A moderator would be appreciated.
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
24
Talk Origins internet site
by hooberus in"talk origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen.
the site claims to be "exploring the creation evolution controversy" i believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
this thread is about some issues/problems that i have found on the site.. note: this thread is specifically about the talk origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here.
-
-
-
24
Talk Origins internet site
by hooberus in"talk origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen.
the site claims to be "exploring the creation evolution controversy" i believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
this thread is about some issues/problems that i have found on the site.. note: this thread is specifically about the talk origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here.
-
-
hooberus
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA510_1.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Claim CA510.1:
Problems with evolution are evidence for creationism.
Response:
- This claim assumes that creation and evolution are the only two possible models, which is very false.
- Even if the two-model idea were true, problems with one model do not imply that the other model is true. Another alternative is that another as-yet unknown model is correct.
____________________________________________________________________________________
My comments:
Point #1. Creation, Evolution (or some combination thereof) are the only realistic options, so I think that point one is errant. In fact even some prominent evolutionists have stated our only options this way.
Point #2 is a logical fallacy for "if the two-model idea were true" there can't be "another as-yet unknown model."
-
24
Talk Origins internet site
by hooberus in"talk origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen.
the site claims to be "exploring the creation evolution controversy" i believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
this thread is about some issues/problems that i have found on the site.. note: this thread is specifically about the talk origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here.
-
-
hooberus
Talk Origins contains a popular "Index to Creationist Claims" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
below will be a response to some of these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA510.html
___________________________________________________________________________________
Claim CA510:
Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 3, 8-10.Response:
- There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.
- Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others,
- orthogenesis
- neo-Lamarckianism
- process structuralism
- saltationism
- Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.
____________________________________________________________________________________
My comments: There are really only three realistic models for origins:
- creation
- evolution
- some combination of the previous two
Almost all others can be classified as a subset of one or more of these (for example theistic evolution is a subset of evolution).
-
24
Talk Origins internet site
by hooberus in"talk origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen.
the site claims to be "exploring the creation evolution controversy" i believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
this thread is about some issues/problems that i have found on the site.. note: this thread is specifically about the talk origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here.
-
-
hooberus
Before moving any further I will now state that I will only respond to comments that feel are relevant and productive to discourse. (Other comments will be ignored by myself).
-
24
Talk Origins internet site
by hooberus in"talk origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen.
the site claims to be "exploring the creation evolution controversy" i believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
this thread is about some issues/problems that i have found on the site.. note: this thread is specifically about the talk origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here.
-
-
hooberus
While the site prominenetly claims to be "Exploring the Creation Evolution Controversy" we also read on the welcome page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html
________________________________________________________________________________
"W hy doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"
The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Thus the "Exploring" in "Exploring the Creation Evolution Controversy" appears limited to posting only arcticles supporting "mainstream" (ie: "evolutionary") viewpoints, and attempted rebutting of creationist claims.
-
24
Talk Origins internet site
by hooberus in"talk origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen.
the site claims to be "exploring the creation evolution controversy" i believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
this thread is about some issues/problems that i have found on the site.. note: this thread is specifically about the talk origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here.
-
-
hooberus
"Talk Origins" http://www.talkorigins.org is frequently used as a resource for origins research for laymen. The site claims to be "Exploring the Creation Evolution Controversy" I believe that many people consider that it is an objective, accurate resource.
This thread is about some issues/problems that I have found on the site.
Note: This thread is specifically about the Talk Origins site (and not others sites nor persons), if you can't keep to the subject please do not post here. Also, please keep the tone objective and to the subject. A moderator will be requested in the event of attempted off topic (non Talk Origins) issues, disruptive conduct, personal attacks, or other conduct that appears to be out of order with proper discourse.
If you can't abide by the above please do not post.
-
109
Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc
by seattleniceguy inhey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
-
-
hooberus
By the way I would also like to state that I am nearing the end of my patience with the "game" that you play on these origin threads. I don't have a problem discussing origins and intepretations (indeed I think that I have participated in more evolution/creation threads than any other creationist here), however spending a lot of time responding to time wasting accusations is not in my schedule.
-
109
Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc
by seattleniceguy inhey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
-
-
hooberus
2/ Why do you endorse by quotation criticism of evolutionary theory for being "neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable", when your own theory is "neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable", and in addition has no evidence to support it and/or has evidence to contradict it.
Isn't that inconsistent?
When did I make such a quote?
-
109
Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc
by seattleniceguy inhey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
-
-
hooberus
Before moving on to more time wasting (Normally I try not to dialogue with you because most of your posts on origins are simply accusations against creationists) I would like to make a comment on the AiG quote:
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it?s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It?s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ?hard facts?.
Note that Batton didn't say that that the empirical scientific data was itself wrong, but instead that if the interpretation contradicted history as presented in the Bible that the specific interpretation of scientific data was wrong. Also, he never said that "science" was wrong, but the interpretation. To me anyway this is no worse than Todds statement (which you don't seem to mind).
-
109
Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc
by seattleniceguy inhey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
-
-
hooberus
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
What Todd is saying is, in effect "IF data did point to an intelligent designer, it would be excluded as a hypothesis AS THERE IS NO PROOF of such an intelligent designer". When he says 'not naturalistic', in context he means 'unprovable'. I think you may have misunderstood this.Todd is not saying "I am a presuppositionalist who has decided the Bible is literally God's word as I interpret it, and that if science disagrees with my interpretation of the Bible then science is wrong". The presumption he is making is a simple and reasonable one; things you can't prove exist don't belong in science.
Your defense of Todds "presumption" seems to be that it is "reasonable" to exclude an intelligent designer hypothesis (even if data pointed to it) if you can't first prove the existence of the creator. I disagree (see Romans 1).
Anyway, back to my questions; 1/ Why do you criticise evolutionists for excluding a priori a supernatural theory of origin, and yet quote people who exclude a priori a naturalistic theory of origin? Isn't that inconsistent?
Actually I think that you will find that I generally only criticise evolutionists in this manner in response to evolutionists first bringing up the issue of "creationist presupppositions" or if they use arguments which imply that they don't have presuppositions (ie: "peer review" argument). Keep in mind Abaddon that you are the one here who usually majors on the "presuppositions" issue -I think its usually a time waster, (despite you being the one that majors on the presuppositions issue it doesn't seem to bother you to then turn around and defend statements such as by evolutionist Todd).