Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

[quote='TheDarkestOfAngels' pid='106588' dateline='1290472719']
[quote] You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more. [/quote]

Ahh, you’re back. Sweet. I like when you post because they are pretty small time and I can respond with far less effort than it takes to respond to other posts on here.

Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.

---

[quote] Theists still have the burden of proof and you've made no effort whatsoever to prove any claim you've ever made but just by being a creationist you've ignored or outright disregarded and attacked just about every major scientific discipline known to man.
Seriously - the same physics that allowed you to have a working cell phone and orbital GPS system is all thanks to the same physics used to determine that the universe is billions of years old older than an earth that is also billions of years old. Evolutionary sciences is what makes modern medicine and agriculture possible and is still paving the way for future advancements that would have been impossible without an intimate understanding of the topic.
Creationism has led to nothing and all of the foundational ideas are irrelevant to modern applications. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
The entire modern world exists because of everything you have already denied as being true because of your illogical preference for your imaginary friend that, after millendia of recorded human history, still has made absolutely no traces of ever existing or causing anything to happen to provide evidence for a hypothosis that has less standing in the scientific community than even the least substantial scientific hypothosis for the entire reason that all scientific hypothosises have its roots in empirical evidence.
[/quote]

---

Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
- Michael Ruse Professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada.

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
– Malcolm Muggeridge, Popular Atheistic British journalist and philosopher

“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.”
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History

Is Evolution really used that much in Biology for discovery? Doesn’t look like it….

“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”

-Larry A. Witham, Author of “Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America”

Does Evolution lead to the destruction of morality? According to Dawkins it does…

Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30

As to your assertion that Evolution is good for modern science…

"Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
- Philip Skell
The Scientist Vol. 19

As too your ridiculous assertion that Creationists have never contributed anything to modern science…

I hope you are aware that modern science itself arose from the monotheistic religions (Whitehead’s Hypothesis). The modern science we see today also directly arose from the Christian Reformation. Let’s see if any creationists actually contributed anything that is used still today…

Francis Bacon- The Scientific Method (that’s used quite a bit today I would say)
Geraldus Mercator- Funny you brought up GPS units, considering they use the Mercator Projection.
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler- Hmm, planetary motion? That may be used with GPS too haha.
Blaise Pascel
Robert Boyle- Gas Dynamics, mildly important today haha.
Isaac Newton- Let’s see, is Newtonian Physicist still used today? Haha this is too much fun.
John Dalton- Atomic Theory and Gas Law
John Kidd, M.D.- Chemical Synthetics, used in medicine today.
Joseph Henry- The Electric Motor
James Joule- Thermodynamics
Gregor Mendel- Genetrics
Louis Pasteur- Modern immunization practices.
P.G. Tait – Vector Analysis
Alexander MacAlister - Modern Anatomy
George Washington Carver
Nicolae Paulescu- Modern Physiology and Medicine
Richard Porter- Human spine and foot surgical pioneer
William Ramsay- Isotropic chemistry and element transmutation
J Rendle-short – Autism Research

I could go on, but I think I proved my point. So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.
So in short, Darwinism gives us Holocausts; Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity- easy enough.

[Thor]

So in short, Darwinism gives us Holocausts; Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity- easy enough.

Oh, what a load of unadulterated BULLSHIT!

"Darwinism gives us holocausts"?

No, hatred and dictatorial power gives us holocausts.

And "Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity"?



Just because someone who was a Creationist figured out the laws of gravity does not mean you can credit "Creationism" with the discovery. This is beyond absurd! This is like crediting Judaism with developing the polio vaccine because Jonas Salk happened to be Jewish.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.

Really? Seriously? That's what you're going with here?
That's now how the burden of proof works, Statler.
You created an unsupported premise and it was refuted for being as such. In order for your premise to be anything other than total rubbish, you actually need to have it backed up with something other than your word that it's true.

Also, my original statement still stands:

You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more.

You've done nothing to actually make a case to prove Lethe wrong about the reply she had against your post.

Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.

