1. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    25 Sep '05 17:151 edit
    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
  2. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    25 Sep '05 17:27
    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!
  3. Muncie, IN
    Joined
    20 Jan '04
    Moves
    7276
    26 Sep '05 20:53
    Nothing really new, but a very nice, concise and handy article. Recommended!

    Best Regards,
    Paul
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 Sep '05 21:44
    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?
  5. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    26 Sep '05 21:47
    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
  6. Muncie, IN
    Joined
    20 Jan '04
    Moves
    7276
    26 Sep '05 21:50
    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
  7. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    27 Sep '05 02:04
    Bookmarked. Nice find!
  8. Arizona, USA
    Joined
    15 Jun '04
    Moves
    656
    27 Sep '05 02:221 edit
    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.
  9. Standard memberUmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    Playing percussion
    Joined
    13 Jul '05
    Moves
    13232
    27 Sep '05 02:41
    I love how people just ignore any evidence that doesn't support them or come up with ridiculous lies to negate evidence.
  10. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    27 Sep '05 04:30
    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 ...
  11. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    27 Sep '05 05:40
    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.
  12. Standard membergenius
    Wayward Soul
    Your Blackened Sky
    Joined
    12 Mar '02
    Moves
    15128
    27 Sep '05 09:38
    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.
  13. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    27 Sep '05 09:59
    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.
  14. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    27 Sep '05 10:15
    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.
  15. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    27 Sep '05 10:201 edit
    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.
Back to Top