Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm wrote:
>David Williams: There is no scientific debate between evolution and creationism. Creationism is not a credible science.
> Kamran: Before someone can be a referred to as a "science writer" they have
> to actually write something with sensible scientific content. Quoting
> alleged scientists or providing tooth fairy links is not science writing.
> Charles P: I was painting with a broad brush. Those who discuss science
> here on Origins Talk are either scientists or science writers. I make that
> distinction to differentiate between (1) those who do the scientific
> research and report their conclusions in scientific journals. The
> scientists give us the empirical and verifiable evidence for us to discuss
> and (2) those who do their homework and write their interpretations of the
> Charles P: It is very unlikely that *interpreters of evidence* such as D R
> Lindberg, will *pick out that evidence from any of these links and make a
> brief presentation of such evidence here, and stand behind it in a serious
> debate*. Their religion is based entirely on anti-creationism.
> Charles P: They believe that the old Theory of Evolution must be *right*
> because they believe that creationism is *wrong*.
> 1 http://www.talkorigins.org/ Talk Origins has an archive exploring the
> creation / evolution controversy. The primary reason for this archive's
> existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many
> frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup
> and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent
> design or other creationist pseudosciences.
> 2 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ There is an index to creationist
> claims. Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an
> outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of
> Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against
> conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about
> creationism itself.
> 3 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Index to Creationist
> Charles P: http://ncse.com/ They know that their old Theory of Evolution
> is mostly unscientific. They have invested a lot of money into legal
> battles with the purpose of *defending the teaching of evolution and
> climate science*. They have forgotten that scientific conclusions are
> always tentative. Their philosophies have become dogmas.
> Charles P: Most of us have noticed that they use the same ant-creationist
> rhetoric outlined in the Talk Origins archive. For those reasons, Kamran,
> I doubt if D R Lindberg or anyone else will have a real debate with you.
> Usually their strategy is to draw attention away from the central issue by
> getting opponents to debate their intelligently designed definitions. I
> hope that someone will *pick out that evidence from any of these links and
> make a brief presentation of such evidence here, and stand behind it in a
> serious debate*.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)
> David Williams: This letter says nothing about creationists having better scientific evidence than evolutionary biologists because they don't. This letter may fool scientific simpletons but not me.
> LA> Your comment shows only that your belief in evolutionism is more like a religion with you rather than a science. The following by a noted evolutionist seems to sum up your position;
> "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
> held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
> characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
> orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
> and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
> scientific truth."'
> (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
> "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
> incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
> will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Sir Julian Huxley 1959)
David Williams: This is a red herring. You have no real scientific evidence for creationism, so you keep repeating the same old stale quotes and red herrings.
LA> Your continuing belief in evolutionism seems to be based on what seems to be more like a religious faith than science! What scientific evidence convinced you so positively that "people came from monkeys"? Did you know that Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author of several books both renounced their atheism and concluded that there "must be a God".? i.e.;
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life
originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make
the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favourable properties of physics on which life
depends are in every respect deliberate.". . . .
"It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the
higher intelligence to our left, even to the extreme
idealized limit of God."
(Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at
Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of
Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College,
Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in Evolution from Space,
J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp.141 and 144.)
"We used to have an open mind, now we [with Hoyle] realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]