Jump to content


Photo

Is There A Rebuttal To A Rebuttal Of An Aig/icr Article?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

#1 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:58 PM

Hi,
I can spend hours reading article after article from a creationist website. Not an expert in much, I do come away with a sense that the presentation regarding abiogenesis, tectonic plate theories, microevolution vs macroevolution, etc. seems reasonable, downright plausible. So I feel good as a creationist.

I'll take the name of the authority, the topic of the article, and Google it. I find several sites that repeat the same content, often verbatim. I then see all sorts of rebuttals written by someone.

Now, as I read the rebuttals, I pick up on a glaring assumption or two about what I believe as a creationist. However, the rest of the presentation seems reasonable, downright plausible. Now I'm a bit bummed out.

At this point, I really want to find a 'rebuttal to the rebuttal'. Evolutionists do this quite well (not agreeing necessarily with their conclusions). Do any of you know of any sites that do that? I'm really interesting in getting the original author (Dr. so and so) to respond with the attack on his paper.

It seems that most creationist scientists are insulated from the public and all the 'haters'. Is there a forum where they discuss and defend their positions? It's frustrating reading a point and a counter-point, without allowing both sides to counter the counter.

Thanks,
Chuck

#2 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:51 PM

I remember I used to be able to call into creationist radio programs and debate intelligent design/evolution type stuff, but all those shows seem to have either dried up or gotten really militant about censoring people. I called into the CARM radio show once and the show's producer is referred to as an "enforcer" and you're told you can ask a single question and you aren't allowed to stray from the topic of your question if they put you on and you are forbidden from mentioning anything that's been talked about in the show up to that point (let alone disagreeing with it) or the call will be dropped. These rules are of course non-existent for believers who freely discuss anything and everything they like.

Other examples are sites like wikipedia which tries to be objective and factual and conservapedia which doesn't allow any views perceived to be "liberal" and of course deletes people who don't agree with the views of their moderators. This site is even like that, creationists are free to belittle atheists but not the other way around. If I say creationism is a myth that's a gross violation of the rules that will get me blocked, but the website is called "evolutionfairytale.com". It's not about being respectful to people, it's about tilting the table.

I've seen many a topic here gloating that there are no "evolutionist" responses (to tired articles I've seen debunked everywhere on the internet) and I'm thinking "yeah because anyone who doesn't agree probably doesn't last long."

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

Hi,
I can spend hours reading article after article from a creationist website. Not an expert in much, I do come away with a sense that the presentation regarding abiogenesis, tectonic plate theories, microevolution vs macroevolution, etc. seems reasonable, downright plausible. So I feel good as a creationist.

I'll take the name of the authority, the topic of the article, and Google it. I find several sites that repeat the same content, often verbatim. I then see all sorts of rebuttals written by someone.

Now, as I read the rebuttals, I pick up on a glaring assumption or two about what I believe as a creationist. However, the rest of the presentation seems reasonable, downright plausible. Now I'm a bit bummed out.

At this point, I really want to find a 'rebuttal to the rebuttal'. Evolutionists do this quite well (not agreeing necessarily with their conclusions). Do any of you know of any sites that do that? I'm really interesting in getting the original author (Dr. so and so) to respond with the attack on his paper.

It seems that most creationist scientists are insulated from the public and all the 'haters'. Is there a forum where they discuss and defend their positions? It's frustrating reading a point and a counter-point, without allowing both sides to counter the counter.

Thanks,
Chuck


I definately wouldn't say that they are insulated from the public, I'd say that of the evolutionist who are not required to support their work because it doesn't get criticised.

If you want someone to respond then I suggest sending them an email or something, not sure what you hope to achieve by stating this stuff here. Perhaps post the article you want a rebuttal for and the people here can have a read of it and rebutt it

#4 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:28 PM

I definately wouldn't say that they are insulated from the public, I'd say that of the evolutionist who are not required to support their work because it doesn't get criticised.

Peer review in science is brutal and that is why evolution theory has changed a lot since darwin's day. The idea that it's not allowed to be criticized or that it's up on some pedistal is a fiction. What the actual truth is is that you're allowed to criticize anything in science, you are just expected to back it up with experiments and data, not dogma.

