The Perfect Creationist Argument
TomS
Silence.
There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
seems to agree:
"If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
be banished."
What is the theory of creationism?
Despite a determined effort not to say anything, there are some
lapses of the creationists, when they present some arguments against
evolution.
What happens, though, is that the principles invoked by the
creationists are self-defeating. In those few cases.
What you will find out is that they quickly forget those few
principles when they are talking about something else.
Perhaps the classic example is the creationist version of the
2nd law of thermodynamics, that principle which says that order
cannot come about without an intelligent agent. But then, they
say that the order in the fossil record came about by hydrodynamic
sorting ... not an intelligent agent.
But that's only confined to the "young-earth-flood-geology"
creationists.
What I'm interested in is the principles invoked by the more
"sophisticated macro-evolution deniers".
Such as the principle that evolution means that some values,
such as truth, love, beauty, morality, can't exist. What they
don't tell you, explicitly, is that this is an argument against
*micro*evolution ... or even against developmental biology (may
I call that *sub*evolution?) Conveniently forgotten, for the
purposes of this argument, is the distinction which they promote
between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
I realize that this requires a bit of complicated thought.
A bit of long-term memory, not just going for the immediate
"whatever works".
Keeping in mind two things at once. Remembering that they
accept micro-evolution, and remembering that when they argue
about the immorality of evolution.
Remembering when they talk about the perfection of the eye,
that the perfection that they are talking about is to enable
predation (in some species) and to enable escape from predation
(in other species).
I have learned, over the years of talking with creationists,
that they have a very short attention span. What works for the
moment is quickly forgotten.
Just look at the pitiful attempts at responses to my questions.
But, then, at least these are *attempts".
Nobody even makes an *attempt* to answer the One Big Question:
What is the theory of creationism?
This shouldn't be a surprise question. Darwin asked it, in
1859. Others have asked it over the years. You can't read
talk.origins for very long before seeing the question. Some of
the creationists have even admitted that they're not going to
answer the question. Yes, theologians over the ages have given
us definitions of "create", but then, they weren't anti-macro-
evolutionists.
Tom S.
Aron-Ra
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9phmr...@drn.newsguy.com...
> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>
> Silence.
>
> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
>
> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
>
> Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> seems to agree:
>
> "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> be banished."
>
> What is the theory of creationism?
I'll just bet that you don't expect even even one creationist to reply to
this.
Aron-Ra
TomS
<jKZu7.1326$2p1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
Call me Pollyanna, but I do have a bit of faith in humanity,
to think that maybe there is some creationist out there who might,
someday, feel the urge to answer. Maybe some creationist has a
slight familiarity with conventional Christian theology, and might
be able to quote Aquinas or Luther on creation. I admit that I have
been constantly disappointed. I actually bought a book called "The
Creation Hypothesis", thinking that it might say what the
creation hypothesis was. I eagerly read "Darwin's Black Box",
expecting that maybe, since the author was a scientist, that
he'd feel the need to say something. And I was really excited,
not so long ago, when someone started to answer some questions
about what creation is. But, as it turned out, the fellow was
just trolling.
I really would be pleased to have my faith in a spark of
rationality, even in creationists, justified.
Tom S.
Aron-Ra
> "On 4 Oct 2001 09:46:18 -0400, in article
> <jKZu7.1326$2p1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra"
stated..."
> >
> >
> >TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:9phmr...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
> >>
> >> Silence.
> >>
> >> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
> >>
> >> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
> >>
> >> Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> >> seems to agree:
> >>
> >> "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> >> does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> >> be banished."
> >>
> >> What is the theory of creationism?
> >
> >I'll just bet that you don't expect even even one creationist to reply to
> >this.
>
> Call me Pollyanna, but I do have a bit of faith in humanity,
> to think that maybe there is some creationist out there who might,
> someday, feel the urge to answer. Maybe some creationist has a
> slight familiarity with conventional Christian theology, and might
> be able to quote Aquinas or Luther on creation. I admit that I have
> been constantly disappointed
As have I, Man. You aint alone.
I can get people to parrot Luther's ravings,
but they don't realize that they're quoting anyone!
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and
whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the
word of god".
"Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have
established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities,
as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads ..."
Aron-Ra
A Pagano
TomS wrote:
>
> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>
> Silence.
>
> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
>
> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
Pagano replies:
In my opinion presenting the creationist position in this forum is
largely a waste of time. Why waste time with what secular society
considers silly superstitious religious nonsense? Wouldn't that be a
genuine waste of time? Shouldn't we devote all of our time to some
penetrating criticism of the honored paradigm of our age which is held
up to be the best that secular science has to offer? Silly,
superstituous, religious nonsense vs. the "best" secular science has
to offer. I'd rather take shots at the best and determine if there is
any secular defense.
To suggest that because the creationist position is not presented in
this forum to the satisfaction of TomS that there is no creationist
explanation is an argument from complete ignorance. There is a
relatively small but growing collection of creationist publications and
full length works with which TomS could disabuse himself of this
ignorant bluster. Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
money.
*****************************************
TomS continues:
> Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> seems to agree:
>
> "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> be banished."
Pagano replies:
Evolutionism has no empirically testable explanation why the fossil
record only shows the "end nodes" of Darwin's tree of life but not a
single transitional form with structures in a "nascent condition." That
is, the fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly and abruptly
in the fossil record with fully formed mature structures. These fossil
creatures disappear from the fossil record after several million years
pretty much unchanged. Punc Eq was an attempt at explanation but has
never garnered consensus. Does this mean evolutionism should be
banished. Creationism has no problem with this observation of the
fossil record.
******************************************
TomS continues:
> What is the theory of creationism?
>
> Despite a determined effort not to say anything, there are some
> lapses of the creationists, when they present some arguments against
> evolution.
Pagano replies:
Sometimes it is true----like with the complete absence of nascent
structures in the fossil record----that a contradiction of evolutionism
is easily incorporated into the creationist model.
*****************************************
TomS continues:
> What happens, though, is that the principles invoked by the
> creationists are self-defeating. In those few cases.
>
> What you will find out is that they quickly forget those few
> principles when they are talking about something else.
Pagano replies:
Vague speechmaking.
**************************************
TomS continues:
> Perhaps the classic example is the creationist version of the
> 2nd law of thermodynamics, that principle which says that order
> cannot come about without an intelligent agent But then, they
> say that the order in the fossil record came about by hydrodynamic
> sorting ... not an intelligent agent.
Pagano replies:
This is the classic and inappropriate conflation of "order" and
"complexity." A crystal is highly ordered but has little complexity and
can store very little information. Hydrodynamic sorting also creates
order but little complexity. Complexity is defined by creationists in
terms of its information content. Living creatures are highly complex.
Here is, generally speaking, the "actual" creationist position (as
opposed to TomS's ignorant caricature of it) concerning the production
of low entropy "complex" systems:
1. The system must be open.
2. An adequate outside supply of energy must be available.
3. An energy conversion system must exist to convert raw, uncontrolled
energy coming in from the outside to a controlled form that can be used
in a "constructive" way by the system undergoing change.
4. There must be a control system capable of regulating the activities
of the system undergoing change, such that the changes are progressive
and integrative rather than meaningless and destructive.
If an intelligent agent is the only way to satisfy condtions (3) and (4)
then so be it. The evolutionists on the other hand only require
conditions (1) and (2) for complexity to arise. Taken to its absurd
conclusion that would mean that if we shined sunshine on a pile of
lumber and nails that given enough time it could, in principle,
transform itself into a two story colonial house. Absolutely absurd.
*********************************************
TomS continues:
2.
>
> But that's only confined to the "young-earth-flood-geology"
> creationists.
>
> What I'm interested in is the principles invoked by the more
> "sophisticated macro-evolution deniers".
>
> Such as the principle that evolution means that some values,
> such as truth, love, beauty, morality, can't exist.
Pagano replies:
Not so much that they can't exist but that they are purely subjective.
If fornication resulted in a reproductive advantage (or not) it can only
be considered "natural" not immoral under the evolutionist philosophy.
Since (under evolutionist philsophy) behavior is simply a component of
natural selection EVERY conceivable behavior can only be labeled
"natural." Under such a philosophy the further labeling of particular
behaviors as "bad" or "immoral" are only subjective constructions of
man. Such a philosophy is in direct conflict with most (if not all)
Christian denominations.
more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
TomS
stated..."
There goes another Irony Meter.
Not only does Pagano offer a hint of what a theory of creationism
might look like. Pagano merely suggests that there might be, somewhere,
something that I can buy which might possibly say what it means to
create or to be created.
Thanks, Pagano. You have confirmed my hypothesis.
Tom S.
Floyd
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in article
<9phmr...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>
> Silence.
>
> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
>
> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
[snip]
Someone once said "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
to speak and remove all doubt." Cheers;
-Floyd
SUDSM
How did it get here?
SUDSM
How did it get here?
Elmer Bataitis
> Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
> by creationist organizations.
Tony, you should really check your facts before you post. Such an
obvious error only brings your credibility into question.
Here's the list from my public library system:
1.Adam and evolution : a scientific critique of Neo-Darwinism / (1987)
2.The battle of beginnings : why neither side is winning the crea
(1996)
3.Biology, zoology, and genetics : evolution model vs. creation m
(1983)
4.Bones of contention : a creationist assessment of the human fos
(1992)
5.Bryan and Darrow at Dayton : the record and documents of the "B
(1925)
6.CA researcher : January-December 1997 / by the editors of Cong
(1997)
7.A case for creation / by Wayne Frair and Percival Davis ; illus
(1994)
8.A case for creation by Wayne Frair and Percival Davis ; illus (1983)
9.The CQ Researcher formerly Editorial Research Reports
10.Creation and time : a biblical and scientific perspective on th
(1994)
11.The creation controversy : science or Scripture in the schools
(1984)
12.Creation-evolution debates / edited with introductions by Ronal
(1995)
13.The Creation hypothesis : scientific evidence for an intelligen
(1994)
14.Creation theology in the Old Testament [microform] / R. Jerome
(1991)
15.Creationism on trial : evolution and God at Little Rock / Lang
(1985)
16.The creationist movement in modern America / Raymond A. Eve, Fr
(1990)
17.The creationists / Ronald L. Numbers. (1993)
18.The creationists / Ronald L. Numbers. (1992)
19.Cult archaeology and creationism : understanding pseudoscientif
(1987)
20.Cult archaeology & creationism : understanding pseudoscientific
(1995)
21.Did the Devil make Darwin do it? : modern perspectives on the c
(1983)
22.Dine Bahane, the Navajo creation story : part five, in search o
(1991)
23.Dinosaurs by design / Duane T. Gish ; edited by Gloria Clanin ;
(1992)
24.The doctrine of creation of St. Basil the Great, its Origenist s
(1950)
25.Evolution & creation : a Catholic understanding / William Kram
(1986)
26.Evolution as dogma : the establishment of naturalism / by Phil
(1990)
27.Evolution extended : biological debates on the meaning of life
(1994)
28.Evolution, the great debate / Vernon Blackmore and Andrew Page.
(1989)
29.The evolutionary tales : rhyme and reason on creation/evolution
(1993)
30.Evolutionism and creationism / by Ben Sonder. (1999)
31.The hidden history of the human race [videorecording] / writte
(1996)
32.The history of the creation : a Christian view of inorganic and
(1993)
33.The Hovind theory [videorecording]. (1997)
34.In the beginning-- : a scientist shows why the creationists ar
(1984)
35.In the beginning-- : a scientist shows why the creationists are
(1984)
36.In the beginning-- by Walter T. Brown, Jr. (1989)
37.In the beginning [videorecording] : the creationist controvers
(1994)
38.Inherit the Wind.
39.Is God a creationist? : the religious case against creation-sci
(1983)
40.Life-- how did it get here? : by evolution or by creation? (1985)
41.The long war against God : the history and impact of the creati
(1989)
42.The meaning of creation : Genesis and modern science / Conrad
(1984)
43.The monkey trial [videorecording] / A & E Television Networks.
(1997)
44.The natural limits to biological change / Lane P. Lester and Ra
(1984)
45.A new look at an old earth / Don Stoner. (1997)
46.The origin of species revisited : the theories of evolution and
(1991)
47.Origin science : a proposal for the creation-evolution controve
(1987)
48.Philosophy of biology / Elliott Sober. (1993)
49.Portraits of creation : biblical and scientific perspectives on
(1990)
50.A Question of origins [videorecording] : creation or evolution
(1998)
51.The remarkable record of Job : the ancient wisdom, scientific a
(1988)
52.The Rev. Dr. Harry Rimmer [microform] : a creationist's quest
(1994)
53.The rocks are shouting! / by Cora E. Cypser. (1997)
54.Science and creationism : a view from the National Academy of S
(1999)
55.Science and creationism : a view from the National Academy of S
(1984)
56.Science and Religion (1981)
57.Science & religion : opposing viewpoints / Janelle Rohr, book
(1998)
58.Science held hostage : what's wrong with creation science and e
(1988)
59.Scientific creationism / prepared by the technical staff and co
(1985)
60.Stories of the beginning : Genesis 1-11 and other creation stor
(1996)
61.Three views on creation and evolution / J.P. Moreland and John
(1999)
62.Tower of Babel : the evidence against the new creationism / Ro
(1999)
63.The troubled waters of evolution / by Henry M. Morris. (1982)
64.What is Creation Science? (1987)
65.What is creation science? / by Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Park
(1987)
66.Worth noting : editorials, letters, essays, an interview, and
(1988)
And here's a quick copy from a nearby college library:
Search Request: Subject Browse = creationism
Evolving dialogue : theological and scientific perspectives on
evolution / James B. Miller, editor. 2001
Tower of Babel : the evidence against the new creationism / Robert T.
Pennock. 2000
Paul and creationism [microform] : Paul's response to Corinthian
wisdom in 1 Corinthinas 1-4 and its implications for the current
creation versus evolution debate / Michael Luper. 1996
Creation [microform] : scientific myth or religious fact, a
post-modern reflection on creationism / by Bruce Norman. 1996
Stories of the beginning : Genesis 1-11 and other creation stories /
Ellen van Wolde ; [translated by John Bowden]. 1996
Creation and evolution in the early American Scientific Affiliation /
edited with an introduction by Mark A. Kalthoff. 1995
Creation-evolution debates / edited with introductions by Ronald L.
Numbers. 1995
Early creationist journals / edited with introductions by Ronald L.
Numbers. 1995
Antievolution works of Arthur I. Brown / edited with introductions by
Ronald L. Numbers. 1995
Early writings of Harold W. Clark and Frank Lewis Marsh / edited with
introductions by Ronald L. Numbers.
1995
Creationist writings of Byron C. Nelson / edited with an introduction
by Paul Nelson. 1995
Selected works of George McCready Price / edited with introductions by
Ronald L. Numbers. 1995
Creation hypothesis : scientific evidence for an intelligent designer
/ J.P. Moreland, editor ; 1994
Evolution extended : biological debates on the meaning of life /
edited by Connie Barlow. 1994
Case for creation / by Wayne Frair and Percival Davis ; illustrated by
Carla Field. 1994
Rev. Dr. Harry Rimmer [microform] : a creationist's quest for
scientific legitimacy / Roger Schultz. 1994
History of the creation : a Christian view of inorganic and organic
evolution / Robert M. Gascoigne.
Creationism Sober, Elliott. Philosophy of biology / Elliott Sober.
1993
Bones of contention : a creationist assessment of the human fossils /
Marvin L. Lubenow. 1992
Creationists / Ronald L. Numbers. 1992
Origin of species revisited : the theories of evolution and of abrupt
appearance / by W.R. Bird. 1991
Creation theology in the Old Testament [microform] / R. Jerome Boone.