Many and perhaps all sciences are interrelated and have practical applications. Physics is a big one and is responsible for many of the technological innovations we have today along with chemistry in terms of many of the high tech electronics we have today - such as computer chips and electromagnetism and radio waves and orbital dynamics and relativity.
The thing about a good scientific theory is that it is not only backed through empirical and repeatable studies but that it can also make testable predictions.
How this relates to creationism is that many of the scientific tests and predictions that make a cell phone work, a computer work, an orbital telecommunications system work, a space probe to successfully launch on earth and land on an asteroid or comet zipping through space at thousands of kilometers per hour, and allow a nuclear power plant to work is the exact same science that goes into proving things like the age of the earth and the universe.

The fact that you think this concept is laughable only shows your contempt and disregard for anything that goes against your rather inane beliefs about the world in which we live.

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.

Apparently willing ignorance in science also translates to willing ignorance in history.
Darwinian theory isn't a thing. It's a word used by creationists to describe things they think are godless but it otherwise doesn't exist.
You're thinking of evolutionary theory, which is a science wholly specific to describing the process of speciation among living creatures. It does not have social applications.

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.

Whether or not atheists agree with me is irrelevant. You're avoiding the point.
More importantly, I find it interesting that instead of attempting to make a point using, I don't know, evolutionary biology in medicine to prove your point, you resorted to quote mining.
I don't care about what these people think and given the quotations and lack of linking or a bibliography, I can't even be sure that you're using these quotes in the proper context.
All you've given me is your word that evolutionary theory is wrong and a bunch of questionably related quotes that altogether do nothing to make a point of any kind, let alone provide evidence of any kind to your point.

So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.

... and... so what? How is this related to Evolutionary Biology in medicine being an invalid science that can make no testable predictions? Eh... whatever. Let's talk about your red herring since you obviously can provide no reality-based evidence that Evolutionary Biology is unimportant to medicine.
I find it adorable that you can find scientists, even important ones in the distant past, who were Y-E creationists by today's standards whose contributed science has nothing to do with the concept or philosophies or what can be jokingly called 'science' behind Y-E creationism nor have any foundations in anything other than the search for truth by people who also happen to be Y-E creationists during the time they lived.
In short, creationism has nothing to do with science except in a historical context.
There is a reason, after all, why people who do actual science, in any science, from anywhere in any cultural background around the world, are rarely if ever creationists.
This is because that kind of willing ignorance is incompatible with the search for truth. The two are mutually exclusive.

[orogenicman]

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on.

Or we could do exactly what we are doing today - developing humane strategies such as gene therapy and targeted drug regimes using - ahem, the theory of evolution.

[Lethe]

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science.

I'm curious as to how you would define "religious" in this context.

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote."

This so reminds me of Kirk Cameron's "If you circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution seems to disappear" statement.

For clarity's sake:

Let’s see if any creationists actually contributed anything that is used still today…

Francis Bacon
Gerardus Mercator
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton
John Dalton
John Kidd
Joseph Henry
James Joule
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
P.G. Tait
Alexander MacAlister
George Washington Carver
Nicolae Paulescu
Richard Porter
William Ramsay
J Rendle-Short

Bolded are the scientists who lived before the publishing of The Origin of Species in 1859. Italicized signifies an old Earth creationist. Underlined are those who lived through the early introduction of evolutionary theory, before the advent of genome sequencing (completion of the human genome in 2000) and radiometric dating (1960s). The remaining two are doctors, not scientists.

[Minimalist]

The Supreme Court decision which held that creationism:

The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-...llard.html


Not that Shitwit will care but for those of you who are more interested in law than in fucking religious mumbo-jumbo.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Polonium radio-halos being located at the same plane as uranium radio-metric decay is also very strong evidence for accelerated radiometric decay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry
by Thomas A. Baillieul

Conclusions:

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

It's rather sad, though not surprising that creationists are still trying to argue from refuted work.

