...You claim that similarity isn't evidence of common descent, but never second guess a DNA paternity test.
... You think evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, despite the fact that "Order" in the thermodynamic sense refers to usable energy and not complexity.
... You repeat Michael Behe's claims of irreducible complexity, but have not read the Dover Trial Transcripts!
... You claim that scientists cannot show you any transitional fossils, and when shown a fossil like Archaeopteryx, you claim it is just a creature with a mix of bird and reptile features.
I'd like to come up with some more, so please tell me your "You Know You're a Creationist" joke in a comment.
32 comments:
Similarity can equally be used as evidence of a Common Designer.
In the foreword of a recent edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, a leading evolutionary biologist, Prof. L.H.Matthews, recognizes that, "Belief in evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
He seems confused.
It takes faith to believe in evolution and it takes faith to believe in special creation.
If observation is the main tool of science then it logically follows that Archaeopteryx is "just" a creature with a mix of avian/reptilian features. An extinct creature.
Science has never proved evolution, as Professor L.Harrison Matthews - an evolutionar biologist - has honestly admitted, because it is unscientific!
You're obviously quote mining. Can you give me a source, an internet link for example, to L.H. Matthews' article? There are a lot of editions of Origin of Species. And by the way, if you need proof, check out "Evolution for Creationists". It's over to your right.
By the way, let's say you were married and had a child. If a paternity test came back and said that you weren't the father, would you think that the kid had been "designed" differently from you?
You know you're a creationist if you comment on blogs using phrases such as "believe in evolution" and "Science has never proved evolution" and "It takes faith to believe in evolution"
I've seen these phrases so many times that it's ridiculous. Is there a single creatioist in this country with an original thought on the matter? It's the same arguments over and over. Geez...
About "faith" in evolution.
On some level is takes "faith" to believe that reason works.
The last refuge of a creationist is to blow smoke about the validity of reason itself, or otherwise "human wisdom".
At bottom, creationism isn't about this or that scientific theory, it's preserving the Adam and Eve story against all reason.
Evolution Disputation
Trackback
The fact of the matter is that there is NO PROOF for particles to people evolution. You interpret "evidence" according to your beliefs, the same as everyone else.
Professor L.H.Matthews' statement comes from the foreword of Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1971) p 10.
In response to dinzer, it's the same arguements because evolutionists cannot give the answers. The "evidences" that they like to give often have more plausible, rational and truly scientific explanations.
Evolution is based on many false assumptions, lack of evidence and ultimately wishful thinking.Its a philosophy of origins that masquerades under the guise of science.
You know you're a creationist when you say evolution is a lie, but say all dogs have a common ancestor.
You know you're a creationist when you say that evolution is about the origins of life, even though evolution does not refer to it.
1971?
I thought you said it was in a 'recent' edition of Origin of Species? Do you own a copy of that edition of Origin of Species? Or are you copying and pasting from creationist websites, like I suspect?
Anonymous's "no proof" comment is especially funny considering that a simple search of the Internet will find reams of proof, complete with Popperian falsifiability.
The standard Christian ploy is to attack the concept of evidence directly, claiming "evidence of things not seen". Anonymous is not operating in the usual Christian mode because that would be letting the cat out of the bag that Anonymous is seeking to introduce Christianity into science curricula.
Since when does the fact that dogs come from common ancestors mean that all creatures - implying a Creator, of course - come from single cell organisms? You seem to misunderstand the difference between micro and macro evolution.
You have to start with origins otherwise your belief system - evolution in your case - has no foundation.
Believe it or not, I didnt copy and paste. My grandad has a copy of it, so its recent in his eyes!
Anoynmous, I do not misunderstand the difference between micro and macro evolution. See Talk Origins explanation.
Note, that you accept that microevolution as fact, so how can evolution be a lie?
Does the Bible not state the humans came from dirt (non-living matter)?
Since when does the fact that dogs come from common ancestors mean that all creatures - implying a Creator, of course - come from single cell organisms? You seem to misunderstand the difference between micro and macro evolution.
Macro and micro refer to different time scales, not different kinds of evolution. There is only one kind of evolution, and whether its 'macro' or 'micro' simply depends on how many millions or billions of years something has had to allow for significant changes.