1991
Portraits of creation : biblical and scientific perspectives on the
world's formation / Howard J. Van Till [et al.]. 1990
Evolution as dogma : the establishment of naturalism / by Phillip E.
Johnson. 1990
Long war against God : the history and impact of the
creation/evolution conflict / Henry M. Morris.
Worth noting : editorials, letters, essays, aninterview, and
bibliography / by Sanford Berman ; with a foreword by Bill Katz. 1988
Cult archaeology and creationism : understanding pseudoscientific
beliefs about the
past / edited by Francis B. Harrold and Raymond A. Eve. 1987
Origin science : a proposal for the creation-evolution controversy /
Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson ; 1987
What is creation science? / by Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker.
1987
Evolution & creation : a Catholic understanding / William Kramer. 1986
Life-- how did it get here? : by evolution or by creation? 1985
Creationism on trial : evolution and God at Little Rock / Langdon
Gilkey. 1985
Science and creationism : a view from the National Academy of Sciences
/ Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences.
1984
Meaning of creation : Genesis and modern science / Conrad Hyers. 1984
In the beginning-- : a scientist shows why the creationists are wrong
/ Chris McGowan. 1984
Did the Devil make Darwin do it? : modern perspectives on the
creation-evolution
controversy / edited by David B. Wilson with the assistance of Warren
D. Dolphin. 1983
Is God a creationist? : the religious case against creation-science /
edited by Roland Mushat
Frye. 1983
Thompson, Adell. Biology, zoology, and genetics : evolution model vs.
creation model / Adell Thompson. 1983
Creation Research Society quarterly.
Meaning of creation : Genesis and modern science / Conrad Hyers. 1984
Life-- how did it get here? : by evolution or by creation? 1985
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
DVD
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3BBC97B6...@fast.net...
[snip]
> Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
> by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
> knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
> money.
> *****************************************
Funny, my public library has a number of creationist books right next to the
books on evolution. Doesn't seem to be any censorship there...
There is a huge amount of creationist propaganda on the web...no censorship
there, either.
Hmm.
[more snippage]
Aron-Ra
> >
> > The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
> >
> > Silence.
> >
> > There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
> >
> > But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> In my opinion presenting the creationist position in this forum is
> largely a waste of time. Why waste time with what secular society
> considers silly superstitious religious nonsense?
Just keep repeating that to yourself until you finally understand that
question.
That's evolution. Evolutionism implies some religious position. But then
that was a direct attempt at a misrepresentation, wasn't it? How honest of
you.
> has no empirically testable explanation why the fossil
> record only shows the "end nodes" of Darwin's tree of life but not a
> single transitional form with structures in a "nascent condition."
coyote
\ *Canis nehringi*
red wolf /
\ *dire wolf* domesticated dogs
\ / \ | /
American wolf Eurasian wolf
\ /
gray wolf
\
African cape dogs jackals
\ /
*Canis etrucus*
|
lots more
Please point out the "end node". Shall I point out the nascent
transitionals to you?
Just give me an example of anywhere in biology where you would expect to
find a nascent transitional, and I'll show it to you. Care to "test" me on
this?
> That
> is, the fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly and abruptly
> in the fossil record with fully formed mature structures.
One must conclude that you have never seen the fossil record. I've been
studying it with a great deal of interest for months. And I can't believe
how many of these fluid transitions there actually are and that I would
never have known about if I didn't do the research.
Maybe you should follow my lead.
> These fossil
> creatures disappear from the fossil record after several million years
> pretty much unchanged.
Then you really haven't seen the fossil record at all, have you? Ever heard
of a cynodont? How about Dromiceiomimus? Acanthostega? Livonia? Or do
you only know about those prehistoric animals that come in the little
plastic bags in the toy department of your grocery store?
I'll bet you didn't even know that there are several transitionals leading
from Allosaurus to Tyrannosaurs, even though their almost the same thing to
start with. And there are a host of transitionals joining ankylosaurus to
stegosaurus with lots and lots of nascent species in between. Like I said,
you tell me where you think we lack one, and I'll show it to you.
> Punc Eq was an attempt at explanation but has
> never garnered consensus.
I just gotta hear you elaborate on that. How have you determined this?
From what source?
> Does this mean evolutionism should be
> banished.
Yes. Anyone who cannot discern science from religion should be banished.
Evolution = the study of scientific facts of biology
Evolutionism = a religious notion with no adherents, hence it doesn't exist.
> Creationism has no problem with this observation of the
> fossil record.
If you close your eyes, you can't see it. If you can't see it, it isn't
there. No problem.
But I defy you to prove that claim by answering each of the questions I've
posed to you in this post. If you can't, then you must certainly have a
problem with it after all.
Care to be shown up in public forum by your own inadequacies yet again?
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
SUDSM <su...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011004144625...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> Light [available energy] "Let there be light" could not have evolved.
> How did it get here?
> This is the perfect creationist argument.
If that's the best you can do, why do you keep trying?
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
DVD <van...@tausim.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:r42v7.6714$8X3.122...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Funny, my public library has a number of creationist books right next to
the
> books on evolution. Doesn't seem to be any censorship there...
> There is a huge amount of creationist propaganda on the web...no
censorship
> there, either.
And several hours per day on at least a half-a-dozen channels on TV and
radio all committed to creationism every day of every week. But let someone
produce a single documentary that explains evolution and look out!
Aron-Ra
TomS
<01c14cfe$4cf037a0$d0aa...@myhost.u.washington.edu>, "Floyd" stated..."
Thanks for reminding me of that. That would explain a lot.
I have to admit to an ulterior motive in asking for the theory
of creationism. Here are the possible outcomes:
1. Silence.
2. Some very (shall I say) "unconventional" ideas would pop up.
Like God designing the world of life before the Fall, with all of
the mechanisms for disease and death and defenses in place, but
not activated, because He foresaw the Fall.
3. An actual description of what "create" means.
(1) and (2), I hoped, would be seen by the onlookers, those
who aren't familiar with creationism, and they'd think, "This
creationism is far odder than I could have imagined." That's
where your remark applies, and that's my ulterior motive. And
here we are!
(3), I continue to hope for. For IMHO, if someone actually
gives a description of "create" which is not of type (2), then
it will be perfectly obvious that it has no conflict with
"evolve".
Tom S.
Steven J.
> >
> > The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
> >
> > Silence.
> >
> > There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
> >
> > But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> In my opinion presenting the creationist position in this forum is
> largely a waste of time. Why waste time with what secular society
> considers silly superstitious religious nonsense? Wouldn't that be a
> genuine waste of time? Shouldn't we devote all of our time to some
> penetrating criticism of the honored paradigm of our age which is held
> up to be the best that secular science has to offer? Silly,
> superstituous, religious nonsense vs. the "best" secular science has
> to offer. I'd rather take shots at the best and determine if there is
> any secular defense.
>
if its earliest adherents had shared your assumptions that it is
ineffective to argue *for* a belief your audience doesn't already
hold, but that it *is* effective to try to poke random holes in a
strawman version of their beliefs. Surely there would be some merit
in making a positive case for creationism, and showing that it is
*not* simply superstitious nonsense. Otherwise, no matter how many
holes you poke in evolutionary theory (and you've poked no important
ones), you'll STILL be facing an audience that, while it may have no
account of origins of its own, still regards yours as worthless.
Two side issues:
First, you are, of course, wrong (and inconsistent) to ignore the
creationists and undecided lurkers who read your posts. Given that
there *are* some people reading this NG who would be quite willing to
accept a theory of creationism -- and you know this -- your refusal to
provide one is tantamount to an admission that you know of none.
Second, you aren't interested in whether "there is any secular
defense." You ignore or misunderstand (so blatantly and
preposterously that I suspect it is deliberate) the numerous
corrections offered to your error-ridden rants.
In short, your first paragraph here is entirely dishonest.
>
> To suggest that because the creationist position is not presented in
> this forum to the satisfaction of TomS that there is no creationist
> explanation is an argument from complete ignorance. There is a
> relatively small but growing collection of creationist publications and
> full length works with which TomS could disabuse himself of this
> ignorant bluster. Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
> by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
> knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
> money.
>
Lying is bad for your spiritual health, Tony.
Name one of these works which sets forth a theory of creation. Don't
whine about alleged "secular censorship," which supposedly allows
works by Behe and Dembski and Johnson which criticize evolution on
library and bookstore shelves, but bans the supposed works which
actually set forth a creationist theory. You claim someone has
written these works; there are Christian bookstores, websites, and so
forth where they could be sold if no one else would have them (in
point of fact, the ICR prefers to sell direct rather than through
bookstores, which is why even Christian bookstores don't carry their
works).
For that matter, why are there websites which attack "Darwinism" from
every conceivable standpoint (YEC, OEC, ID, Muslim, eonic), but you
can't name ONE that sets forth a theory of creation? Does does some
secret international agency allow almost any other idea, but spring
into action to prevent any theory of creation from being posted?
Or is there, indeed, simply no such theory?
> *****************************************
>
>
>
>
> TomS continues:
> > Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> > seems to agree:
> >
> > "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> > does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> > be banished."
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolutionism has no empirically testable explanation why the fossil
> record only shows the "end nodes" of Darwin's tree of life but not a
> single transitional form with structures in a "nascent condition." That
> is, the fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly and abruptly
> in the fossil record with fully formed mature structures. These fossil
> creatures disappear from the fossil record after several million years
> pretty much unchanged. Punc Eq was an attempt at explanation but has
> never garnered consensus. Does this mean evolutionism should be
> banished. Creationism has no problem with this observation of the
> fossil record.
>
It has been explained to you, at length, that this is false. You
would rather sling around second-hand quotes out of context than deal,
honestly, with the gradual development of the _rete mirabile_ in early
whales, or the splendid record of the development of modern feet and
dentition in the horse series, or Elsberry's foram example, or what
possible creationist explanation exists for _Dorudon atrox_ or
_Archaeopteryx lithographica_ except, "God did it that way, because He
wanted to, and stop asking nosy questions."
For that matter, why the fossil record is imperfect has been explained
to you, and your brilliant response has been to ignore the
explanations entirely. Again, this is dishonest of you.
You really ought to know something about Punk Eek before you
pontificate on it.
> ******************************************
>
>
>
> TomS continues:
> > What is the theory of creationism?
> >
> > Despite a determined effort not to say anything, there are some
> > lapses of the creationists, when they present some arguments against
> > evolution.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Sometimes it is true----like with the complete absence of nascent
> structures in the fossil record----that a contradiction of evolutionism
> is easily incorporated into the creationist model.
>
Since "nascent" is either meaningless, or describes a variety of
structures found in the fossil record, you are claiming that
creationism can easily accomodate meaningless blather, or falsehoods.
Granted, this may be the one point on which your position is immune
from criticism.
> *****************************************
>
>
>
> TomS continues:
> > What happens, though, is that the principles invoked by the
> > creationists are self-defeating. In those few cases.
> >
> > What you will find out is that they quickly forget those few
> > principles when they are talking about something else.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Vague speechmaking.
>
As diagnosed by the master.
> **************************************
>
>
> TomS continues:
> > Perhaps the classic example is the creationist version of the
> > 2nd law of thermodynamics, that principle which says that order
> > cannot come about without an intelligent agent But then, they
> > say that the order in the fossil record came about by hydrodynamic
> > sorting ... not an intelligent agent.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is the classic and inappropriate conflation of "order" and
> "complexity." A crystal is highly ordered but has little complexity and
> can store very little information. Hydrodynamic sorting also creates
> order but little complexity. Complexity is defined by creationists in
> terms of its information content. Living creatures are highly complex.
>
Complexity can easily be created by mere randomness. Pay more
attention to Dembski. What you mean is that without an intelligent
agent, *specified* complexity cannot originate (ignore Behe's
"irreducible complexity" -- he's simply wrong on this point). The
trouble is, randomness *plus* the filter provided by natural selection
*can* produce specified complexity (and, for that matter, irreducible
complexity).
For that matter, many creationists express the matter precisely as Tom
said they do.
>
> Here is, generally speaking, the "actual" creationist position (as
> opposed to TomS's ignorant caricature of it) concerning the production
> of low entropy "complex" systems:
>
> 1. The system must be open.
>
Correction: not isolated. An open system is one which can exchange
both matter and energy with the exterior. A closed system can
exchange energy, but not matter. An isolated system can exchange
neither. Of course, the terrestrial biosphere is certainly not
isolated; it is not really even closed.
>
> 2. An adequate outside supply of energy must be available.
>
Surely you have noticed volcanoes, the sun, etc.?
>
> 3. An energy conversion system must exist to convert raw, uncontrolled
> energy coming in from the outside to a controlled form that can be used
> in a "constructive" way by the system undergoing change.
>
"Creation scientists" just made this up; no research supports it.
Certainly the assembly of simple organic molecules from simpler ones
is possible without any "energy conversion system" beyond that
provided by the laws of chemistry. For that matter, what do you
imagine "conversion" of energy amounts to? The energy in living
things is just used to move atoms around, combine and separate them.
This happens in all chemical systems. As far as a can tell, "energy
[must be converted] to a controlled form" simply assumes what it is
offered as evidence for -- that specified complexity cannot arise
spontaneously, without intelligent guidance.
>
> 4. There must be a control system capable of regulating the activities
> of the system undergoing change, such that the changes are progressive
> and integrative rather than meaningless and destructive.
>
This is vague; it's either a restatement of (3), above, or it
describes the process of natural selection, which eliminates
deleterious changes and conserves useful ones.
By the way, these points conflate abiogenesis and evolution. Even if
we grant that life could not spontaneously arise, once it had arisen,
it would have these features (assuming, as I did with "nascent" above,
that these phrases of yours actually mean something). Therefore, by
your own argument, it could aquire new specified complexity.
>
> If an intelligent agent is the only way to satisfy condtions (3) and (4)
> then so be it. The evolutionists on the other hand only require
> conditions (1) and (2) for complexity to arise. Taken to its absurd
> conclusion that would mean that if we shined sunshine on a pile of
> lumber and nails that given enough time it could, in principle,
> transform itself into a two story colonial house. Absolutely absurd.
>
The laws of chemistry are not the same as the laws of carpentry. Has
no one ever pointed this out to you? Two boards and a handful of
nails, left to themselves and heated, will not even nail themselves
together in the most haphazard fashion. On the other hand, a mixture
of simple compounds like methane, water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide
*will* "nail" themselves together to form simple nucleotides and amino
acids. Does this prove that life could organize itself from
lifelessness? Admittedly, no, but it ought to suggest to you that
your analogy is grossly, probably fatally, flawed.
Again, to the extent that this argument *means* anything, it applies
only to abiogenesis. To be a proper analogy to evolution, you would
have to start with a tool shed, and assert that it could evolve into a
two-story colonial house. And, by the way, the tool shed can produce
baby tool sheds, which grow up and have more babies. Some of the baby
sheds are mutated in various ways, and some of these mutations move
the shed incrementally closer to a "colonial mansion" form.... And
you're probably saying that this is even more absurd than your
original analogy; this is true only because tool sheds *don't*
reproduce and mutate. But bacteria and protists do, and that makes
rather a hash of the point of your analogy.
> *********************************************
>
>
>
> TomS continues:
> 2.
> >
> > But that's only confined to the "young-earth-flood-geology"
> > creationists.
> >
> > What I'm interested in is the principles invoked by the more
> > "sophisticated macro-evolution deniers".
