Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: creation "science"...was: To Andrew and Jem

Expand Messages
  • peaceharris <peaceharris@yahoo.com>
    ... all. ... Harris: How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
      > Pi:
      > Which is another example of why creation "science" isn't science at
      all.
      > Scientific theories must be falsifiable.

      Harris:
      How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can
      or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
      galaxies expands.

      Another example is from Alec regarding the number of chromosomes that
      monkeys have. If monkeys had less number of chromosomes than humans,
      evolutionists would search for 2 chromosomes in humans which are
      closest to 1 in monkeys and say "Look, these are very similar, thus
      proving that 1 chromosome in monkey had split into 2"

      If they had more, evolutionists would say, "Look, these are very
      similar, thus proving that 2 chromosomes in monkey had fused into 1
      chromosome in humans"

      With this line of reasoning, whatever the situation, you can come up
      with a proof.

      I hope the day will come when evolutionists begin to do serious and
      rigorous science that creationists like Newton and Faraday did.
    • piasan@aol.com
      In a message dated 3/1/03 3:52:58 AM Central Standard Time, ... Pi: 1) Failure to present a means to falsify creationism noted. 2) I will leave it to Dave B.
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
        In a message dated 3/1/03 3:52:58 AM Central Standard Time, peaceharris@... writes:

        >Pi:
        >Which is another example of why creation "science" isn't science at
        all. 
        >Scientific theories must be falsifiable.

        Harris:
        How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can
        or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
        galaxies expands.

        Another example is from Alec regarding the number of chromosomes that
        monkeys have. If monkeys had less number of chromosomes than humans,
        evolutionists would search for 2 chromosomes in humans which are
        closest to 1 in monkeys and say "Look, these are very similar, thus
        proving that 1 chromosome in monkey had split into 2"

        If they had more, evolutionists would say, "Look, these are very
        similar, thus proving that 2 chromosomes in monkey had fused into 1
        chromosome in humans"

        With this line of reasoning, whatever the situation, you can come up
        with a proof.

        I hope the day will come when evolutionists begin to do serious and
        rigorous science that creationists like Newton and Faraday did.


        Pi:
        1)  Failure to present a means to falsify creationism noted.
        2)  I will leave it to Dave B. to show how the "stretching" of space could be falsified.
        3)  As I recall, on this very list, there was an extensive discussion regarding the difference in the number of chromosomes between humans and apes.  Complete with identification of the exact point on a human chromosome (Chromosome 2, as I recall) where the fusion of two chromosomes has taken place as well as the evidence for that fusion.  I think it was Alec who provided that particular information.

        I hope the day will come when creationists will meet the minimal standards of science ... a means by which their "scientific theory" can be falsified.
      • hecd2 <macandrew@ntlworld.com>
        ... at ... that ... humans, ... up ... Hmmm... Would that Newton be the Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge, the second holder of the chair
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "peaceharris <peaceharris@y...>"
          <peaceharris@y...> wrote:
          >
          > > Pi:
          > > Which is another example of why creation "science" isn't science
          at
          > all.
          > > Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
          >
          > Harris:
          > How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can
          > or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
          > galaxies expands.
          >
          > Another example is from Alec regarding the number of chromosomes
          that
          > monkeys have. If monkeys had less number of chromosomes than
          humans,
          > evolutionists would search for 2 chromosomes in humans which are
          > closest to 1 in monkeys and say "Look, these are very similar, thus
          > proving that 1 chromosome in monkey had split into 2"
          >
          > If they had more, evolutionists would say, "Look, these are very
          > similar, thus proving that 2 chromosomes in monkey had fused into 1
          > chromosome in humans"
          >
          > With this line of reasoning, whatever the situation, you can come
          up
          > with a proof.
          >
          > I hope the day will come when evolutionists begin to do serious and
          > rigorous science that creationists like Newton and Faraday did.

          Hmmm...

          Would that Newton be the Lucasian professor of mathematics at
          Cambridge, the second holder of the chair currently occupied by
          Stephen Hawking?

          Would that Newton be the author of the Principia Mathematica, the
          discoverer of the nature of white light, elucidator of the laws of
          universal gravity and orbital mechanics, co-inventor of the calculus,
          discoverer of the three laws of mechanics?

          Would that Newton be an alchemist, convinced that there was a way to
          convert base metals to gold, and keeper of the arcane methods that
          had never worked but might yet do with some inspired tweak?

          Would that Newton be a religious puritan and zealot, driven to study
          18 hours a day study?

