Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Review of Creationist Web Sites
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 40 (37107)
04-16-2003 11:30 AM


Having been subject to a number of the anti-evolution arguments of various Christian creationist sect web sites I have wondered a bit why the quality of the arguments are so low. The same material is used over and over. It is criticized in some detail in lots of places yet it doesn’t get fixed. If I was publishing the material I would work very hard to get it cleaned up and as right as I could make it. I’d stop doing simplistic probability calculations and using the 2nd law of thermodynamics incorrectly. Why don’t they?
Here is my thought on this.
My view is wrong because I think of the audience for those sites as being a very wide group of people. That is, anyone interested in the topic.
The audience for the material on the creationist web sites is expected to be uneducated in any of the science and any math. It is strictly those within the fold. They don’t have to correct it. And they don’t want to because that would either weaken the argument or make it more complex.
Does anyone have any comments on this? Or am I only finally coming to realize something that is obvious to most?
In addition, this thread might be used to point out particular 'amusing' statements on these web sites. Maybe some of the more thoughtful creationists could use some postings on this thread to avoid the worst of the sites.
Here is a dilly:
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/evcha3.htm
"According to one of the more prominent, currently acceptable theories, the planets in our solar system were spun-off from the sun. Each planet was flung into space where it cooled and now revolves around the sun. However, if this was true, why do the planets rotate around their axis faster than the sun rotates around its own - in violation of the rules governing centrifugal force? "

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 04-16-2003 11:42 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 04-20-2003 10:49 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 04-20-2003 7:42 PM NosyNed has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 40 (37112)
04-16-2003 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
04-16-2003 11:30 AM


I would agree, and I would also add that many of the Creationist leaders have the same view of their cause as political extremists do; anything that forwards the cause is (by definition) true, and anything that thwarts the cause is (by definition) false.
The only time the "party line" is changed is when it is no longer an effective argument to convert the uneducated masses, not when it is shown to be incorrect.
They don't actually see it as incorrect if it supports their preferred world view, regardless of the evidence.
I would also contend that Creationists, almost across the board, utterly lack the ability to intellectually step outside of their own convictions and argument in order to hypothetically take another position. Consequently, they often lack any kind of knowledge or education of that which they vehemently argue against.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2003 11:30 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2003 11:51 AM nator has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 40 (37113)
04-16-2003 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
04-16-2003 11:42 AM


Creationists as Debaters
quote:
I would also contend that Creationists, almost across the board, utterly lack the ability to intellectually step outside of their own convictions and argument in order to hypothetically take another position. Consequently, they often lack any kind of knowledge or education of that which they vehemently argue against.
Agreed. This is one of the top 3 reasons why they are so poor at the debate. They just don't have any understanding of the opposing position.
Of course, my problem is similar. I can never figure out what the opposing position is since there seem to be so many of them all moving around as they think they need to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 04-16-2003 11:42 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Karl, posted 04-17-2003 4:14 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-06-2003 11:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 40 (37198)
04-17-2003 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
04-16-2003 11:51 AM


Re: Creationists as Debaters
Well, I divide creationists into three types.
(a) Originators. Folks like ICR and AiG, lone mavericks like Kent Hovind. These guys come up with the creationist arguments, and invent new ones as old ones are shown to be complete bollocks and enter the PRATT list. Many (but not all!) of these are competent scientists, but driven by ideology rather than by the scientific principle.
(b) Propogators. These are the churches, organisations and individuals who take the stuff that group (a) generates and disseminate it. So here you have the majority of creationist web sites, for example. These are a bit behind group (a), and they know that group (c) (below) will swallow whatever bullshit they are fed, working on the "what I want to believe" principle.
(c) Rank and File. The Man in the Pew. The reader of "Dinosaurs, Jesus and More". He probably has enough science to understand a creationist argument, but not enough to see why it's horsefeathers. His delusion by groups (a) and (b) is aided by two things: firstly, he has an innate trust in the teachers in his church, and secondly, he wants to believe there is scientific support for his faith-based worldview. The first of these is actually quite significant, because it is what stops the creationist from actually checking what he has been told. It is why we get individuals on here who spout a load of regurgitated gobshite from AiG or Hovind. These creationists don't read the counter arguments, and certainly don't follow any links to further information. They don't need to - they know the 'truth' already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2003 11:51 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 40 (37388)
04-20-2003 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
04-16-2003 11:30 AM