> >
> > Such as the principle that evolution means that some values,
> > such as truth, love, beauty, morality, can't exist.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not so much that they can't exist but that they are purely subjective.
> If fornication resulted in a reproductive advantage (or not) it can only
> be considered "natural" not immoral under the evolutionist philosophy.
>
Fornication is "natural" even under a creationist paradigm, unless
Hugh Hefner is your idea of a supernatural being. Please note that
natural selection theory is descriptive, not prescriptive; it doesn't
tell us how to act. This should not be hard to understand. You hold
that we are created, not merely by God, but in the image of God, but
surely do not think we ought to try to act like God in every respect;
I assume there are certain possible behaviors you would forbid as
"playing God." We are not even created in the image of natural
selection, nor is there any reason why we should care what it wants,
assuming it were capable of wanting anything.
>
> Since (under evolutionist philsophy) behavior is simply a component of
> natural selection EVERY conceivable behavior can only be labeled
> "natural." Under such a philosophy the further labeling of particular
> behaviors as "bad" or "immoral" are only subjective constructions of
> man. Such a philosophy is in direct conflict with most (if not all)
> Christian denominations.
>
Every conceivable behavior is natural. This does not mean that every
conceivable behavior is compatible with our consciences or long-term
happiness. Aside from assuming that God cannot work through, or
reveal His will to the products of, evolution, you assume that
morality exists only as imposed by higher Authority. That morality
might be intrinsic in human nature (however derived) seems to have
escaped you -- a serious oversight, I think.
>
> more to follow if time permits
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
John Wilkins
> Fornication is "natural" even under a creationist paradigm, unless
> Hugh Hefner is your idea of a supernatural being.
Now I ask you. Is that sig material or is that sig material?
Marty Fouts
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
> by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
> knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
> money.
In today's internet society, many public libraries have their catalogs
available online. This makes it a relatively trivial excercise to see
how accurate your statement is. Lets see what books some public
libraries in the US have. To make the test fairer to Pagano, I will
not use big city libraries, since they carry more volumes, and are
less selective about what they carry. I think the smaller libraries
will be a better test.
Glendale Public Library, Arizona
http://www.lib.ci.glendale.az.us/
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- Yes.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
Jefferson County, Alabama
http://catalog.jclc.org/search/
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- Yes.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
Redwood City, California
http://www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/library/rcpl.html
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- Yes.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
Nampa Public Library, Nampa Idaho
http://www.lili.org/nampa/
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- Yes.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
Natrona County Library System, Wyoming
http://www.library.natrona.net/
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- Yes.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
I could go on, and spend more time browsing library catalogs, but I
think the point is clear. Pagano's claim is only half right. Public
libraries, even small rural ones, do indeed carry books by Hitler and
about homosexuality. (I did not want to pick any single author, so I
browsed for the subject, instead.) The same libraries, contrary to
Pagano's claim, also carry at least two of the more recent and
well-known creationist works, as well.
It would seem, contrary to Pagano's distressed and ill-informed claim,
that the first amendment is alive and well in the nation's libraries.
--Mike Dunford
Marty Fouts
Mike Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> writes:
[snip]
> In today's internet society, many public libraries have their
> catalogs available online. This makes it a relatively trivial
> excercise to see how accurate your statement is. Lets see what books
> some public libraries in the US have. To make the test fairer to
> Pagano, I will not use big city libraries, since they carry more
> volumes, and are less selective about what they carry. I think the
> smaller libraries will be a better test.
>
[snip]
You made me curious, so I checked my local library, which is online
and came up with
http://library.ci.mtnview.ca.us
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- No.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
also, my alma mater
http://www.mtech.edu/library/online1.htm
Author = Hitler, Adolf -- Yes.
Subject = homosexuality -- Yes.
Title = Darwin's Black Box -- Yes.
Title = Darwin on Trial -- Yes.
alas, my home town's library is not yet online.
H,R.Gruemm
> > Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> > seems to agree:
> >
> > "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> > does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> > be banished."
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolutionism has no empirically testable explanation why the fossil
> record only shows the "end nodes" of Darwin's tree of life but not a
> single transitional form with structures in a "nascent condition." That
> is, the fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly and abruptly
> in the fossil record with fully formed mature structures. These fossil
> creatures disappear from the fossil record after several million years
> pretty much unchanged. Punc Eq was an attempt at explanation but has
> never garnered consensus. Does this mean evolutionism should be
> banished. Creationism has no problem with this observation of the
> fossil record.
> ******************************************
The absolute chutzpah of Pagano can only be properly evaluated by
finding suitable analogies for his blatant falsehoods in other fields
of science:
"Physics cannot explain how lead spontaneusly transmutes into gold,
and how energy conservation is violated every Friday at noon.
Chemistry cannot explain how water reacts with sulfuric acid to form
calcium carbonate.
Geology cannot explain why mountains regularly form in a single day,
and contain mainly Swiss cheese"
Pagano's claims about the fossil records are not less contrafactual
than my absurd examples - and this has been demonstrated to him many
times.
After some time, statements based on wilful ignorance become lies.
Difficile est satiram non scribere
HRG.
<snip>
American Liberal
If you think the truth is going to stop Pagano, you haven't been around long
enough.
--
Religion is no more good, or less evil, than the people who practice it.
RLnRL900
>In my opinion presenting the creationist position in this forum is
>largely a waste of time. Why waste time with what secular society
>considers silly superstitious religious nonsense? Wouldn't that be a
>genuine waste of time? Shouldn't we devote all of our time to some
>penetrating criticism of the honored paradigm of our age which is held
>up to be the best that secular science has to offer? Silly,
>superstituous, religious nonsense vs. the "best" secular science has
>to offer. I'd rather take shots at the best and determine if there is
>any secular defense.
We argue because it's interesting, but I think everyone here understands that
no one will be persuaded.
Someone presents a creationist arguement, and quotes the bible..........I say
they haven't proven their point, because I don't accept the bible as fact. To
them they have just given ultimate proof. To me they just tried to pass a
fairytale off as reality.
I say something is fact because a group spent years and millions of dollars
doing scientific studies.........a creationist says I haven't proven anything.
I think I have presented an argument that any reasonable person would have to
accept. They say my science only suggests what happened, but since neither they
or I were there to witness the event, I am twisting my speculations to my own
advantage.
We both leave the computer thinking "what would it be like to be mentally and
emotionally handicapped like that idiot"?
But it's intriguing and that's all.
> if TomS is "really" interested in
>knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
>money.
Tom doesn't care about the creationist position. We all know that. He want's to
know how you know.
Someone (parents, teacher, pastor, etc.) told me doesn't count. I told my boys
there was a Santa Clause.
Someone (or group of someones) wrote it down doesn't count. Dr.Suess wrote down
"Horton hears a Who."
Things are so miraculous that there must be a God doesn't count. I say things
are so miraculous that the universe must be infinite.
And the big one. Just because I can't explain it doesn't mean you have proven
your point. It only means that there is an example on the table that's truly
perplexing. We would just go back and forth. You say "It's so wild that you
don't know what to say. How much more proof of God is there?" Than I say
"10,000 years ago there were hundreds of thousands of mysteries. Our science &
technology has solved most of them. In the very near future science will solve
that one also."
Totally unwinnable. This whole web site is most likely feeding a study on human
behavior somewhere.
RLnRL900
>> How did it get here?
>> This is the perfect creationist argument.
>
>If that's the best you can do, why do you keep trying?
>
>Aron-Ra
>
>
>
>
Wow, I truly feel sorry for you.
Steven J.
> A Pagano wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> > find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
> > by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
> > knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
> > money.
>
> In today's internet society, many public libraries have their catalogs
> available online. This makes it a relatively trivial excercise to see
> how accurate your statement is. Lets see what books some public
> libraries in the US have. To make the test fairer to Pagano, I will
> not use big city libraries, since they carry more volumes, and are
> less selective about what they carry. I think the smaller libraries
> will be a better test.
>
>
> I could go on, and spend more time browsing library catalogs, but I
> think the point is clear. Pagano's claim is only half right. Public
> libraries, even small rural ones, do indeed carry books by Hitler and
> about homosexuality. (I did not want to pick any single author, so I
> browsed for the subject, instead.) The same libraries, contrary to
> Pagano's claim, also carry at least two of the more recent and
> well-known creationist works, as well.
>
that he was addressing TomS's complaint that criticisms of
evolutionary theory are common, but that positive descriptions of, and
evidence for, creationism are nonexistent. Pagano's counter-claim was
that *these* works are censored; secular institutions tolerate the
sort of works that Tom noticed, but not the ones that actually present
a theory of creation. Pagano did not give the titles or authors of
any such works, so it might be difficult to check for them.
In addition, Pagano, above, mentioned books by creationist
*organizations*, such as the ICR. He had earlier complained that such
works were "censored" even by secular bookstores, but seems to have
noticed that the ICR, for example, does not sell its works through
bookstores anyway. These works, available only by special order,
presumably, contain some hints of the elusive ToC. To properly test
Pagano's claim, you would have to cross-check the ICR's and AiG's
mailing list with various libraries' holdings. My hometown library
had Henry M. Morris's _Creation Science_ in its card catalog, but the
work appears to be permanantly missing from the shelves. It did at
one time have an old copy of the YEC textbook, _Biology: a Search for
Order in Complexity_.
>
> It would seem, contrary to Pagano's distressed and ill-informed claim,
> that the first amendment is alive and well in the nation's libraries.
>
The first amendment, yes, but the elusive ToC is still being
suppressed by a massive conspiracy. Or possibly by the lack of any
such theory. Whichever.
>
> --Mike Dunford
-- Steven J.
Paul Yost
> [snip]
>
> > Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> > find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
> > by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
> > knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
> > money.
I must agree with Mike below. My city is not all that big, but
discounting biology and paleontology texts, creationist books
outnumber books supporting evolution. I read "Polonium Halos:
Creation's Tiny Mystery" by Robert Gentry, and "Darwin on Trial" by
Phillip Johnson. There were half a dozen other creationist titles I
did not get around to reading. The library did NOT have Richard
Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," or one other book supporting
evolution I really wanted to read. I went ahead and bought TBW at the
book store, and picked up another interesting volume at the same time.
I don't think the local library is purposefully trying to repress
evolutionary viewpoints, I just suspect they attempt to cater to the
populace's tastes. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to fill
shelf space with volumes no one ever reads.
When I lived in Elko, Nevada, any book not available at the local
library could be ordered through the inter-library loan program. Many
states have such programs. It means you may have to wait a month or
two until the title you want becomes available (I had to wait three
weeks for Larry Niven's, "Ringworld"), but the titles are available.
Enough requests for a book would likely prompt the librarians to add
it to their collection. Librarians, as a general rule, hate
censorship, and pride themselves on stocking every conceivable
viewpoint on a subject.
How many librarians have you heard about supporting public book
burnings of "Catcher in the Rye," "Mein Kampf," "Huckleberry Finn,"
"Harry Potter," or any other hotly contested, detestable work of
literature? Librarians rarely think that way. They are just happy to
see people reading, regardless of what it is.
As a test, get a tattoo of a swastika on your face, wear torn camo
fatigues, go into your local library and ask for a copy of "The
Anarchist's Cookbook." I doubt the librarian will bat an eye as he
has you sign the card. That is what liberalism is all about. You can
say, read, or think whatever you want, as a private citizen. But you
ought still be held responsible for your actions.
Mike Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3BBD4DAD...@hawaii.rr.com>...
> In today's internet society, many public libraries have their catalogs
R. Tang
>that the first amendment is alive and well in the nation's libraries.
Wouldn't "distressed and ill-informed" describe all of Pagano's
claims?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
TomS
<20011005103036...@mb-ct.aol.com>, rlnr...@aol.com stated..."
[...snip...]
>Tom doesn't care about the creationist position. We all know that. He want's to
>know how you know.
No, really, I *do* want to know the creationist position on what
it means to create or to be created.
I have become quite convinced, having read quite a bit of
various kinds of creationist literature (Roland Numbers has
republished some of the earliest creationist writings, and I
try, at least, to search the latest books on whether somebody
has decided to break the silence) and having participated in
talk.origins for several years, watching people ask this same
question, over and over, "What is the theory of creationism?"
I have become convinced that there is *no* substance to
creationism, other than "evolution is nasty". Oh, yes, I know
that there are a few minor ideas out there, on the periphery,
like the "Vapor Canopy" or "Decaying Speed of Light". I know
that the "Young Earth Creationists" insist on a date for
creation. And most creationists admit that they're thinking
of the God of Genesis as the only One who does creating.
But nobody ever tells us what that creating might have
been.
Obviously, I don't know the motivation behind the silence.
You'd think that it would be embarrassing to them to have
to keep silent.
I trust that there are people out there, lurkers, people
who haven't heard much about creationism, and are wondering
what is going on.
I remember my first exposure to creationism, many years
ago, I happened upon a radio preacher who had a sermon every
week against evolution. I was curious about this, so I listened
for a few weeks. It began to dawn on me, "What kind of a
religion is this, when all it seems to consist of is that
evolution is wrong?"
We keep hearing about these research institutes, about the
number of scientists who are creationists. But we never hear
what they are researching ... other, that is, in trying to
find something wrong with evolution.
I am not looking for evidence, "how you know".
I am intending to keep our audience aware that there is
no theory of creationism. And there is no embarrassment over
this lack. I also intend to point out the inconsistencies of
creationism.
I intend to think of every way possible to make this
completely clear to everyone.
Tom S.
David Horn
> [snip]
>
> > Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
> > find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the
> > public library but not by creationist organizations. So
> > if TomS is "really" interested in knowing the creationist
> > position he'll have to part with some of his money.
So now Pagano wants to sell books for the ICR?
> In today's internet society, many public libraries have
> their catalogs available online. This makes it a relatively
> trivial excercise to see how accurate your statement is.
Does the phrase "this is easily checked" sound familiar?
[Snip remainder]
Good job, Mike, but likely futile. Pagano has made this claim frequently in
the past, though I must confess that I haven't seen it in a while. Of
course, his claim is as false as most other claims he makes. Pagano wrote
this in January, 1999:
"I suggest anyone conduct a simple test. Go to your nearest library, key in
the words 'creation science,' or 'creationist' into the computerized index,
and tell me what you find. If you find anything at all you'll find works
villifying creationists."
Ref, http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=36AA384E.89E48987%40fast.net
These responses addressed that claim, challenged it and, of course, there
was no response from Pagano:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36ab4b75.161132680%40news.usxchange.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=0f6515525001819UPSMOT07%40msn.com
That was just one example.
Meanwhile a search of prominent creationist authors turns up the following
results:
Morris, Henry M., 3 titles on creationism
Parker, Gary, 1 title on creationism (with Richard Bliss and Duane Gish)
Johnson, Phillip E., 5 titles on creationism
Baugh, Carl E., 1 title on creationism
Morris, John D., 2 titles on creationism
So the Denver Public Library had works on all five of the first creationist
names I bothered to search. This is the search page for DPL:
http://www.denver.lib.co.us/libaccess.html
Meanwhile, the Aurora (Colorado) Public Library lists 5 entires for Henry
Morris, 2 entries for Duane Gish, 4 entries for Phillip Johnson and even
sixty-nine entries for Tim LaHaye (who, to be fair, probably hasn't written
about creationism in years).
This is the search page for the Aurora (Colorado) Public Library:
http://odyssey.aurora.lib.co.us/search/a
I could cite other libraries in the local area, all of which I already know
have creationist works available for the readership (as I have already
demonstrated when Pagano made this claim in the past). Pagano's claim is
demonstrably false. He has been refuted...again.