---

Hmm, apparently Statler has a problem with scientists posting their critiques of creationists works on talk.origins. I have no problem with them doing so, and will continue to to refer to it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates"
Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

Now Statler, you complained that people weren't pouring over creationists' writings. The problem is that scientists have, in fact, done just that. Now, let's see you pour over the refutation at the link. Get back to us when you have a valid response.

---

I am sure you are aware that the Polonium Radio-halos I referred to were not part of Gentry's work, but rather part of the work done by the RATE group in 2008. So you are actually using non peer-reviewed articles (talkorgins) to try and refute work that was both peer reviewed in secular and non-secular journals. Pretty lame approach, but hardly surprising. Even if I was citing Gentry's work, this article would harldy be a refutation. Look at their reasoning, he operates using assumptions? Well they themselves do too, Gentry is just more intellectually honest about his assumptions. There are other lines of evidence that suggest the Earth is old? This is no excuse to deny the evidence that the Earth is young. You are going to have to come up with a lot better than that. Maybe you should actually check out the work done on the subject before you just run over to talkorigins, I figure you won't do this though because you are afraid of what you might find...Truth.

---

---

So in short, Darwinism gives us Holocausts; Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity- easy enough.

Oh, what a load of unadulterated BULLSHIT!

"Darwinism gives us holocausts"?

No, hatred and dictatorial power gives us holocausts.

And "Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity"?



Just because someone who was a Creationist figured out the laws of gravity does not mean you can credit "Creationism" with the discovery. This is beyond absurd! This is like crediting Judaism with developing the polio vaccine because Jonas Salk happened to be Jewish.

---

Maybe if you had actually read my entire response you would have come up with a more educated reply yourself. Maybe not though. It’s pretty apparent today that Scientists working in Nazi Germany were DEEPLY inspired by Darwin’s work. This led to their practices in eugenics and helped to fuel their viewpoint that Jews were inferior to Secular Germans. Dictatorship may have been the tool that accomplished the Holocaust, but Scientism and Atheism were what drove this tool. If you read many of Hitler’s own writings, his viewpoint of Christianity was very similar to a lot of the posters on here.

As for Newton, his belief in God is what drove his Science. He actually spent more time studying scripture than he did Science. He believed that the laws of nature should make sense to man because they were part of God’s natural revelation. So his Creationist viewpoints were what drove him to discover the laws of gravity. You can try to deny history all you want, but it is really just a futile exercise.

---

---

Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.

Really? Seriously? That's what you're going with here?
That's now how the burden of proof works, Statler.
You created an unsupported premise and it was refuted for being as such. In order for your premise to be anything other than total rubbish, you actually need to have it backed up with something other than your word that it's true.

Also, my original statement still stands:

You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more.

You've done nothing to actually make a case to prove Lethe wrong about the reply she had against your post.

Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.

Many and perhaps all sciences are interrelated and have practical applications. Physics is a big one and is responsible for many of the technological innovations we have today along with chemistry in terms of many of the high tech electronics we have today - such as computer chips and electromagnetism and radio waves and orbital dynamics and relativity.
The thing about a good scientific theory is that it is not only backed through empirical and repeatable studies but that it can also make testable predictions.
How this relates to creationism is that many of the scientific tests and predictions that make a cell phone work, a computer work, an orbital telecommunications system work, a space probe to successfully launch on earth and land on an asteroid or comet zipping through space at thousands of kilometers per hour, and allow a nuclear power plant to work is the exact same science that goes into proving things like the age of the earth and the universe.

The fact that you think this concept is laughable only shows your contempt and disregard for anything that goes against your rather inane beliefs about the world in which we live.

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.

Apparently willing ignorance in science also translates to willing ignorance in history.
Darwinian theory isn't a thing. It's a word used by creationists to describe things they think are godless but it otherwise doesn't exist.
You're thinking of evolutionary theory, which is a science wholly specific to describing the process of speciation among living creatures. It does not have social applications.

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.