          Would that Newton be the Newton who believed that the concept of the
          Trinity was blasphemy, who called the founding fathers of the church
          liars and murderers in his private papers, who was a passionate anti-
          Catholic who gloried in the concept of the torture of Catholic nuns?

          Would that Newton be the one who hated any opposition, who fought
          terrible battles with Robert Hooke, Leibniz and others

          Which of Newton's tendecies would Selva like to follow: his science,
          his alchemy, his heretical religious beliefs, his religio-sadism, his
          intense hatred of rivals?

          The Principia is an astonishing work: it is written in a style that
          is not easily accessible today using a formulation and a
          representation for the integral calculus (or fluxions as Newton
          called it)that is not taught today and makes the original work almost
          completely opaque to us.

          Turning to Selva's claim: of course there is an immense quantity of
          good science being done today in every branch of science - Selva's
          claim is totally unsubstantiated. It is a rather rich claim, coming
          from someone who NEVER reads any scientific work, that there is no
          science being done. In fact, good science is being done at a rate
          far faster than any of us keep up with - it is all I can do to read
          Nature and Science every week and this is just the tip of the
          iceberg. Selva never reads ANY science and yet is willing to
          pontificate on what he considers to be rigourous science. Since he
          reads nothing and since he frequently makes kindergarten scientific
          errors, we can conclude that his opinion is completely worthless.

          Anyway, which Saint Isaac does Selva worship? The scientist, the
          alchemist, the puritan, the heretic, the sadist, the fundamentalist?
          Which?

          Alec
        • Dave Oldridge
          ... I m not sure what you re driving at. I m sure there are observations we could make, but it s pretty clear that the universe (or as much of it as we see
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 2, 2003
            On 1 Mar 2003 at 9:51, peaceharris peaceharris@yahoo wrote:

            >
            > > Pi:
            > > Which is another example of why creation "science" isn't science at
            > all.
            > > Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
            >
            > Harris:
            > How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can
            > or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
            > galaxies expands.

            I'm not sure what you're driving at. I'm sure there are observations
            we could make, but it's pretty clear that the universe (or as much of
            it as we see anyway) is expanding. All the clusters of galaxies we
            see are moving apart from one another.

            > Another example is from Alec regarding the number of chromosomes that
            > monkeys have. If monkeys had less number of chromosomes than humans,
            > evolutionists would search for 2 chromosomes in humans which are
            > closest to 1 in monkeys and say "Look, these are very similar, thus
            > proving that 1 chromosome in monkey had split into 2"

            This is close to libellous when you consider that the point that has
            been made is that two of the chimp (and other ape) chromosomes ARE
            found fused end to end in the human genome (complete with telomeres
            mid-chromosome). But these chromosomes are not just a little
            similar, they are nearly identical, with long, long sequences of
            unbroken code that are the same except for very occasional variances.

            > If they had more, evolutionists would say, "Look, these are very
            > similar, thus proving that 2 chromosomes in monkey had fused into 1
            > chromosome in humans"

            It's not speculation, it's observed that these two chromosomes in the
            chimp are fused end to end in humans. If you don't like that, then
            complain to God because either HE did it that way or we inherit the
            chromosomes from a common ancestor with the apes.

            > With this line of reasoning, whatever the situation, you can come up
            > with a proof.

            Wrong. There is NO good reason for a single human chromosome to bear
            identical code to two of the ape chromosomes, fused end to end or for
            it to have telomeres in the middle where they don't belong.

            > I hope the day will come when evolutionists begin to do serious and
            > rigorous science that creationists like Newton and Faraday did.

            I hope the day will come when creationists start to show at least a
            modicum of intellectual honesty and not try to misrepresent science
            so much. It does their apologetic no good whatever and redounds to
            the discredit of MY religion.

            (And if this gets me kicked off here, then I will dust off my sandals
            and get out of here---I'm getting tired of seeing you libel honest
            scientists without me being able to call a sin a sin).

            Dave Oldridge
            ICQ 1800667
          • peaceharris <peaceharris@yahoo.com>
            This is the 3rd time I m hearing of these accusations against Newton. In all 3 cases these accusations have been made by evolutionists. I wonder what Alec
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 2, 2003
              This is the 3rd time I'm hearing of these accusations against Newton.
              In all 3 cases these accusations have been made by evolutionists. I
              wonder what Alec hopes to accomplish by making these false
              accusations? Does Alec think that everyone is so naive to believe
              what evolutionists say?

              However, it's interesting to note that Chandrasekar (an Indian
              physicist who won the Nobel prize and who faced a lot of opposition
              and persecution) had high regard for Newton's work and translated
              Newton's work so that it could be understood by teh common reader.