And since Pagano has arrogantly decided to quote himself as a .sig, well,
it's only fair:
"I don't believe that Pagano is stupid. He's been posting in this newsgroup
long enough and he knows what it's all about. He claims that he is here to
challenge the evolutionary paradigm and so he must know that anything he
writes is going to generate responses and be challenged. Pagano claims that
he doesn't read the challenges (or, alternatively, that he doesn't read the
responses to his articles). To me, it is the height of intellectual
dishonesty to post articles in a newsgroup and ignore the responses that
Pagano must know are generated by his comments. It is also dishonest to
make claims that are unsupportable or that have been refuted, rebutted or
shown to be false, ignore those responses and falsifications, and make those
same claims at another time as if no challenge has ever been issued."
Wayne Bagguley
> Light [available energy] "Let there be light" could not have evolved.
> How did it get here?
God could not have evolved. How did it (allegedly) get here?
-
Wayne
A Pagano
> We argue because it's interesting, but I think everyone here understands that
> no one will be persuaded.
Pagano replies:
I simply provided why I don't waste my time providing the creationist
position. And while I don't think that the secularist or the atheist or
the agnostic will necessarily be persuaded there are many christians who
have been indoctrinated during their 6th through undergraduate education
who are skeptical and can be persuaded with the facts and harsh
criticism of the modern secular creation story.
***********************************
RLnRL900 wrote:
> Someone presents a creationist arguement, and quotes the bible..........I say
> they haven't proven their point, because I don't accept the bible as fact. To
> them they have just given ultimate proof. To me they just tried to pass a
> fairytale off as reality.
Pagano replies:
If you are an atheist or a secularist or an agnostic then no one is
trying to persuade you. Where would you get that impression? There are
plenty of christians who don't take the bible to be a fairytale but have
been indoctrinated during their education that evolutionism is fact but
are skeptical.
****************************************************
RLnRL900 wrote:
> I say something is fact because a group spent years and millions of dollars
> doing scientific studies.........a creationist says I haven't proven anything.
Pagano replies:
And the creationist would have a substantial body of knowledge from the
history of science, from the philosophy of science and from the
philosophy of logic which conclusively indicates that the level of
expenditure and the level of consensus has absolutely no relationship to
the truthlikeness of a theory. If you believe that it does then you have
been seriously misled. I suggest you investigate this for yourself.
Furthermore those scientists spending the millions have no special
insight into the truth unavailable to you or I. The "authority" in
their fields is no guarrantee whatsoever that the theories which they
favor today are true or even close to the truth. If this is what you
believe then you have been misled. Please investigate this for
yourself.
**********************************************
RLnRL900 wrote:
> I think I have presented an argument that any reasonable person would have to
> accept.
Pagano replies:
In fact I disagree with most of what you claim as misguided.
**************************************
RLnRL900 wrote:
> They say my science only suggests what happened, but since neither they
> or I were there to witness the event, I am twisting my speculations to my own
> advantage.
Pagano replies:
Sadly this speculation is passed off to the public and in the schools in
terms which mislead them to believe that it is indisputable fact. When
it is largely speculation and speculation with contradictions. The
serious contradictions are never presented because the secularists don't
want skeptics to be produced to question their scientific authority.
************************************
snip
RLnRL900 wrote:
> Totally unwinnable. This whole web site is most likely feeding a study on human
> behavior somewhere.
Pagano replies:
I have evidence that I am changing and strengthening minds one person at
a time. And that is my modest goal.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> And while I don't think that the secularist or the atheist or
> the agnostic will necessarily be persuaded there are many christians who
> have been indoctrinated during their 6th through undergraduate education
> who are skeptical and can be persuaded with the facts and harsh
> criticism of the modern secular creation story.
You know, I always get an image of Mr. Burns hitting a punching bag
when I read Tony's "harsh" criticisms of evolutionary biology.
Tony, you'd imress us a whole lot more if you could post these "harsh"
criticisms using a method other than the one you claim is false ;-)
R. Tang
>RLnRL900 wrote:
>> We argue because it's interesting, but I think everyone here understands that
>> no one will be persuaded.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I simply provided why I don't waste my time providing the creationist
>position. And while I don't think that the secularist or the atheist or
>the agnostic will necessarily be persuaded there are many christians who
>have been indoctrinated during their 6th through undergraduate education
>who are skeptical and can be persuaded with the facts and harsh
>criticism of the modern secular creation story.
This will not come from you, however.
You flat out lied when talking about censorship of creationist
works in libraries.
And you will be continued to be proclaimed a liar unless you
provide support for your accusations.
Rodjk
Has it occured to anyone that Pagano argues a lot like Phillip Johnson?
Is it more likely that Tony parrots PJ, or that Tony is PJ?
Rodjk #613
> HRG.
>
> <snip>
anne
A: Genesis chapter one
Louann Miller
>Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
>
>A: Genesis chapter one
So Genesis chapter two, where it contradicts Gen 1, is less than
inerrant?
(I don't have a list of the contradictions between the two, apart from
the different stories about how Adam and Eve came to be, but surely
someone around here does.)
Aron-Ra
Wayne Bagguley <snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:129d3f9f.01100...@posting.google.com...
And if we were made in God's image, why is he an ape?
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
RLnRL900 <rlnr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011005104243...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Why? Because I can tell the difference between cosmology and biology?
Aron-Ra
Adam Marczyk
news:25650-3B...@storefull-292.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
>
> A: Genesis chapter one
"It somehow happened through some mysterious magical process" is not a
theory.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> RLnRL900 wrote:
> > Totally unwinnable. This whole web site is most likely feeding a study
on human
> > behavior somewhere.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I have evidence that I am changing and strengthening minds one person at
> a time. And that is my modest goal.
Why do I get the feeling Tony is saying this to convince himself?
Ferrous Patella
says...
>
>Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
>
>A: Genesis chapter one
>
...for a given value of "theory".
--
Ferrous Patella
Please note all spellings are corrected to Oxford & Webster Solar Dictionary,
3rd ed, (c)MMCCXII
Nathan McKaskle
solved it but in the process destroying a fundamental belief. I recall
seeing more details elsewhere, if I can find it again I'll post it.
http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm#1%20&%202
I saw another page
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jb3srtgk2tdv7gqdm...@4ax.com...
Aron-Ra
>
> A: Genesis chapter one
The theory of creationism is an adaptation of Mesopotamian polytheistic
mythology? Interesting. I pretty much knew that, having already read Enuma
Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the first versions of most of your
Genesis fables were originally written approximately 1,500 years before
anyone had ever heard of either Adam or Jehova.
But then we're talking about a belief system common throughout Sumer,
Babylon, Akkad, and Chaldea that was devised sometime between 3800 BCE and
2200 BCE, right? Don't you think it more interesting when you jump ahead
another 900 years or so, to the inclusion of the primary gods of the
Egyptian pantheon, (presumeably by Moses) in his priesthood in the court of
Phaeroah? I mean at least by then, God wasn't represented as Gilgamesh
anymore, so he no longer had to wield a sword or wrestle with anybody. Once
Amen and Ra were made composite and added to the oral tradition of Chaldean
myths per Moses' alleged ancestry, God was finally allowed to be perceived
as the sun, (such as he is in Job) or as an invisible air-spirit and even a
volcano, (both at once in Exodus).
Of course the core of your arguement isn't based there either, though you
may think it is. Your particular position comes more from a much later
addition after 600 BCE. That would be when Zoroaster introduced the
concepts of Heaven and Hell under the wise lord Ahura-Mazda and his
counter-part, Ahriman.
Not that Ahriman was yet the character of Satan or anything. That is
another composite that wouldn't come along until after the influence of the
Greeks at least another couple centuries later and about the same time as
the first books of your Bible (and its new composite mythology) were finally
being written. He would be based on Lucifer, the pagan bringer of light,
(grossly misrepresented now as an evil thing, instead of the emmisary of
wisdom he was supposed to be) and combined with Pan, the god of fertility of
desire, as well as Hades, Ninhursag, Eriskigal, and somehow even Tiamat,
even though the original version of your Biblical creation heralds her as
the mother of the gods.
But the point of the question was not to reveal the pagan origins of
Biblical fables. It was to establish the actual theorum to your hypothesis.
What predictions does it make that we might test for to determine accuracy?
How could it be disproven? What facts would discredit it?
What evidence is this hypothesis based on? And how can that be verified?
You know, the same kind of rigid peer-reviewed skeptical cynicism that has
failed to discredit evolution despite continuous and ongoing attempts for
the last couple of centuries or so.
You know, you really should read more.
Start with the Bible. I think you should.
Be sure to read it all and actually consider what you're reading.
But don't stop there!
Aron-Ra
TomS
<25650-3B...@storefull-292.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, ann...@webtv.net
stated..."
>
>Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
>
>A: Genesis chapter one
>
If that is the theory of creationism, then why all the fuss
about evolution? If that is all that creationism were, then I
wouldn't be spending time in talk.origins. You see, I *know*
that there are Christian theologians who have talked about
*creation*. But they're not *creationists*, in the sense of
people who are opposed to (macro-)evolution. I have no problem
at all with faith in one's Creator.
(Of course, if this is the theory of creationism, then you're
going to have a hard time getting that taught in public school
science classes in the USA, but that's your problem.)
I've gone over Genesis 1 very thoroughly, and I haven't seen
where this is in conflict with evolution. A lot of Genesis 1 is
about the origins of non-living things.
(Actually, a few times, it says that the animals came from the
waters and the land. That sounds like it is compatible with
evolutionary ideas. But to discuss that is too much like arguing
over Scriptural interpretations.)
Tom S.
Erik
> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:9phmr...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
> >
> > Silence.
> >
> > There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
> >
> > But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
> >
> > Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> > seems to agree:
> >
> > "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> > does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> > be banished."
> >
>
> this.
>
> Aron-Ra
T.o.C. is quite simple. God created everything in its place. Some
forms of evolution ocurred from taht point on.
Just like evolution, we don't need to understand the mechanisms or all
the fine details. But the evidence that it happened is all around us.
Look at the person next to you. Clearly he exists so was created.
Erik
Louann Miller
wrote:
>You can some details on the contridictions here, though this claims to have
>solved it but in the process destroying a fundamental belief. I recall
>seeing more details elsewhere, if I can find it again I'll post it.
>
>http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm#1%20&%202
I thought the page you linked to was a little on the superficial side,
but I quite liked this one.
http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/creationistprojects.htm
Louann
Ronald Okimoto
Erik wrote:
Have you ever had anyone sitting next to you that was not created by common descent? Don't you think that your
argument would be much stronger if you had just one example of creation de novo? It looks like all lifeforms, even
humans, are created by natural means.
Ron Okimoto
Michael Painter
> "On 5 Oct 2001 15:22:33 -0400, in article
> <25650-3B...@storefull-292.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, ann...@webtv.net
> stated..."
> >
> >Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
> >
> >A: Genesis chapter one
> >
>
> If that is the theory of creationism, then why all the fuss
> about evolution? If that is all that creationism were, then I
> wouldn't be spending time in talk.origins. You see, I *know*
> that there are Christian theologians who have talked about
> *creation*. But they're not *creationists*, in the sense of
> people who are opposed to (macro-)evolution. I have no problem
> at all with faith in one's Creator.
>
> (Of course, if this is the theory of creationism, then you're
> going to have a hard time getting that taught in public school
> science classes in the USA, but that's your problem.)
>
> I've gone over Genesis 1 very thoroughly, and I haven't seen
> where this is in conflict with evolution. A lot of Genesis 1 is
> about the origins of non-living things.
Start over. The order of creation is wrong for many things.
In any event most of the creationists *require* that you accept this as the
literal truth, complete with 24 hour days and light before the sun.
If you're really interested in really studying it you must compare it with
the same story from another source found in Chapter II.
You must also be aware that the exact menaing of Gen 1:1 *can't* be known
today and probably never will be.
Read some current work on the subject.
Michael Painter
"Ronald Okimoto" <roki...@uark.edu> wrote in message
news:3BBE33CB...@mail.uark.edu...
>
>
><snip>
> Have you ever had anyone sitting next to you that was not created by
common descent?
There's been a few times....
Bigdakine
>From: Mike Dunford mdun...@hawaii.rr.com
>Date: 10/4/01 8:09 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3BBD4DAD...@hawaii.rr.com>
>
>A Pagano wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
>> find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
>> by creationist organizations. So if TomS is "really" interested in
>> knowing the creationist position he'll have to part with some of his
>> money.
>
>
>available online. This makes it a relatively trivial excercise to see
>that the first amendment is alive and well in the nation's libraries.
And Mike, you'll also find creationist works in the UH Manoa library as well by
the usual suspects including Gish and Morris. So thats at least one public
university that I know off which carries creationist works. I'd be willing to
be its not the only one.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Marty Fouts
"David Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> writes:
[snip]
> Pagano wrote this in January, 1999:
>
> "I suggest anyone conduct a simple test. Go to your nearest
> library, key in the words 'creation science,' or 'creationist' into
> the computerized index, and tell me what you find. If you find
> anything at all you'll find works villifying creationists."
>
An interesting claim. A quick check of the Montana University System
library demonstrates that it is incorrect. MUS even has a book by the
ICR. Not only that, but under the subject 'creationism' it had *more*
pro than anti books. (even if you assign all the books I couldn't
catagorize to *anti*)
Details:
I picked Montana, because the university library system is small, but
comes with the feature that Montana residents can easily obtain
access. Also, it is my home state, so I was curious about how it did
on the topic. I went to the University library system catalog at
http://www.mtech.edu/library/online1.htm
and followed instructions to get to the subject index. I then typed
in 'creationism' and found 40 titles. I don't know the authors very
well, so I've been conservative in the analysis below, but here's what
I came up with
apparently anti-creationist: 11
3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 31
apparently pro-creationist: 23
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33,
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
apparently neutral: 2
1, 29
position unclear: 4
18, 24, 25, 34,
Books were assigned to a category if their title made it obvious that
they belong to that category. When the title didn't make it obvious,
I looked for reviews of the book on the web.
I apologize for the formating of the entries, that's an artifact of
the lookup system used by the library, but anyone should be able to
exactly duplicate my results.
1. The creation/evolution controversy : an annotated bibliography
Hayward, James L.,
2. The troubled waters of evolution
Morris, Henry Madison,
3. Science and creationism
edited by Ashley Montagu
4. The long war against God : the history and impact of the creati
5. Bones of contention : a creationist assessment of the human fos
Lubenow, Marvin L.
6. Origin by design
Coffin, Harold G.
7. Scientific creationism
Institute for Creation Research.
8. Creation scientists answer their critics
Gish, Duane T.
9. Proceedings of the first International Conference on Creationism
International Conference on Creationism
10. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism
International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburg
11. The modern creation trilogy
Morris, Henry Madison
12. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism
International Conference on Creationism
13. Tower of Babel : the evidence against the new creationism
Pennock, Robert T.
14. Science, religion and evolution [videorecording] : the controve
Scott, Eugenie.
15. The triumph of evolution : and the failure of creationism
Eldredge, Niles.
16. Scientists confront creationism
17. Is God a creationist? : the religious case against
creation-science edited by Roland Mushat Frye.
18. The meaning of creation : Genesis and modern science
Hyers, M. Conrad.
19. Fallacies of creationism
Young, Willard A. (Willard Alexander)
20. Creationism on trial : evolution and God at Little Rock
Gilkey, Langdon Brown, 1919-
21. Anti-evolution : an annotated bibliography
McIver, Tom
22. Evolution and the myth of creationism : a basic guide to the fa
Berra, Tim M.
23. Dictionary of science & creationism
Ecker, Ronald L.