You know you're a creationist when you say that macro and micro evolution are two different things, on real and one not real...
You have to start with origins otherwise your belief system - evolution in your case - has no foundation.
Evolution isn't a 'belief system'. Saying it is is just an attempt to pull in onto an equal playing field with creationism, and it always fails.
Your grandad has a copy of it? So why did you say it was "recent"? It was not recent by any means to you. In fact, 35 years isn't recent even to someone in their eighties.
What would a creationist be doing with a copy of Origin of Species anyway? There is much better, more interesing, and more up to date books on evolution than that.
You lying little quote mining asshole!
I just found your quote at Talk Origins. Think twice before you quote mine. Anonymous comments will be shut off until further notice.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7
"Similarity can equally be used as evidence of a Common Designer."
That's a key problem with the idea of a Common Designer -- everything conceivable can be spun into evidence for it, and nothing would be evidence against it. Similarity? Evidence for. Lack of similarity? Evidence for. Total lack of anything even remotely resembling similarity? Evidence for.
Evolution, on the other hand, would be remarkably easy to collect evidence against. Just one animal with with no DNA in it, for instance, would send all of evolution into a tailspin. Humans giving birth to ficuses. A naturally-occurring eagle/squid crossbreed. That we see none of this happening strengthens the position of evolution.
It is this falsifiability of evolution that makes it much stronger, as a theory, than ID as a theory. The one claim to fame ID has is that some folks 2000-6000 years ago thought it was a good enough theory to write down. The problem is, we've learned quite a bit more about the workings of the universe since then, and a lot of those findings show that the ancient writers simply got a lot of things wrong.
And that's fine; that's how science works. Ideas either stand the test of time or they don't. In time, perhaps evolution will be found to be severely lacking in some area, and will be replaced. But what it will be replaced by will certainly not be ID.
Will you PLEASE require people to enter an email address before commenting? I'm getting tired of hearing drivel from anonymous cowards afraid to be accountable for their lies.
@Anonymous:
Nothing in science is proven; not gravity, not electromagnetic theory, not anything. Science works on a basis of SUPPORTING evidence and REJECTING evidence. Currently Evolution has mounds and mounds of supportive evidence and *NOTHING* that rejects it.
Pointing out shortcomings or "gaps" in knowledge does NOT disprove Evolution, in the same way that pointing out what we don't know about gravity doesn't disprove gravity. (For example, we don't know what ACTUALLY causes gravity).
Evolution doesn't require "belief" for it to work, which is very fortunate for Creationists! Next time you go to get an immunization shot, you will find that even though you don't believe in the science behind it, that the vaccine still works.
Aaron,
Just today I turned off the anonymous comments. I didn't want to do it, but lately I have had a lot of comments like his, and I suspect they are from the same person.
The important point when considering man being created from the dust of the earth is that the Lord God is the One who made him, not random chance.
Professor Matthews' comment is found in a book I have on Creationism. I checked that it was accurate by looking in that edition of Origin of Species. And it is there.
You say, "There is much better, more interesing, and more up to date books on evolution than that." Obviously the theory of evolution has to continue to evolve... A classic case of moving the goal posts.
If evolution was true science then so many scientists wouldn't dispute it. But they do because of the glaring flaws. If evolution was factual then there'd be no debate about teaching ID in schools. But there is debate.
It's a shame that so many intelligent people, like most of you, keep holding on to evolution when the facts don't add up. That's why evolutionary books will continue to be 'modified' for some time to come.
There are so many contradictory statements by evolutionary scientists these days that evolution is losing its frail credibility.
If you are interested in truth then I would suggest Josh McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
The fundamental reason why I believe in God and therefore miraculous creation is because of what I see and experience all around me.
I tell you what Truth, if have that copy of Origin of Species, then start a blog, photocopy the page on which it has your statement, and post it on the blog.
Leave a link and I will look at it.
And by the way, your reasoning is fallacious: We are not "shifting the goalposts" by asking you to read something less than 150 years old. Darwin got a lot of things right, but he was unaware of genetics. He had a good case for evolution, but we have millions more fossils and hundreds of examples of evolution being observed in real time. Not too mention some really knock-out proofs of evolution found in genetics.
As it was the original point of the blog...
