Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KnightWhoSaysNi · 02-10-2002, 02:17 PM

I'm about to attend a creationist talk tonight, presented by a biologist named Marvin Fritzler. Here's what the ad shows:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to intelligent design of the cosmos and a designer who loves you.
Evidence from Astrophysics
Evidence from Geology and Paleontology
Evidence from Molecular Biology

I'm anticipating that he's a progressive "ID" creationist, but when it said "evidence from geology and paleontology" I suspect he may be a YEC.

Overall, I'm expecting the Strong Anthropic Principle argument and perhaps some of Behe's arguments. We'll see. I'll fill you all in later later

BLoggins02 · 02-10-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to intelligent design of the cosmos and a designer who loves you.

Ya know, I can see how it's possible to see scientific evidence pointing to design, but how he gets from there to the fact that he "loves me" is just beyond me!

Cancer anyone? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I ate Pascal's Wafer · 02-10-2002, 03:01 PM

Don't you know, he loves YOU. He obviously doesn't love all the people who are suffering in the world. He doesn't love the diseased, the hungry, the blind, etc. etc., but he loves you, and that's what really matters. I think that's what the creationist guy was trying to say.

Nick

BLoggins02 · 02-10-2002, 03:49 PM

Ahh, gotcha. Well then, who cares about all those suffering people, because thank tha LAWD he loves me!

I ate Pascal's Wafer · 02-10-2002, 05:55 PM

Yeah, there ya go. GAWD loves you, and NEVER forget that. Let all them hairiticks bern n hail, YOU got GAWD, so YOU don't knead ta wory, ya here?

Nick

KnightWhoSaysNi · 02-11-2002, 06:26 AM

Well, I attended the presentation. As I suspected, he was a progressive creationist who accepts the Big Bang theory and an old universe but rejects macro-evolution. Most of what he said I heard before but a few new things he brought up too.

He first began with a discussion of his views on faith and science and his belief they could be brought together. He argued that science doesn't speak for itself and there's room for interpretation. The talk was about 2 hours or so, but I'll bring up some of the main points.

One of his first proposed evidences was the kalam cosmological argument. He argued that since the universe began created out of nothing (i.e., the Big Bang), that supports the Genesis account. One new twist I saw was that he argued that since physcists cannot find the "Higgs Boson" particle that began at the Big Bang, that supports the contention that the universe was created out of nothing. I have to give him credit that this part of the speech presented the better arguments for theism.

Another thing I haven't seen before was his view on the end of the universe. He said that scientists believe the universe will keep expanding forever, unless there is another creation event similar to the Big Bang to start things over again. He then quoted some passage from Revelation about a new world created by god after Jesus's return. I had to raise my eyebrows at that one.

His next bit was on evolution. He basically argues that macro-evolution is a "bankrupt" position. I was puzzled when he briefly mentioned that Genesis 1:2 - 2:1 agrees with a primordial earth and development of the fossil record. While he said he accepts micro-evolution, he tried to portray evolutionists as dishonest, trying to fabricate the evidence. He argued that the peppered moth study was a fake and briefly mentioned "further areas of study" that were needed such as Behe's irreducable complexity, information theory, anthropic principle, and intelligent design in nature (he brought up of a fallacious analogy of Mt. Rushmore being evidence of design, therefore life is as well).

One item he brought up got me really suspicious. He said that evolutionists believe that the hummingbird is a direct descendant of the tyrannosaurus and ridiculed them for it. He then accused evolutionists of dishonesty by alleging that they fabricated a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs by gluing fossils together. He was quick presenting the slides and I didn't see references. Is anyone familiar with this argument? This seems fishy to me and I suspect a strawman and misrepresentation. I doubt that the hummingbird was touted as a direct descendant of T-rex, but merely as a common ancestor which is quite different.

Anyway, Dr. Fritzler is actually a medicine prof at my university and I was thinking of writing him an email. Any advice?

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

DougI · 02-11-2002, 06:44 AM

The T Rex (and other dinosaurs) and birds both have wishbones so there is believed to be some connection as a result of the similarity. I haven't heard of the claim that the hummingbird was the next step in evolution for the T Rex though, that's a bit of a stretch. Most likely the birds evolved from dinosaurs but not necessarily the largest dinosaurs. So it is a strawman he presented, another example of creationist deception.

Coragyps · 02-11-2002, 07:23 AM

Quote:

He said that evolutionists believe that the hummingbird is a direct descendant of the tyrannosaurus and ridiculed them for it. He then accused evolutionists of dishonesty by alleging that they fabricated a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs by gluing fossils together.

I'll bet that he was referring to the "transitional fossil" that embarrassed National Geographic a couple of years ago. The "Archaeoraptor" that they published on was a composite of two contemperaneous fossils - a "bird" and a more conventional dinosaur. The fossil was apparently assembled by the Chinese farmer who found the pieces, whether with any intent to defraud, I don't know. He made a lot of money from the sale, apparently, and also broke Chinese law big-time. The whole case seemed to be one of overenthusiastic interpretation of the "find", with profit a big factor. Geographic published it first, with no peer review, and it backfired.

The same area in China has yielded bunches of other transitionals between theropods and birds, though, and the excavators are being pretty careful to not get bit again.

scigirl · 02-11-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightshade:
Well, I attended the presentation.

Thanks for the info, Nightshade.

It amazes me that creationists still use the old "evil scientist conspiracy." I am a scientists, and I can assure you that the scientific community is so diverse, you could not get two of them to agree on doing anything like that!