24. Portraits of creation : biblical and scientific perspectives on
25. Worth noting : editorials, letters, essays, an interview, and
Berman, Sanford
26. The Creation hypothesis : scientific evidence for an intelligen
27. What is creation science?
Morris, Henry M.
28. The origin of species revisited : the theories of evolution and
Bird, Wendell R.
29. The creationists
Numbers, Ronald L.
30. The mythmaker's magic : behind the illusion of "creation science"
McKown, Delos Banning.
31. Anti-evolution : a reader's guide to writings before and after
McIver, Tom.
32. Of pandas and people : the central question of biological origins
Davis, Percival H.
33. A case for creation
Frair, Wayne.
34. Creation and evolution in the early American Scientific
Affiliation
edited with an introduction by Mark A. Kalthoff.
35. Creation-evolution debates
edited with introductions by Ronald L. Numbers.
36. The creationist writings of Byron C. Nelson
Nelson, Byron C. (Byron Christopher)
37. Early creationist journals
edited with introductions by Ronald L. Numbers.
38. The early writings of Harold W. Clark and Frank Lewis Marsh
Clark, Harold Willard
39. Selected works of George McCready Price
Price, George McCready
40. The antievolution works of Arthur I. Brown
Brown, Arthur I., 1875-1947.
David Jensen
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<ajrv7.66194$W8.20...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
that I hoped so.
David Jensen
rjk...@yahoo.com (Rodjk) wrote in
<dbe402.011005...@posting.google.com>:
>Has it occured to anyone that Pagano argues a lot like Phillip Johnson?
>Is it more likely that Tony parrots PJ, or that Tony is PJ?
>Rodjk #613
Philip Johnson is An Important Lawyer which makes him an expert on
science (in the demented ways of lawyers). Why would he need a sock
puppet? Why wouldn't he Stand Up For Himself?
[Peruses history of Dissemblers Institute]
Ahh...
David Jensen
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<q8ov7.4496$3i3.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
He's the Librarian, of course.
Steven J.
> > We argue because it's interesting, but I think everyone here understands
> > that no one will be persuaded.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I simply provided why I don't waste my time providing the creationist
> position. And while I don't think that the secularist or the atheist or
> the agnostic will necessarily be persuaded there are many christians who
> have been indoctrinated during their 6th through undergraduate education
> who are skeptical and can be persuaded with the facts and harsh
> criticism of the modern secular creation story.
>
would be regarded as ridiculous and superstitious. Of course, this is
the same reaction scientifically knowledgeable persons have to your
"harsh criticisms" of the modern synthetic theory of evolution. I
think, in any case, that you're lying; you don't provide the
creationist position because you don't understand it yourself. Your
entire knowledge of both creationism and evolution seems derived from
reading creationist tracts.
There is some possibility that certain "confused Christians" whose
notion of skepticism consists (like Mike Goodrich's) simply of
doubting any theory they would prefer not to believe), will take
comfort that someone is defending their position. On the other hand,
watching your arguments demolished and your falsehoods exposed time
after time cannot be encouraging to such people. As for "the facts,"
the next actual fact you post in criticism of the theory of evolution,
will be your first.
> ***********************************
>
> RLnRL900 wrote:
> > Someone presents a creationist arguement, and quotes the bible..........I > > say they haven't proven their point, because I don't accept the bible as
> > fact. To them they have just given ultimate proof. To me they just tried to > > pass a fairytale off as reality.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If you are an atheist or a secularist or an agnostic then no one is
> trying to persuade you. Where would you get that impression? There are
> plenty of christians who don't take the bible to be a fairytale but have
> been indoctrinated during their education that evolutionism is fact but
> are skeptical.
>
In other words, you have no evidence that would persuade anyone who
didn't start out agreeing with you.
> ****************************************************
>
>
>
> RLnRL900 wrote:
> > I say something is fact because a group spent years and millions of dollars
> > doing scientific studies.........a creationist says I haven't proven
> > anything.
>
> Pagano replies:
> And the creationist would have a substantial body of knowledge from the
> history of science, from the philosophy of science and from the
> philosophy of logic which conclusively indicates that the level of
> expenditure and the level of consensus has absolutely no relationship to
> the truthlikeness of a theory. If you believe that it does then you have
> been seriously misled. I suggest you investigate this for yourself.
>
Does this apply only to officially designated "scientific theories,"
or is it a general problem of knowledge? Would you concede that no
level of evidence is sufficient to establish who committed a crime,
and that thus police work and courts are a waste of taxpayer money?
Would you concede that Christian apologetics are likewise a waste of
time and money -- that no religion can possibly be shown to be more
likely true than any other? Do you assume that all of history is just
guesswork, and that the work of historians is worthless in aquiring a
more accurate picture of the past? All of these conclusions follow
inevitably from the epistomological principle you espouse here.
Of course, historically, theories (as opposed to philosophical
speculations based on intuition or theology) are not simply shown to
be completely wrong, and discarded in favor of entirely unrelated
theories. Rather, they survive as approximations of (often broad and
frequent) special cases. Newton's theory didn't bring the sphericity
of the Earth into question. Einstein's revision of Newton's laws of
gravity and motion didn't justify a revival of geocentrism, or even a
rejection of the inverse-square law. This has happened, more than
once, to evolutionary theory. Weismann's rejection of Darwin's
speculation regarding inheritance did not disprove either the role of
natural selection, or the idea of common descent. Neither did genetic
theory. The modern synthesis will surely be replaced by some other
theory, as Newton's theories were. That theory will no more resemble
scientific creationism, that general relativity's cosmology resembles
the dome-over-a-flat-earth of the Babylonians.
>
> Furthermore those scientists spending the millions have no special
> insight into the truth unavailable to you or I. The "authority" in
> their fields is no guarrantee whatsoever that the theories which they
> favor today are true or even close to the truth. If this is what you
> believe then you have been misled. Please investigate this for
> yourself.
>
Why investigate? You've just asserted that knowing what you're
talking about is, in your opinion, no guarantee that you'll approach
the truth more closely than a bronze age goatherd. Or do you assume
that biologists and paleontologists find their "authority" in Cracker
Jack boxes?
> **********************************************
>
>
> RLnRL900 wrote:
> > I think I have presented an argument that any reasonable person would have > > to accept.
>
> Pagano replies:
> In fact I disagree with most of what you claim as misguided.
>
And this is relevant to RLnRL900's claim in what way? He was talking
about *reasonable* persons, not epistomological nihilists who think
that making up their facts constitutes "skepticism."
> **************************************
>
>
> RLnRL900 wrote:
> > They say my science only suggests what happened, but since neither they
> > or I were there to witness the event, I am twisting my speculations to my
> > own advantage.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Sadly this speculation is passed off to the public and in the schools in
> terms which mislead them to believe that it is indisputable fact. When
> it is largely speculation and speculation with contradictions. The
> serious contradictions are never presented because the secularists don't
> want skeptics to be produced to question their scientific authority.
>
This, from the man who thinks that "secularists" believe bats evolved
from hoofed mammals (mesonychids, to be precise). This, from the man
who can't find the creationists works prominently shelved at his local
library. This, from the man who can't spot the contradictions in his
own posts -- but thinks he can find them in a theory and body of
knowledge neither of which he understands.
> ************************************
>
> snip
>
>
> RLnRL900 wrote:
> > Totally unwinnable. This whole web site is most likely feeding a study on
> > human behavior somewhere.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I have evidence that I am changing and strengthening minds one person at
> a time. And that is my modest goal.
>
As I've said before, an active fantasy life is your right as an
American.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On 5 Oct 2001 15:13:02 -0400, in talk.origins
>rjk...@yahoo.com (Rodjk) wrote in
><dbe402.011005...@posting.google.com>:
>
>
>>Has it occured to anyone that Pagano argues a lot like Phillip Johnson?
>>Is it more likely that Tony parrots PJ, or that Tony is PJ?
>>Rodjk #613
>
>Philip Johnson is An Important Lawyer which makes him an expert on
>science (in the demented ways of lawyers).
As an attorney, I resemble that remark!
>Why would he need a sock
>puppet? Why wouldn't he Stand Up For Himself?
It sounds truer if 2 people say the same thing?
>
>[Peruses history of Dissemblers Institute]
>
>Ahh...
>
Seriously, there is nothing inherently wrong with a lawyer or any
intelligent lay person (who has done the legwork), such as a
journalist, writing about science for a general audience. After all,
marshaling the evidence and presenting it in a fashion that
non-specialists can readily understand is supposedly one "skill-set"
of a good lawyer. However, a good lawyer also reveals who his client
is. When I stand up in front of a jury, it is abundantly clear that I
am making the best case I can from the available evidence for my
client. Good lawyers are up front about it (because if they aren't,
the judge will remind the jury anyway).
Unfortunately, Johnson is less than clear that he is representing a
religious and political "client" rather than some objective truth.
This is most definitely not a fault only of lawyers, as the list of
"scientists" belonging to the Discovery Institute will attest.
---------
J. Pieret
---------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
David Jensen
cats...@yahoo.com wrote in
<3bbeb363...@news-server.optonline.net>:
>On 6 Oct 2001 00:13:54 -0400, David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5 Oct 2001 15:13:02 -0400, in talk.origins
>>rjk...@yahoo.com (Rodjk) wrote in
>><dbe402.011005...@posting.google.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Has it occured to anyone that Pagano argues a lot like Phillip Johnson?
>>>Is it more likely that Tony parrots PJ, or that Tony is PJ?
>>>Rodjk #613
>>
>>Philip Johnson is An Important Lawyer which makes him an expert on
>>science (in the demented ways of lawyers).
>
>As an attorney, I resemble that remark!
I've got one of those JD thingies, too, though I never claim to be an
attorney (WisBar might complain, since they haven't seen any money or
CLE for a while).
>>Why would he need a sock
>>puppet? Why wouldn't he Stand Up For Himself?
>
>It sounds truer if 2 people say the same thing?
It works in the courtroom, though I cannot imagine that you would choose
to swear in two separate personalities of the same person (though "The
Practice" might).
>>[Peruses history of Dissemblers Institute]
>>
>>Ahh...
>>
>Seriously, there is nothing inherently wrong with a lawyer or any
>intelligent lay person
Of course not.
>(who has done the legwork)
That would be the critical clause, no?
>, such as a
>journalist, writing about science for a general audience. After all,
>marshaling the evidence and presenting it in a fashion that
>non-specialists can readily understand is supposedly one "skill-set"
>of a good lawyer. However, a good lawyer also reveals who his client
>is. When I stand up in front of a jury, it is abundantly clear that I
>am making the best case I can from the available evidence for my
>client. Good lawyers are up front about it (because if they aren't,
>the judge will remind the jury anyway).
Completely true.
>Unfortunately, Johnson is less than clear that he is representing a
>religious and political "client" rather than some objective truth.
I'm not even sure he understands the difference any more.
>This is most definitely not a fault only of lawyers, as the list of
>"scientists" belonging to the Discovery Institute will attest.
Indeed.
>---------
>J. Pieret
>---------
>Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
>chewing through the leather straps.
I'm looking at this in a whole new light.
Mike Dunford
Rodjk wrote:
I hadn't considered it, and I don't think that it is supported by the
evidence. I have, in idler moments, wondered if Pagano is a lawyer,
however.
--Mike
Mike Dunford
Bigdakine wrote:
>>Subject: Censorship in the public libraries
>>From: Mike Dunford mdun...@hawaii.rr.com
>>Date: 10/4/01 8:09 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3BBD4DAD...@hawaii.rr.com>
>>
[snip]
>>It would seem, contrary to Pagano's distressed and ill-informed claim,
>>that the first amendment is alive and well in the nation's libraries.
>>
>
> And Mike, you'll also find creationist works in the UH Manoa library as well by
> the usual suspects including Gish and Morris. So thats at least one public
> university that I know off which carries creationist works. I'd be willing to
> be its not the only one.
I doubt you'd have many takers for that bet.
I know that the Montgomery College Library in Maryland carries The
Genesis Flood, because I checked it out from there a year or two ago.
The Hawai'i State library system also carries a number of creationist
titles -- in fact, I have two checked out right now. I didn't include
it in my quick survey, because I was counting it in with the big-city
systems.
--Mike
Alistair Davidson
> "On 4 Oct 2001 13:57:49 -0400, in article
> <01c14cfe$4cf037a0$d0aa...@myhost.u.washington.edu>, "Floyd" stated..."
>
>>
>>
>>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in article
>><9phmr...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>>>
>>> Silence.
>>>
>>> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
>>>
>>> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Someone once said "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
>>to speak and remove all doubt." Cheers;
>> -Floyd
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for reminding me of that. That would explain a lot.
>
> I have to admit to an ulterior motive in asking for the theory
> of creationism. Here are the possible outcomes:
>
> 1. Silence.
> 2. Some very (shall I say) "unconventional" ideas would pop up.
> Like God designing the world of life before the Fall, with all of
> the mechanisms for disease and death and defenses in place, but
> not activated, because He foresaw the Fall.
> 3. An actual description of what "create" means.
>
> (1) and (2), I hoped, would be seen by the onlookers, those
> who aren't familiar with creationism, and they'd think, "This
> creationism is far odder than I could have imagined." That's
> where your remark applies, and that's my ulterior motive. And
> here we are!
>
> (3), I continue to hope for. For IMHO, if someone actually
> gives a description of "create" which is not of type (2), then
> it will be perfectly obvious that it has no conflict with
> "evolve".
If memory serves, Zoe attempted to formulate a theory of creationism once.
Unfortunately, the theories she suggested were riddled with problems: ie,
"predicting" that if the universe were reated we would expect to find
fundemental building blocks left over in the form of superstrings.
I think I remembered that one right. It is, of course, completely nonsensical,
but she did seem to make an honest effort.
I'm not sure what became of that project. Was there ever a final ToC that wasn't
ripped into small pieces on this group?
--
Alistair Davidson
Read my comic, Bizmatch! http://www.altgeek.org/lord_inh/comic/index.html
"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart
threw a sword at you."
H,R.Gruemm
> Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
>
> A: Genesis chapter one
That is a description, not a theory with explanatory powers. Sorry,
but "Look, Ma, the stars!" is not a theory of astrophysics either.
HRG.
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On 6 Oct 2001 00:57:39 -0400, in talk.origins
>cats...@yahoo.com wrote in
><3bbeb363...@news-server.optonline.net>:
>
>
>>On 6 Oct 2001 00:13:54 -0400, David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Oct 2001 15:13:02 -0400, in talk.origins
>>>rjk...@yahoo.com (Rodjk) wrote in
>>><dbe402.011005...@posting.google.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has it occured to anyone that Pagano argues a lot like Phillip Johnson?
>>>>Is it more likely that Tony parrots PJ, or that Tony is PJ?
>>>>Rodjk #613
>>>
>>>Philip Johnson is An Important Lawyer which makes him an expert on
>>>science (in the demented ways of lawyers).
>>
>>As an attorney, I resemble that remark!
>
>I've got one of those JD thingies, too, though I never claim to be an
>attorney (WisBar might complain, since they haven't seen any money or
>CLE for a while).
Good, a second opinion then (Wisconsin de damned). My newsreader's
"new post" button is right next to he "reply to post" button (hence
this trivial new thread), an obviously defective design. Think I
could sue? Doesn't help that I downloaded the thing for free, of
course, but that's not necessarily fatal. Proving damages, on the
other hand . . .
>
>>>Why would he need a sock
>>>puppet? Why wouldn't he Stand Up For Himself?
>>
>>It sounds truer if 2 people say the same thing?
