The Fantasy of Evolution: EvC, What a disgusting place

Sunday, October 2, 2011

EvC, What a disgusting place

Just a brief one:

Decided I need to try to learn more about the different creationist positions so I've been reading a book by Kurt Wise and watching some videos of Steve Austin (Here's one for instance. I already knew something about his nautiloid find and it was interesting to hear more about it.

So after digesting some of their thinking I went to EvC and did a search on "Steve Austin" and guess what I found?

NOT ONE MENTION OF ANY OF THE SCIENTIFIC POINTS HE HAS ARGUED, NOT ONE! Oh well, maybe I didn't look far enough, that's possible.

But what I DID FIND is:

one remark that his work on the Grand Canyon was nonsense or something to that effect, no content, just a slur,

comments about how his being a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) disqualifies him from the getgo,

some claims that the Institute for Creation Research BOUGHT his degree for him,

and that he lied about what geologists believe about the time frame of sedimentary deposition. "Lied." It never occurs to anyone at EvC that a creationist probably has a GOOD SOURCE for his information and I'm sure Austin had one.

ALL SLANDER AND SLURS, NO EVIDENCE, NO QUOTES, NO REFERENCES, NO CONTENT! NOBODY DISCUSSED ANYTHING STEVE AUSTIN HAS TO SAY ABOUT FLOOD GEOLOGY! NOBODY!

THIS IS TYPICAL. MANY TIMES WHEN I'VE SEARCHED FOR SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE AT EvC THIS IS WHAT I'VE TURNED UP.

SCIENCE, HA!!!
THEY DO NOT DISCUSS SCIENCE, THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT SCIENCE. No integrity or serious purpose among them. All they care about is getting rid of creationism ANY WAY THEY CAN.

Right now there is not one decent creationist and maybe only five or six reasonably qualified evolutionists at EvC and that's probably being generous. If I eliminated everyone who made snarky remarks or wrote contentless posts when they should be giving substantive scientific comments there might be none left.

No comments:

Post a Comment

PLEASE just register somewhere, there seem to be many options. A Google account is easy. And give SOME kind of pseudonym at least. THANKS!

About This Blog

What I want to do here is try to do my best job of stating my own favorite arguments against evolution. There are a couple I think really, logically speaking, ought to bring the whole system crashing down but of course it isn't that easy, human stubbornness being what it is.

There's the geological argument which is basically that you can see with your naked eyes that this world once went through a global Flood, as the Bible reports. That takes care all by itself of the whole Old Earth theorizing that evolution depends on.

And there's the biological argument: It is known that genes DON'T increase although evolution depends on increase. The MORE evolved a species the LESS genetic capacity to evolve it actually has. Breeders certainly know this; and conservationists also know this because genetic depletion in highly specialized species (such as the cheetah) makes them vulnerable to extinction rather than candidates for further variation.

I hope to post on these and other arguments as time permits.

==========================

Ah heck, Mr. Dawkins, we CAN TOO imagine macroevolution by natural selection, same as you can. We can follow out the same Rube-Goldberg sequence of improbable events, acting in a homologically graded series of imaginatively fleshed-out fossils, events that have never been observed in living reality, to the same preconceived conclusion you come to. Our problem is that we know it flies in the face of probability, reason, logic and any other law of rational inquiry and science that may exist, AND that there is no evidence for it, whereas design OBVIOUSLY implies a designer -- obviously, intuitively, rationally, logically, reasonably and probabilistically -- and I'd add "absolutely" if I could get away with it.

IT ISN'T FOR LACK OF EXPOSURE TO SCIENCE

A description of my own experience in answer to the usual denigrating assumption that creationism requires ignorance of science -- not that I claim any scientific sophistication of course, merely a basic understanding of some basic facts and principles.

Before I became a Christian I absorbed a lot of the thinking about evolution and tried my best to understand it. Even then I was often frustrated that evidence trails could just about never be found or followed out to any kind of certainty and I found that I always had to give up trying to follow them and just take the conclusions of the scientists pretty much on faith. I definitely had an interest in understanding evolution. I believed in it; I wanted also to understand it, but I found my desire thwarted by the lack of evidence. I read the Origin of Species, I read lots of stuff by Stephen Jay Gould, very entertaining stuff, I read Skeptical Inquiry regularly, and so on. I investigated the science claims for evolution about as far as the average intelligent non-scientist can be expected to.

It was only after I became a Christian that I got into studying the creationist answers and took seriously my earlier experience of frustration with the lack of evidence for evolution. I strongly wish that those who find it convincing would rethink it a lot more carefully because the evidence is really not there to the extent you think it is, I suspect you are accepting as evidence all sorts of clever speculations that are not evidence, and are taking most of it on faith in spite of yourself.

The Fantasy of Evolution

Sunday, October 2, 2011

EvC, What a disgusting place

No comments:

Post a Comment

My other blogs

MOST IMPORTANT BLOG POSTS

EVOLUTIONISM IS A STRONGHOLD TO BE SPIRITUALLY TOPPLED

About This Blog

Labels

Blog Archive

IT ISN'T FOR LACK OF EXPOSURE TO SCIENCE