Whether or not atheists agree with me is irrelevant. You're avoiding the point.
More importantly, I find it interesting that instead of attempting to make a point using, I don't know, evolutionary biology in medicine to prove your point, you resorted to quote mining.
I don't care about what these people think and given the quotations and lack of linking or a bibliography, I can't even be sure that you're using these quotes in the proper context.
All you've given me is your word that evolutionary theory is wrong and a bunch of questionably related quotes that altogether do nothing to make a point of any kind, let alone provide evidence of any kind to your point.

So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.

... and... so what? How is this related to Evolutionary Biology in medicine being an invalid science that can make no testable predictions? Eh... whatever. Let's talk about your red herring since you obviously can provide no reality-based evidence that Evolutionary Biology is unimportant to medicine.
I find it adorable that you can find scientists, even important ones in the distant past, who were Y-E creationists by today's standards whose contributed science has nothing to do with the concept or philosophies or what can be jokingly called 'science' behind Y-E creationism nor have any foundations in anything other than the search for truth by people who also happen to be Y-E creationists during the time they lived.
In short, creationism has nothing to do with science except in a historical context.
There is a reason, after all, why people who do actual science, in any science, from anywhere in any cultural background around the world, are rarely if ever creationists.
This is because that kind of willing ignorance is incompatible with the search for truth. The two are mutually exclusive.

---

Come on man! You have got to do better than this. The “Burden of Proof” is generally accepted to lie with the side making an affirmative statement. However, since Atheism and Theism are both belief systems that make affirmative statements (Theism affirms that God does exist, Atheism affirms that he does not exist) the burden of proof lies equally on both sides. However, since you have not even proposed a valid syllogism to make your argument, it’s pretty obvious I have the upper hand. So you can either propose the syllogism, or address one of my premises. Incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof is on my side does nothing for you though.
Your argument that new technology somehow affirms that the Earth is old is a complete non-sequitur. I completely agree that empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability. I am actually a bit excited that we agree on this. The only problem is, the Earth has never been and never will be dated using empirical science. Like all sciences dealing with origins it is nothing more than a historical science. This is because nobody can observe the age of the Earth, nor could they repeat this observation. They can only make conclusions made on assumptions and inductive reasoning. So to suggest that the science that gave us GPS units is the same science that tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is a bit irresponsible. Like I pointed out in my previous post some of the greatest modern inventors were YEC. The inventor of the MRI was a YEC, apparently they didn’t think the physics behind the machine meant the Earth was old. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Old-Earthers don’t make assumptions. It’s these erroneous assumptions that make them wrong about the age of the Earth, not the physics itself.
You are playing the equivocation game. Darwinian Evolution does not merely assert that speciation through natural selection occurs (something YEC agrees with, and actually came up with first), but that all life has a common ancestor.
To say that Darwinism does not have social implications is quite frankly ridiculous. Humans are animals in the view of Darwinists, so Darwinian principles apply just as much to humans as they do ants. This viewpoint has lead to some of the worst human tragedies in reason history.
Kind of funny how when I point to a bunch of Atheists and Evolutionists who think you are wrong on this subject, you just say “Well I don’t care what my own experts think! So meh!” The fact of the matter is that Science has much more owed to Monotheism than it ever will to Darwin.
You may not have liked the sources I used, but at least I cited someone, your posts are almost completely devoid of any citations, I guess it’s all just your opinion huh?

---

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on.

Or we could do exactly what we are doing today - developing humane strategies such as gene therapy and targeted drug regimes using - ahem, the theory of evolution.

There are Creationists who do Gene Therapy too, so apparently it does not require Evolutionary Theory at all to be successful. Ahem.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science.

I'm curious as to how you would define "religious" in this context.

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote."

This so reminds me of Kirk Cameron's "If you circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution seems to disappear" statement.

For clarity's sake:

Let’s see if any creationists actually contributed anything that is used still today…

Francis Bacon
Gerardus Mercator
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton
John Dalton
John Kidd
Joseph Henry
James Joule
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
P.G. Tait
Alexander MacAlister
George Washington Carver
Nicolae Paulescu
Richard Porter
William Ramsay
J Rendle-Short

Bolded are the scientists who lived before the publishing of The Origin of Species in 1859. Italicized signifies an old Earth creationist. Underlined are those who lived through the early introduction of evolutionary theory, before the advent of genome sequencing (completion of the human genome in 2000) and radiometric dating (1960s). The remaining two are doctors, not scientists.

