• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationist Letters

sgtbaker said:
No it's not that I fail to realize that, I just think that very problem is why I wouldn't even work myself up about it. Only a person who does not understand evolution would accept the hen egg argument because it's simple and doesn't make them think any more than they have to. Actually understanding evolution takes effort to learn more about it. The people I am talking about, the people that find their faith in letters to the editor, do so because it's simple and suits their needs. Evolution cannot be fully explained in a quip. How deep into the process do you think you can go before you've lost their attention to their to-do list in their head?
Click to expand...

I think the root of the problem is a depressing lack of curiosity in the general public.
 
Maia said:
Well,there I cannot agree. Catastrophic events are all about chance, and they profoundly affect the final outcome of evolution. (We're here because of a comet that hit the earth 65 million years ago and allowed mammals the chance to flourish. We also wouldn't be here unless a very distant ancestor had survived the Pre-Cambrian extinction.) Dawkins is not very fond of acknowledging the importance of catastrophic events, which I think is unfortunate, but what's even more unfortunate is that we can't have a nuanced dialogue about these things in any kind of public debate because it just encourages idiots. Natural selection is the primary engine driving evolution, and this does not change no matter what. But I've actually seen videos on Youtube of Stephen Jay Gould talking about punctuated equilibrium theory being POSTED BY CREATIONISTS. :eek: (You see, if scientists disagree about anything, then that means that evolution doesn't exist...)
Click to expand...

Okay, granted. Chance is part of the process both by mutation and catastrophic events. Natural selection, however, is not a matter of chance.

As to scientists disagreeing on aspects of a given scientific discipline, we can point out to creationists that this is not seen as invalidating any aspect of science unless it involves evolution. Inaccuracies in scientific models that are revised in the light of new data also are acceptable except if evolution is involved.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I think the root of the problem is a depressing lack of curiosity in the general public.
Click to expand...

Why can't I put things in such a short and to the point fashion? You put in one sentence what took me twenty minutes, two cigarettes, and an essay to write. :rolleyes:
 
Maia said:
(You see, if scientists disagree about anything, then that means that evolution doesn't exist...)
Click to expand...

But if Scientists agree on anything they're being dogmatic and therefore evolution doesn't exist.
 
EvilSmurf said:
But if Scientists agree on anything they're being dogmatic and therefore evolution doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

No no no, they're making an "argument by consensus" and are guilty of "groupthink" and if you cite them you're making an "appeal to authority". Please, do get your catchphrases straight. This is 2010, after all!
 
gabeygoat said:
recycle, reuse, yo.
Click to expand...


Throwing away in the recycling bin.

Where I live we have a three-bin system. A small bin for garbage, a large bin for recycling, and another large bin for green waste (grass clippings, etc). The small garbage bin is collected weekly, while the recycling and green-waste bins are collected on alternating weeks on the same day.
 
Piggy said:
Establishment science sometimes needs to be reminded that the order of the appearance of life on this planet espoused by Darwin, Lyell and others was also laid out in exactly the same order more than 3,000 years before they were born, in the first chapter of Genesis?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Don't you love it when creationists claim that Genesis got the order of the emergence of life right? They always seem to forget that the Bible clearly describes birds as being created the "day" before land creatures, not to mention the little problem of plants existing before the sun and stars.
 
Brian-M said:
Don't you love it when creationists claim that Genesis got the order of the emergence of life right? They always seem to forget that the Bible clearly describes birds as being created the "day" before land creatures, not to mention the little problem of plants existing before the sun and stars.
Click to expand...

In my debate with Hugh Ross he argued that the "creation of the sun, moon and stars was actually the appearance of the heavenly bodies as our atmosphere went from being opaque to translucent to transparent. The last step would be the result of the oxygenation of the atmosphere by green plants.

He also argued that there was evidence of land plants in the late Precambrian and cited an article in Nature to that effect. It turns out that what the article was referring to were shoreline cryptogamic crusts. These algal crusts are hardly vascular plants or even mosses. So this argument involves a great deal of fudging.

So far, I haven't gotten a response from him regarding birds being created before land animals.
 
Got this week's local paper, nothing from creationists in the letter section. Maybe the recent spate of creationist letters was an aberration. Either that, or the editor got sick of publishing them.
 
Brian-M said:
Got this week's local paper, nothing from creationists in the letter section. Maybe the recent spate of creationist letters was an aberration. Either that, or the editor got sick of publishing them.
Click to expand...
Dont worry the Latrobe valley is not the only place to be getting a spate of this type of crap recently my local paper in Camden has been getting a number of letters along the same line. funny thing is one of the editors of our local is an ex biology professor from Sydney Uni and just puts them in so that he can put in some seriously funny remarks. i will have to find them and pass them on.
 
The Peach, one of my girls, along with ZOMGits...