Epigenetics (the study of how genes are switched on and off, not just deleted and added) is a field that has revolutionized evolutionary thought, as have ideas like punctuated equilibrium and cell biology and advances in embryology and genetics which was in it's infancy in darwin's day. Countless new intermediate forms have been found and held up against evolutionary predictions for over a century and a half. The idea that scientists are cowering in fear or persecuted if they criticize the holy book of evolution is just nonsense.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:05 AM

Peer review in science is brutal and that is why evolution theory has changed a lot since darwin's day. The idea that it's not allowed to be criticized or that it's up on some pedistal is a fiction. What the actual truth is is that you're allowed to criticize anything in science, you are just expected to back it up with experiments and data, not dogma.

Epigenetics (the study of how genes are switched on and off, not just deleted and added) is a field that has revolutionized evolutionary thought, as have ideas like punctuated equilibrium and cell biology and advances in embryology and genetics which was in it's infancy in darwin's day. Countless new intermediate forms have been found and held up against evolutionary predictions for over a century and a half. The idea that scientists are cowering in fear or persecuted if they criticize the holy book of evolution is just nonsense.


Peer review is not brutal at all, how would you know? Again, you words are not golden, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

I have read many papers that have had logical fallacies littered through them, if peer review was so brutal, then these papers shouldn't be getting published.

Its not allowed to be criticised, and when contradictions are brought to light ad hoc hypothesises are made to smooth over the problem. For example, wings in bats and birds defied evolution since it was a trait that had no ancestral lineage for from a common ancestor... Up steps the untested claim of convergent evolution, this ad hoc hypothesis smoothed over this problem, basically using this allows the evolutionist to not only claim similarities within ancestry as "evidence" of evolution, but also similarities when there is no ancestry at all, meaning the evolutionist now can have his / her cake and eat it....

The only place we see ad hoc hypothesises like the above is in pseudoscience....

Or how about Tiktaalik. Foot prints in Poland debunked the Tiktaalik fossils by being older than the fossils themselves, (and having a pattern similar to reptiles) meaning the entire timeline of fish to reptile ancestry is out of whack... But did this stop these "scientists" no, when I mentioned this to one of my lecturers her "scientific" response was that perhaps there was something older... No evidence... No science... Just a faith based belief that there must be something older...


Honestly go watch the movie Expelled, people have lost their jobs over being critical of evolution, this is an embarrasing fact they wont tell you because if evolution needs to be protected from critics then doesn't that demonstrate how weak it is?

Firstly I'd like to see the evidence for this sweeping claim, as I said just saying things doesn't mean anything... Your words are not golden, where is the evidence? Epigenetics has done very little for evolution, how do I know, I study it. Its actually demonstrating that life is even MORE complex than was originally thoiught 5 years ago, in that non-coding DNA create regulatory molecules that adapt and shape and modify proteins post transcription, it is the reason why gene have multiple gene products which are all dependant on these regulatory molecules to form the correct one.

Now how does such an intricate process "evolve" there has been literally NO attempt to insert evolution into Biochemistry, this was the main point of Michael Behe's "Darwins Black Box". By what processes does this form? As Dawkins would say "science is working on it" (which is an argumentum ad futuris, logical fallacy)

Additionally how does the cell "know" which one of the gene products is required?

Lastly epigenetics demonstrates that DNA is not the be-all-end-all of genetics in that there could be animals with similar coding genes (which is how DNA analysis occurs), however due to the epigenetics of the organisms they could create totally different forms of gene products resulting in a much different organism despite the high degree of similarity of DNA.

#6 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:01 AM

Peer review is not brutal at all, how would you know? Again, you words are not golden, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

I have read many papers that have had logical fallacies littered through them, if peer review was so brutal, then these papers shouldn't be getting published.

Its not allowed to be criticised, and when contradictions are brought to light ad hoc hypothesises are made to smooth over the problem. For example, wings in bats and birds defied evolution since it was a trait that had no ancestral lineage for from a common ancestor... Up steps the untested claim of convergent evolution, this ad hoc hypothesis smoothed over this problem, basically using this allows the evolutionist to not only claim similarities within ancestry as "evidence" of evolution, but also similarities when there is no ancestry at all, meaning the evolutionist now can have his / her cake and eat it....

The only place we see ad hoc hypothesises like the above is in pseudoscience....

