Al Fresco

Here in the hinterlands of North Idaho, a diehard creationist and I are engaged in a battle of dueling websites. The current debate originated as a letter writing contest in the local newspaper as documented on my website (www.televar.com/~jnj). During the course of our communications, I presented him with a creationist challenge which can be found at (www.televar.com/~jnj/challenge.htm). He retaliated with his own evolutionist challenge which can be found on his website at (www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/evolutioncreation.htm). In essence, he completely dodged the issue by shifting the burden on evolutionists to publish in the "peer-reviewed" Creation Research Society Quarterly.

I realize that my opponent has failed to address my challenge in any meaningful way. And I am aware that members of the Creation Research Society must sign a statement of faith which effectivley disqualifies them from practicing legitimate science. Nonetheless, I am wondering if anyone is aware of any particularly glaring infractions of the scientific method that are evident in their publications. I am open to suggestions as to the most efficacious way of handling Mr. Knapp's rather unorthodox challenge.

Just to set the record straight, I suffer from no delusions that anything I say will alter Mr. Knapp's dogged committment to creationism. I am only pursuing this "exercise in futility" for the benefit of the lurkers in the area.

Azathoth

If your opponent wants to play on the scientific field,they should play by the rules.I'm not aware of any scientific theories that creationists have advanced,that actually hold up.Actually,I'm not aware of any scientific theories they've come up with that have even been considered for use.

If your opponent wants scientists to be published in that particular publication,he's asking them to become creationists.

I suppose you could point out all of the quotes they mine,and then give them in full,showing that these people aren't adverse to having scientists speak,as long as they can decide what's said.

faust

Congrats. You found the idiot who comes up with all the straw men for the masses to beat up. Every bloody response to your observations mangles truth into what he thinks the opposition is. Pro-evolution websites? atheist religion? "evolutionists."
And the guy who speaks and is big in Campus Crusade for christ suddenly becomes "a scientist with a religious backgroung." Bloody hell, -I'M- a scientist with a religious background, raised catholic, now atheist.
I'm going to continue reading this garbage, and i may post more angry comments.
Edited to add:
Sheesh, i was so mad i forgot why i started a response in the first place.

This pisses me off, the bits how he says a "Who's Who of Evolution"... etc. How he implies a Vast Atheist Conspiracy in science and education.. "Oh no! evolution requires atheism! It's a tyranny! the atheists use their vast power and numbers in science to force evilution on our children! Onward oppressed minority of christians!"

When the fuck did we get control of the country? Someone tell me so I can be posted to some comfy gov't job.

Last I checked we're a tiny minority that it's ok to bash. xians outnumber us more than Egypt vs. Moses!!! Well, I suppose I shall quote Mr. Knapp, "Could the majority be wrong?_ You bet!"

RED DAVE

Study the material here:

TalkOrigins

Virtually any point that the creaps make, from the most elementary to the most technical, is addressed.

RED DAVE

Arikay

Yep, Talk origins is great.

Also another place I like to use is Wiki (www.wikipedia.org) its an online encyclopedia. The plus with it is that it would be very hard to claim that its biased one way or the other, so its usefull when they are screaming "evil atheist science conspiracy."

Al Fresco

I apologize for apparently not making myself clear in my OP. The specific challenge I am referring to is listed about one quarter of the way down Mr. Knapp's home page and is designated "Take the Evolutionist Challenge." I am wondering if anyone is aware of any particularly damning evidence regarding the scientific integrity of the articles which appear in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Mr. Knapp is of the mistaken opinion that this publication is a bone fide scientific journal.

I thank those for their input thus far.

For those who might wish to express their thoughts on Mr. Knapp's website, I call attention to the fact he solicits feedback near the beginning of his home page.

Arikay

Well, they start off by messing up evolution. Evolution is NOT molecules to man. Molecules to man would be both abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution doesnt really care how life got started, just that it did.
If they cant even get the theory they are fighting right, do you expect anything else to be any good?

Then they go on to talk about the begining of the universe. Thats not evolution either.

RufusAtticus

Well Creation Research Society Quarterly is not a scientific journal specifically because it is run by the pseudoscientific organization CRS. We know that CRS is pseudoscientific because it has a statement of belief that out lines a priori what is "correct." No scientific organization would do such a thing. To do such a thing prevents the tenability and falsefiability that is key to doing science.

KC

I noticed this in one of your opponent's letters:


You might ask him how he knows this guy was nominated for the Nobel five times, when the nomination process is secret and the information kept secret for 50 years. From the Nobel website:

Nobel Website

I ran a search on the medicine and physiology nominations from 1901 to 1949, and his name didn't turn up there either. There is no searchable database yet for chemistry nominees.

KC

Phoenixstar

That entire site was maddening. People will not accept what the evidence shows them no matter what :banghead: I wonder how we as a poeple have made this far with our way of thinking sometimes.