Survey about creationism
- Thread starter -=Vagrant=-
- Start date
-
- Tags
- creationism survey
I can't think of anything right now, but I do remember a Chick Tract that actually made a few good points...
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
I don't know what particular theory it is refuting, or if it is even current, but the refutations appear valid in some places. Except for the part about petrified trees turning up through different depths because they're so tall. I don't see how that refutes anything.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
I don't know what particular theory it is refuting, or if it is even current, but the refutations appear valid in some places. Except for the part about petrified trees turning up through different depths because they're so tall. I don't see how that refutes anything.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
c4ts said:
Ugh, Big Daddy is one of the worst chick tracts ever.
Here's a talk.origins critique that addresses both the straw men and bad creationist arguments.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html
You might also check out this Feedback. It's the first one so you won't have to scroll for it.
UnrepentantSinner said:
It may be bad, but it's no LAST GENERATION!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Re: Re: Survey about creationism
OOoooo! You are a good subjectivist.
Socrates said:
OOoooo! You are a good subjectivist.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
c4ts said:
You're right, but comparing the relative awfulness of Chick Tracts is like comparing which diseases cause the most suffering.
Of course, if it wasn't for Chick, we wouldn't get Chick parodies.
We also wouldn't have my Franko comics either, but we're getting off topic now. Back to the subject of Creationism, I think that it is opposition to science based on a misunderstanding of scientific thought in general.
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
I think that those people that take the time to learn scientific principles generally quit believing in Creationism - automatic culling of the educated from the Creationist population. Which leaves the Creationists with more and more people that refuse to learn, people that are incapable of learning, and people that are afraid to learn.
Peter Soderqvist
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Messages
- 305
I can tell you the truth!
TO RUBY
The truth is that the bible is a fairy tale from the old Mesopotamia, like all other mythologies about Zeus, Hercules, Ra, Baal, etc from the area around the ancient Mediterranean! Creation Science is oxymoron, because "god did it" is not the way science work, since a scientific idea has an intrinsic potential to be proven wrong when tested. In example, evolution is a flawed theory if say; mutation is a hoax, but how can the "God did it" hypothesis be proven wrong? It cannot be proven wrong, therefore it is not science; the young earth hypothesis is proven wrong by modern science, and the so-called "creation science" has not done any scientific research either according to Court Verdicts in USA! Dr. Wickramasinghe was the creationists witness in the trial, why did they need him if they hade their own science?
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision, Court Judge William R. Overton!
The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was called in behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that ``no rational scientist'' would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old. The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by the creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community.
(6,000 to 20,000). Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative. Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of ``what scientists think'' and ``what scientists do.'' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
The Creation Research Society employs the same unscientific approach to the issue of creationism. Its applicants for membership must subscribe to the belief that the Book of Genesis is ``historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs'' (28). The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
23. The idea that belief in a creator and acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution are mutually exclusive is a false premise and offensive to the religious views of many. (Hicks) Dr. Francisco Ayala, a geneticist of considerable renown and a former Catholic priest who has the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology, pointed out that many working scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution are devoutly religious.
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/McLean_vs_Arkansas.html
Supreme Court of United States
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html
Soderqvist1: Various religious creation stories exists around our world, they all cannot be right, since they contradicts each other, but it is quite possible that they are all wrong!
TO RUBY
The truth is that the bible is a fairy tale from the old Mesopotamia, like all other mythologies about Zeus, Hercules, Ra, Baal, etc from the area around the ancient Mediterranean! Creation Science is oxymoron, because "god did it" is not the way science work, since a scientific idea has an intrinsic potential to be proven wrong when tested. In example, evolution is a flawed theory if say; mutation is a hoax, but how can the "God did it" hypothesis be proven wrong? It cannot be proven wrong, therefore it is not science; the young earth hypothesis is proven wrong by modern science, and the so-called "creation science" has not done any scientific research either according to Court Verdicts in USA! Dr. Wickramasinghe was the creationists witness in the trial, why did they need him if they hade their own science?
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision, Court Judge William R. Overton!
The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was called in behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that ``no rational scientist'' would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old. The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by the creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community.
(6,000 to 20,000). Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative. Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of ``what scientists think'' and ``what scientists do.'' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
The Creation Research Society employs the same unscientific approach to the issue of creationism. Its applicants for membership must subscribe to the belief that the Book of Genesis is ``historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs'' (28). The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
23. The idea that belief in a creator and acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution are mutually exclusive is a false premise and offensive to the religious views of many. (Hicks) Dr. Francisco Ayala, a geneticist of considerable renown and a former Catholic priest who has the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology, pointed out that many working scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution are devoutly religious.
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/McLean_vs_Arkansas.html
Supreme Court of United States
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html
Soderqvist1: Various religious creation stories exists around our world, they all cannot be right, since they contradicts each other, but it is quite possible that they are all wrong!
neutrino_cannon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 2,574
UnrepentantSinner said:
Yeah, would you rather get peruvian hemoragic fever, or would you prefer ebola?
Speeking of Chick and diseases, I find it a-musing that Chick has absolutly no idea how AIDS works.
Franko! the comic is the best thing ever to happen to logical deism and chick tracts.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp
This, by the way, is Chick at his absolute worst.
Anyway, back on topic.
Yes creationism lies, distorts and invents. It's very frustrating to debate because new arguements, all without substance, are brought up You have to debunk each one, and that can take a while.
Incedentaly, for anyone who debates creationism, either casualy or as an extension of profession, my hats off to you.