>
>It works in the courtroom, though I cannot imagine that you would choose
>to swear in two separate personalities of the same person (though "The
>Practice" might).
I knew there was a reason I can't stand that show. But back to the
question of whether anybody's seen PJ and Pagano in the same room, the
"two separate personalities" comment might be on point. Anybody got
Sybylle's psychiatrist's phone number?
>
>>>[Peruses history of Dissemblers Institute]
>>>
>>>Ahh...
>>>
>>Seriously, there is nothing inherently wrong with a lawyer or any
>>intelligent lay person
>
>Of course not.
>
>>(who has done the legwork)
>
>That would be the critical clause, no?
>
>>, such as a
>>journalist, writing about science for a general audience. After all,
>>marshaling the evidence and presenting it in a fashion that
>>non-specialists can readily understand is supposedly one "skill-set"
>>of a good lawyer. However, a good lawyer also reveals who his client
>>is. When I stand up in front of a jury, it is abundantly clear that I
>>am making the best case I can from the available evidence for my
>>client. Good lawyers are up front about it (because if they aren't,
>>the judge will remind the jury anyway).
>
>Completely true.
>
>>Unfortunately, Johnson is less than clear that he is representing a
>>religious and political "client" rather than some objective truth.
>
>I'm not even sure he understands the difference any more.
Sadly, I am afraid that he is *all* too clear on that point. As well
as the fact that there is no judge in the court of public opinion.
>
>>This is most definitely not a fault only of lawyers, as the list of
>>"scientists" belonging to the Discovery Institute will attest.
>
>Indeed.
>
>>---------
>>J. Pieret
>>---------
>>Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
>>chewing through the leather straps.
>
>I'm looking at this in a whole new light.
I just wish they'd turn the light off at night, 'cause the mice will
only dance in the dark. (8^o
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>
>Rodjk wrote:
>
[snip]
>>>
>>
>> Has it occured to anyone that Pagano argues a lot like Phillip Johnson?
>> Is it more likely that Tony parrots PJ, or that Tony is PJ?
>> Rodjk #613
>
>
>I hadn't considered it, and I don't think that it is supported by the
>evidence. I have, in idler moments, wondered if Pagano is a lawyer,
>however.
>
If he is, he isn't a good one. Smart lawyers "read" the jury and, if
one line of argument isn't working, they switch to another. Pags just
keeps recycling the same drivel over (and over) again, proudly
declaring that he isn't listening to the feedback.
>--Mike
Michael G.
wrote:
>Bigdakine wrote:
>[snip]
>>>It would seem, contrary to Pagano's distressed and ill-informed claim,
>>>that the first amendment is alive and well in the nation's libraries.
>>>
>>
>> And Mike, you'll also find creationist works in the UH Manoa library as well by
>> the usual suspects including Gish and Morris. So thats at least one public
>> university that I know off which carries creationist works. I'd be willing to
>> be its not the only one.
>
>
>I doubt you'd have many takers for that bet.
>
>I know that the Montgomery College Library in Maryland carries The
>Genesis Flood, because I checked it out from there a year or two ago.
>
>The Hawai'i State library system also carries a number of creationist
>titles -- in fact, I have two checked out right now. I didn't include
>it in my quick survey, because I was counting it in with the big-city
>systems.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison also has a number of creationist
books, including Duane Gish's The Fossils Say No.
--Michael
TomS
<2irv7.66191$W8.20...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Michael stated..."
But my point is *not* that the "Theory of Creationism" must be
in accord with the evidence.
For my purposes, it does *not* have to be a scientific theory,
just that it be coherent and tell us something, and that it
exclude macro-evolution. Genesis 1 doesn't meet both criteria.
By the way, it isn't only "current work" that has problems with
the "literal truth" of Genesis 1. The ancients were quite aware with
problems like:
If the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th
day, with the purpose of marking time, then how was
there time before that?
Tom S.
anne
where this is in conflict with evolution. A lot of Genesis 1 is about
the origins of non-living things.
(Actually, a few times, it says that the animals
came from the waters and the land. That sounds like it is compatible
with evolutionary ideas. But to discuss that is too much like arguing
over Scriptural interpretations.)
Tom S.
Anne: EXACTLY! There's a big difference between God's Word, and
individual interpretations of God's Word. By the same token, there's a
big diffence between collections of scientific evidence and individual
interpretations of said evidence.
anne
the pagan origins of Biblical fables. It was to establish the actual
theorum to your hypothesis.
Anne: I don't know how to establish an actual theorem by your
definition of theory. That's why I put the word theory in quotation
marks in my post. The point is that if you are asking how did God
create what He created, it tells us in Genesis Chapter one. He SAID let
there be light and there was light. He spoke it into being. That's HOW
a Bible believing creationist (or me, anyway) says that God did it.
That's all I can say, because adding anything else would be just
presumptuous guessing. It says there was morning and evening the first
day, second day, third day, etc. That's all it says. My own
interpretation of that is that God created everything in six twenty-four
hour days.
Aron: What predictions does it make that we might test for to
determine accuracy? How could it be disproven? What facts would
discredit it? What evidence is this hypothesis based on? And how can
that be verified?
Anne: I don't think it can be proven. I don't think it can be or has
been disproven either. What proof or evidence would be acceptble to the
scientific community?
Aron: You know, the same kind of rigid peer-reviewed skeptical cynicism
that has failed to discredit evolution despite continuous and ongoing
attempts for the last couple of centuries or so.
Anne: God doesn't have peers.
Galen Hekhuis
>Anne: God doesn't have peers.
How do you know? As far as I know, the scriptures demand that no other god
be placed before him, but that doesn't rule out peers.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
Illiterate? Write for free help
TomS
<29653-3B...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, ann...@webtv.net
stated..."
Let's see. This is supposed to be an explication of what it means
to create (or to be created)?
Sorry. I don't see anything about that.
Tom S.
Pat James
(in message <29652-3B...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
> Anne: God doesn't have peers.
Kali is likely to be upset if you tell her that. So is Quezlcoatl, for that
matter. And Ogun. And Thor. And Raiden. And Hurracan. None of the above is
particularly famous for keeping their tempers...
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Hans-richard Grümm
news:29653-3B...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Not all "interpretations" are equally rational however. The spectrum of the
hydrogen atom can be explained either by gnomes with little lamps or by quantum
electrodynamics. The nested hierarchy can be explained by evolution or by a god
playing tricks and creating every species such that their pattern looks
hierarchical.
In both cases, only one interpretation is scientific, although neither can be
excluded by pure logic.
HRG.
--
Posted from mibeu04-0827.utaonline.at [212.152.143.65]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Aron-Ra
If you were really interested in the correct interpretation, you wouldn't
ignore all my challenges about it.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
> Aron says, in part: "But the point of the question was not to reveal
> the pagan origins of Biblical fables. It was to establish the actual
>
> Anne: I don't know how to establish an actual theorem by your
> definition of theory.
An attempt to explain exactly what happened and how it works.
> That's why I put the word theory in quotation
> marks in my post. The point is that if you are asking how did God
> create what He created, it tells us in Genesis Chapter one.
You just ignored everything I said, didn't you?
Do you think Genesis was the first book ever? It wasn't even the first
Biblical composition. Most Biblical scholars seem determined that Isaiah
was written before it and Job before that. It wasn't even the first story
of creation. Not by a long shot. Genesis wasn't written until some time
after about 500 BCE or so. And probably not before 200 BCE. Yet other
books of older religions than yours did exist as early as 2,000 years before
then and that tell curiously similar stories, but that are different in very
important ways. If you were interested in knowing the truth, you would want
to know about them. But you skip right over every reference as if I never
said anything about it. Why is that?
Let me ask you this, Anne. What is the very oldest text anywhere ever that
actually mentions or in any way indicates your particular god? Don't forget
to include a date.
> He SAID let
> there be light and there was light. He spoke it into being.
So you honestly consider magic words to be a serious explanation?
> That's HOW
> a Bible believing creationist (or me, anyway) says that God did it.
> That's all I can say, because adding anything else would be just
> presumptuous guessing.
That's actually how science works. Let me explain. Even a presumptuous
guess is better than giving up and saying "I dunno, maybe its magic".
Science tries to explain everything so that everything can be understood.
Hence even a wrong answer can be tested for or against. If I pose a
possible explanation, (an hypothesis) the rest of the global scientific
community would spend eternity trying to find holes in that hypothesis,
scrutinizing each relevant fact in finite detail until someone eventually
refutes my idea, forces me to modify it, (to explain things better) or
replaces my idea with one of their own that is more accurate.
It all starts with presumptuous guessing that is tested for until you end up
with a working, demonstrable scientific explanation that actually
constitutes proof in laymen's terms.
> It says there was morning and evening the first
> day, second day, third day, etc. That's all it says.
Yet it also says there was no way to measure the days until God magicked up
a sun and moon. What day was that? And how could you know?
> My own
> interpretation of that is that God created everything in six twenty-four
> hour days.
The Sumerian creation myth, Enuma Elish holds that the Earth, (and by Earth,
they mean flat dry land above the sea) was created in seven generations of
gods. The sixth such generation created primordial man so that the seventh
generation could rest. Does that sound familiar to you? It was written by
the ancestors of Moses at least 500 years before Moses was to have lived.
But elements of this tale can be found in pictographs dating back to as far
as 3500 BCE.
Does this mean anything to you at all? Would it mean anything if the Hebrew
word you use to imply a 24 hour day could also be interpreted as sequential
stages or "generations"?
> Aron: What predictions does it make that we might test for to
> determine accuracy? How could it be disproven? What facts would
> discredit it? What evidence is this hypothesis based on? And how can
> that be verified?
>
> Anne: I don't think it can be proven. I don't think it can be or has
> been disproven either. What proof or evidence would be acceptable to the
> scientific community?
Science believes that nothing can ever be proven. That's why Atomic Theory
remained a Theory even after Nagasaki was already glowing in the dark. But
posted hypothesis can be disproved. So you state your guesses as to how God
did it, what he is, how he works, etc. and we'll criticize your ideas until
we can prove there is something wrong with it. You'll have the opportunity
to modify your explanation should flaws be found with it. But if the flaw
is the non-existence of God himself, your theory is effectively disproved.
Do you see how it works?
Let me give you an example: My hypothesis is that your whole religion is
based on a compilation of pagan myths from various polytheistic pantheons
that are all much much older than is even the concept of your god.
Now you go out and disprove that.
> Aron: You know, the same kind of rigid peer-reviewed skeptical cynicism
> that has failed to discredit evolution despite continuous and ongoing
> attempts for the last couple of centuries or so.
>
> Anne: God doesn't have peers.
How do you know?
Ever heard of Krishna? How about El? Amen? Ahura-Mazda? How about Zeus?
"I am 'A' jealous god". Not the only god.
"I am 'a' vain god". Not the only god.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
Not because they don't exist, but because I'm shallow and insecure.
"Let *us* make man in *our* image" [Who's he talking to?]
"Behold, the man is become as one of us". [One of who?]
Aron-Ra
Nathan McKaskle
I'm very interested in the origins of religion. I've read "Story of
Civilization" by Durant just recently and found his study facinating.
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DlLv7.8180$2p1.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
>TomS wrote:
>>
>> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>>
>> Silence.
>>
>> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
>>
>> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>In my opinion presenting the creationist position in this forum is
>largely a waste of time. Why waste time with what secular society
>considers silly superstitious religious nonsense?
not sure what pagano's talking about. america is 85% xtian, and 95%
theist.
>
>To suggest that because the creationist position is not presented in
>this forum to the satisfaction of TomS that there is no creationist
>explanation is an argument from complete ignorance. There is a
>relatively small but growing collection of creationist publications and
>full length works with which TomS could disabuse himself of this
>ignorant bluster. Unfortunately because of secular censorship one may
>find works by Hitler and gays and lesbians in the public library but not
>by creationist organizations.
except they are considered works of 'literature'. creationists call
their work science.
pagano is propagandizing trying to pretend censorship exists in the
public square. it doesnt.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Evolutionism has no empirically testable explanation why the fossil
>record only shows the "end nodes" of Darwin's tree of life but not a
>single transitional form with structures in a "nascent condition."
he ignores the evolution of the ear from reptilian jaws...but never
let it be said creationists let facts stand in their way...
That
>is, the fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly and abruptly
>in the fossil record with fully formed mature structures.
wrong.
These fossil
>creatures disappear from the fossil record after several million years
>pretty much unchanged. Punc Eq was an attempt at explanation but has
>never garnered consensus. Does this mean evolutionism should be
>banished. Creationism has no problem with this observation of the
>fossil record.
creationism, which has as a mechanism 'goddidit', can explain
anything. it can explain why my i need new tennis shoes. thats why its
not science.
>
>TomS continues:
>> What is the theory of creationism?
>>
>> Despite a determined effort not to say anything, there are some
>> lapses of the creationists, when they present some arguments against
>> evolution.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Sometimes it is true----like with the complete absence of nascent
>structures in the fossil record----that a contradiction of evolutionism
>is easily incorporated into the creationist model.
tony doesnt answer the question: what's the mechanism of evolution?
thats not surprising. no creationist can answer THAT question.
>
>Here is, generally speaking, the "actual" creationist position (as
>opposed to TomS's ignorant caricature of it) concerning the production
>of low entropy "complex" systems:
>
>1. The system must be open.
the earth isnt open. its closed. we receive energy from the sun, and
virtually no mass from outside the earth.
>2. An adequate outside supply of energy must be available.
>3. An energy conversion system must exist to convert raw, uncontrolled
>energy coming in from the outside to a controlled form that can be used
>in a "constructive" way by the system undergoing change.
>4. There must be a control system capable of regulating the activities
>of the system undergoing change, such that the changes are progressive
>and integrative rather than meaningless and destructive.
>
>If an intelligent agent is the only way to satisfy condtions (3) and (4)
>then so be it.
how does an intelligent agent do this? my dog's intelligent. is tony
saying my dog is capable of creating life? if not, why not?
intelligence ALWAYS uses natural forces.
The evolutionists on the other hand only require
>conditions (1) and (2) for complexity to arise. Taken to its absurd
>conclusion that would mean that if we shined sunshine on a pile of
>lumber and nails that given enough time it could, in principle,
>transform itself into a two story colonial house. Absolutely absurd.
telly ya what. put a pile of lumber and nails in front of my dog. see
how long this intelligent animal takes to build a house.
>*********************************************
>
>
>
>TomS continues:
>2.
>>
>> But that's only confined to the "young-earth-flood-geology"
>> creationists.
>>
>> What I'm interested in is the principles invoked by the more
>> "sophisticated macro-evolution deniers".
>>
>> Such as the principle that evolution means that some values,
>> such as truth, love, beauty, morality, can't exist.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Not so much that they can't exist but that they are purely subjective.
>If fornication resulted in a reproductive advantage (or not) it can only
>be considered "natural" not immoral under the evolutionist philosophy.
>Since (under evolutionist philsophy) behavior is simply a component of
>natural selection EVERY conceivable behavior can only be labeled
>"natural." Under such a philosophy the further labeling of particular
>behaviors as "bad" or "immoral" are only subjective constructions of
>man. Such a philosophy is in direct conflict with most (if not all)
>Christian denominations.
lightening hits and kills people. thats a law of nature. it is not
good or bad, from the lightening's point of view. it simply happens.
when tony invents a morality of lightening, then he can invent a
morality of evolution. they are equally nonsensical.
>
>
>more to follow if time permits
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
Ross Langerak
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DlLv7.8180$2p1.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> That's actually how science works. Let me explain. Even a presumptuous
> guess is better than giving up and saying "I dunno, maybe its magic".