 
I was going to let this thread die after my last post, but flicking through the latest local paper before throwing it out (garbage day again), I noticed that four of the six published letters were about evolution. On the positive side, two of them were supporting evolution.

I just thought I'd type them up here first, and then let the thread die in peace.

Latrobe Valley Express said:
Some Great Articles On Evolution

What's happening to newspapers these days?

Is any opinion accepted for publication without someone assessing the merit of the piece?

Paul McGrath (Express, 3 May) suggests we "check out" www.answersingenesis.com for "great articles" relating to evolution.

The problem is anyone can put anything they want onto a website - a feature websites tend to share with today's newspapers.

Further, it's inappropriate to equate opinion with scientific evidence.

Science isn't about opinion. It's about gathering support for hypotheses via attempts to falsify them, peer review, replication of experiments and, sometimes, accepting evidence, rather than believing whatever we wish to be true.

Evolution is not a theory.

In science, a theory refers to a well substantiated and organised system of knowledge that explains a specific set of phenomena.

Mr McGrath's deliberate misuse of the word theory is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

Scientific theories are based on a careful and rational examination of evidence.

In science, gravity is a theory. The germ theory of illness is a theory.

Evolution is supported by 150 years of evidence and is acknowledged as being "true" even by the Vatican (see http://www.catholic.org/national/national—story.php?id=18524).

We would recommend Mr McGrath and others who doubt the veracity of evolutionary theory attend the Melbourne Museum; there are two currently two major exhibitions displaying transitional forms. Yes, they exist.

A few transitional fossils (and, believe us, this list would be far more comprehensive if word limit weren't an issue) include Tiktaalik (fish to tetrapod), Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), and Indohyus (land mammal to whale).

There is little doubt Mr McGrath's opinion is based on his religious views rather than a sceptical approach to science, which scientists would welcome.

We would appreciate it if people would:
1. stop claiming expert status in fields in which they have no training.
2. Stop misrepresenting science.​

If Express readers want great articles about evolution they should consult a reputable source of information (e.g. scientific journals available via Google Scholar).

Dr George Van Doorn and Ruth McFarlane, Monash University, Churchill.
Click to expand...

Great letter, although the URL to the article about Vatican's acceptance of evolution doesn't work (replacing the — with - doesn't help either). But the trip to Melbourne Museum sounds like a fun idea. I'm now thinking of going.

Latrobe Valley Express said:
Six Sciences Rejected by Creationists

K Erbs (Express, 13 May) showed honesty in admitting that Bible-believing Christians reject evolution because its very existence questions Adam and Eve being tempted by a talking snake.

However, Mr Erbs errors when he mentioned the 'Big Bang' as that is not evolution, it is cosmology.

So now we have two sciences creationists reject — evolution and cosmology.

But wait, there is more.

Creationists reject Egyptology too. Egyptologists dating of the Egyptian pyramids and Egyptian kingdoms conflict with the Bible's timing Noah's flood, so Egyptology must be wrong in creationist's eyes.

That's three sciences opposed by creationists.

Reverend Lynn Flower claims "evolution is a desperate attempt to find an explanation without" her God.

Sorry Reverend, your error, science is the art of investigation, science does not start with the answer and work backwards as creationists must do.

Furthermore evolution, cosmology and Egyptology are sciences, your creationist belief would fit in astrology and palmist's classes.

DJ Auchterlonie talks about the egg. Maybe science does have the answer to your inquiries and maybe not, but either way saying God did it is not science, it's religion.

Interesting, the Bible claims seeds die before they sprout! So now we have evolution, cosmology, Egyptology and now horticulture rejected by creation sciences.

Lastly we have the earth forced to remain stationary for 24 hours (Joshua 10:13).

Joshua raised his arm and bingo, the earth suddenly stopped rotating. Since the earth rotates at about 945 miles per hour a sudden stop would be catastrophic. Rejected by Joshua's hand raising is earth geology and astronomy.

Gosh, only six sciences need to be rejected and you too can be a creationist scientist.

1. Evolution 2. Cosmology 3. Egyptology 4. Horticulture 5. Geology 6. Astronomy

Ron Bernardi, Boolarra.
Click to expand...

Not as good as the last letter. If there appears to be the occasional word missing, such as the "of" in "the Bible's timing Noah's flood", that's how it was in the paper, not due to omission on my part during typing. There is a bit of a whiff of strawman about his argument against creationism, especially bringing up the seeds and Joshua. Those are more arguments against biblical literalism rather than against creationism. I also wonder why uses miles per hour, since we use kilometers per hour over here.

Now, on to the anti-evolution letters...

Latrobe Valley Express said:
Paleobabble won't change

In response to Jeff Gray's letter, I quote Dr Alan Feduccia.

He is a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an evolutionist.

He says: Palaeontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur.

But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird.

And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.

On the matte of vestigial bones in whales - how can it be proved they are useless?

The function may simply be unknown, and its use may be discovered in the future.

