hard, in your face, lockdown evidence of "Macro" evolution because it isn't what he wants to believe as you could wish.
The cetan sequence no only is the best evidence of evolution that I know of, but Omega's reaction is the best evidence of the utter negative denial that is the basis of Creationism anti -evolution Dogma.,
Unless he comes back with something really good, He has (as he did as Eusebius) Had It.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
But hey it is still a chicken. Certainly the wise Magician front-loaded these creatures in order to evolve (whoops adapt) to different environs.
Yes indeed. The wise magician was called 'Evolution' and the magic used was 'what works when needed'.
It's like the "Nature = god" enthusiasts. Whaty say is fair enough. But it does not need a Magician. It works fine without. So they then try to wangle the divine Overser they believe in by saying how big and wonderful it is. So it is, but that doesn't make it God. It is reason we are here. My parents are the reason I'm here, but I don't call them God.
The only thing that would merit the title is evidence of planning, and they know that, too, as they have been scrabbling to prove ID for a long time. That Genesis -literalism dressed in a Lb coat was finally striped bare at Dover, and since then it has all been tryin lawyer tricks.
And Lawyer tricks is what we get from Omeda, but they aren't very good ones. They may have Foxed us in the old days, but we have moved on. he hasn't.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-07-2017 at 01:56 PM..
I'd rather (politely) show up where the facts and reasoning are false. Gert him banned and he'll be screaming "Percecutuion! -I am a martyr, therefore I'm right!"
These people love a flame war as it's the only way they can score (cheap) points. In polite and rational debate, examining the evidence, they lose every one.
Oh, right.
Sorry, I meant that others should report insults towards him mostly (if there are any), since personal insults are in general not allowed. But now that I think about it: YES report him if he insults others as well. The ban would be specific, it wouldn't be for believing inaccurate things, it would be for gross name-calling (if there are too many times that he has done so).
Yes, the word that was toward God cannot be THAT God but is the expression of THAT God which that word represents.
Yes, that is to be believed. But the above verse does not tell us that Jesus is His God.
We need to find a verse which gets right to the heart of the matter. Such a verse is here:
1Co_8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him."
The above verse tells us that God is the only God and is distinct from the one Lord, Jesus Christ. The above verse also tells us that God is the source of all and Christ is the channel but the words "out of Whom is all" and the words showing Christ as the channel are "through Whom all is."
That is true but that would contradict what Jesus also said in Revelation if it were telling us Jesus is God. Here is what Jesus said:
Rev_3:2 Become watchful, and establish the rest who were about to be dying; for I have not found your
acts completed in the sight of My God."
Rev_3:12 '"The one who is conquering, him will I be making a pillar in the temple of My God, and he may
be coming out nevermore, and I will be writing on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of
My God, the new Jerusalem, which is descending out of heaven from My God, and My new name."
2.)Omega appears to believe that not all men will be saved.
I am going to have to quibble again. Man can only do one thing that will keep him for entering heaven---not accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Post #165 //www.city-data.com/forum/relig...d-creator.html
Eusebius was a Universalist and believed that all men will be saved.
Unless Eusebius stopped being a Universalist and came to believe that Jesus is God then he is not Omega. Also Eusebius used better grammar and better sentence structure than Omega does.
I'm willing to accept I could be wrong. Great minds thinking alike. He did strike me as a Eusebius that has suffered a stroke or something. But he changed his mind about a couple of things before - ET for one. And he uses the same arguments, almost like he took Eusebius' correspondence course. So I'm sot sure it is him, but I'm not yet convinced it isn't. It's just a bit of a puzzle, anyway.
I'm willing to accept I could be wrong. Great minds thinking alike. He did strike me as a Eusebius that has suffered a stroke or something. But he changed his mind about a couple of things before - ET for one. And he uses the same arguments, almost like he took Eusebius' correspondence course. So I'm sot sure it is him, but I'm not yet convinced it isn't. It's just a bit of a puzzle, anyway.
Curious. There is only one week between Eusebius' last post and Omega's first post. Regrouping perhaps.
I'm inviting him to prove me wrong by referencing a creationist who makes the same assertions that he is making (e.g., we can't detect expansion because we can't see the edge of the universe; matter is coming to rest; there is no evidence that birds ever had teeth). I don't think he can come up with any references but, if he does, I will be very interested in checking them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
All he could do was dismiss the In his face evidence of macro -evolution in the Cetan sequence without even looking at it (and not for the first time) by sneering at 'so called whale experts'.