---

Using the same definition of Religion as Micahel Ruse was using when he made the statement.

You may think it sounds like something Kurt Cameron would say, but the statement was made by an Atheist, so I am not sure what your point was.

Actually you are way off on your "Old Earther" list, every Scientist I listed is a young-earther. The list I looked at had over 200 names on it and had the Old-Earthers identified (their view on the age of the Earth was from their biographies and auto-biographies). I purposely didn't put any of them (like Richard Owen) on the list. So whereever you got your facts from, they are wrong.

As to the Human Genome project, and Radio-metric dating- these are terms that are often tossed around by Atheists, but the more you learn about them the more you will realize that they don't support your views at all. The Human Genome project actually destroyed many of the tenants of Evolution because it helped put Mitochondrial Eve at around 6000 years ago, and X-chromosomal data around the Earth supports the 3 daughters of Noah theory. The project also helped to show just how much information we DO NOT share with other primates. Animal genome research also helped to blow up the Evolutionary Taxonomic system because many animals that appeared closely related homologically were not genetically. Genetic research has also helped to demonstrate that the fossil record does not move "simple to complex" as expected by Evolutionists (since many morphologically simple organisms are just as complex as humans genetically). So I'd quit tossing that term (HGP) around if I were you.

---

The Supreme Court decision which held that creationism:

The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-...llard.html


Not that Shitwit will care but for those of you who are more interested in law than in fucking religious mumbo-jumbo.

Oh so you let a bunch of people with law degrees determine your Science do you? Not surprising at all. I'd rather listen to people who are educated in the field. The Supreme Court also decided that Tomatoes are vegetables not fruit- so it's obvious they are not really to into the whole science thing. Darwinism is a Religion too, so your point is moot.

[Lethe]

The Human Genome project actually destroyed many of the tenants of Evolution because it helped put Mitochondrial Eve at around 6000 years ago.

Try roughly 200,000 years ago.

The project also helped to show just how much information we DO NOT share with other primates.

1.5% to 4% based on which resource one consults. And?

Animal genome research also helped to blow up the Evolutionary Taxonomic system because many animals that appeared closely related homologically were not genetically.

So the evolutionary tree increased in accuracy, you're saying this is a bad thing?

Genetic research has also helped to demonstrate that the fossil record does not move "simple to complex" as expected by Evolutionists (since many morphologically simple organisms are just as complex as humans genetically).

Care to elaborate on that point?

So I'd quit tossing that term (HGP) around if I were you.

Human Genome Project, Human Genome Project, Humperdinck, Humperdinck, Humperdinck!

Darwinism is a Religion too, so your point is moot.

If you're referring to a cult in which some whackadoos worship Charles Darwin as a deity and demand all their followers participate in "Taco Tuesday", then yes, that would constitute a religion. If, on the other hand, you're referring to those who accept evolution as being a part of a "religion" then I have to assume you realize how ridiculous your stance is and are trying to bring the sciences to your level of stupidity by branding them with an ill-fit label.

[Justtristo]

As to the Human Genome project, and Radio-metric dating- these are terms that are often tossed around by Atheists, but the more you learn about them the more you will realize that they don't support your views at all. The Human Genome project actually destroyed many of the tenants of Evolution because it helped put Mitochondrial Eve at around 6000 years ago, and X-chromosomal data around the Earth supports the 3 daughters of Noah theory.

It is the Seven Daughters of Eve not Noah theory, besides the bible said that Noah had three sons and those three sons had wives (Noah's daughters in law). Anyway it has been noticed there is a huge gap between Mitochondrial Eve (who existed between 152,000 - 234,000 years ago) and Y-chromosomal Adam (who existed between 90,000 to 60,000 years ago). Despite all of humanity today being descended from these two people, there is no reason to suspect there were not other people existing alongside Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, it is just their lineages have not survived to the present day.