              Jesus had said "Blessed are you when men say all kinds of evil
              against you.... etc" Alec, by making these accusations against
              Newton, is only making Newton more blessed.
            • hecd2 <macandrew@ntlworld.com>
              ... calculus, ... to ... study ... the ... church ... anti- ... science, ... his ... that ... almost ... SNIP ... fundamentalist? ... Newton. ... So Selva does
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 2, 2003
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "peaceharris <peaceharris@y...>"
                <peaceharris@y...> wrote:
                >
                > Alec wrote:
                > Hmmm...
                >
                > Would that Newton be the Lucasian professor of mathematics at
                > Cambridge, the second holder of the chair currently occupied by
                > Stephen Hawking?
                >
                > Would that Newton be the author of the Principia Mathematica, the
                > discoverer of the nature of white light, elucidator of the laws of
                > universal gravity and orbital mechanics, co-inventor of the
                calculus,
                > discoverer of the three laws of mechanics?
                >
                > Would that Newton be an alchemist, convinced that there was a way
                to
                > convert base metals to gold, and keeper of the arcane methods that
                > had never worked but might yet do with some inspired tweak?
                >
                > Would that Newton be a religious puritan and zealot, driven to
                study
                > 18 hours a day study?
                >
                > Would that Newton be the Newton who believed that the concept of
                the
                > Trinity was blasphemy, who called the founding fathers of the
                church
                > liars and murderers in his private papers, who was a passionate
                anti-
                > Catholic who gloried in the concept of the torture of Catholic nuns?
                >
                > Would that Newton be the one who hated any opposition, who fought
                > terrible battles with Robert Hooke, Leibniz and others
                >
                > Which of Newton's tendecies would Selva like to follow: his
                science,
                > his alchemy, his heretical religious beliefs, his religio-sadism,
                his
                > intense hatred of rivals?
                >
                > The Principia is an astonishing work: it is written in a style
                that
                > is not easily accessible today using a formulation and a
                > representation for the integral calculus (or fluxions as Newton
                > called it)that is not taught today and makes the original work
                almost
                > completely opaque to us.
                >
                SNIP
                > Alec continued:
                > Anyway, which Saint Isaac does Selva worship? The scientist, the
                > alchemist, the puritan, the heretic, the sadist, the
                fundamentalist?
                > Which?
                >
                > Alec
                >
                >Selva replied:
                > This is the 3rd time I'm hearing of these accusations against
                Newton.
                > In all 3 cases these accusations have been made by evolutionists. I
                > wonder what Alec hopes to accomplish by making these false
                > accusations? Does Alec think that everyone is so naive to believe
                > what evolutionists say?
                >
                > However, it's interesting to note that Chandrasekar (an Indian
                > physicist who won the Nobel prize and who faced a lot of opposition
                > and persecution) had high regard for Newton's work and translated
                > Newton's work so that it could be understood by teh common reader.
                >
                > Jesus had said "Blessed are you when men say all kinds of evil
                > against you.... etc" Alec, by making these accusations against
                > Newton, is only making Newton more blessed.

                So Selva does believe, literally, in Saint Isaac!

                I'm surprised it's only the third time that he's hearing these things
                about Newton. They are very well documented.

                Here are the facts of the matter: In 1936, the economist John Maynard
                Keynes bought an auction lot at Sotheby's in London containing many
                of Newton's private manuscripts. Keynes himself was the first person
                to study these and to announce in 1942 that 'Newton was not the first
                of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians.'

                The documentation in these papers show the extent to which Newton was
                obsessed by alchemy, the depth of his Arian heresy (he was a staunch
                unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ, was violently anti-
                catholic and who blamed the church fathers for introducing what he
                regarded as the 'heresy' of the Trinity in the 4th century), and his
                arrogance and propensity to manipulate the reputations of others in
                his own favour.

                Now, I did not say that Newton was not one of the greatest , if not
                the greatest scientist who has ever lived. I think his work was
                astonishing - I said so. Any one of his discoveries in optics,
                gravitational theory, mechanics or mathematics would have been enough
                to secure his reputation as a scientist. He does not need Selva's
                defence in that regard. I don't know of a scientist alive today who
                doesn't think so - Chandra is hardly unique in believing so.

                As for him being a creationist: well he believed that God created the
                universe and then left it to unfold under its own laws: exactly the
                view held by christians who are also scientists today.

                But if Selva thinks that Newton's non scientific beliefs would admit
                Newton to a fundamentalist church today he is sadly mistaken. I make
                the point not to undermine his reputation as a scientist - no-one can
                do that but to point out that he is hardly the fundamentalist
                creationist that Selva would like to believe.

