Go back
Article refuting creationism

Article refuting creationism

Spirituality

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
25 Sep 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

I was wondering if anyone had read this before and what comments either side has about it.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

bbarr
Chief Justice

Center of Contention

Joined
14 Jun 02
Moves
17381
Clock
25 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
I was wondering if anyone had read this before and what comments either side has about it.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf
What a nice little article! Thanks!

prn

Muncie, IN

Joined
20 Jan 04
Moves
7276
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Nothing really new, but a very nice, concise and handy article. Recommended!

Best Regards,
Paul

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by prn
Nothing really new, but a very nice, concise and handy article. Recommended!

Best Regards,
Paul
Hi Paul, long time no see, where have you been?

a

Meddling with things

Joined
04 Aug 04
Moves
58590
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by prn
Nothing really new, but a very nice, concise and handy article. Recommended!

Best Regards,
Paul
A well written summary that gives a lie to the nonsense that gets trotted out here ad nausem

prn

Muncie, IN

Joined
20 Jan 04
Moves
7276
Clock
26 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

I've been around. I've even tried to keep a game or two going here all the time. I just haven't had much time to play or post. 🙁 I got a chance to drop in today so I did. I'm glad to see some of my old favorite buddies still here and posting. I'll try to drop by more often.

Paul

DC
Flamenco Sketches

Spain, in spirit

Joined
09 Sep 04
Moves
59422
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Bookmarked. Nice find!

PD

Arizona, USA

Joined
15 Jun 04
Moves
656
Clock
27 Sep 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

The article makes reference to Philip Johnson and his book 'Darwin on Trial.' Being addicted to televangelists' broadcasts like I am, I heard Johnson being interviewed on Christian radio a few weeks ago. I think this is close to an exact quote of what he said: "The theory of evolution doesn't just contradict the opening chapters of Genesis, it contradicts the entire Bible, from cover to cover."

Johnson also made the claim that the peppered moth is the "very best" piece of evidence that biologists can point to on behalf of evolution, and he went on to say that the type of trees that the moths blend in with are ones that the moths don't even make use of. Johnson says the moths are "glued onto the trees" in pictures that biology texts use to show how a dark moth is hard to see against a dark tree trunk, and how a light moth is hard to see against a ligth tree trunk.

U
All Bark, No Bite

Playing percussion

Joined
13 Jul 05
Moves
13279
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

I love how people just ignore any evidence that doesn't support them or come up with ridiculous lies to negate evidence.

K
Strawman

Not Kansas

Joined
10 Jul 04
Moves
6405
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
I was wondering if anyone had read this before and what comments either side has about it.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf
Nice. Concise. Should save time here ...

Bosse de Nage
Zellulärer Automat

Spiel des Lebens

Joined
27 Jan 05
Moves
90892
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda contradicts the oft-repeated injunction to take the Bible as a whole and not focus on verses that seem random, paradoxical or flatly insane.

g
Wayward Soul

Your Blackened Sky

Joined
12 Mar 02
Moves
15128
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

i didn't read it over fully but i shall make time-i liked the first point, where the guy basically said that the theory of evolution is, by definition, a truth. "All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance,
so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct
observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain."

that, for instance, is not a good comparison. i mean, something had to make those tracks, and those somethings came from the particles - ergo, we have sub-atomic particles!

evolutionary theorists have fossils. they are also missing a lot of fossils, but that's beside the point. they have these fossils, many look similar ergo one came from the other.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda contradicts the oft-repeated injunction to take the Bible as a whole and not focus on verses that seem random, paradoxical or flatly insane.
The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda

I could say the same for many of the evolutionists here.

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
27 Sep 05
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda

I could say the same for many of the evolutionists here.[/b]
Hal, I'd be especially interested to know what you thought of the article, you have the kind of enquiring mind which many Christians on the site lack.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
Clock
27 Sep 05
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
Hal, I'd be especially interested to know what you thought of the article, you have the kind of enquiring mind which many Christians on the site lack.
I'll try and read through it. Comments pending.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.