Or how about Tiktaalik. Foot prints in Poland debunked the Tiktaalik fossils by being older than the fossils themselves, (and having a pattern similar to reptiles) meaning the entire timeline of fish to reptile ancestry is out of whack... But did this stop these "scientists" no, when I mentioned this to one of my lecturers her "scientific" response was that perhaps there was something older... No evidence... No science... Just a faith based belief that there must be something older...


Honestly go watch the movie Expelled, people have lost their jobs over being critical of evolution, this is an embarrasing fact they wont tell you because if evolution needs to be protected from critics then doesn't that demonstrate how weak it is?

Firstly I'd like to see the evidence for this sweeping claim, as I said just saying things doesn't mean anything... Your words are not golden, where is the evidence? Epigenetics has done very little for evolution, how do I know, I study it. Its actually demonstrating that life is even MORE complex than was originally thoiught 5 years ago, in that non-coding DNA create regulatory molecules that adapt and shape and modify proteins post transcription, it is the reason why gene have multiple gene products which are all dependant on these regulatory molecules to form the correct one.

Now how does such an intricate process "evolve" there has been literally NO attempt to insert evolution into Biochemistry, this was the main point of Michael Behe's "Darwins Black Box". By what processes does this form? As Dawkins would say "science is working on it" (which is an argumentum ad futuris, logical fallacy)

Additionally how does the cell "know" which one of the gene products is required?

Lastly epigenetics demonstrates that DNA is not the be-all-end-all of genetics in that there could be animals with similar coding genes (which is how DNA analysis occurs), however due to the epigenetics of the organisms they could create totally different forms of gene products resulting in a much different organism despite the high degree of similarity of DNA.

You are literally giving examples of scientists accepting new information and changing evolutionary theory when faced with new evidence as proof that you're not allowed to change evolutionary theory and that it's set in stone.

And "expelled" is a sham and has been caught in many lies.

http://www.expellede...x.php/the-truth

Literally not one person was actually fired, for example.

Oh and it's ridiculous to suggest that a bird's wings and a bat's wings were commonly inherited - some traits were, but the wings themselves are built very differently. It's like a bird's wing and a dragonfly's wings - yes they're both wings but they are anatomically too different to be the result of recent common ancestry.

#7 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:47 PM

I definately wouldn't say that they are insulated from the public, I'd say that of the evolutionist who are not required to support their work because it doesn't get criticised.
If you want someone to respond then I suggest sending them an email or something, not sure what you hope to achieve by stating this stuff here. Perhaps post the article you want a rebuttal for and the people here can have a read of it and rebutt it


Hi,
I know that with the ratio of evolutionists to creationists being heavily weighted one way a creationist scientist could spend his time 24/7 defending positions. Sort of like a fight of 20 persons versus 1. Its just that I would like to read a creationist scientist's rebuttal to a specific counter point to their position. It's really difficult to get that information from the horse's mouth. My post is simply an inquiry as to whether or not this exists somewhere because I can't find it via a search engine or the source website.

Here's a fine example of what I'm suggesting in this thread. For this example, assume that Gilbo's comment about the movie Expelled is a scientific statement of fact. Just for this example only.

Point
====
Gilbo mentions the movie 'Expelled'. It seems plausible to me that people might be fired for their contrary viewpoint to evolution. I've seen the zeal of philosophical evolutionists living on the edge and can understand how those in authority might misuse their power.

Counter-point
===========
Agno references a site that systematically discredits each of the claims. I've seen creationists during the past 30 years misuse information (in most cases out of ignorance). So this might be true too!

Rebuttal to Agno's counter point?
==========================
This is the missing bit. Is there credible evidence (transcripts, affidavits, testimony, etc.) that we could all see so we can resolve this issue regarding 'Expelled'? Is all of it false, all of it true, or are only bits of it true/false?

If 'Expelled' is a big lie, then we should all want to know.

Thanks for the discussion.
Chuck

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:05 PM

1. You are literally giving examples of scientists accepting new information and changing evolutionary theory when faced with new evidence as proof that you're not allowed to change evolutionary theory and that it's set in stone.


2. Oh and it's ridiculous to suggest that a bird's wings and a bat's wings were commonly inherited

3. - some traits were, but the wings themselves are built very differently. It's like a bird's wing and a dragonfly's wings - yes they're both wings but they are anatomically too different to be the result of recent common ancestry.