                Go here to find out more about the man's life and a highly regarded
                project to publish his non-scientific writings sponsored by Imperial
                College and Cambridge University, the two leading scientific
                universities in the UK (commiserations to anyone on the list who is
                an Oxford graduate :-) ):

                http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/intro.html

                http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/bio.html

                So which of my well documented claims about Newton is Selva claiming
                is false? Are Selva's beliefs about history similar to his beliefs
                about nature - infinitely flexible to fit in with his apologetics?

                Alec
              • David Bowman
                ... The evidence for this is that the distance between the galaxies has been observed to grow according to how it must if space is expanding there. The theory
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 5, 2003
                  Regarding Harris' question:

                  >Harris:
                  >How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can
                  >or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
                  >galaxies expands.

                  The evidence for this is that the distance between the galaxies has
                  been observed to grow according to how it must if space is expanding
                  there. The theory of general relativity predicts in detail exactly
                  such behavior (as well as the non-expansion of space in regions of
                  high matter density) and that theory has been subjected to many
                  rigorous tests and it has passed them all with flying colors. I would
                  suggest that Harris read Clifford Will's book _Was_Einstein_Right?_.
                  It is now somewhat dated in that some of the tests of relativity have
                  become much more stringent since the book's publication in the mid
                  80's, but GR has still passed them all and been ever more confirmed to
                  ever higher precision and confidence levels.

                  Dave Bowman
                • L.K. Appleton
                  To All, ... From: piasan@aol.com To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 5:27 AM Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: creation science ...was:
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 5, 2003
                    To All,
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 5:27 AM
                    Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: creation "science"...was: To Andrew and Jem

                    >Pi:
                    >Which is another example of why creation "science" isn't science at
                    >all Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
                    >
                     
                    >
                      Since evolutionists themselves have admitted the
                    evidence from the fossil record has "delighted the
                    creationists," then it would seem that they admit 
                    that the fossil record is  indeed consistent with Creation
                    science and inconsistent with evolution!  
                    >
                      Strangely enough, evolutionists have claimed that
                    Creation science HAS been falsified, and thus, even
                    in those terms it refutes Piasan's claim. as well as it
                    underlines the confusion which seems to be a part
                    and parcel of most evolutionary claims.
                     
                       Not only that, but evolutionist Niles Eldredge has
                    written that, in what was a decade of hundreds of
                    open, public, scientific debates between evolutionists
                    and Creation scientists, that the Creationists almost
                    always WON and states that;
                     

                             "Creationists travel all over the United States,
                         visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
                         biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                         creationists nearly always win."
                     
                              "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                         converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                         have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                         awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                         Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                         onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                         topics."
                     
                              "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                         relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                         geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                         the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                         intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                         their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                         than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                         bewildered state of incoherence."
                     
                    (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                    (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                    debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
                    >
                     
                       So it is the evolutionists who have shown that it
                    is the scientific arguments of the Creation scientists
                    that "routed" them.   We might reasonable
                    conclude then that Creationism is science and it
                    is evolutionism that is a form of modern mythology!
                     
                     
                    Laurie.
                    .
                    Evidence from  the  fossil reccord now points overwhelmingly away
                    from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school;
                    (Newsweek, November, 1980)
                     
                  • hecd2
                    ... at ... that ... humans, ... But apes have more chromosomes than humans, so this is empty speculation and rhetoric on Selva s part ... And indeed apes have
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 8, 2003
                      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "peaceharris <peaceharris@y...>"
                      <peaceharris@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Pi:
                      > > Which is another example of why creation "science" isn't science
                      at
                      > all.
                      > > Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
                      >
                      > Harris:
                      > How do we construct an experiment to prove that vacuum in space can
                      > or cannot expand? Bowman believes that the space between distant
                      > galaxies expands.
                      >
                      > Another example is from Alec regarding the number of chromosomes
                      that
                      > monkeys have. If monkeys had less number of chromosomes than
                      humans,
                      > evolutionists would search for 2 chromosomes in humans which are
                      > closest to 1 in monkeys and say "Look, these are very similar, thus
                      > proving that 1 chromosome in monkey had split into 2"

                      But apes have more chromosomes than humans, so this is empty
                      speculation and rhetoric on Selva's part

                      >
                      > If they had more, evolutionists would say, "Look, these are very
                      > similar, thus proving that 2 chromosomes in monkey had fused into 1
                      > chromosome in humans"

                      And indeed apes have more chromosomes than humans. There are three
                      possible explanations for this:

