Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bane · 06-24-2002, 05:14 PM

Just curious as he seems to feeding info to a creationist SnowDog and Peez are debating on Theforce.net forums. He's trying to post there but it sounds as if he is having firewall problems as he can't access the forums.

I'd join in myself but I know when I am out of my league. I'm just a learning layman.

Here's what his lapdog Darth_Brooks posted for him:

Quote:

I'm delighted that PEEZ admits that P.E. has nothing to say regarding the
origin of species (i.e. macroevolution). In 1859 Darwin never addressed the
title of his infamous book, 'On the Origin of Species'. Well over a century
later, the secular community still does not know, "Both the origin of life
and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown" A.G. Fisher,
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, fossil section, 2002.

Darwin's book addressed natural selection, which the creation scientist has
no argument, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties
that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet
adaptational needs [macroevolution]" Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth
edition, Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516.
(Note: The authors of this text are saying that natural selection is NOT
creative, natural selection can affect only properties in that animal or
plant that are already there. Natural selection has nothing to do with
macroevolution.) This quote has been updated by 2 atheists,
"Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of
mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of
thousands of new proteins with extraordinary diverse and well-optimized
functions" Thorton and DeSalle, "Genomics meets phylogenetics" Annual Review
of Genomics & Human Genetics, 2000, p. 64.
(Note: The two authors go on to say this creates "a molecular version of the
ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg"). "However, what has
been seriously proposed is that, when major transitions occur, they occur
suddenly and not as a response to natural selection. Aside from humans,
where, for example, are the "prototurtles"? the "quasi-bats"? All the old
bats are fully adapted flying mammals; they are in no way transitional
forms" - Villee, Solomon and Davis, Biology (section on punctuated
equilibrium), Saunders College Publishing, 1985, p. 1049.
For an update on bat evolution (sic) see Colbert's Evolution of the
Vertebrates, 5th ed., p. 333.

Meanwhile, there remains serious problems with P.e. (apart from the fact
that it never addresses the origin of species). Punctuated equilibria does
not agree with the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. In 1996 evolutionist
David Berlinski, said in Commentary magazine that he thought punctuated
equilibria damages the neo-Darwinian viewpoint. He went on to say, "so does
everyone else." I challenge PEEZ to provide a reference showing Dr.
Berlinski to be a creationist.

In a 1996 interview by atheist N. A. Campbell, famous evolutionary biologist
and atheist John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex said: ". . . I
don't think the proponents of punctuated equilibrium are particularly lucid
in telling us just what they think."

[New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record, edited by D.H. Erwin &
R.L. Ansley, 1995] objective of bringing the fossil record to bear
critically on speciation theory is laudable. Its clearest message, however,
is that 20 years after publication of punctuated equilibrium, we still have
a long way to go to reach this objective." Michael A. Bell, The Quarterly
Review of Biology
June, 1997, p. 194.

The tired accusation that creation scientists don't publish in secular
journals has been flat-out wrong for decades - but it's constantly used.
There's plenty of research published by creation scientists: <a href="http://www.icr.org" target="_blank">www.icr.org</a>
click on 'scientists' in the left hand column. I have research published in
the peer-reviewed Journal of Parasitology 74(2).

Frank Sherwin, ICR

I bet this guy realizes how large the membership is at Theforce.net(over 50,000 registered) and what a great way to promote the IRC propaganda by showing up.

One thing I've noticed is they switch fields of science a lot in order to attack evolution.

Peez and SnowDog of course never claimed that creation scientists never publish in peer reviewed journals. They claimed they have never published anything related to creationism in a peer reviewed journal.

They love to play semantic games.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]

tgamble · 06-24-2002, 05:54 PM

<a href="http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html</a>

Bane · 06-24-2002, 06:07 PM

Thanks! I'll pass it on to SnowDog.

tgamble · 06-24-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bane:
I challenge PEEZ to provide a reference showing Dr.
Berlinski to be a creationist.

Does being at the DI count as being a creationist?

<a href="http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/David%20Berlinski/" target="_blank">http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/David%20Berlinski/</a>

tgamble · 06-24-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
The tired accusation that creation scientists don't publish in secular
journals has been flat-out wrong for decades - but it's constantly used.
[/URL]

Yeah, by creationists bitching about being censored and not being able to publish in journals because of the evil evolutionist conspiracy to draw people away from GOD'S TRUTH and towards SATAN'S LIE of evolution blah blah blah.

Bane · 06-24-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Does being at the DI count as being a creationist?

Of course not. He's just there for the research facilities.

The good(hah) Doctor is now taking questions.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]

lpetrich · 06-24-2002, 09:37 PM

But how many of these "creation scientists" have ever published anything related to evolution in a mainstream journal? Or even tried to? I have a mental picture of some creationist going on some fundie TV show and crying about how those nasty evolutionists hate him -- as evidenced by their rejection letters.

Looking at the publication history of some of these "scientists", it is usually in matters without much connection to evolution -- if anything at all. Simply consider how much Duane Gish has published over the last 25 years.

There are a few exceptions, like the infamous Andrew Snelling, a young-earth Flood Geologist who expressed old-earth views in some papers published in some mainstream geology journals. But they are rare.

scigirl · 06-25-2002, 06:47 AM

From <a href="http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html</a>

Quote:

You can assess the quality of the ICR's research here. This article details how the ICR thought that an April Fool article (by "Oskar Todkopf" of "Hindenburg University") was real research on Neanderthals.

Ha ha ha. What a bunch of idiots.

scigirl

scigirl · 06-25-2002, 06:50 AM

OMG I just read the "joke" article <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/fool97.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Anyone who didn't figure out that this article was a joke is a complete fool. I mean, being fooled by The Onion is one thing, but THIS? Jeez, these guys may have paper mill degrees, but common sense is lacking.

The joke article says stuff like,

Quote:

"I think they were part of an instrument similar to a xylophone--I like to call it a xylobone," says Todkopf. "But a colleague thinks Neanderthals hung the bones at cave entrances like big wind chimes. As for the bagpipes, well, it doesn't surprise me that we have Neanderthals to thank for them." Todkopf believes they played the pipes with their noses.

And

Quote:

Todkopf theorizes that the Neanderthals' fondness for music may explain why they vanished some 30,000 years ago. "Maybe their music scared away all the game. They would have produced an awful racket oompah-pahing all over the place. The Neander Valley was alive with the sound of music."

scigirl

Coragyps · 06-25-2002, 09:59 AM

Snortguffaw! And Todkopf transliterates to "deadhead," too!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2002, 05:54 PM	#2
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	<a href="http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html</a>

06-24-2002, 06:07 PM	#3
Bane Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 180	Thanks! I'll pass it on to SnowDog.

06-24-2002, 09:37 PM	#7
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	But how many of these "creation scientists" have ever published anything related to evolution in a mainstream journal? Or even tried to? I have a mental picture of some creationist going on some fundie TV show and crying about how those nasty evolutionists hate him -- as evidenced by their rejection letters. Looking at the publication history of some of these "scientists", it is usually in matters without much connection to evolution -- if anything at all. Simply consider how much Duane Gish has published over the last 25 years. There are a few exceptions, like the infamous Andrew Snelling, a young-earth Flood Geologist who expressed old-earth views in some papers published in some mainstream geology journals. But they are rare.

06-25-2002, 09:59 AM	#10
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Snortguffaw! And Todkopf transliterates to "deadhead," too!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.