That is as blatant an example of refusing to look at hard, in your face, lockdown evidence of "Macro" evolution because it isn't what he wants to believe as you could wish.
The cetan sequence no only is the best evidence of evolution that I know of, but Omega's reaction is the best evidence of the utter negative denial that is the basis of Creationism anti -evolution Dogma.,
Unless he comes back with something really good, He has (as he did as Eusebius) Had It.
Omega's refusal, or inability, to give references even to creationist sources confirms, for me, that we are dealing either with a straight-up troll (someone who has zero intention of genuine discussion, but simply enjoys stringing people along with outrageous claims solely for the purpose of hijacking a thread so as to be the center of attention), or we are dealing with someone so intellectually bankrupt that, for all practical purposes he might as well be a troll because he has no ability to consider any viewpoint beyond his own. Unless he does somehow manage to say something worth responding to we should ignore him from this point forward.
But I would like to hear some thoughtful remarks from other creationists in response to the types of evidence presented in favor of evolution. Is there anyone still lurking in this thread who wants to insist that evolution is bunk? And, since this thread is in the spirituality forum, I think it is worth asking creationists: Why does it really matter, from a spiritual point of view, whether evolution is true or false?
In fact I once started a thread inviting Creationists to present their best evidence. I could bump it up if you want as this thread is about our (eviilooshunists) evidence.
I can tell you that the only Creationist evidence posted was by my, after I had researched a bit. They had Polonium haloes and a query about Old earth dates, referencing diamonds. The only theist postings was the attempt to poke holes in "evilooshun" in the misguided beleif that, if you can disprove evolution theory, Genesis mist be the only Theory left on the table.
Get a coffee while I ramble,....I have said that the debate is done. The What is won (no prizes for guessing the 2nd line), and while the Why of Theism is what absorbs my attention now, the How is still not widely understood or appreciated. I read a good and funny article that I was considering quoting from, but though i havbe the site, I lost the article (I also failed to save a response on Agnostic -lite to the OP. I was annoyed at it was quite thoughtful)
Ah, it's the article I wanted. I am a bit aped about posting anything after inadvertently posting some copyrighted material, but I loved this "We’ve all seen it around here at some point: a Christian comes wading in, fists flying, cocksure and drunk on their self-righteous superiority. They know it all, they have all the answers, Jesus talks to them personally and tells them everything, so they just KNOW they’re right. So, you ask them a question; something that shouldn’t be too difficult for someone so enlightened to answer. A biblical contradiction here, a logical flaw in the very fabric of their beliefs there and… your questions go completely unanswered. In fact, you may as well have not even bothered asking it."
This excellent article is only the tip of the iceberg that makes up the theistic debating technique. We are all getting familiar with the How, but what I am still working at is Why they do it.
It observed a lot of the tricky rhetorical and lawyer tricks of the theist - which is one reason that debates, while good, have to have conditions that shut down the apologists who try to talk all the time and shut the other side up, In fact I'd like a scoreboard with a lost point for every lie, evasion, irrelevance or logical fallacy.
But our posting pal here is, in a sort of reverse way (and desperate to stay somewhere near topic) evidence for the fact of mact because the need is for rhetoric and trickery which would not be needed if they had any decent evidence.
True Creationism makes an impressive job of sounding like they have the evidence. But even if they come up against scientists who can debunk the science, they will be unprepared to a shift to philosophy of science. 'How do you know you can trust science?' Science itself isn't enough. You need to know apologetics, and nobody but atheist apologists seem to have the all Round technique needed to field all these slogs to all corners of the field, and the technique to answer while pushing them back onto subject.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-08-2017 at 12:26 PM..
Written by someone that clearly has no idea how evolution (and science in general) works. I can tell it is pointless to debate with you. No matter what evidence is presented, you'll either not comprehend it and/or completely dismiss it. It could literally happen right before your eyes, and I still doubt you would believe it due to it not fitting your predetermined views.
You have no evidence. Prove me wrong. IMO, you don't know what constitutes scientific evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
us in the old days, but we have moved on. he hasn't.
