Creationist Challenge: Read the damn book.
Posted on: January 16, 2008 - 5:28pm
Online
Creationist Challenge: Read the damn book.
I have a challenge for Young Earth Creationists, proponents of Special Creation in general, and those opposed to the inclusion of evolutionary theory in biology classrooms: Read the book and show us what the controversy is. You can get a free audiobook version at LibriVox, and put it on your iPod. It won't cost you anything but some time, and you may emerge with a smoking gun against "evolutionists."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I'm no creationist, but I appreciate the link.
Although I am unsure as to whether any creationists will take you up on your challenge, I do thank you for posting this. My copy of Origin of Species is frayed and held together with tape. I've been meaning to buy a new one, but I've never much liked the book, simply because much of it is dedicated to zoology, a field in which Huxley and Darwin were both avid and experienced, yet which I was never interested in. Still, its nice to have an audio-copy, since I can put it on my iPod.
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Why don't you challenge a creation scientists? Most people who come here claiming to be young earth creationists, probably know very little about the science behind the position.
is creation scientists is similar something like dumb/mute singer?
At the top left of the page, you should see a flash animation that offers downloadable shows.
Ray Comfort(long time ago), Bill Morgan, Steve Gregg(lol), Ergun Caner, and more.
The label 'creation scientist' probably wasn't coined by an atheist.
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
That's a good point. I've heard the term "creation scientist" thrown about but I can't for the life of me figure out what a creation scientist would do or study. The term "creation scientist" to me is nothing more than an oxymoron. Is anyone able to explain this to me?
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
I've been searching for several months now for just one experiment done by a creation scientist. For the life of me, I swear I have scoured the internet, and I can't find a damn thing. Not one experiment.
What the hell kind of science can exist for twenty years without doing a single damn experiment? (It's 20 years, right? Didn't we first hear creation science in the late 80s?)
If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' -- Richard Dawkins
Also, for those who prefer the text version:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009
Would you qualify this as a study?? Very crude, but OMG he has a results section.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Canopy.pdf
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
I think creation science was made by theist as a form of pseudoscience to say "God invented this earth by allowing evolution to happen, he set the wheels in motion for science and he created the laws that govern the universe"? Thats what I get from the term...
Here is the wikipedia link that might clear it up for some people or maybe help you understand the term better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
Enjoy!
There is a difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis. Stop saying something is "Just a Theory"! You're silly.
Well, from a brief skim of it, I would grudgingly say that it's an experiment -- more along the lines of a kid with a new chemistry set than a scientist following the scientific method -- but it's colloquially correct to call it an experiment.
I'm pretty sure that making up theories which contradict everything science knows about earth's history, and then hunting and gathering isolated facts from a few textbooks doesn't count as peer review quality, but I do give him props for trying.
If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' -- Richard Dawkins