Go for the Heart

[Titan]

This is for both sides to consider:

Have any of you noticed that when a fossil comes out one of the two sides immediately jumps on it?

When the Nebraska man came out it was immediately used in the Scopes Monkey Trials to solidify the growing theory of evolution. It was later found that the fossil consisted of a single tooth belonging to an extinct species of pig.

When a creationist finds the complexity of an organ or organism they immediately publish a document stating how it shows that evolution is utterly false. Often these organs are proven to be less complex than previoulsy thought.

This is entitled "Go for the Heart" because rather than going for the mind and bringing evidence to the other side to be tested and critiqued, evolutionists and creationists immediately print it in order to cripple the other side and build up its own beliefs.

I know evolutionists will completely deny this (as will creationists) but both sides have questionable flaws that can not be left alone. In modern times we no longer want to find out the truth but to be proven correct and rub it in the face of those who oppose us so that we can end the courage that they once had.

Why can't we do this:
When evolutionists find a fossil that "proves evolution" they should bring it to the creationists and collectively examine it. Then both sides write their critiques on the fossils including the arguments for the other side.
When creationists find an amazingly complex organism why can't they show the evolutionary medical teams and collectively observe it once more, and repeat the process.

The conclusions will still be different but we won't have a bunch of brainwashed zombies anymore.

When I was a young-earth creationist we discussed the Scopes Monkey trials in History Class. It was inevitably brought up that I was a creationist and the teacher said "I don't know how you could have such an opinion" we had a debate (informal) and I crushed both the evolutionary classmates and the teacher because I was the only one who had researched both sides. The comment by the teacher made it harder for me to accept evolution and therein lies another problem.
We are prideful creatures, some would rather be ignorant than allow somoeone to gloat. So if we realize we have made a mistake we hide it and cover it up, dodging the issue and further increasing the pain.


I am really fed up with the debate. I will continue to debate but it is some of the people here who mock Creationists and some of my creationist friends who basically laugh at the phrase "evolution occurs" that annoy me. Why can't the debate be civilized and open-minded?

If someone wants to be an atheist than just come to terms with that and quit debating because nothing will convince you. If you want to be a Christian that stop arguing because we will get no where.

[MagusYanam]

Whether or not the Bible had anything to say about the shape of the earth has very little relevance. The point was that during the Dark Ages, people believed in a flat earth because that was the teaching of the Church. All the Bibles were in Latin, and very few people (essentially only those involved with the Church) could read enough Latin to understand the Bible.

At any rate, the issue being discussed here is that concerning scientific inquiry. The point being made was that people had figured out that the world was round by making observations and constructing theories that would fit them. What is the best explanation for a round shadow on the moon? A round-earth theory. Likewise, what is the best explanation for the geological record? An ancient-earth theory.

Perhaps at some future date (as I think Titan's point was), we may find a better explanation for the fossil record than exists now. But this will be done through disinterested, scientific inquiry, observation and theorising. It will also be done on the existing framework (i.e. evolution theory). We shouldn't have to squeeze either the framework or the resulting theories into the proverbial shoe.

[Gollum]

YEC

Sorry if that offended your sensibilities. I just picked the first one that Google gave me. Try these

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

http://rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/id-intro/ ... rategy.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/wedgegoals.html

http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/0 ... edited.pdf

[MagusYanam]

You linked us to a johnny skeptc site designed to be nasty towards christian thought.

Even your Johnson site didn't seem to back up the claims.

Please try again.

Well then, here's the pamphlet itself, straight from the mouth of the CRSC, brought to you by the KCfS, a Kansas-based ID group.

http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

[Samurai Tailor]

All one had to do was read the bible...it indicates a round/circle/ sphericle earth.

Those three terms do not describe the same shape. If I am not mistaken, the Bible also says the Earth has four corners.

[YEC]

All one had to do was read the bible...it indicates a round/circle/ sphericle earth.

Those three terms do not describe the same shape. If I am not mistaken, the Bible also says the Earth has four corners.

But what does four corners actually mean???

I looked looked up "corner" in the dictionary. There were 27 discriptions describing the useage of the term.

Number 17 was "the four corners of the
earth" The most distant or remote regions: They traveled to the
four corners of the earth.

It has nothing to do with a flat earth...why do you seem to indicate that it does???

[Titan]

What creationists would choose to be "extremely offended" by is hardly predictable and in any case, that's their problem. As to the rest, aside from the "scientists" who work and write for organizations like the Creation Institute or its ilk ... name three!

Wait, that is like me asking you to name evolutionists who don't write evolutionist papers...Of course there aren't going to be many, how do we know whether they believe in Creationism if you discount anyone who says that they are such. Scientific American as well as other magazines don't exactly print many creationist documents.

Say what? Half a century would be 1955. Sputnick was launched in 1957. Let me assure you that there wasn't great suprise in the world at large or in the scientific community that it orbited a spherical earth. I think they figured out that the earth wasn't flat a bit before then ... like about 1492 to pick a popular date. That would compute to a bit over 5 centuries ago.

Sorry, I meant half of a millenia ago. Big slip up.