You know you're a creationist when you say "there's no evidence for evolution," while simultaneously having no evidence for ID.
Response to tom...
The order, complexity... yada yada yada suggests strongly the workings of a Creator. Probability is hugely in favour of Creationism.
Unfortunately I don't have a scanner. Which is very convenient I know.
This is copied from thetruthseeker.co.uk:
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
All modern evolutionary thought is built on such hopeless guesswork. Unfortunately the assumptions and presuppositions of evolutionary thought are unscientific and anything built on those foundations is contemptible.
Truth, I turned off the anonymous comments, so you went and registered an with blogger. I know you did because your profile says you only registered April of this year.
I can have blogger.com ban you from my blog (by banning your IP address) for leaving excessive and harassing comments. Please don't make me go to that level.
I'd be happy to be blocked.
A victory for Creationism.
Please block me.
You know you're a creationist when:
you claim evolution is false because there is no proof, yet you fail to provide evidence of creation;
you claim victory without any evidence that you've won;
you resort to dishonest tactics like quote mining and changing your username to fool the blog administrator.
I didn't change my username at all. I simply created one.
Romans 1:19,20.
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The proof is everywhere to be seen; 24 hours a day and every day for the rest of your life.
The dishonesty, jere, is with narrow-minded evolutionists like yourself, who verbally attack creationists and can't handle it when you are challenged.
I find it extremely amusing, and bemusing, that you believe particle-to-man evolution, and so does GOD, "The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them." Psalm 2:4
well, for someone who has the arrogance to call themselves "truth", they sure do lie. Find the actual quote by L.H. Matthews here, by the great people at the Quote Mining Project: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7
Unfortunately for "truth" he'll be in hell with the rest of us if he's right since his god hates people who think they can lie for him (see Romans 3)
your friendly velkyn/hexi from the forums
I didn't know that repeating somebody's words was equal to a lie these days. He should be more careful what he says if he doesn't mean it.
I'd never heard the term 'quote mining' till a few days ago, let alone that there were websites devoted to it. Thanks for introducing me to such boring websites!
All you've done there, hexidecima, is given evidence of Professor Matthews' self-contradictions. So, you've accused me of lying but in fact you've simply exposed another confused evolutionary scientist.
If I end up in hell, I'm sure I'll deserve it for all my sins. It would only be fair. Being accused of a lie by someone who believes in the mother of all lies is the least of my worries.
Hi Fundie
A few things to consider.
1)First prove there is a God before you claim that God created anything. Ok? Otherwise creationism is a moot point.
2) If God created the universe then who created God? If you reply God simply exists then that's my answer for the universe.
3) Since you've started slinging quotes around here's a few for you & your error free bible. Perhaps you'd like to explain these before anyone should pay attention to what the bible says.
1) Timing of the crucifixion:
Was it the 3rd hour as Mark 15:25 declares? Or was it the 6th hour as John 19: 14, 15 says?
2) Who was the first to find the tomb empty?
According to Mark: 3 [notice THREE] women go to the tomb first & see a young man [not an angel].
According to Matthew: 2 [notice TWO] Mary's approach the tomb first, when an earthquake occurs, an angel rolls away the stone which covers the tomb's entrance then sits on it.
Luke's women on the other hand already find the tomb empty & two [not one] men in shining robes.
While in John, Mary Magdalene is the first to find the tomb empty & she finds it ALONE.
Remember only one person or group can be the first at a unique event so please don't try to harmonize them just explain them.
As I see it you have 2 choices. The first is admit there are mistakes in the bible [then creationism is just another mistake] or explain these obvious errors. After all let's face it your fundie belief in an error free bible is the ONLY reason you believe in creationism. If the bible didn't mention creation by God you wouldn't care less about evolution.
To the other posters...sorry guys. You can delete this post if you don't think it's on topic.
Oh and in addition. In one of your posts you argued that if evolution were true then so many scientists wouldn't disagree with it.
Using that same argument if fundie christianity were true then so many theologians wouldn't disagree with it.
Sauce for the goose my lad...:D
I just activated Comment Moderation: All comments will have to be approved by me before they are posted.
Truth, you were asked to stop posting because of your continously harassing comments. All of your comments will now be deleted before they ever make it to the page. You lose, dickwad.
Post a Comment