Funny thing...
[i][b]"Having been subject to a number of the anti-evolution arguments of various Christian creationist sect web sites I have wondered a bit why the quality of the arguments are so low."[/i][/b]
... I have had precisely the same puzzling thoughts regarding naturalists and their sophomoric lines of materialistic explanations of which evolution theory is but one.
But my bewilderment ended long ago.
Sometime in distant years past I discovered the answer - "Men believe whatever they wish to believe...", Demosthenes, 348 B.C.
With all due respect to Demosthenes, I'll add the following to his quote,
"... and then they set out to justify that belief by whatever means possible." Joralex, 2003 A.D.
But then, there is but One Truth and whatever else men may wish to believe, or not, will not alter this fact.
The wise will seek this Truth and then live by it while the foolish spend their lives wallowing amongst the countless falsehoods that men have created to suppress this One Truth.
Like it or not (and most people don't), this is the ultimate answer.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2003 11:30 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-20-2003 10:54 AM Joralex has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 40 (37389)
04-20-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
04-20-2003 10:49 AM


Re: Funny thing...
quote:
The wise will seek this Truth...
And how will the wise seek the "Truth"? Will they use reason and logic? Will they want to know why they are expected to believe?
And you're off topic. Did you want to post a creationist web site that you believe has high quality, reliable information? Do you have a good candidate? It's not really fair when the scientific side are the only ones picking candidates since we might pick only the bad ones. You get a turn to pick a good one and show how wrong we are with our blanket condemnation.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 04-20-2003 10:49 AM Joralex has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 7 of 40 (37410)
04-20-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
04-16-2003 11:30 AM


You picked a duzy of a web site, NosyNed. Yours is hard to top, so I pick my choice for most amusing argument from the web site you referenced:
"According to the horse theory, our modern horse evolved gradually from the now extinct Eohippus, a 28 inch tall, multi-toed mammal. But here is the problem with that theory. Evolution says we go from the less complex to the more complex, from the weak to the strong. But this prime example of the evolutionary theory fails to comply with its own premise in at least three major areas. First, a more complex 4-toed mammal (3 toes on the hind quarter) 'evolved' into a less complex one toed horse."
I guess it's time to throw out all that other weak scientific evidence. When you've got powerful arguments like this one, the fossils and the geologic column become meaningless.
Wow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2003 11:30 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2003 12:48 AM truthlover has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 40 (37428)
04-21-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
04-20-2003 7:42 PM


Thanks for the support!
quote:
But here is the problem with that theory. Evolution says we go from the less complex to the more complex, from the weak to the strong.
LOL! Thanks. For helping demonstrate how bad that site is. This is not what ToE says. There is not direction to evolutionary change. This is the kind of strawman argument that these sites use. Thanks for helping though I don't think that's what you intended.
Now, how about you coming up with a creationist site that doesn't have this kind of nonsense as support for it's position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 04-20-2003 7:42 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:42 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 04-24-2003 12:58 AM NosyNed has replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 40 (37510)
04-22-2003 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
04-21-2003 12:48 AM


Legitimate creation arguments...
Sir Louis Pasteur said: "a little bit of science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him."
I have never heard of a better thought-out single sentence. This is true in every experience of my life as long as I have been a creationist.
You see, the Smithsonian is responsible for hiding a lot of evidence that goes against evolution, so I've heard.
Also, National Geographic refuses to publish any legitimate pro-creation articles, and the even refuse to apologise when some of their "science" is revealed as fraudulant.
You see, I love God and I will continue to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong, (yes, and you'd better look into BOTH sides of the argument before you question the Bible's validity).
So, if Webster describes science as "knowledge through observation and experimentation" then why do they claim evolution is 'science' when they are hiding evidence against it. To me, illegitimate anti-creationist articles GO AGAINST the true concept of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2003 12:48 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-22-2003 2:10 AM booboocruise has replied
 Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2003 3:38 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2003 10:56 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 12:47 PM booboocruise has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 10 of 40 (37515)
04-22-2003 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:42 AM


Re: Legitimate creation arguments...
quote:
Sir Louis Pasteur said:
Sir Louis? The French scientist became a British citizen when exactly?
quote:
You see, the Smithsonian is responsible for hiding a lot of evidence that goes against evolution, so I've heard.
And I have heard that creationists have fraudulently manipulated palaeontological evidence to show that man and the dinosaurs coexisted. So what?
Now come on - you borrow so heavily from Hovind and others that you must have come across some really bad creation sites in your time. Surely you can share one or two?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:42 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 3:48 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 40 (37524)
04-22-2003 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:42 AM