Too bad I wasn't there to ask him,
"Please explain to me how it is more likely for the worldwide scientific communtity (which encompasses many faiths and cultures, and publishes their work for peer review all the time) that they are hiding something, than the Creationists, who outright admit their agenda is to make science fit the Bible, and rarely if ever publish in peer-reviewed journals?

Quote:

Anyway, Dr. Fritzler is actually a medicine prof at my university and I was thinking of writing him an email. Any advice?

Bah, stupid MD's. They don't know nothing about evolution!

Yeah, email him. If you want help, post it here first and we'll "refine" it for you!

scigirl

P.S. Noticed you are still a visitor, Nightshade. You really need to get that post count up and become a certified member!

KnightWhoSaysNi · 02-11-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:

I'll bet that he was referring to the "transitional fossil" that embarrassed National Geographic a couple of years ago.

That's it! Thanks!

I now recall him displaying a National Geographic article on his Power Point slide when he was talking about that. I looked up some more information on the case too.

I knew I smelled something fishy. He didn't tell the whole story, and left the audience the impression that palaeontologists were all dishonest charletans and that this hoax somehow discredits evolution, which is totally unjustified and misleading. He left out some important facts about the story:

1) The National Geographic article was not peer reviewed

2) It was a hoax perpetrated by a Chinese farmer, not by the palaeontologists themselves.

3) Scientists were highly skeptical of Archaeoraptor from the beginning.

4) It was scientists, not creationists or journalists, that discredited the hoax.

I'll bring this up in my email to him

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

02-10-2002, 02:17 PM	#1
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Creationist presentation I'm about to attend a creationist talk tonight, presented by a biologist named Marvin Fritzler. Here's what the ad shows: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to intelligent design of the cosmos and a designer who loves you. Evidence from Astrophysics Evidence from Geology and Paleontology Evidence from Molecular Biology I'm anticipating that he's a progressive "ID" creationist, but when it said "evidence from geology and paleontology" I suspect he may be a YEC. Overall, I'm expecting the Strong Anthropic Principle argument and perhaps some of Behe's arguments. We'll see. I'll fill you all in later later

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

02-10-2002, 03:01 PM	#3
I ate Pascal's Wafer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 1,460	Don't you know, he loves YOU. He obviously doesn't love all the people who are suffering in the world. He doesn't love the diseased, the hungry, the blind, etc. etc., but he loves you, and that's what really matters. I think that's what the creationist guy was trying to say. Nick

02-10-2002, 03:49 PM	#4
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	Ahh, gotcha. Well then, who cares about all those suffering people, because thank tha LAWD he loves me!

02-10-2002, 05:55 PM	#5
I ate Pascal's Wafer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 1,460	Yeah, there ya go. GAWD loves you, and NEVER forget that. Let all them hairiticks bern n hail, YOU got GAWD, so YOU don't knead ta wory, ya here? Nick

02-11-2002, 06:26 AM	#6
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Well, I attended the presentation. As I suspected, he was a progressive creationist who accepts the Big Bang theory and an old universe but rejects macro-evolution. Most of what he said I heard before but a few new things he brought up too. He first began with a discussion of his views on faith and science and his belief they could be brought together. He argued that science doesn't speak for itself and there's room for interpretation. The talk was about 2 hours or so, but I'll bring up some of the main points. One of his first proposed evidences was the kalam cosmological argument. He argued that since the universe began created out of nothing (i.e., the Big Bang), that supports the Genesis account. One new twist I saw was that he argued that since physcists cannot find the "Higgs Boson" particle that began at the Big Bang, that supports the contention that the universe was created out of nothing. I have to give him credit that this part of the speech presented the better arguments for theism. Another thing I haven't seen before was his view on the end of the universe. He said that scientists believe the universe will keep expanding forever, unless there is another creation event similar to the Big Bang to start things over again. He then quoted some passage from Revelation about a new world created by god after Jesus's return. I had to raise my eyebrows at that one. His next bit was on evolution. He basically argues that macro-evolution is a "bankrupt" position. I was puzzled when he briefly mentioned that Genesis 1:2 - 2:1 agrees with a primordial earth and development of the fossil record. While he said he accepts micro-evolution, he tried to portray evolutionists as dishonest, trying to fabricate the evidence. He argued that the peppered moth study was a fake and briefly mentioned "further areas of study" that were needed such as Behe's irreducable complexity, information theory, anthropic principle, and intelligent design in nature (he brought up of a fallacious analogy of Mt. Rushmore being evidence of design, therefore life is as well). One item he brought up got me really suspicious. He said that evolutionists believe that the hummingbird is a direct descendant of the tyrannosaurus and ridiculed them for it. He then accused evolutionists of dishonesty by alleging that they fabricated a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs by gluing fossils together. He was quick presenting the slides and I didn't see references. Is anyone familiar with this argument? This seems fishy to me and I suspect a strawman and misrepresentation. I doubt that the hummingbird was touted as a direct descendant of T-rex, but merely as a common ancestor which is quite different. Anyway, Dr. Fritzler is actually a medicine prof at my university and I was thinking of writing him an email. Any advice? [ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

02-11-2002, 06:44 AM	#7
DougI Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 932	The T Rex (and other dinosaurs) and birds both have wishbones so there is believed to be some connection as a result of the similarity. I haven't heard of the claim that the hummingbird was the next step in evolution for the T Rex though, that's a bit of a stretch. Most likely the birds evolved from dinosaurs but not necessarily the largest dinosaurs. So it is a strawman he presented, another example of creationist deception.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.