> Science tries to explain everything so that everything can be understood.
> Hence even a wrong answer can be tested for or against. If I pose a
> possible explanation, (an hypothesis) the rest of the global scientific
> community would spend eternity trying to find holes in that hypothesis,
> scrutinizing each relevant fact in finite detail until someone eventually
> refutes my idea, forces me to modify it, (to explain things better) or
> replaces my idea with one of their own that is more accurate.
>
> It all starts with presumptuous guessing that is tested for until you end
up
> with a working, demonstrable scientific explanation that actually
> constitutes proof in laymen's terms.
>
In science, a hypothesis is not an explanation; it is a prediction.
The scientific method has four steps:
Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data. It can be
well supported by the data, it can be poorly supported by the data, or it
can be flatly contradicted by the data, and it is still a theory.
Step 3 is a hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon a
theory.
Step 4 is an experiment. An experiment tests a hypothesis, which produces
more data and we are back at step 1.
This process repeats until no one can think of any more hypotheses.
Hypotheses are judged based upon the results of the experiments that test
them. Theories are judged based upon all of the relevant data. The result
of a single experiment is rarely enough to cause scientists to reject a
theory.
[snip]
> Aron-Ra
>
>
wf...@ptd.net
>Q: What is the "theory" of creationism?
>
>A: Genesis chapter one
>
IOW
godddidit.
which sez zip.
wf...@ptd.net
>Aron says, in part: "But the point of the question was not to reveal
>the pagan origins of Biblical fables. It was to establish the actual
>theorum to your hypothesis.
>
>Anne: I don't know how to establish an actual theorem by your
>definition of theory. That's why I put the word theory in quotation
>marks in my post. The point is that if you are asking how did God
>create what He created, it tells us in Genesis Chapter one. He SAID let
>there be light and there was light. He spoke it into being. That's HOW
>a Bible believing creationist (or me, anyway) says that God did it.
thats not a how. i can say my dog invented the universe. he spoke it
into being. would you believe it? nope. why? because i didnt tell you
how.
Aron-Ra
Nathan McKaskle <zil...@zillien.com> wrote in message
news:3bbf8cbc$0$13456$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net...
> Thats some very interesting info there Aron, do you have any links to
more?
> I'm very interested in the origins of religion. I've read "Story of
> Civilization" by Durant just recently and found his study facinating.
Gladly.
The ancient evidence for the Bible is sparse indeed. The oldest surviving
complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis, from 1,008 AD. Then there are
some 200,000 fragments of the Cairo Geniza from the 5th Century AD and the
Nash Papyrus, which contained the Decalogue, from the 2nd Century AD.
Before Common [Christian] Era, there is only the famous Dead Sea Scrolls,
which have been dated collectively at from 100 BCE to 250 BCE or even as
early as the 3rd Century BCE.
The only Biblical reference to precede that is the Benediction of Aaron,
with the following inscription:
"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee":
"The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:"
"The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace".
..written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC. Before that, nothing.
This may or may not even refer to the same god that is commonly revered
today, even though, these are lines that are found in the Book of Numbers.
The reason that is uncertain, is that so many other elements of the Bible
and the dominant modern theologies, were actually borrowed from elder faiths
to completely different gods. Zoroaster, Akenaten, Ba'al,
For example: In 1872, George Smith was cataloging the fragments of 22,000
tablets from Ashurbanipal's library for the British Museum, when he
discovered a story very similar to the Noahlithic flood, but written in
Akkadian cuneiform on the 11th and final tablet of the Babylonian Epic of
Gilgamesh, arguably the oldest story ever written. There were numerous
distinct similarities, right down to the bit about sending out a bird to
find land. Even the depth of the flood, 15 cubits (or 22 feet) over the
river's flood-depth is identical to the Biblical version, which doesn't
appear anywhere until at least 2,000 years later!
http://www.bibleandscience.com/ot.htm
But even in the similarities, there were differences.
http://www.flood-myth.com/contents.htm
The flood was a localized event in the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, which
geologist now believe actually occurred at the end of the Jem-dat Nasur
period (3200 to 2900 BCE). The water was everywhere as far as the eye could
see, but it was not a global event. It just seemed like one. And it only
lasted one week, not the year that the Bible claims. The "ark" was a square
raft that was built out of Utnapeshtim's [Noah's] house according to the
orders of a goddess of the Babylonian pantheon. Only the king's personal
managerie was saved, not everything on Earth that had the "breath of life".
The gods had ordered the flood because men had become to noisy and disturbed
the gods, who were at rest.
In yet another example of deliberate creationist lies, a "documentary" was
produced a year or two ago and hosted by Roy Orbach on 'Mysteries of the
Unexplained', wherein they said that the cuneiform account that Smith
discovered was exactly identical to Genesis, detail for detail, except for
Noah's naem. And they insisted that it even credited the god of Abraham,
even though they knew full well that it was not and did not. There were
several flood stories around at about the same time. But they were all
polytheistic and they all challenged the Bible and all agreed with each
other, with very few exceptions, primarily the names. Utnapeshtim,
Zuisudra, Atrahasis, and Ubar-Tutu, among other predecessors to Noah.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook03.html
Gilgamesh was the king of Babylon during the Urok period of about 2700 BCE.
He was hailed in the first-ever historic document, the Sumerian King List,
as the son of a presumed God and a human woman. But Gilgamesh was mortal.
And his story is a quest for everlasting life. The life and deeds of
Gilgamesh are paralleled in Genesis chapters 3 and 30. The wrestling match
between God and Jacob is a direct take from Gilgamesh and the wild-men
Enkidu. In the prologue to this Epic is another story of Biblical
proportions. It concerns a woman who and a serpent who are driven by the
sword of the god-king away from a divinely chosen tree and out of a sacred
garden.
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/6747/gilgamsh.html
Other pagan accounts of the mythic flood as well as the creation myth are
available in the Atrahasis Epic and Enuma Elish, (again, among others). In
the former, Anu is the sky-god, Enlil rules the Earth, and the oceans were
governed by Enki, who forwarned Atrahasis of each of the gods' attempts to
destroy mankind, including the flood.
The creation aspect of that Epic includes the goddess, Mami molding clay
figures into 14 human figures, seven men and seven women. They murdered one
of the lesser gods and mixed his blood and spit into the clay so that they
could bring them to life. The purpose for building man in the first place
is so that the gods could rest after 40 years of laborious creation.
Mankind was supposed to complete the job.
http://www.piney.com/Atrahasis.html
In the Sumerian creation myth, Enuma Elish, the Earth is created by seven
generations of gods, the sixth created man for the same reason and basically
the same way, but it appears to have been more of a group effort. And
instead of using a blood sacrifice, they breathed the "breath of life" into
him. For some reason related to forgotten numerology, the numbers seven and
forty appear everywhere over and over again, in numerous related myths,
beginning with these texts.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/untangle/enumaelish.html
Another element of Enuma Elish which parallels Genesis is the fall of an
immortal who suffers mortal wounds because he trespassed upon the sacred
garden and ate of its fruit. As an act of mercy, the deity who cursed him,
bares eight daughters to heal his wounds. One of them is born specifically
to close to wound to the unconscious god's rib. The girl's name is Ninti,
(the lady of the rib) and is an almost certain parallel, and origin for the
character of Eve.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/sumer-faq.html#A1.6
Eve was only recently considered the first wife of the first man. And Satan
was only recently considered as the true identity of the serpent. In
Talmudic legend, Adam's first wife was the demonic Lilith, now famed as the
immortal mother of demons and vampires. But she was one of the oldest
characters in all mythology, appearing in Babylonian relief as far back as
3700 BCE, as well as in the Talmud, and even the account of Isaiah in the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
The legends of her in the Garden of Eden wildly. In the Epic of Gilgamesh,
it was she who was driven from the garden along with a serpent. Elsewhere,
she was made simultaneous to Adam, or she was made out of Adam's entire back
half. In the most popular version, she was partially created out of the
dust while Adam watched. But he was disgusted with the veins and organs of
the forming girl and refused to accept her. So YaWeh scrapped her entirely
and created Eve from his rib while he was anesthetized.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Topics/Lilith/lilith.html
In still one more version, popular in the Middle-ages, Lilith was created in
equality and refused by Adam because she refused to live in submission to
him. God banished her from the garden, to the shores of the Red sea, where
she consorted with demons. And man made Eve out of a lesser part of Adam's
body to be a lesser person to him.
Jealous of the younger woman, the jilted ex returned, sneaking into the
garden disguised as the serpent. There the demon-lover feigned a friendship
with the most naïve child imaginable, just to get her into trouble and break
up her marriage with Adam, which she did. Adam and Eve were then separated
for several centuries, during which time, both Lilith and Adam had sexual
relations with demons, Adam having sired many of them unknowingly. There is
no mention of what Eve was doing all that time.
Creationists have no explanation for why Lilith is depicted as the serpent
of the garden in stone relief on the walls of the famous cathedral at Notre
Dame as well as in Michaelangelo's painting of the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel in the Vatican and a number of other previous works. Satan replaces
Lilith only after the reign (and Biblical alterations) of King James.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html
Even God himself is a product of Mesopotamian mythology and is actually a
composite of all their gods. His name comes from El, or Elohim, which
refers not to an indevidual, but to a host of celestial beings. Elohim, is
a Hebrew word, which means "Those who came from the sky". But Jesus knew
him better as El.
http://www.revelations.org.za/Elohim.htm
Do not limit yourself to just these links. There is an astounding wealth of
information out there, since there are literally thousands of these ancient
tablets with numerous parallels that are still not listed here. There are
also in-depth explanations of the excessive ages reported in the Bible as
well as parallels to Methuselah and Enoch and others.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/4/4duck91.html
The Mesopotamians were not the only ones to influence the Old Testament. If
you like, I can post quite a bit about the contrabutions that were borrowed
from the much older worship of Amen-Ra, Ahura-Mazda, Shamash, Lucifer, Pan,
Hercules, Zeus, and Promethius, among others.
Then if you want, I can also provide a list of predessesors to the New
Testament including, Mithras, Krishna, Buddha, Bacchus, Alcestis, Apollo,
Helios, Ba'al, Indra, and Promethius again. Or you can read Kersey Graves'
Sixteen Crucified Christs. You can also just run a google groups search for
"Christs before Christ". That thread will lead you to many other sources
for the transformation of Rabbi Y'shua Bar Yossef, (younger brother of
James) into the crucified sun-god, conceived by a virgin.
There isn't a shred of either testament that is either original or accurate.
For example, check this out this presentation of Egyptian linguistic terms
and their Biblical applications.
http://home.wt.net/anu/pr01.htm
Aron-Ra
zoe_althrop
snip>
>>> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>>>
>>> Silence.
>>>
once again, on my way to elsewhere, Tom's post is like a flashing neon
sign, compelling me to enter. :-\
Of course, seeing that my answers to his last four questions appear to
be invisible to him, I don't know why I'm trying again, but here
goes....
>>> There is the saying "You can't beat something with nothing."
>>>
>>> But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
>>>
>>> Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
>>> seems to agree:
>>>
>>> "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
>>> does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
>>> be banished."
>>>
>>> What is the theory of creationism?
The theory of creation is in the same category as the theory of
abiogenesis. Both are premises upon which the data of biological
evolution is built.
snip>
Tom, I would give you my theory of creationism, as I see it, but it's
going to have to be one piece at a time. I won't move on to another
level until the present level is understood, discussed, ripped apart
fairly, or accepted. Okay?
Level one: The data.
For creationism, the data is the very same biological evolution that
both you and I observe in nature today. Do we agree on that? No
sense in moving on if we can't come to some understanding and
acceptance of this statement.
---------
And while awaiting your answer on this, permit me to clear up some
aspects of my creationist position. Following are five questions that
I found in the textbook, Evolution, 2nd Edition, by Monroe W.
Strickberger, p. 32. The evolutionary answers are from the textbook.
The creationist answers are mine.
Question 1: What accounts for the similarity among many species?
Evolution: Descent from a common ancestor.
Creation: Common mechanism evidenced in common ancestors.
Question 2: What accounts for the origin of variations among members
of a species?
Evolution: Random changes (mutations) in genetic material.
Creation: Inherent variability programmed into the genetic codes
of each species.
Question 3: What accounts for the presence of particular organs and
structures through time?
Evolution: Primarily natural selection.
Creation: Inherent mechanism of flexibility in response to
environmental stimuli, programmed to produce variation within limits.
Interaction with changing environments produces change arising out of
a pre-set principle of variation within each species.
Question 4: What accounts for the variation among species?
Evolution: Changes occur in the genetic material of each species
through the process of mutation and the various forces that change
gene frequencies.
Creation: Limits define the variation seen BETWEEN species. The
variations WITHIN each species belong to that species and do not
spread to other species. The distinct boundaries we see today between
species were always there.
Question 5: What accounts for the resemblance of organisms to their
parents?
Evolution: Transmission of genetic material through the germ
plasm.
Creation: Transmission of genetic material through the sperm/egg
combo.
My answers to these questions are only to clarify my position.
Hopefully, we can stay on topic by discussing the first level of the
theory of creation, as stated above, -- if you would kindly return to
the section above the dividing line.
--
zoe
Nathan McKaskle
wf...@ptd.net
>
>The theory of creation is in the same category as the theory of
>abiogenesis. Both are premises upon which the data of biological
>evolution is built.
crap. we can test abiogenesis in some respects. we can put chemicals
in flasks, pass electricity thru them and see what happens.
where's the comparable creationist experiment?
>
>snip>
>
>Tom, I would give you my theory of creationism, as I see it, but it's
>going to have to be one piece at a time. I won't move on to another
>level until the present level is understood, discussed, ripped apart
>fairly, or accepted. Okay?
>
>Level one: The data.
>
>For creationism, the data
hey zoe...data is not a theory. you've promised a theory. you wont
deliver. i know you wont because you cant. there is no theory of
creationism.
the mere fact you confuse DATA with THEORY shows how weak your
understanding of both is.
>
>My answers to these questions are only to clarify my position.
>Hopefully, we can stay on topic by discussing the first level of the
>theory of creation, as stated above, -- if you would kindly return to
>the section above the dividing line.
>
>--
as i said, you dodge the question. you were asked how creationism
works. you provided laundry lists of EVERYTHING except:
how creationism works.
but, we knew that.
wf...@ptd.net
> Light [available energy] "Let there be light" could not have evolved.
>How did it get here?
>This is the perfect creationist argument.
>
why is it an argument? looks like a question, not an answer.
and to state 'it could not evolve' is arrogance, not an answer.
Adam Marczyk
news:3bc05d77...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
wf3h's comments were right on the mark. What your theory of creationism
conspicuously lacks is a mechanism. "It happened by a miracle" is a
religious explanation, not a scientific one.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
TomS
"Adam stated..."
For me the basic problem is this.
These things say nothing about "creation".
They don't tell us what it is like *to create* or *to be
created*.
If I were there, when an evolutionary event occurred, I know
what it would be like. It would be just like it is today, for
evolution is going on now, just like it has for billions of years.
What would it be like if a creation event occurred?
In your words after "Creation:" ... are those supposed to be
descriptions of various sorts of creation, or what? I really
don't know. For example, is the "transmission of genetic
material ..." supposed to be a creation event? I suspect that
it is not.
My problem is not that this is not scientific, it is that
it doesn't address the central issue of what "creating" is,
what the act of "creation" is. It really isn't any better
than "there cannot be any macro-evolution".
Tom S.
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>wf3h's comments were right on the mark.
if I were you, I wouldn't align myself with wf3h.
