Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A new creation-hybridisation of ID and creationism

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:33    Well, theres this organisation called "truth in science", which is basically founded by the usual suspects, young earth creationists who came into a bit of money.  They are intent on lying to schoolchildren.   So we, meaning various of us in the BCSE and Just science, would like to put a spanner in the works.   Anyway, they have this website with lots of essays and rubbish on biology, and I thought I woudl bring up this horse one: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/ Now, I can see that baraminologists are creationists, and the essay carefully skirts around that issue, treating baraminology papers as real ones.   That is just the beggining of their calumny, unfortunately I lack years of knowledge of biology and genetics sufficient to point out some holes.  Anyone got any recent references that are especially relevant to the evolution of horse like animals from their less horse like ancestors? The talkorigins essay is definitely a good start, I'm just asking if there is more up to date information available.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:42    [insert expletives here] I've done some googling, and found that the essay i referred to above is basically an edited version that the numpty produced several years ago.  Contrast this: Quote The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data. With: Quote Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data. All they've done is remove overt references to the flood etc.  Argh!  Lenny, you are so right.   This will make writing a letter to the Times about errors in their website rather easy....

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,14:06    I wouldn't advocate wasting your time.  Any references to science will be promptly ignored or regarded as a predictable attack and no amount of discussion/argument will deter them from their primary belief that God created the universe et al.  This is were people have to be expected to learn the difference between religion and science and if they don't want to you can not make them.  It's an exercise in futility on the same par with the continuing monotony of the discussions with Dave.  Dave's beliefs will never be changed by any on these boards and his versions of evidence will also never be accepted here.  So with that being said, what's the point?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,14:08    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,19:06) I wouldn't advocate wasting your time.  Any references to science will be promptly ignored or regarded as a predictable attack and no amount of discussion/argument will deter them from their primary belief that God created the universe et al.  This is were people have to be expected to learn the difference between religion and science and if they don't want to you can not make them.  It's an exercise in futility on the same par with the continuing monotony of the discussions with Dave.  Dave's beliefs will never be changed by any on these boards and his versions of evidence will also never be accepted here.  So with that being said, what's the point? The point is preventing them from teaching their crap in schools as "science". They can preach whatever they want in church.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,15:56    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,19:06) Dave's beliefs will never be changed by any on these boards and his versions of evidence will also never be accepted here.  So with that being said, what's the point? It's FUN!! -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,16:59    I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point?

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,17:41    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,22:59) I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point? I heard this on a radio show a while back: "You have to constantly hit idiocy and stupidity in the face.  Otherwise, idiocy and stupidity think they are alright." It's not a matter of the level of discussion, it's about revealing the facts in light of the idiocy (or stupidity). Preach, pray, shout, dance, but don't mess with the facts. Plus.... it's FUN

Aerik Posts: 1 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,19:25    HI! New to this forum. Yes, I've known about "Truth In Science" for some time. It has been showing up in the contextual ads of pandasthumb.org, skepticality.com, and scienceblogs.com for some time now. We're talking alot about how they're skirting issues about their obvious creationism.  How come nobody's compared it to "Of Pandas and People" yet?  It's purty much the same situation.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,20:16    Quote I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point? actually, the current concern is the outreach to the UK these folks are pulling. they've sent double-discs of their drivel to every school district in the UK, and the idea of bringing it to everyone's attention is to alert the school districts to these folks shenanigans (yes, get your brooms!. so it's not a waste of time at all. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,22:13    OOps, I should have specified that we are talking about the UK here.  I was getting a little excited yesterday at their sheer brazeness and forgot to specify that.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,02:50    Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 18 2006,09:42) [insert expletives here] I've done some googling, and found that the essay i referred to above is basically an edited version that the numpty produced several years ago.  Contrast this: Quote The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data. With: Quote Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data. All they've done is remove overt references to the flood etc.  Argh!  Lenny, you are so right.   This will make writing a letter to the Times about errors in their website rather easy.... OK.  So, if the world is only 6000 years old and horses have gone through all these changes "in kind" then why have we not noticed horses (and other animals) changing so rapidly and so much?