                      1) two of the common ancestor's fused to form one of human's

                      2) one of the ancestor's chromosomes split in the non-human ape line
                      but not in the human line (this is unlikely owing to phylogenetic
                      considerations but let's leave that aside for the moment)

                      3) they were each separately created that way (not a scientific
                      explanation, as if you believe this there is nothing further that you
                      can learn)

                      Now then, if the case were based simply on 'similarity' as Selva
                      misrepresents the situation, then they would be no choosing between
                      the two scientific and the one religious options on this evidence
                      alone. But the detailed evidence very very strongly supports option
                      1) above and does not saupport either options 2) or 3) (unless you
                      believe God incorporated evidence in Nature to deceive us). I have
                      posted the detailed evidence with primary references on my brand new
                      website here:

                      http://www.evolutionpages.com

                      (There's lots more fun stuff there including the final two reviews
                      about the sequencing of the mouse genome and a summary about how the
                      mouse genome comparisons with the human genome support evolution and
                      common ancestry. Perhaps Selva would like to explain all the
                      evidence that can be found here:

                      http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20home.htm

                      Have fun).

                      >
                      > With this line of reasoning, whatever the situation, you can come
                      up
                      > with a proof.

                      This is misrepresentation of the evidence. As we have seen above,
                      the evidence very specifically supports the conclusion that two of
                      the ancestral chromosomes have fused in humans and is much stronger
                      than Selva would lead us to believe.

                      Alec
                      http://www.evolutionpages.com
                    • Joe Martin
                      ... From: L.K. Appleton [mailto:lappleto@ozemail.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:16 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk]
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 9, 2003

                         

                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: L.K. Appleton [mailto:lappleto@...]
                        Sent:
                        Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:16 PM
                        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: creation "science"...was: To Andrew and Jem

                         

                         

                           Not only that, but evolutionist Niles Eldredge has

                        written that, in what was a decade of hundreds of

                        open, public, scientific debates between evolutionists

                        and Creation scientists, that the Creationists almost

                        always WON and states that;

                         

                        [Joe:]

                         

                        The debates were not scientific debates, as Eldredge also points out in the portion of the paragraph that Laurie always snips {see entire paragraph below)


                                 "Creationists travel all over the
                        United States,
                             visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
                             biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                             creationists nearly always win."

                         

                                  "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                             converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                             have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                             awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                             Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                             onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                             topics."

                         

                                  "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                             relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                             geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                             the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                             intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                             their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                             than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                             bewildered state of incoherence."

                         

                        (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                        (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                        debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

                        [Joe:]

                         

                        The ACTUAL paragraph below highlights Laurie’s out of context quote in red

                         

                        Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political

                        nature. Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting

                        college campuses and staging "debates" with biologists, geologists,

                        and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. The

                        audience is frequently loaded with the already converted and the

                        faithful. And scientists, until recently, have been showing up at the

                        debates ill-prepared for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists

                        are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a

                        steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific

                        topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant points of

                        astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.

                        Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are

                        highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have

                        always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better

                        informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a

                        bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all too evident when we

                        examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments are

                        devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates

                        because of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of

                        logic or force of evidence. The debates are shows rather than

                        serious considerations of evolution.

                        >

                         

                           So it is the evolutionists who have shown that it

                        is the scientific arguments of the Creation scientists

                        that "routed" them.   We might reasonable

                        conclude then that Creationism is science and it

                        is evolutionism that is a form of modern mythology!

                        [Joe:]

                         

                        Notice also that Eldredge the creation “scientists” (sic) did not present scientific arguments but simply “a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics.”  We might reasonably conclude that there is a touch of dishonesty in the “quote” as it is presented by Laurie.  Eldredge goes on in the book :

                         

                        "To the extent that creationism is science, of course, it is merely bad science. Mostly, it isn't science at all." (p21)

                         

                        "Creationists seek to dilute the science curriculum with the equivalent of medical quackery." (p22)

                         

                        "Students ought to know that the evidence for evolution has been scrupulously scrutinized daily by thousands of biologists for well over a hundred years -- and no one yet has called a press conference trumpeting his new proof that evolution had NOT occurred. Evolution is as well-established a scientific notion as gravity. A student ought to know that." (p23)

                         

                        "For 'creation-science' isn't science at all nor have creation 'scientists' managed to come up with a single intellectually compelling, scientifically testable statement about the natural world." (p80) -- The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982

                         

                        These arguments against Laurie’s “quote” have been presented on countless occasions yet he continues to present this out of context snippet as some sort  of evidence for the credibility of creation “science” (sic)  Laurie is in error and lurkers aught to know that.

                         

                        Joe

                         

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.