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

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    ... From: PIASAN@aol.com To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:26 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting
    Message 1 of 639 , Dec 9, 2012
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:26 AM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..

       

      LA> The "bad thing" is to persist in an idea in SPITE of the clear scientific findings that repudiate that idea.  It them becomes a vehicle to promote error, confusion and  falsehoods.
       
       
      Pi:
      That applies to all of the current creation "science" models of which I'm aware including:
       
      1)  Barry Setterfield's c-decay.
      2)  Dr. Russell Humphreys' white holes.
      3)  Dr. Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony
      4)  Dr. Larry Vardiman's vapor canopy.
      5)  Dr. John Baumgardner's runaway subduction.
      6)  Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplates.
       
      Among these models are some (such as c-decay) that even the creationist ministries say should not be used; others (such as white holes and the vapor canopy) that even the author admits will not work; and several (such as vapor canopy, runaway subduction, and hydroplates) that, if true, would sterilize the planet.  (I can think of little that would more effectively refute a scientific model than the fact it would destroy all life on Earth.).
       
      Laurie claims to want creation "science" taught in public schools, yet he has never proposed a single current creation "science" model that should be presented in public schools ..... let attempt a defense of such model in this forum. 
       
       
      LA> Nothing alters the fact that  various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public  debates on the scientific questions!  For example a noted evolutionary Biologist wrote the following;
      ----------------------------------------------
       
             "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
           winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
           We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
           creationist-evolutionist controversies."
       
              "We must no longer duck this and other issues
           related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
           face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
           accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
           the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
           losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
           in professional standards.
       ("Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience,  Vol.30, January 1980, p. 4)
      =-=================
       
       
      Laurie.
       
      "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
      to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
      (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
      .

      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5946 - Release Date: 12/08/12

    • Robert Stewart
      ________________________________ From: Dave Oldridge To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:56 AM
      Message 639 of 639 , Dec 12, 2012

        From: Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...>
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:56 AM
        Subject: RE: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         
         
         
        From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
        Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 11:14 AM
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         



         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: PIASAN@...
        Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:26 AM
        Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         
         
        LA> The "bad thing" is to persist in an idea in SPITE of the clear scientific findings that repudiate that idea.  It them becomes a vehicle to promote error, confusion and  falsehoods.
         
         
        Pi:
        That applies to all of the current creation "science" models of which I'm aware including:
         
        1)  Barry Setterfield's c-decay.
        2)  Dr. Russell Humphreys' white holes.
        3)  Dr. Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony
        4)  Dr. Larry Vardiman's vapor canopy.
        5)  Dr. John Baumgardner's runaway subduction.
        6)  Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplates.
         
        Among these models are some (such as c-decay) that even the creationist ministries say should not be used; others (such as white holes and the vapor canopy) that even the author admits will not work; and several (such as vapor canopy, runaway subduction, and hydroplates) that, if true, would sterilize the planet.  (I can think of little that would more effectively refute a scientific model than the fact it would destroy all life on Earth.).
         
        Laurie claims to want creation "science" taught in public schools, yet he has never proposed a single current creation "science" model that should be presented in public schools ..... let attempt a defense of such model in this forum. 
         
         
        LA> Nothing alters the fact that  various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public  debates on the scientific questions!  For example a noted evolutionary Biologist wrote the following;
         
        And nothing alters the fact that you, Laurie, nor any other creationist has been able to provide a shred of scientific evidence for any of your major YEC claims.  This proves that, if those debates were really won by creationist debaters, then it must have been by guile, not by scientific evidence, since that has proved (right here) to be non-existent. Where is the creationist SCIENTIFIC evidence for a young universe, young earth or geologically recent global flood? CAN they supply anything other than lies about the actual scientific data or its meaning, or rhetorical excuses why they don’t have to?  So far they are batting zero and then arguing balls and strikes with the umpire!
         
         
        --
         
        Dave Oldridge
        Robert--Remember all that I am a Old Earth Creationist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
         
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.