Freethought & Rationalism Archive

l-bow · 09-18-2002, 06:36 PM

Normally on talk.origins, the creationists that post there aren't that informed. However this creationist Sean D. Pitman, seems quite informed.
Check out his website:

<a href="http://naturalselection.0catch.com/" target="_blank">web page</a>

Atheist121 · 09-18-2002, 07:23 PM

Ummm...I'm guessing you were being sarcastic? This guy doesn't impress me.

Quote:

What many do not seem to realize is that all human knowledge and learning is a matter of faith. Theories, even in disciplines such as physics or mathematics, are only precise statements of faith.

...

Quote:

A theory is therefore a faith and a faith is therefore a theory.

Doesn't sound too good to me.

Quote:

Naturalistic and evolutionary ideas appeared early on in recorded human history.

Wonder what he means by "evolutioniary ideas." There were obviously some before Darwin, but I was unaware that they existed in early recorded human history.

Quote:

However, not until Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published his �On the Origin of Species� in 1859 did a purely naturalistic process become generally accepted by scientists and even society. For the first time, a logical, apparently rational, evidence-based theory had been proposed that seemed to clearly explain most, if not all, of the observed changes in the natural world.

I'm sure every paragraph is just as fun-filled as the last, but I don't feel like posting any more now.

KeithHarwood · 09-18-2002, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow:
<strong>Normally on talk.origins, the creationists that post there aren't that informed. However this creationist Sean D. Pitman, seems quite informed.
Check out his website:

<a href="http://naturalselection.0catch.com/" target="_blank">web page</a></strong>

He is using the word `faith' to mean any belief whatsoever, regardless of the evidence or absence of evidence for that belief. To distort the meaning of a word this far is equivalent to lying.

He also seems to be saying that what goes on inside his own head is directly observed and what he sees with his senses is indirect and therefore subject to doubt. Another step on this path and he will end up like the poster known as Amos, for whom what went on in his own head was real and what happened in the outside world was imaginary.

Bialar Crais · 09-19-2002, 12:45 AM

Informed?

I saw a lot of "only-variations-within-a-kind", AKA, "He never saw a finch turn into an iguana!", "it's ALL FAITH", the obvious "but, but, the genetic algorithm id pre-programmed with specified complexity", etc, etc, etc, and so on, yada-yada...

So it seesm to me that he's only repeating the usual old ID/CS tag lines.

Marduk · 09-19-2002, 02:28 AM

"Wonder what he means by "evolutioniary ideas." There were obviously some before Darwin, but I was
unaware that they existed in early recorded human history."

from an old Sumerian poem, the name of which I can't recall:

"The gods, from creature to creature over eons and eons, were formed"

Valentine Pontifex · 09-19-2002, 10:43 AM

This guy is not impressive at all.

He engages in extensive quote mining not distinquing from mainstream and YEC authors as well as using out-of-date sources.

He is grossly inaccurate, for example look what he says must be true for radiometric dating to be true:

Quote:

Beginning Conditions Known

Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known

Constant Decay Rate

No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes

All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years

There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

The last one if outright false for the commonly used methods. The claims that radiometric dating requires no gain or loss of isotopes and that the initial isotope ratios must be known (three of his list) are outright false. Anyone who has followed this debate knows that they are false. The constantancy of the decay rate must constant is reasonable: the laws of physics don't change and there is considerable observational and theoretical evidence that they are constant (or close enough to constant). If the constants have changed enough to make a 10,000 year old rock into a 4 billion year old rock then Adam and Eve would have been melted by the heat from radioactive decay. The second to the last assumption is redundant.

0 for 6.

There are many other very obvious problems. This man has not done his homework whatsoever. He has not examined any mainstream science sources for himself. And it shows.

Valentine Pontifex · 09-19-2002, 10:46 AM

I just noticed that his links section is pliagerized from The Talk.Origins Archive.

MOJO-JOJO · 09-19-2002, 10:57 AM

I-bow...since "you bow", can we assume that you ascribe to Dr. Pitman's 'worldview', and therefore see things through rosey theistic lenses?

bluefugue · 09-19-2002, 02:13 PM

L-bow, as in "elbow," I believe.

l-bow · 09-21-2002, 04:20 AM

Sean Pitman's reply to Glenn Morton's critique of Pitman's "Geologic Column" article:

<a href="http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2A821DD1" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/</a>

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

09-18-2002, 06:36 PM	#1
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	An intelligent YEC Normally on talk.origins, the creationists that post there aren't that informed. However this creationist Sean D. Pitman, seems quite informed. Check out his website: <a href="http://naturalselection.0catch.com/" target="_blank">web page</a>

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

09-19-2002, 12:45 AM	#4
Bialar Crais Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Lule�, Sweden. Posts: 354	Informed? I saw a lot of "only-variations-within-a-kind", AKA, "He never saw a finch turn into an iguana!", "it's ALL FAITH", the obvious "but, but, the genetic algorithm id pre-programmed with specified complexity", etc, etc, etc, and so on, yada-yada... So it seesm to me that he's only repeating the usual old ID/CS tag lines.

09-19-2002, 02:28 AM	#5
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Wonder what he means by "evolutioniary ideas." There were obviously some before Darwin, but I was unaware that they existed in early recorded human history." from an old Sumerian poem, the name of which I can't recall: "The gods, from creature to creature over eons and eons, were formed"

09-19-2002, 10:46 AM	#7
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	I just noticed that his links section is pliagerized from The Talk.Origins Archive.

09-19-2002, 10:57 AM	#8
MOJO-JOJO Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Nashville, USA Posts: 949	I-bow...since "you bow", can we assume that you ascribe to Dr. Pitman's 'worldview', and therefore see things through rosey theistic lenses?

09-19-2002, 02:13 PM	#9
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	L-bow, as in "elbow," I believe.

09-21-2002, 04:20 AM	#10
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	Sean Pitman's reply to Glenn Morton's critique of Pitman's "Geologic Column" article: <a href="http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2A821DD1" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/</a> [ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.