This has happened with more than 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans that are now known to be essential.

Jeff Gray's letter gives the impression he does not think it is possible to be a real scientist and a believer in creation.

Surely no one would deny that people such as Sir Issac Newton, Michael Faraday and Johannes Kepler were real scientists.

Each of these believed in the Bible. I have a list of 211 scientists today who accept creation.

Barbara Hutton, Traralgon.
Click to expand...

Some people seem to think that vestigial means useless. This is incorrect. Fingernails are vestigial claws, but they are far from being useless. The human appendix is an unnecessary vestigial organ, but it still serves a (minor) function in the development of the immune system. On the other hand, I wonder how he explains the external vestigial legs found on some whale fossils (link).

And just because a real scientist believes something to be true, doesn't make it so. Issac Newton, for example, also believed in alchemy.

Latrobe Valley Express said:
Challenge for another view

If this is the "incontrovertible evidence" for evolution, (Express, 20 May) then that is a theory in serious trouble.

Archaeopteryx can no longer be considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds.

The scaly-headed reptilian look has given way to feathers in more up-to-date museum exhibits. Claws are a feature archaeopteryx shares with "modern" birds such as ostriches, hoatzins and juvenile touracos.

Its feathers are fully formed not some half scale half feather structure and scientists now agree it was capable of powered flight.

Archaeopteryx was a true bird - as unique in its own way as the kiwis, cormorants, and cassowaries today.

Whale evolution, widely touted as one of the three best "proofs" of evolution, is better of evidence for the lack of evolutionary evidence.

For example, ambulocetus, the "walking whale", is based on a single incomplete skeleton dated (by evolutionary methods) as younger than modern whales.

It shares no features with whales except similarly shaped meat eating teeth, but it's the best that evolutionary scientists have been able to come up with so far.

On the subject of "vestigial" whale bones that "cannot" be explained from a creationist perspective, at one time evolutionists listed 180 organs in the human body (thyroid gland, thymus, pineal gland, tonsils, etc) as vestigial organs - evolutionary organs with no purpose whatsoever.

Scientists have since discovered that 179 of those organs have a purpose - some are vital.

They are still investigating the appendix.

I challenge anyone who is genuinely interested in getting a more balanced view in the area of origins to visit creation.com with an open mind and discover the other, often suppressed, side of the picture.

You may be surprised.

Kelly Just, Callignee.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about archaeopteryx, so I can't really comment on it. But just because one example turns out to be a case of mistaken identification, that doesn't mean all the hundreds of other examples are wrong.

I'd like to see this list of 180 vestigial organs, and the peer-reviewed papers (or at least, medical journals) in which they are deemed vestigial and serving no function. An internet search shows a book by Robert Wiedersheim published in 1893 listing 83 organs that he considered to be vestigial. I suppose this might be what he's referring to.

Current science still considers the following organs to be vestigial: appendix, coccyx, wisdom teeth, some outer structures of the ear, the plica semilunaris in the corner of the eye, the plantaris muscle in the leg, and many, many more. So the claim that all but one of our vestigial organs have been found to have a purpose is false.

The claim that ambulocetus "shares no features with whales except similarly shaped meat eating teeth" is also false...

Wikipedia said:
Scientists consider Ambulocetus to be an early whale because it shares underwater adaptations with them: it had an adaptation in the nose that enabled it to swallow underwater, and its periotic bones had a structure like those of whales, enabling it to hear well underwater. In addition, its teeth are similar to those of cetaceans.
Click to expand...
 
Brian-M said:
Latrobe Valley Express said:
Some Great Articles On Evolution

<snip/>
Evolution is supported by 150 years of evidence and is acknowledged as being "true" even by the Vatican (see http://www.catholic.org/national/national—story.php?id=18524).
<snip/>
Dr George Van Doorn and Ruth McFarlane, Monash University, Churchill.
Click to expand...
Great letter, although the URL to the article about Vatican's acceptance of evolution doesn't work (replacing the — with - doesn't help either). But the trip to Melbourne Museum sounds like a fun idea. I'm now thinking of going.
Click to expand...
Try www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524 with an underscore... as in G_d ;)

ETA: I found the page by Googling site:www.catholic.org id=18524
Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.

He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”

<snip/>

He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”
Click to expand...
The woo is diluted... but it's still woo
 
Last edited:
Brian-M said:
Don't you love it when creationists claim that Genesis got the order of the emergence of life right? They always seem to forget that the Bible clearly describes birds as being created the "day" before land creatures, not to mention the little problem of plants existing before the sun and stars.
Click to expand...

I couldn't begin to number the times that I've encountered someone who has been sure that the Bible says something that it actually doesn't.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I couldn't begin to number the times that I've encountered someone who has been sure that the Bible says something that it actually doesn't.
Click to expand...
Curious how many people are often content to stop analysing the bible (or anything else) immediately upon finding what they're looking for...

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.
If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom