Re: QuestionEvolution.com News


<grinder2112@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1132265860.568102.66810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > I would write back to at least ask him why the claim "The questions
>> > found
>> > on this site remain unanswered by the evolutionist" is still on the
>> > site.
>
> Alexander wrote:
>> Done and done ... although I was circumspect and as polite as possible.
>> We'll see if we get a response.
>
> If you wouldn't mind, can you post the text of your query so that I can
> update the "Answers to QuestionEvolution.com" correspondence page?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/questionevolution/correspondence.html
>

It's fairly open ended but you're welcome to it.


Hi there - your site has attracted attention over at the Talk Origins
newsgroup (which can also be found on Google Groups if you ever care to
wander over). It can be quite a rough evironment for the new comer but
there is very much a quid pro quo attitude. If you are polite and are
sincerely there to learn or understand aspects of evolutionary theory and
it's relationship to religion then the locals are polite back. Sadly it
does seem to attract the kind of Christian who is more interested in
attacking people they believe are atheists (which is odd considering a great
many of the scientists at TO are Christians themselves) than trying to
tackle the real issues at stake.

Your polite response to some of the issues raised did generate some comments
and of course it's recognized that this is your site and you have a specific
reason for calling it 'questionevolution' rather than 'debate' evolution.
What seems odd (especially to those who have taken the time to study the
relevant issues through Biology, Paleaontology, Cosmology, Physics to
post-graduate level and beyond) is that the list you've put forward has in
fact been answered within the natural sciences (some questions for some time
as well).

The problem is not of course that you have not established a forum for
debate (entirely your prerogative of course) but that you have made a claim
that:

"Rather it (the website) was created to show that the theory that is
presented as scientific (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported
by scientific fact and discoveries as the average evolutionist believes. A
careful and objective study of the universe points one more in the direction
of special creation than natural evolution."

By listing the questions that have been repeatedly and conclusively refuted
you have presented the idea that these questions have either never been
asked or adequately answered when they have. I realise it is not your
intention to present a site that could be construed as ignoring or
overlooking the evidence but this does mean your site should carry either
more specific disclaimers or attempt to provide a more realistic
representation of the nature of the questions (which ones have been
answered, which ones are incomplete, some open ended questions that remain
etc - science doesn't have all the answers of course).

If you want to present all aspects of the argument without having to go to
the trouble of storing the collosal amounts of data available on the
evolutionary model then the simplest thing is to link to www.talkorigins.org
which has a comprehensive list of responses to all the claims made on your
website (they are not new ones, but if any occur to you let us know and we
can put it to the individuals with the appropriate expertise).

Take care and best wishes
Alexander


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Won arguments?
    ... trusted creationists to tell the truth about evolution, ... I found out that the creationists were deliberately twisting ... politely to polite inquiries, and were always ready to point me to ... trusting in God, and that set the stage for discovering that you can't ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>>If one chooses to believe in evolution for themselves, ... to be denying evidence to satisfy emotional needs. ... see that with very few exceptions, when creationists who post here are ... polite, the responses to them are polite. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Evolution is smarter than you"
    ... It is a polite way of saying: ... > But what's actually the difference between "smart evolution" and ID? ... Smart evolution is no smarter ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "The Future of Human Spaceflight"
    ... You raised the issue of why we aren't as polite here as people are at ... conferences of respected scientists. ... I was pointing out that there are people spouting nonsense here, ... The dispute (amoungst academics that is) on the VN ...
    (sci.space.policy)