tgamble

Should be interesting.
<a href="http://www.nmsr.org/round1a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nmsr.org/round1a.htm</a>

Creationist side is the usual nonsense, distortions and lies.
<a href="http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles.html" target="_blank">http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles.html</a>

Dr.GH

Where was ReMine's response? Sorry, I missed it.

tgamble

No you didn't. It's not up yet.

Meanwhile, check out the creationist website. Articles from Gish with his usual tripe, an article from Henry Morris with his "proofs" of a young earth including the old moon dust argument.

Even a couple of links to the pathlights encyclopedia. Nothing new.

Interestingly enough, they have a couple of proscience articles.

Bubba

Thanks for the links.

Bubba

pz

And when it does go up, it will consist of a lot of whining that he has been misrepresented, followed by a string of distortions of conventional genetics that he clearly does not understand.

ReMine has been pulling this stunt for years now. He never learns anything new.

pz

The Twin Cities Creation Science Association has been making an increasing amount of noise lately -- they played some role in getting an ID conference organized at St. Cloud State last year. Are there any other Minnesota people here? Any who have looked into their meetings in Roseville?

Vanderzyden

Two questions:

1. What can you do to persuade us that your assessment is neither nonsense or a lie?

2. Would it be proper--and acceptable to you-- for your opponents to blantantly and dismissively categorize Darwinism as a full-bore deception?


Vanderzyden

tgamble

probably nothing given that creationists declare anytning inconsistent with their dogma false by definition.

No. Because that would be wrong. What's your point?

If you looked at the site you'd see that they are still useing arguments (probability, thermodynamics, fossil record etc.) that have been refuted for decades. They are also useing Morris's list of young earth proofs which have also been refuted for decades. Some have even been rejected by creationists.

But then, creation science is a lie. It's no surprise that only lies can be used to support it.

Vanderzyden

Some questions, if you don't mind:

-- What's your definition of creation science?
-- Is it completely false?
-- How do you know?
-- Do you equate it with creationism in general?

I am confident that you cannot demonstrate that the creationist position is intrisically deceptive.

Why then, do you feel comfortable calling people liars?

Vanderzyden

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Coragyps

VZ told tgamble:
If the "creationist position" is reasonably represented by AiG, Walt Brown, or ICR, VZ, you better hide behind that big rock over there and watch our favorite Newfie do exactly that!


[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>