N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
To his credit, Gary defends paleontology over at the Reddit Creationist forum at his link.
https://www.reddit.com/r....or....ort=old
However, Javidan of the West asks for "theories or indications of the truth of creation that withstand (or have withstood) criticism", and Gary responds by giving links to all his nonsense. Gary, your stuff is not a theory: among other things, it has zero acceptance. Also, your nonsense has not "withstood criticism" - you have yet to respond adequately to even one bit of the critiques that have been raised on this thread.
From Javidan of the West in the opening post:
| Quote | I'm compiling a book out of different chapters that will contain the answers to pretty much any question, including those of (and about) Mormons, JW's and Muslims.
Now here's my problem. I want to dedicate a part of it to evolution, and I feel like I should explain why. My goal is not to discredit evolution, but to make the average person realize that behind all this talk of an infallible theory of truth, that there is actually a lot of room for doubt. At the same time, I'd want to provide incentive to believe in creation, but I do not necessarily need to prove it's truth.
Some of you might have noticed that most Christians nowadays seem to believe that Genesis is almost entirely supposed to be interpreted figuratively (examples: flood never happened, creation never happened, fall never happened, but they tell a story that applies to us), which I believe is the beginning of the downfall of Christianity.
What I need are:
theories or indications of the truth of creation that withstand (or have withstood) criticism.
Evolutionary conclusions that are better explained with creationism.
Findings that evolutionists try to sweep under the rug, or findngs that they conveniently overlook.
Sources that quickly allow me to grasp the concepts of creation and evolution, and their fundamental differences. Perhaps even the fields in which one theory is stronger than the other. These are hard to find because they often delve deeply into the scientific aspects, with the inclusion of 'sciency' words, which is what I'm very much trying to avoid in my book, as I want to provide understandable information.
[and in a later post...]
I'll manage to somehow make this easy to understand once I myself completely understand it.
|
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions! Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?
Also interesting: a post there by Salvador Cordova, who claims to be writing a book with Sanford and Marks ("hope to have 0th edition out by Christmas. We'll see. I've have the material for the remaining 3/4 somewhat written, but it strewn all over the internet and need reworking of the language to make it clear to an 8-year-old.") !!!!!!
| Quote | You should reference then my upcoming book co-authored with John Sanford (Geneticist), Robert Marks (computer scientist, expert in evolutionary informatics), Joe Deweee (Pharmaceutical Biologists), possible a couple more. :-)
The problem with what you are asking is that to make a convincing case, one needs to go into technical details. How comfortable would you be talking about nucleosomes, spliceosome, sliceosomal introns, hitsones, chromatin remodelers to criticize eukaryote evolution from prokaryotes?
Here is an example of on such paper. See for yourself the paucity of credible refutations:
https://www.reddit.com/r....?......?....?
Probably a better approach is to simply list questions an undergrad can ask about evolution which I'm confident his professors can't answer like, "does the direct the common ancestor of an elephant and a bird exist in the fossil record? How about the direct unequivocal common ancestor of a giraffe and a cabbage plant? Describe the evolution of insulin regulated metabolisms in vertebrates, how did the intermediate forms avoid death?" You can lay that out in about 3 pages. Here is what I did for a college biology student: https://www.reddit.com/r....?......?....?
So try that. It will take some reworking.
But here is my favorite:
In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudo science of] phrenology than to physics. -- World famous evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne
|
Notes: Salvador is still relying on slinging jargon for obfuscation/intimidation, both in his own right, and indirectly in the literature that he now uses as the basis of his argument ( https://answersingenesis.org/biology....eukarya ). He also still loves quote-mines. He still claims confirmation from lack of sufficient response (despite a couple of perfectly good responses in an out-of-the-way thread: no one would expect a transition to be possible between a modern prokaryote and a modern eukaryote; the creationist article does not discuss endosymbiosis). Overall, pitiful.
|