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,03:49    Guthrie, I'm not sure how it works over there so I do not know of your level of distress but I do know how it works over here and it is a non-issue.  There's no scientific evidence for a 6,000 year old world and to even entertain the argument is like walking into the asylum and sitting down for a game of checkers.  Now by all accounts Europe is much more secularized than the US so I would assume you would have no problem with this issue either but I may be wrong.  You can throw examples like horses in their face but it makes no difference whatso ever because the belief is built on faith.  In order to believe a 6,000 year old Earth you'd have to deny almost all science disciplines for the last 200 years and when you do that, as these people have, then there's just no reason to have a conversation about science because you're speaking two different languages.  It has nothing to do with idiocy or stupidity; it's a decision that faith trumps reason and I know that's a generally aborrent attitude around here but that is the choice of a minority and there's nothing that can be done to change it.  I would submit that there should be no effort to try because these people are happy and harmless so why waste the time.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,04:41    Quote  I would submit that there should be no effort to try because these people are happy and harmless so why waste the time. god, you're simply an idiot, aren't you? it isn't just YEC's supporting that site, the disco institute is heavily invested as well, and is one of the ones who provided the sponsored discs that were sent out. whether these people are "happy" or not is hardly the point, they certainly are NOT harmless. why don't you leave your little cave once in a while and get some fresh air, eh? you might actually catch something of what's really happening out there, rather than your fantasies of it. yeesh. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,05:39    Up to a point, yes skeptic, they are fairly harmless.  But the point is that they are trying to smuggle non science into schools, as part of the usual wedge strategy.  Sure, they are talking mince, as usual, but, like with the last few places in the USA that tried to get ID into the school curriculum, they have to be smacked down.  I recall that many of the school boards in question have been changed, by people voting out the ID'ists.  This is the kind of issue that really isnt that big to begin with but takes a fair bit of effort to make sure it doesnt grow and to reverse the attempts by the creationists.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:03    the chasm between YEC and ID is immense and as we've seen how ID has fared, YEC has no chance.  Ichy, if you feel the need to create crisis to entertain yourself, feel free.  Personally, I think you're nearly delusional, there is no REAL threat here.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:44    Quote the chasm between YEC and ID is immense and as we've seen how ID has fared, YEC has no chance.  Ichy, if you feel the need to create crisis to entertain yourself, feel free.  Personally, I think you're nearly delusional, there is no REAL threat here. Skeptic, I think you're delusional. First, for thinking there's a "chasm" between YEC and ID. I don't know what planet you live on, but here in Ohio, "ID" is a fancy word for saying "There's a bunch of PhDs cranking out a bunch of sciency-sounding  sophistry that says that we YECers are basically right".  The folks coming to the school board to defend the "ID" position are mostly YECers - to the extent that they can even see a distinction between the two. (Many cannot). Second, for thinking that the whole anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-intellectual movement is not all of a piece, and not a serious threat to education. Either you haven't been following events in Ohio, Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Michigan, and several other places, or you are, in fact, delusional. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,15:07    skeptic, It's not the person that's stupid or idiotic, it's the ideas that are put forward.  I can say "That's stupid!" to my doctor as well as to a creationist.  I'm not disparaging the person directly.  If a YEC argument says the earth is 6000 years old then "That's stupid AND idiotic." and the person should seek help to correct his/her/its misinformation. It's not against the law to be ignorant, just annoying to many others.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,19:04    Thats something I will have to ponder as I have never really been much concerned with the ignorance of others and it certainly doesn't annoy me.  Maybe I just don't have the free time to worry about such things.  Also, I'd like to see a show of hands from all those who believe ID will ever be taught in the public schools.  If you raised your hand then you live in a much different world than I and barring the chance that both these worlds exist simultaneously then one of us must be delusional.  Its not for me to decide who because I honestly don't care.  And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,19:18    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 19 2006,17:03) the chasm between YEC and ID is immense and as we've seen how ID has fared, YEC has no chance.  Ichy, if you feel the need to create crisis to entertain yourself, feel free.  Personally, I think you're nearly delusional, there is no REAL threat here. you are an amazing dolt. why don't you go tell the folks scrambling for cash in the Dover School district about how this is all a "non-issue", eh? why do you even think it managed to become a federal court case to begin with? what exactly is your malfunction??? my god, but you have your head wedged. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,21:56    And the reason I called the thread what I did was to draw some attention to the way the Truthiness in science people are mostly YEC's, yet have adopted much of the language of ID people, such as Wells books, and also talk happily about the flagellum etc etc.   Now, if I could find some leading light in the ID movement slagging them off for stealing their ideas to promote their own agenda, I guess I wouldnt be so bothered.  So far, I have yet to see that.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,00:51    And they have a new/ old anti-evolutionist about whome I can find nothing on talk origins: Felix Konotey-Ahulu, MD. The evidence is here: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/142/65 Mostly its just a rant about how Darwinism cant explain anything, and I suspect its been totally blown out the water by modern genetics, but it needs someone who actually knows something about sickle cell anemia to deal with it.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,01:04    To be honest I didn't put much thought into that page because it just seemed to be saying: 'if a piece of evidence doesn't prove by itself that all life descended from a single cell than it doesn't count as evidence for evolutiuon'.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,01:17    What!  You mean like most of the rest of the spin and half truths on Truthiness in science' website?   I'm shocked! not. I guess I'm still working on short snappy ways of bringing it home to the public how little in the way of substance there is behind their ramblings.