1. Did I say that it needs to be set in stone? Please quote me.. I am demonstrating some examples of the use of ad hoc hypothesises for evolutionists to smooth over contraditions within their "theory", as I said this is what pseudoscience does, seriously go look it up.

2. Read what I said, I said the opposite!!

"Its not allowed to be criticised, and when contradictions are brought to light ad hoc hypothesises are made to smooth over the problem. For example, wings in bats and birds defied evolution since it was a trait that had no ancestral lineage for from a common ancestor... Up steps the untested claim of convergent evolution, this ad hoc hypothesis smoothed over this problem, basically using this allows the evolutionist to not only claim similarities within ancestry as "evidence" of evolution, but also similarities when there is no ancestry at all, meaning the evolutionist now can have his / her cake and eat it...."


3. Sigh....




Now care to address what I said about epigenetics, since its
a- supporting the creationist view that life is too complex
b- added with the fact that there is no evolution for biochemistry this complexity is yet to be accounted for by the evolutionist... Essentially their arguments equate to "evolution did it"
c- demonstrates that DNA is not the be all end all of genetic heritage and that similar DNA can lead to a totally different metabolome / proteome

#9 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:27 AM

1. Did I say that it needs to be set in stone? Please quote me.. I am demonstrating some examples of the use of ad hoc hypothesises for evolutionists to smooth over contraditions within their "theory", as I said this is what pseudoscience does, seriously go look it up.

2. Read what I said, I said the opposite!!

"Its not allowed to be criticised, and when contradictions are brought to light ad hoc hypothesises are made to smooth over the problem. For example, wings in bats and birds defied evolution since it was a trait that had no ancestral lineage for from a common ancestor... Up steps the untested claim of convergent evolution, this ad hoc hypothesis smoothed over this problem, basically using this allows the evolutionist to not only claim similarities within ancestry as "evidence" of evolution, but also similarities when there is no ancestry at all, meaning the evolutionist now can have his / her cake and eat it...."


3. Sigh....




Now care to address what I said about epigenetics, since its
a- supporting the creationist view that life is too complex
b- added with the fact that there is no evolution for biochemistry this complexity is yet to be accounted for by the evolutionist... Essentially their arguments equate to "evolution did it"
c- demonstrates that DNA is not the be all end all of genetic heritage and that similar DNA can lead to a totally different metabolome / proteome

Equivocation is against the rules of the forum. Honestly why should I spend the time and effort responding to you when you say evolution theory is "not allowed to be criticised" and then demand proof that you used the term "set in stone" because I replied that it isn't set in stone and why.

You keep quibbling over stupid semantics which makes me want to just ignore you like I do what's his face.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:11 AM

Equivocation is against the rules of the forum. Honestly why should I spend the time and effort responding to you when you say evolution theory is "not allowed to be criticised" and then demand proof that you used the term "set in stone" because I replied that it isn't set in stone and why.

You keep quibbling over stupid semantics which makes me want to just ignore you like I do what's his face.


So asking you to VERIFY your claims about what I say is called "quibling semantics"? Or pointing out where you've taken me totally out of context, (to the point of claiming I said the opposite of what I said), is "quibiling semantics"...

I never made the claims you made and your inability to produce a quote and verify your statement is testament to this... Putting words in people's mouths are not a valid "debate tactic" instead it makes you look foolish.

You never addressed that I said the opposite to what you claimed about similar traits with no ancestry, no apology no nothing, instead its deemed "quibling semantics" so you can merely hand wave your failure away.... you know what this is called? Denial.



Now has anyone of us ever done this crap to you? Consider that the next time you claim we are being unjust, (like in the other thread)

#11 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

I'm done with you, anyone who wants to can read our comments and judge for themselves.

#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

I'm done with you, anyone who wants to can read our comments and judge for themselves.


This is exactly the same as "la la la la la not listening", (the thing you accused me of before), your refusal to even accept that you made a mistake even when shown, is an indicator of denial...

Your complaints about this forum despite your behaviour here and elsewhere on other threads indicates hypocrite
  • Calypsis4 and Bonedigger like this

#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

This is exactly the same as "la la la la la not listening", (the thing you accused me of before), your refusal to even accept that you made a mistake even when shown, is an indicator of denial...

Your complaints about this forum despite your behaviour here and elsewhere on other threads indicates hypocrite


You said it.