Just one point to add to what the others have already said: whoever told you the above quote is lying to you, intentionally and directly. Among the people who job could reasonably be described as "microbiologist", "paleontologist", or "zoologist" there are exactly zero creationists.

If you say a definite statement like that you must provide evidence. That is like myself saying that "there is no person named Tim Hutchkinson in the world" I need to provide evidence. You haven't met all of the microbiologists, paleontologists, and zoologists therefore you were just assuming. It sounds as though you simply qualify a scientist as one who believes in evolution which is a complete misrepresentation of the term.

Science isn't like art. You can't be a scientist just be claiming to be one. You have to do it. An among those actually doing it, there is nothing at all that actually supports creationism.

Of course not, in the realm of conjecture, as I have previously stated, all is possible. A creationist would be able to explain away EVERY piece of evidence for evolution. Is the answer plausible? Doesn't matter, all they have to do is provide an answer.

[juliod]

If you say a definite statement like that you must provide evidence.

Wouldn't it have been easier to point out the creation scientists rather than lecture me on the burden of evidence?

My statement is bold. But it is the true one. There just aren't any creationists among actual working scientists. Creation "scientists" are limited to the crank fringe, and institutes like the ICR, which don't do any actual science.

as I have previously stated, all is possible.

That's the philosphy of solopcism. It's not only completely sterile, but uninteresting too.

A creationist would be able to explain away EVERY piece of evidence for evolution. Is the answer plausible? Doesn't matter, all they have to do is provide an answer.

That's not a valid form of science. It's just the philosophical equavalent of "Is not, is not!"

DanZ

[Titan]

Wouldn't it have been easier to point out the creation scientists rather than lecture me on the burden of evidence?

That isn't the point, when you say that no scientist supports creation you are insulting the cause. Therefore, it is your duty to show your evidence.

My statement is bold. But it is the true one. There just aren't any creationists among actual working scientists. Creation "scientists" are limited to the crank fringe, and institutes like the ICR, which don't do any actual science.

It isn't true without evidence, I thought evolutionists were all about supporting their side, yet you just make statements and blindly stand behind them.

That's the philosphy of solopcism. It's not only completely sterile, but uninteresting too.

The point is pivotal for both sides, it decides where you go to. If someone claims that the weather is controlled by a giant invisible sea horse and they give a quick explanation you can't exactly disprove them. But you have to question whether the option is plausible.
Did you mean "solipsism" because that isn't close to what I was trying to discuss with you.

That's not a valid form of science. It's just the philosophical equavalent of "Is not, is not!"

Don't just make statements. I said that they could answer anything you argued then you merely claim that it isn't scientific.

[juliod]

That isn't the point, when you say that no scientist supports creation you are insulting the cause. Therefore, it is your duty to show your evidence.

No, if I were insulting creationism I (i.e. saying what I really think) I would get kicked out of here immediately.

But as for proof, there is the Argument from Silence. Creationists are very vocal. If there were any real science behind creationism they would be sure to tell us.

They do occasionally publish lists of "scientists" who support creationsim. But on examination these lists never include any actual working scientists. It's always people with qualifications outside the field, unidentfiable people, or even people who do not apparently support creation. I've seen several evolutionary biologists listed as scientists who oppose evolution. I can't say why they appeared on the list. In thier actual scientific work they obviously support evolution.

So, we are left with nothing. No original research work published by creationists. No creationist-leaning publications in real science journals. No known creationists among working scientists. And lists that turn out to be false.

You are free to believe that there are creation scientists, but you are looking for Big Foot.

If someone claims that the weather is controlled by a giant invisible sea horse and they give a quick explanation you can't exactly disprove them. But you have to question whether the option is plausible.

No, and that is not how science (not to say ordinary life) works. We have no obligation to give serious consideration to obviously nonsensical arguments. Life would be quite unlivable if you did.

You've probably heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's overused, but applicable to this case. You would not consider overturning modern meteorology based on a trivial claim.

I said that they could answer anything you argued then you merely claim that it isn't scientific.

It isn't scientific. You can't just say "is not is not". And ad hoc rationalisation is not acceptable. In science you need to provide evidence of your own. Creationism would be easy to prove if it were true. Creationists don't provide evidence for the simple reason that it is a false notion and there isn't any evidence to support it.

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

My statement is bold. But it is the true one. There just aren't any creationists among actual working scientists.

But on examination these lists never include any actual working scientists. It's always people with qualifications outside the field, unidentfiable people, or even people who do not apparently support creation.

Juliod, you're in the right ballpark, but I know this is not the case. My uncle is a YEC with a Ph. D. in animal science, who works for an ag firm in Indiana. However, since taxonomical palaeontology is not his area of expertise, I don't think he has much to argue on from his particular field. (Furthermore, my mother is a firm believer in evolution and she has the same qualifications as her younger brother.) I think if you examine the scientists in any particular area of study and survey them on their beliefs concerning the creation, you would find that a vast majority of them (perhaps 98%) hold with Darwinian evolution theory.

I want to make it clear that I agree with you and think your point has merit, but, to be frank, it isn't helped too much by exaggeration.

Conversely, though, I have yet to see any credible, disinterested source advance any cohesive model for a young universe of intelligent design.