Bubba

Perhaps what we need is Ken Ham's picture on the cover of MAD magazine with the caption

"What...Me lie???"

Bubba

tgamble

Remine's reply to Thomas will be posted on September 27th.
<a href="http://www.nmsr.org/tccsadbt.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nmsr.org/tccsadbt.htm</a>

Who cares? Let's go with the definition used in legal cases and by those who are pushing to have it replace real science.

The Arkansas balanced treatment act:

"" 'Creation-science' includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing, (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism, (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals, (4) Separate ancestry for men and apes, (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a world- wide flood, and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." (Arkansas Legislature Act 590, 1981)"

Obviously doesn't include anything other than YECism.

As far as I'm concerned, creation "science" is an oxymoron. A religious dogma pretending to be science and doing a lousy job of it.

As far as any testible claims go. Yes.

Unless one proposes a god who deceptively creates the evidence to give a false impression. Such claims are so stupid they aren't worth consideration.

Examples posted here and on talkorigins.org help. oh yeah, and the last 200 years of science have refuted it totally and completely.

No. But they do. Either YECism or atheism. Ever gone to AIG's website?

Because it's so easy to demonstrate the dishonesty of people like Gish, Morrish, Ham, Hovind, Wieland et al. Bullfrog proteins, Lucy's knee joint, quoteing scientists out of context, fabricating and distorting and lying about scientific data/facts/discoveries, selling publications with false information, admitted to be false by Gish on the same day it was being sold. etc. etc. etc.

The creationist position is deceptive. It's position is counter to centeries of evidence and study. It's position is making false and misleading claims about evolution and other areas of science. It's highly deceptive.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

pangloss

No, it would asinine.

Of course, I was wondering if you ever had the intentiont o make good on your offer, as I asked here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001366" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001366</a>


Considering the track record of creationism, including your recent foray, I would have to say that, if anything, it is creationism that is a full-blown deception.

pangloss

edit

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]</p>

tgamble

Remine may have to redo his essay so this response is probably premature.

"Lamarckism Inherited use-and-disuse of parts Darwin thru mid-1900s. Still sought by some evolutionists."

"Recapitulation Peculiar embryological mechanisms – “terminal addition” & “telescoping acceleration” Most – in some form "

"These evolutionary explanations do not – and never did – predict a hierarchy pattern! (Note especially E8/E9/E11/E13, also E4/E5/E6/E2/E12.) "

Anyone have the references he reffers to? Be interesting to know if he's taking them out of context.

Lamarck's Signature
<a href="http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y6511038Y4200691/qid=1033068385/sr=1-1/002-7197314-0486467" target="_blank">http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y6511038Y4200691/qid=1033068385/sr=1 -1/002-7197314-0486467</a>

"Title: Lamarck's Signature. How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Program
286pp. Appendix, Glossary, Notes, Bibliography, Index. Argues that for one adaptive body system there is strong molecular genetic evidence that aspects of acquired immunities developed by parents in their own lifetime can be passed on to their offspring."

Also here, which seems to be the same book.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/073820014X/qid=1033068385/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7197314-0486467?v=glance&n=507846" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/073820014X/qid=1033068385/sr=8- 1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7197314-0486467?v=glance&n=507846</a>

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

tgamble