> What your theory of creationism
>conspicuously lacks is a mechanism. "It happened by a miracle" is a
>religious explanation, not a scientific one.
>
your inability to answer is showing, Adam. I made it clear that I am
making my statements (re the Theory of Creation) ONE AT A TIME. I
haven't stated the mechanism yet. And nowhere will you see, or have
you ever seen me write, "It happened by a miracle." So let's have
some honesty, please?
It's becoming clear that you're either afraid to answer or can't
answer truthfully without undermining your position, right?
I'll repeat, and if you fail to address my point directly, I'll take
it to mean that you're afraid of the truth, and are hiding from it.
Level one: The data.
"For creationism, the data is the very same biological evolution that
both you and I observe in nature today. Do we agree on that? No
sense in moving on if we can't come to some understanding and
acceptance of this statement."
well?
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
snip>
>
> For me the basic problem is this.
>
> These things say nothing about "creation".
>
you missed the thrust of my post. It was NOT about "these things" as
addressed by the Q. and A. series from the textbook on Evolution. I
didn't think you'd be sidetracked so easily, really..... :-\
> They don't tell us what it is like *to create* or *to be
>created*.
>
I haven't gotten there yet. The first level is still on the table.
And I want to stay there until we come to some kind of agreement.
repeat:
The Theory of Creation is in the same category as the Theory of
Abiogenesis. Both are premises upon which the data of biological
evolution is built.
I want to discuss level one and level one only right now: The data.
Repeat: For creationism, the data is the very same biological
evolution that both you and I observe in nature today. Do we agree on
that? No sense in moving on if we can't come to some understanding
and acceptance of this statement.
I dare you to answer, Tom.
--
zoe
wf...@ptd.net
this statement is ridiculous. there are hypotheses about abiogenesis.
these include MECHANISMS about how abiogenesis works.
creationists dont understand, or like science. fundamentalists
worldwide despise concepts they cant control, so try to rephrase them
in language their limited intellectual capabilities can dominate.
'theory' is one such word. creationism has NO mechanism for
abiogenesis. creationists cant tell us word one about HOW it works, or
how they even think it works.
let us remember that religious fanaticism is an attempt to drag
humanity into the dark ages...to kill intellectual freedom.
creationism is but a small manifestation of this ugly ideology.
wf...@ptd.net
>On 7 Oct 2001 16:29:51 -0400, "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>wf3h's comments were right on the mark.
>
>if I were you, I wouldn't align myself with wf3h.
says the religious fanatic.
>
religious fundamentalism, of any religious brand, is an attempt to
kill intellectual freedom. it's ugly and hideous.
Jon Fleming
>On 7 Oct 2001 17:05:29 -0400, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>
>> For me the basic problem is this.
>>
>> These things say nothing about "creation".
>>
>
>you missed the thrust of my post. It was NOT about "these things" as
>addressed by the Q. and A. series from the textbook on Evolution. I
>didn't think you'd be sidetracked so easily, really..... :-\
>
>> They don't tell us what it is like *to create* or *to be
>>created*.
>>
>
>I haven't gotten there yet. The first level is still on the table.
>And I want to stay there until we come to some kind of agreement.
>
>repeat:
>
>The Theory of Creation is in the same category as the Theory of
>Abiogenesis. Both are premises upon which the data of biological
>evolution is built.
Only if you are using "Theory of Creation" in a very unusual sense.
Most people that describe themselves as "Creationists" believe that
"creation" covers both the genesis of life and a lot of the variety of
life. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the genesis of
life (although obviously life must exist for evolution to take place).
If you intend this statement to restrict the theory of creation to the
origin of the first simple living things, billions of years ago, and
not to the differences between living things then maybe we can
discuss. But I doubt that you meant that. If you didn't mean that,
then evolution is definitely _not_ built on the premise that living
things were created differently some several thousand years ago and
there are barriers to change in those living things.
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>On 4 Oct 2001 10:46:03 -0400, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>snip>
>>>> The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
>>>> Silence.
>once again, on my way to elsewhere, Tom's post is like a flashing neon
>sign, compelling me to enter. :-\
>Of course, seeing that my answers to his last four questions appear to
>be invisible to him, I don't know why I'm trying again, but here
>goes....
[snip]
>>>> What is the theory of creationism?
>
>The theory of creation is in the same category as the theory of
>abiogenesis.
There is ongoing research and some scientific models about just how
abiogenesis may have occurred. What similar scientific info is there
on creation, that it even counts as a "theory"?
>Both are premises upon which the data of biological
>evolution is built.
Not true. However the first life may have got here, it will have
evolved ever since, by the mechanisms that are studied by
evolutionary biology.
>snip>
>Tom, I would give you my theory of creationism, as I see it, but it's
>going to have to be one piece at a time. I won't move on to another
>level until the present level is understood, discussed, ripped apart
>fairly, or accepted. Okay?
Fair enough. Fire away.
>Level one: The data.
>
>For creationism, the data is the very same biological evolution that
>both you and I observe in nature today.
What? The 'data for creationism' is biological evolution? How can that
be? Did you mean to write something like "the data for creationism
are the very same data that are observed in nature today and
mistakenly interpreted as supporting biological evolution"?
>Do we agree on that? No
>sense in moving on if we can't come to some understanding and
>acceptance of this statement.
Then you'd better explain better what you mean and why
it's correct.
>And while awaiting your answer on this, permit me to clear up some
>aspects of my creationist position. Following are five questions that
>I found in the textbook, Evolution, 2nd Edition, by Monroe W.
>Strickberger, p. 32. The evolutionary answers are from the textbook.
>The creationist answers are mine.
>
>Question 1: What accounts for the similarity among many species?
It's not just 'similarity among many species', but detailed patterns
of similarities and differences among species and among groups of
species and among groups of groups of species...
> Evolution: Descent from a common ancestor.
Branching common descent giving rise to groups of groups of groups
of species. Common ancestors all along the way.
> Creation: Common mechanism evidenced in common ancestors.
What does "common mechanism" mean? How does it explain those
nested hierarchies of similarities and groups?
You say it's "evidenced in common ancestors", but doesn't
"common ancestor" mean macroevolution has occurred?
>Question 2: What accounts for the origin of variations among members
>of a species?
>
> Evolution: Random changes (mutations) in genetic material.
>
> Creation: Inherent variability programmed into the genetic codes
>of each species.
That's not really any requirement of "creation", is it? The new
variations could all be mutations even if the "kinds" were specially
created as such
This "inherent variability programmed into the genetic codes" business
is just your own peculiar misconception, as far as I can tell. What
does it even mean? How does it work? Where is this "inherent
variability" hidden, and how is it turned on? Do you even know what a
"genetic code" [or an allele] is?
>Question 3: What accounts for the presence of particular organs and
>structures through time?
>
> Evolution: Primarily natural selection.
"The presence of particular organs and structures through time"? That
sounds awkward. Are you just asking about the characteristic
morphological and anatomical similarities and differences among
groups again? The answer is again "common descent", not necessarily
'natural selection'. Not all shared features need be directly selected
for as such. Or are you asking about the _origins_ of new structures
and organs?
> Creation: Inherent mechanism of flexibility in response to
>environmental stimuli, programmed to produce variation within limits.
What does any of that mean? Why even claim that there are limits?
[Creationism per se doesn't really require them, since YEC doesn't
allow enough time for much macroevolution to have taken place]
Anyway, how is this any explanation for "the presence of particular
organs and structures through time"? Are you saying that the
organisms sharing "particular organs and structures" have them
because they shared a common history of an "inherent mechanism of
flexibility in response to environmental stimuli, programmed to
produce variation within limits"? That sounds a lot like the
common-descent explanation.
>Interaction with changing environments produces change arising out of
>a pre-set principle of variation within each species.
Again, what "pre-set principle of variation"? How does it work?
Why is that any requirement of 'creationism' Is it really Zoe-ism?
>Question 4: What accounts for the variation among species?
> Evolution: Changes occur in the genetic material of each species
>through the process of mutation and the various forces that change
>gene frequencies.
Yep, selection and drift, etc.
> Creation: Limits define the variation seen BETWEEN species.
What are these limits? I thought you said "kinds" are families, not
species? What is "variation seen between species"? You mean
differences, not 'variation'?
> The
>variations WITHIN each species belong to that species and do not
>spread to other species.
Huh? This sounds a bit like gibberish with regard to evolution and
speciation. You seem to be arguing against a strawman. Macroevolution
rarely if ever involves anything like "variations in one species
spreading to another species" [Species-level changes by
hybridization and introgression?]. Instead, ancestral species branch
to give rise to separate descendant species.
>The distinct boundaries we see today between
>species were always there.
Fine. Good. A clear, specific [and false] claim. Still, again, I
thought you thought that "kinds" were groups considerably larger than
single species? Many creationists do, so this isn't a claim that's
characteristic of "creationism" [but it would be, if you changed
"species" to "kinds"].
>Question 5: What accounts for the resemblance of organisms to their
>parents?
>
> Evolution: Transmission of genetic material through the germ
>plasm.
"Transmission of genetic material" [full stop] is enough.
> Creation: Transmission of genetic material through the sperm/egg
>combo.
Is that supposed to be a difference? Is "germ plasm" somehow different
from "sperm/egg combo"? Why?
>My answers to these questions are only to clarify my position.
Probably a lot more discussion will be needed for that.
[snip]
cheers
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>The Theory of Creation is in the same category as the Theory of
>Abiogenesis. Both are premises upon which the data of biological
>evolution is built.
What does that mean? It's wrong. "The data of biological evolution"
are built on neither of those "premises". They're "built on" studies
of organisms and traits and genes.
>I want to discuss level one and level one only right now: The data.
>
>Repeat: For creationism, the data is the very same biological
>evolution that both you and I observe in nature today.
Again, what does that even mean? It makes no sense as written. How
is "the very same biological evolution that both you and I observe in
nature today" the data for creationism? That seems silly. How is
observed evolution ever evidence for creation? You'll have to explain.
>Do we agree on
>that? No sense in moving on if we can't come to some understanding
>and acceptance of this statement.
>
>I dare you to answer, Tom.
Any hesitation may be due to confusion.
cheers
TomS
<3bc10180...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com stated..."
To what?
I asked for a description or definition of what it means to
create or to be created. For a theory of "creation" that said
something other than "macro-evolution is wrong". I specifically
did not ask for evidence or data or for reasons for believing.
You are telling me that you haven't got there yet.
I believe you.
So, what is it that I'm supposed to answer?
I mention, once again, that I fully recognize that Christian
theologians have given answers to what the act of creating is.
Unfortunately, for the so-called "creationists", that definition
does not exclude macro-evolution.
You can blather on as long as you want that the idea of our
being physically related to the rest of creation makes you feel
yucky, but that is not an explanation of what your alternative
is.
Tom S.
Adam Marczyk
> On 7 Oct 2001 16:29:51 -0400, "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >wf3h's comments were right on the mark.
>
> if I were you, I wouldn't align myself with wf3h.
Why not? He had a perfectly good point.
> > What your theory of creationism
> >conspicuously lacks is a mechanism. "It happened by a miracle" is a
> >religious explanation, not a scientific one.
>
> your inability to answer is showing, Adam. I made it clear that I am
> making my statements (re the Theory of Creation) ONE AT A TIME. I
> haven't stated the mechanism yet. And nowhere will you see, or have
> you ever seen me write, "It happened by a miracle." So let's have
> some honesty, please?
>
> It's becoming clear that you're either afraid to answer or can't
> answer truthfully without undermining your position, right?
>
> I'll repeat, and if you fail to address my point directly, I'll take
> it to mean that you're afraid of the truth, and are hiding from it.
>
> Level one: The data.
>
> "For creationism, the data is the very same biological evolution that
> both you and I observe in nature today. Do we agree on that? No
> sense in moving on if we can't come to some understanding and
> acceptance of this statement."
>
> well?
This is just silly. What do you suppose I'm hiding from? The fact that the
existence of evidence is not dependent on the observer's vantage point? Of
course the data are the same for everyone.
Adam Marczyk
Yes, the data are the same. How could they not be? I'm a little confused as
to why you want everyone to agree on this; I would have thought it was
obvious.
Erik
> Erik wrote:
>
> > "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jKZu7.1326$2p1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9phmr...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > > > The Perfect Creationist Argument is:
> > > >
> > > > Silence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the creationists are sure trying to get away with it.
> > > >
> > > > Strangely enough, Michael Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" (page 186)
> > > > seems to agree:
> > > >
> > > > "If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but
> > > > does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should
> > > > be banished."
> > > >
> > >
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Aron-Ra
> >
> > T.o.C. is quite simple. God created everything in its place. Some
> > forms of evolution ocurred from taht point on.
> >
> > Just like evolution, we don't need to understand the mechanisms or all
> > the fine details. But the evidence that it happened is all around us.
> > Look at the person next to you. Clearly he exists so was created.
> >
> > Erik
>
> Have you ever had anyone sitting next to you that was not created by common descent?
Proof? Or are you saying it is so by fiat?
Don't you think that your
> argument would be much stronger if you had just one example of creation de novo? It looks like all lifeforms, even
> humans, are created by natural means.
Proof? Oh, it is just Ron spouting his opinions and trying to mask
them as fact. The hubris...
>
> Ron Okimoto
Erik
Chris Thompson
>
> I haven't gotten there yet. The first level is still on the table.
> And I want to stay there until we come to some kind of agreement.
>
> repeat:
>
> The Theory of Creation is in the same category as the Theory of
> Abiogenesis. Both are premises upon which the data of biological
> evolution is built.
>
> I want to discuss level one and level one only right now: The data.
>
Bleh. When I teach the scientific method in General Biology, it goes
something like this:
1. Obervation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Refine, rinse & repeat
OK fine you made some observations. Stuff exists. State your
hypothesis! Don't tell me what it is like, or if it is similar to
something else. State it plainly and clearly. Make sure it is amenable
to experimentation. Until you do that, any so-called data you present
are meaningless and misleading.
Chris
cats...@yahoo.com
More like "common experience". Or are you asserting that there has
been someone in the last 100 years or so (i.e. "sitting next to you")
who credibly claims to have come into existance in a puff of smoke
(i.e. de novo), rather than the"normal" way, nine months after two
people did the ol' horizontal cha-cha? Or, IOW, by common descent.
>
> Don't you think that your
>> argument would be much stronger if you had just one example of creation de novo? It looks like all lifeforms, even
>> humans, are created by natural means.
>
>
>Proof? Oh, it is just Ron spouting his opinions and trying to mask
>them as fact. The hubris...
>
We need to prove (in this day and age) that people are born by natural
measns? OK, its like the birds and the bees . . .
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>Erik
>
---------
J. Pieret
---------
There is no greater hatred in the world
than the hatred of ignorance for knowledge.
- Galileo Galilei -
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Elmer Bataitis
> "Ronald Okimoto" <roki...@uark.edu> wrote in message news:<3BBE33CB...@mail.uark.edu>...
> > Have you ever had anyone sitting next to you that was not created by common descent?
> Proof? Or are you saying it is so by fiat?
Hmmm, Erik, did you even read what was written?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>On 7 Oct 2001 16:29:51 -0400, "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>wf3h's comments were right on the mark.
>
>if I were you, I wouldn't align myself with wf3h.
Luckily for me, you're not me!
Do you have a beef with wf3h? Spit it out! I respect his
straight-to-the-point obvious rebuttals to creationists. they never
seem to bother to reply because his retorts are so simple and yet
so damning.
[SNIP]
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
College of Arts and Sciences
Dept. of Biological Sciences
wa...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1