RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Is Jason Rosenhouse being quotemined ?, Anti evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2009,11:54   

Noticed this on Ham's blog today:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....tionist

Quote
Admissions of an Evolutionist

A blogger who attended the paleontology conference in Cincinnati recently and also visited our nearby Creation Museum with the group of secular scientists, wrote in his blog report:

The second point was that you shouldn’t underestimate the argument from personal incredulity. Evolution is genuinely counter-intuitive, and it is not crazy to cast a skeptical eye on the idea that complex, functional adaptations can form by a fully naturalistic process like natural selection. It is difficult to convince people even that evolution is reasonable, much less that it is true. I mentioned my experience at the Creation Museum the day before . . .

I agree. Evolution is counter-intuitive. Besides the fact that the knowledge of God is written on our hearts (we all know there is a God—even though many suppress this truth, as Romans 1 tells us), we all recognize the evidence of design. It is so obvious that life was designed by higher intelligence (as Romans 1:20 declares—that is why we are without excuse). And, of course, observational science does not support the molecules-to-man idea.

This blogger then stated:

. . . that there is far more religious diversity among anti-evolutionists than you might expect. This has been brought home to me especially at ID conferences, where Biblical literalists often seem thin on the ground.

. . . At this point I noted that if there were any super-clever way of countering creationism we all would have done it by now. I said I didn’t have any snappy solution to offer, and endorsed the more mundane suggestions others had made before me (be aware of what is going on in local politics, that sort of thing.)

This is a very good point. There is nothing that evolutionists can parade in front of all through television, radio, magazines, etc. that will prove once and for all these creationists are wrong and Darwin was right! NOTHING!

Now these same scientists could easily prove to all that magnesium has certain properties and reacts with acids in certain ways—because one can observe such properties and test them over and over again. And that is the point. One can illustrate natural selection and speciation—one can show bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics—but an evolutionist cannot show how one kind (usually at the family level of classification) of animal could change in to a totally different kind  (speciation within a kind is not molecules to man evolution.)

Evolutionism is a religious dogma secularists adhere to—it is their religion to explain life without God. Those Christians who compromise with evolution are no different than the Israelites who incorporated the pagan religion of the age into their religion, thus undermining the authority of the Word of God!


Ham doesn't mention who the "blogger" is, but a quick Google tracked it down to Jason's blog and his reports from the conference in Cincinnati:

http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....nellink

Quote
The second point was that you shouldn't underestimate the argument from personal incredulity. Evolution is genuinely counter-intuitive, and it is not crazy to cast a skeptical eye on the idea that complex, functional adaptations can form by a fully naturalistic process like natural selection. It is difficult to convince people even that evolution is reasonable, much less that it is true. I mentioned my experience at the Creation Museum the day before, as recounted in Part One.

Point three was that there is far more religious diversity among anti-evolutionists than you might expect. This has been brought home to me especially at ID conferences, where Biblical literalists often seem thin on the ground. On more than one occasion I have had ID proponents lament the harm Biblical literalists had done to the cause of anti-evolution advocacy. If you have this idea that it is only conservative Protestant fundamentalists who oppose evolution then you have not fully grasped the extent of the problem.


Quote
At this point I noted that if there were any super-clever way of countering creationism we all would have done it by now. I said I didn't have any snappy solution to offer, and endorsed the more mundane suggestions others had made before me (be aware of what is going on in local politics, that sort of thing.)


Wonder if Jason is aware of this ? Having spent quite a considerable amout of time arguing with some nutters over on Premier Christian Radio's forum over the last few months but to no avail, Ham's assertions seem oh so familiar. It really is pointless even debating them. Anyway, Jason's reports are always excellent so I must have a look at part one.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2009,12:50   

Quote
. . . At this point I noted that if there were any super-clever way of countering creationism we all would have done it by now. I said I didn’t have any snappy solution to offer, and endorsed the more mundane suggestions others had made before me (be aware of what is going on in local politics, that sort of thing.)

This is a very good point. There is nothing that evolutionists can parade in front of all through television, radio, magazines, etc. that will prove once and for all these creationists are wrong and Darwin was right! NOTHING!

Ham and Rosenhouse are both right.  The only reliable ways of turning a creationist are education (difficult and time consuming) and the slaying of Morton's Demon (difficult to almost impossible, depending on the depth of indoctrination).  Very few hard-core creationists are going to be convinced by parading anything through "television, radio, magazines, etc."

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2009,13:16   

Quote
Evolution is genuinely counter-intuitive,

Well, so is a complex organism forming without ancestors, or one that's way different than its recent ancestors.

Isn't it funny how often anti-evolutionists argue the impossibility of those two baramins of events, when it's their model(s) that require them, not evolution.

Henry

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2009,13:27   

Quote
This is a very good point. There is nothing that evolutionists can parade in front of all through television, radio, magazines, etc. that will prove once and for all these creationists are wrong and Darwin was right! NOTHING!


Ham is right on that point. Believe me, I've tried and tried but it's pointless. Evolutionary science is apparently just an opinion, just an assumption, even down to the fact that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away (and thus we are observing it as it was 2.5 million years ago). Just an assumption. NOTHING will ever convince them.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2009,13:46   

Well, with Wikipedia saying things like

Quote
The measured distance to the Andromeda Galaxy was doubled in 1953 when it was discovered that there is another, dimmer type of Cepheid. In the 1990s, Hipparcos satellite measurements were used to calibrate the Cepheid distances.


of course it's just an assumption! After all, facts don't change like that!!111!!!one!!

  
  4 replies since July 07 2009,11:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]