May the Lord give us someone more mature and more honest in these matters.
  • gilbo12345 and Bonedigger like this

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

You said it.

May the Lord give us someone more mature and more honest in these matters.


I agree, I like to debate evolution and its subsets, however it does get tedious when my opponent refuses to answer posts and then accuses me of doing the exact same thing, (with no evidence of such I might add), let alone all the other stuff we have witnessed recently ;)

#15 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:52 PM

I refuse to talk to people who a ) ask the same questions over and over after they've been answered as though I did not reply, b ) demand I give them evidence then refuse to look at it and demand the exact same evidence several more times, gloating over how nobody can provide it, c) after I've told them repeatedly why I'm not responding to them any more call me a troll for refusing to respond to their dishonest nonsense and lie about previous conversations or d ) in the case of calypsis4, refuse to stop making generalized insults against atheists when asked politely repeatedly and never once provoked into doing so.

Anybody who wants to can go back and see what was actually said not the BS you two are spouting.

#16 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

I refuse to talk to people who a ) ask the same questions over and over after they've been answered as though I did not reply, b ) demand I give them evidence then refuse to look at it and demand the exact same evidence several more times, gloating over how nobody can provide it, c) after I've told them repeatedly why I'm not responding to them any more call me a troll for refusing to respond to their dishonest nonsense and lie about previous conversations or d ) in the case of calypsis4, refuse to stop making generalized insults against atheists when asked politely repeatedly and never once provoked into doing so.

Anybody who wants to can go back and see what was actually said not the BS you two are spouting.


You need to leave us. You have lost our respect because you are not an honest debater nor can we expect anything but the same inane statements from you.

#17 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:01 AM

I think my thread has been hijacked. My previous response highlights the topic that I'm trying to discuss.

Thanks,
Chuck

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:23 AM

I think my thread has been hijacked. My previous response highlights the topic that I'm trying to discuss.

Thanks,
Chuck


Sorry!

#19 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:03 AM

I think my thread has been hijacked. My previous response highlights the topic that I'm trying to discuss.

Thanks,
Chuck

Sorry this BS spilled into your thread, I will stop commenting about it.

#20 Raisemeup

Raisemeup

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:58 PM

Chuck,
Some of these side conversations do get interesting though. I have two things to say in regards to your original topic and I’ll try to stick to that. There is a quote from the Bible (Proverbs 18:17) that has always stuck with me for some reason and so I completely sympathize with your original post. To paraphrase, it says that an argument seems right when it is first heard until you hear the other side of the story. And so it continues.

First, it would be very interesting to check the actual facts regarding “expelled” (I’m going to put that on my to-do list), although I have many other documented cases of people being fired for their creationist beliefs and significant other evidence of discrimination. If evolutionists are open minded and we were to show that their darling sites are “lying”, then that should change their minds about listening to those sites, right? Unfortunately that would not likely be the case. I have caught one of their favorite sites “talkorigins” in various outright lies and distortions. It doesn’t matter as you would guess and probably well know. That’s because it’s NOT the evidence that matters to them. It’s their precious world-view they are defending and to hell with the evidence.

Now, having stated that quite strongly, I can understand that contradictory evidence here and there is not going to topple a theory. After all, historical theories like evolution are based on the preponderance of the evidence, not on any specific evidence. However, at this point after many years of research, it is almost beyond me that anyone who has actually looked into the evidence and is not just accepting it because of what they were taught in school, can still be clinging to a theory with such meager support which has been disproven time and time and time again, only to be “rescued” by just-so-stories. I say “almost” because I do have an explanation, but that’s for another time.

Second, in my travels on the internet, by far the most referenced site in evolutionist circles is talkorigins and there are a couple creationist sites which refute its bogus claims. Talkorigins content is usually filled with distortions and misrepresentations since its admitted aim is to debunk “creationism” at any cost, and not to support the truth. Note also that this site is NOT peer reviewed as are many creationist sites. In any case, the two links below at creation wiki debunk many of its claims. There is also an older site that is no longer updated, but its content is still quite excellent, which is the trueorigins website which I’ve also linked below. Sometimes these sites will go a second or third round, particularly in the sections of the site where they are rebutting each other through postings or emails. However, sometimes as you suggest, you just have to keep looking to find the truth.

http://creationwiki....ationist_Claims
http://creationwiki....eation_response
http://www.trueorigin.org/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users