Re: Legitimate creation arguments...
Welcome back. I'm glad you decided to post again. Please address the counterevidence in your previous threads.
booboo writes:
You see, the Smithsonian is responsible for hiding a lot of evidence that goes against evolution, so I've heard.
Although I'd be willing to bet on what you're referring to here, in the interests of discussion, please cite a specific example where the Smithsonian has hidden evidence against evolution.
Also, National Geographic refuses to publish any legitimate pro-creation articles, and the even refuse to apologise when some of their "science" is revealed as fraudulant.
In spite of the fact that Nat Geo isn't a "peer reviewed" journal, they have a pretty good reputation most times. Again, I'd be willing to bet I know what you're referring to, but I would appreciate it if you could cite a specific example for discussion.
So, if Webster describes science as "knowledge through observation and experimentation" then why do they claim evolution is 'science' when they are hiding evidence against it. To me, illegitimate anti-creationist articles GO AGAINST the true concept of science.
Please provide a specific case of an "illegitimate" anti-creationist article so we can discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:42 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 40 (37549)
04-22-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:42 AM


Re: Legitimate creation arguments...
quote:
You see, the Smithsonian is responsible for hiding a lot of evidence that goes against evolution, so I've heard.
I hear they had help from the Freemasons.
quote:
I will continue to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong
The Bible can never be proven wrong, because you simply can't prove a negative. (Especially when what is asking to be disproved asserts an omnipotent figure that can change reality at a whim.)
For instance, I can assert that I've been in telepathic contact with bug-eyed aliens that look vaguely like Noel Coward, and technically you can't prove me wrong. However, there is nothing to support it, so there's no reason for you to think I'm right. The burden of supporting my assertion... or failing to do so... falls on me.
quote:
you'd better look into BOTH sides of the argument before you question the Bible's validity
The validity of the bible is called into question the second anyone tries to say it's true. Again... the burden of providing argument falls on the person making the assertion.
-----------
Dan Carroll
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 04-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:42 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 40 (37567)
04-22-2003 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:42 AM


national geographic
quote:
Also, National Geographic refuses to publish any legitimate pro-creation articles, and the even refuse to apologise when some of their "science" is revealed as fraudulant.
Are you saying they didn't publish any information when the fraud by Chinese fossil hunters was caught? Just what are you claiming? I seem to remember reading about it in National Geographic. If you'll be a bit more specific in what you are claiming maybe I can bother to look it up.
You do understand (as many creationsist sites don't seem to) that there are lots of feathered dinosaurs fossils now and this one isn't crucial to the argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:42 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 40 (37692)
04-23-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
04-22-2003 12:47 PM


Re: national geographic
Interesting how you always ask the CREATIONISTS to site their sources. I haven't seen any sources cited about your 'ozone' argument or your 'there was no oxygen in the atmosphere during the birth of life' or I see no sources cited whatsoever when the evolutionsts are trying to throw negative remarks against me. I asked "which evolved first, male or femal," and you didnt cite your source when you said, "they evolved together". Then I said ozone isn't formed naturally without oxygen in the atmosphere, and you didn't cite your source when posting your anti-creationist remarks on that one either. In fact, any argument I've read on this forum, so far, that was posted by an evolutionists DOESN'T site their own sources.
TRY FOLLOWING YOUR OWN ADVICE. Besides, if there REALLY IS evidence for evolution, I'd expect you people to cite it like crazy because you'd want everyone to know about it. why haven't you?
Just wondering,
Booboo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 12:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 04-23-2003 3:42 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 3:53 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 04-24-2003 4:44 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 40 (37701)
04-23-2003 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:27 PM


Re: national geographic
Booboo writes:
Interesting how you always ask the CREATIONISTS to site their sources. I haven't seen any sources cited about your 'ozone' argument or your 'there was no oxygen in the atmosphere during the birth of life' or I see no sources cited whatsoever when the evolutionsts are trying to throw negative remarks against me.
Given the number of links that have been provided to you I don't think I could agree that evolutionists have provided no citations, but this is still an excellent point. However, why are you, for example, asking for citations about the ozone issue in this thread where it isn't being discussed? I suggest you go to the threads with the missing citations and request them there.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:27 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024