• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EVOLUTION, what a lie.

DarkSun

DarkSun

:eltiT
Autodidact said:
Creationists are more than welcome to perform any tests on any fossil they like. They do not choose to do so. In fact, if you look at AIG, you will see creationists trying to attack scientific conclusions about certain fossils, such as Tiktaalik. They find this hard to do, because they lack the specialized training in the field. They do not choose to participate in submitting their work for scrutiny by other scientists, for their own reasons.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. Creationism and scientific investigation aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are some Creationists out there who also dapple in Paleontology, Biology or any other field of science. They'd just have a bit of a faith-dilemma when they're faced with the evidence somewhere along the line -- which I'm sure they could overcome if their faith is strong enough, anyway.
 
DarkSun

DarkSun

:eltiT
eselam said:
not really, the only thing that came to mind was whether only paleotologists do tests on the fossils or do other scientists who do not accept evolution also get to test them.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that science aims to eliminate all bias to attempt to get real results. This is just another part of the scientific method. For that reason, the beliefs of those people conducting the investigation on the fossils are irrelevant.

But no, I can't really name a single creationist who has also studied a fossil. This really isn't my area, I'm more interested in chemistry and I'm only in my first year of uni, too, so maybe Painted Wolf could help name a few.

EDIT:

Come to think of it, my year twelve chemistry teacher had a Master in Biomedical Science, and she was a really devout Creationist. I don't know if she's ever seen a fossil, though. I never asked.
 
Last edited:
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
perhaps... but they are clinging to ID for now and the Disco boys are a massive lobbying machine that needs to be confronted
Click to expand...
Under the purpose for which the DI exists (influencing public education), "intelligent design" is all but dead. The current strategy is "strengths and weakness of evolution", which of course is almost exclusively the same arguments as ID creationist, which was mostly the same arguments as old-school creationism. But from a strategic standpoint, the Dover trial pretty much put a quick end to calls to teach ID creationism.

AIG is so over the top one has to wonder how long they will continue before they implode
Click to expand...
Again, a plurality of the American public agrees with them, and their creation museum in Kentucky is very popular. I don't think they're going anywhere for a long while.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
There are a handful of creationists/evolution denialists who have degrees in paleontology and work for creationist organizations or teach at fundamentalist Christian universities. If they do take the time to study fossil specimens, they certainly don't publish their results in the relevant scientific journals.

Come to think of it, the controversy a few years back about Richard von Sternberg and the ID creationist paper that got published eventually involved Dr. Sternberg (a creationist) and his access to fossil specimens at the Smithsonian. The short version relevant to this thread is that he had full access to the Smithsonian's fossil specimens.

So to answer your question Eselam....yes, creationists/evolution denialists can indeed study fossil specimens if they want.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
not really, the only thing that came to mind was whether only paleotologists do tests on the fossils or do other scientists who do not accept evolution also get to test them.
Click to expand...
Paleontologists do a lot of the work with fossils but other scientists help.
Zoologists of all kinds, Chemists, Molecular biologists, developmental biologists, geologists, ecologists, even physicists and geneticists help study fossils.

I'm sure I'm missing a few... but you get the idea. It takes a lot of work by a lot of different groups of people to piece together the long lost. (thankfully Creator left us some good evidence to go by)

wa:do
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Under the purpose for which the DI exists (influencing public education), "intelligent design" is all but dead. The current strategy is "strengths and weakness of evolution", which of course is almost exclusively the same arguments as ID creationist, which was mostly the same arguments as old-school creationism. But from a strategic standpoint, the Dover trial pretty much put a quick end to calls to teach ID creationism.
Click to expand...
With their money and political clout they will be back... Dover was just one battle and they are primarily lawyers and pitchmen.

Again, a plurality of the American public agrees with them, and their creation museum in Kentucky is very popular. I don't think they're going anywhere for a long while.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's an edifice built on the ego of one man... Ken Ham.
Like most of the giant evangelical displays of largess, it may not survive beyond him. Look at the power struggle between him and the Australian group that spawned him.

AIG is set up like a church... DI is a business. AIG may survive without their prophet but I'm willing to bet that there will be some interesting power struggles at the top over who gets the biggest piece of the cash cow.

wa:do
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
PW,

My point is that "intelligent design" is effectively dead (it was scientifically stillborn, and the Dover trial killed it politically), not that the Disco Toot is dead. They're religiously-motivated creationists who will be around for a long time. Just as they dropped "scientific creationism" when it was killed in court and moved on to "intelligent design", they've dropped ID and moved on to "strengths and weaknesses".

And as we've seen, there's no shortage of sympathetic school boards, legislatures, and teachers who are more than eager to promote their nonsense and inject it into public school science classes.

As far as AIG, I don't see any indication that they're losing any public popularity. As Lisa Simpson once said, "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator". AIG makes a lot of money telling people what they want to hear...."Evolution is wrong and the Bible is right". And as I pointed out, the public polls haven't budged a bit in over a decade. So there's not a lot of reason to think they'll be going away anytime soon. I have Directv, and there are at least 3 or 4 channels that broadcast AIG's lectures and presentations almost every night. Of course they're full of lies and half-truths, but you have to be very familiar with evolutionary biology to spot them.

And they know as well as we do that their target audience is very ignorant of biology...and they take full advantage of that fact.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
My point is that "intelligent design" is effectively dead (it was scientifically stillborn, and the Dover trial killed it politically), not that the Disco Toot is dead. They're religiously-motivated creationists who will be around for a long time. Just as they dropped "scientific creationism" when it was killed in court and moved on to "intelligent design", they've dropped ID and moved on to "strengths and weaknesses".
Click to expand...
My point is that they are adaptable and that makes them dangerous.

As far as AIG, I don't see any indication that they're losing any public popularity. As Lisa Simpson once said, "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator". AIG makes a lot of money telling people what they want to hear...."Evolution is wrong and the Bible is right". And as I pointed out, the public polls haven't budged a bit in over a decade. So there's not a lot of reason to think they'll be going away anytime soon. I have Directv, and there are at least 3 or 4 channels that broadcast AIG's lectures and presentations almost every night. Of course they're full of lies and half-truths, but you have to be very familiar with evolutionary biology to spot them.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm not expecting them to loose popularity... I'm expecting interesting things once Ham dies... I'm thinking long term. His lectures will continue but AIG itself will likely change form.
And then there is the ever present temptation for places like the "museum" to turn into a big tax fraud... Not that I expect Ken to go the way of Kent... but one never knows.

And they know as well as we do that their target audience is very ignorant of biology...and they take full advantage of that fact.
Click to expand...
We need to find ways of effectively fixing that... reminding people that science and religion are not incompatible. Literalism is not the only way to approach faith.
Science does not = atheism.... Polls show that Americans respect science, we just have to do better at reaching them.

wa:do
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
shortfade2 said:
ok. I just think that this goes against the second law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
Click to expand...
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
 
shortfade2

shortfade2

Active Member
which law is it that says somn like the state things tend to move from order to disorder? is that part of the second law of thermodynamics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top