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,03:57    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,01:04) Thats something I will have to ponder as I have never really been much concerned with the ignorance of others and it certainly doesn't annoy me.  Maybe I just don't have the free time to worry about such things.  Also, I'd like to see a show of hands from all those who believe ID will ever be taught in the public schools.  If you raised your hand then you live in a much different world than I and barring the chance that both these worlds exist simultaneously then one of us must be delusional.  Its not for me to decide who because I honestly don't care.  And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick. skeptic, I'm going to be critical here. Do you always type in stream-of-consiousness?  I'm trying to piece together those bits of your reply that apply to my comments and others comments, BUT without any references, quotes, or distinct seperation of phrases the whole response seems to be so much mumbling on your part. As for the bolded portion I think you are thinking in too broad a catagory for my statement about ignorance.  Let me put it into an analogy. **** I'm almost positive you have in the past been concerned about the ignorance of your co-workers as it relates to getting your job done at some point in your career.  By this I mean that you know some facts/procedure/insight that are needed to get your job done but should be known by everyone involved in this job family.  If someone you work with expresses ignorance with these facts/procedures/insights then you have to take time and effort to correct the ignorance expressed.  This is what I find annoying because this co-worker should have come equiped with enough knowledge and training to already understand the facts/procedures/insights in their job.  It may be the company training program that failed them instead of the person not thinking.  It doesn't matter, it's still annoying (to me at least). I use the same thinking when faced with knowledge that most high-schoolers should understand (age of earth, genetics, basic physics, etc.).  If someone displays ignorance of this knowledge then it's annoying that EITHER the system failed to teach them OR that someone chose not to learn the facts.  I will try and correct them with the facts so they can learn and understand. The "idiocy and stupidity" come into play when someone ignores the factual evidence that contradicts the ignorance expressed.  I'm not referring to someone incapable to understand the concepts, but more to an AFDave who has the capacity to absorb the factual evidence but chooses not to. Mike PSS

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,04:29    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,00:04) And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick. I see. United by nothing more than a hatred of evolution, they'll glom onto any theory that says it contradicts Darwinism. 6,000 year old earth, 4.5 billion year old earth, no evolution ever, yes evolution, common descent, no common descent, what's the difference? Best not to talk about it. Just as long as it's not 'Darwinism', that's all that matters. If there's such a massive chasm between ID and creationism, then why was it possible to convert a Creationism textbook to an Intelligent Design textbook by simply doing a global search-and-replace of 'creation' with 'design'? I can't imagine ANY other instance of two 'totally different' scientific theories where you can convert one to the other merely by switching a few crucial words. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,05:00    In this particular case, the DI has approved of "Truth in Science", and TiS use the example of the bacterial flagellum in one of their lesson plans.  The people behind it are mostly solid young earth creationists, which can be established easily enough by looking them up online.   Moreover as I pointed out above, the essay on the evolution of the horse is a creationist essay with references to the flood removed.   Now, of course not all ID and creationists will go along with each other; nevertheless, the fact remains that due to their lack of scientific theory, they can rub along ok because they do not make the kind of hard and fast distinctions necessary to have a workable hypothesis.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:08    Quote Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data. Whenever I read something like the quote above, I am always gobsmacked by the mindset that can blithely call on  vastly faster evolution than evolutionary biologists can imagine (all of horse evolution in 6000 years), while equally blithely dismissing evolutionary change as irrelevant.  They are proposing that evolutionary change can go from a dog-sized animal with four toes per foot and teeth that are very different from horse teeth to a horse-sized animal with one toe per foot and with major dental changes, but they can't accept going from a chimp/human ancestor to humans over 3 million years. Anything is okay as long as it doesn't involve hunams evolving from animals.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:22    Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2006,14:08) Anything is okay as long as it doesn't involve hunams evolving from animals. Somehow being formed from dirt (Genesis 2:7) makes us more noble?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:48    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 20 2006,13:22) Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2006,14:08) Anything is okay as long as it doesn't involve hunams evolving from animals. Somehow being formed from dirt (Genesis 2:7) makes us more noble? Yeah! Besides, if we're formed out of dirt, how come we still have dirt?? (I have single-handedly disproved Genesis! ) -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:53    If everything from Eohippus to the modern horse (and also, presumably, donkeys and zebras) are the same basic kind, which one was on the ark? -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard