Stunning victory of Creation

"In fact Henry Morris has written a book "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them." He documents their words to disprove what they claim and how they have changed their positions. "

Books of quotes, such as this, help to prove my point. I have read thatmany of these quotes are taken out of context.

 

I find all of this very unconvincing. I think that one man's honest interpretation of the data is another man's lie. If you have to know so much about the history of a rock, before you can test it, why bother with the test? The "age" seems like something trivial compared with all the other things you are supposed to know.

On one occasion I was accused of telling a "lie" because I said that you can breed pidgeons for as long as you like, you will never get an elephant. One guy took me seriously, as if I was claiming that this is what evolutionists really believe, and no amount of protest could convince him that it was just a joke. He was convinced that I was a liar, and as far as he was concerned, that was the end of the matter.

The problem is, some evolutionists are so paranoid about their precious theory getting undermined, they will do everything they possibly can to make personal attacks against creationists. Some of them have real problems and need to get their heads sorted out.

Mike

 

According to BBC Radio News, Haeckel's diagrams have just been reprinted in the school textbooks in Georgia.

Mike

 

So you cannot defend any of these actions but you find it unconvincing.

Hmmm. Sounds like the entropy claims.

I think I did a fair job of pointing you to their own words and showing where they were not honest. Or do you think it is acceptable to misrepresent results as noted? Do you think it is acceptable to say two things are the same that are not? Do you think it is acceptable to quote people in such a way that the meaning is different than it was in context?

 

"According to BBC Radio News, Haeckel's diagrams have just been reprinted in the school textbooks in Georgia."

Can you provide a citation that shows that is is Haeckel's actual drawings and not modern ontogeny pictures or drawings and that they are being used to promote evolution and not as part of science history? The press is notoriously wanting when it comes to scientific things.

 

No, it's just a quote from someone who says he heard it on the BBC News. You'll have to find the rest of the info yourself.

Even if they turn out to be modern pictures and drawings, this in itself would not vindicate the school textbooks as being honest. Heackel's theory is disputed but often presented as fact, as are many other disputed theories. Now, I know what you are going to say. You are going to ask me for a list of textbooks and all the disputed theories, but I haven't got time for all that, and I haven't got a school library here in my house so you will have to find it out for yourself. Besides, it's after midnight now and I'm knocking off.

Mike

 

I wouldn't even attempt to defend any of these because I am not the person being accused of lies in any of these cases. I know what it's like to be falsely accused of telling lies, and I am sure they do too.

Mike

 

"Even if they turn out to be modern pictures and drawings, this in itself would not vindicate the school textbooks as being honest. Heackel's theory is disputed but often presented as fact, as are many other disputed theories. Now, I know what you are going to say. You are going to ask me for a list of textbooks and all the disputed theories, but I haven't got time for all that, and I haven't got a school library here in my house so you will have to find it out for yourself."

Look, if these guys are actually using Haekel drawings and presenting them as Haekel did, then I will be the first to say they are wrong and should stop.

However, there is a modern field of ontogeny and development which is a legitimate branch of science. Now, if you wish to say, as Haekel did, that the developing fetus goes through each evolutionary stage of development, then you are wrong. However, there are shared developmental steps which are legitimate and which shared light on evolution and are only explained by common descent.

One example would be the little legs and feet that whales and snake have as they are developing which are later re-absorbed. Another would be the tail of the human embryo. This, too, is usually reabsorbed though some children are born with atavistic tails and we all have the remains of a tail under our skin.

"I wouldn't even attempt to defend any of these because I am not the person being accused of lies in any of these cases. I know what it's like to be falsely accused of telling lies, and I am sure they do too."

Well let's try a different tact. You said you found my examples "unconvincing." So let's take the first one.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/23.html#000343

A couple of guys wanted to show that when selecting rocks for K-Ar dating that is is important to select rocks that have been completely melted to rid the rock of the argon. So they selected samples from a recent volcano. SOme samples they could tell had been completely melted. So they could tell had not. They had them dated. The ones that were completely melted came back with the expected age of zreo. The ones that had not came back with the expected non-zero age.

Morris cited their work. He only mentioned the samples that were not completely melted and pointed out that they dated as old. He did not mention the other samples nor did he mention that the samples were purposely selected because they would date incorrectly. He only used it as an example that dating does not work.

First question. Do you think that he made the right conclusion based on the evidence?

Second question. If he made the right conclusion, why should he have not told the full context of the experiment? If he made the wrong conclusion, does it seem that he should have known what the guys were doing since he cited their paper?

Third question. If he made the wrong conclusion, do you think there is at least reason to think he may have been misleading on purpose or do you think it was an honest mistake?

 

Well, boys! I hate to be the spoiler of the fun we've been having on this thread--but we have gone way beyond our 20 page limit on this particular subject and I must say--this particular thread is dissolving to a close!

Feel free to begin a new title/thread if you so choose----but as Porky Pig would say--

"Bu-bee-uh, bu-bee-uh!! That's all, folks!"