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

#21 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:01 PM

Hi,
I understand the potential of any origin discussion to demonstrate entropy. =) Thanks, I bookmarked the links above. Will you list some 'peer reviewed creation sites'? Are you referencing AiG, ICR?

Thanks,
Chuck

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:25 PM

Hi,
I understand the potential of any origin discussion to demonstrate entropy. =) Thanks, I bookmarked the links above. Will you list some 'peer reviewed creation sites'? Are you referencing AiG, ICR?

Thanks,
Chuck


Depends what you would define as "peer review"... since peer review in scientific journals are done so by people with similar mindset and worldview.. This is the same with secular journals and creationist journals etc... Ergo "peer review" is not an arbiter of truth.

It is useful in mundane scientific discussion, however in a discussion where one's own worldview takes a prime role peer review cannot be relied upon since the peers doing the reviewing will most likely share the same ideals and therefore see no problems with the paper...

Its the same on either side, if you asked a creationist scientist to review an evolutionist scientist's paper that creationist scientist will point out faults which other evolutionists wouldn't and visa versa.
  • Minnemooseus likes this

#23 Raisemeup

Raisemeup

    Newcomer

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

Hi,
Will you list some 'peer reviewed creation sites'? Are you referencing AiG, ICR?


Depends what you would define as "peer review"...


Sorry for the slow response. I clicked on follow this topic and thought I would get emails when someone responded, but that doesn’t appear to happen. Yes, I was referring to the sites you mention and others. While there are some excellent single person blogs, the sites I’m talking about have a professional staff of PHD’s which review or correct articles after the fact to make sure there are no obvious errors. Other’s make “corrections” by offering counter opinions. I provide a short list of some sites I consider “professional” in that way below. This does not mean they are necessarily the “best”, interesting or most informative sites, although a few of them are. I frequent many other sites as well if you are interested.

To responds to Gilbo, yes, you are correct in that “peer review” is much abused. Darwinists often make a big to-do about this, but for goodness sakes, Darwin’s work was not even peer-reviewed. The usage I’m referring to is what I noted above. They don’t just allow people to post willy nilly with content containing factual errors and misrepresentations. Since creationists are generally Christians (but not always) I really do believe that they strive to be accurate in their reporting. On the other hand, sites like talkorigins, generally run or contributed to by atheists (but not always), could care less. They just want to refute any argument by Creationists, regardless if it’s true or not. It would be interesting to make a side by side list of issues which each side says they have found the other “lying” about on these sites and see which ones really hold water.

http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.icr.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj
http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.arn.org/
http://www.iscid.org/

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
http://www.apologeti...rg/default.aspx
http://www.kolbecenter.org/

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:15 PM

It would be interesting to make a side by side list of issues which each side says they have found the other “lying” about on these sites and see which ones really hold water.



This is a very good idea :D

#25 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

"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." Agnophilo [emphasis mine]

Now there are two concepts, punctuated equilibrium and intermediate forms that can be rebuted by either AIG/ICR articles. Sounds like a good place to start.

I would also like to see some of the "countless" intermediate forms listed.

Some articles for consideration:
http://www.icr.org/a...-fossil-record/
http://www.icr.org/a...s-missing-link/
http://www.answersin...on-vs-evolution multiple articles

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 December 2012 - 01:22 PM

"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." Agnophilo [emphasis mine] Now there are two concepts, punctuated equilibrium and intermediate forms that can be rebuted by either AIG/ICR articles. Sounds like a good place to start. I would also like to see some of the "countless" intermediate forms listed. Some articles for consideration: http://www.icr.org/a...-fossil-record/ http://www.icr.org/a...s-missing-link/ http://www.answersin...on-vs-evolution multiple articles


I agree!

Just claiming 'lots of intermediate fossils' does nothing. Especially when the "intermediate fossils" are independant organisms with no line of decent to its supposed ancestor, (which means the assumed heritage cannot be verified).

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 December 2012 - 07:47 AM

To answer the question in the OP....besides some of the excellent articles in AIG and ICR the best responses to criticisms of creationism is found in true/origins. They are the most definitive in pointing our the evolutionist errors.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users