Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: urthogie <urthogie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 May 2007 14:43:13 -0700
On May 3, 5:28 pm, m...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
It's not hard to find statements by evolutionists which misrepresent
the creationist position. You can find such statements in posts on
this newsgroup, and in fact, in textbooks. Even intellects are
dishonest, so it seems.
Take a gander at this textbook, for instance. Evolution, by Mark
Ridley. Ridley is of the Department of Anthropology and Biology of
Emory University. Apparently Ridley thinks he can state the
creationist position on anything, yet in his bibliography he lists no
creationists, nor their works. Does he do any original research on
this subject. I doubt it.
On page 65, for instance, Ridley states, "Creationism offers no
explanation for adaptation."
One wonders at this incredible statement, particularly because he
lists no creationists books in his bibliography.
Ridley, seems to be ignorant on many facts, particularly in the fact
that all modern day creationists accept Mendellian genetics. In fact,
we argue that Mendellian genetics discredited Darwinian explanation
for upward or Macroevolution. Hence, in order to escape the
Mendellian confines imposed upon evolution, evolutionists now focuses
on mutations to provide that escape.
Mendellian genetics does not mean adaption. Creationists don't
understand evolutionary theory, that's the problem. You've just
demonstrated how little you know about it, ironically in an attempt to
show we don't know about *your* views. Please, read some books on
genetics.
Just down further on that page, Ridley states: "what relevance do the
arguments of this chapter have for these forms of creationism?" I
answer, do you really mean to say, "what relevance do the arguments of
this chapter have for our strawmen forms of creationism?"
"The answer is, we are dishonest."
The fact is, evolutionists are lying when they omit the fact that
creationists believe in Mendellian genetics as the explanation for
diversity. The fact is, God basically created types of
characteristics. He created blond and black, and subsequently brown.
The original two humans had all the characteristics in their genes,
all the characteristics to provide for all the different human
types. Dana Tweedy, the evolutionists on these talk.origin pages
claims that this diversity is due to mutations. In other words some
of us humans are mutations. But the problem is, Tweedy can't prove
it. Tweedy doesn't have a time machine.
You don't need a time machine to know natural history. We have
fossils, mummies, genetic evidence, and much much more. Evolution is
based on mountains of evidence, your view is based on 0 evidence.
History tells us, as inscribed in Egypt and elsewhere, that diversity
has always been with us.
Omitting facts distorts the picture. Evolutionists would like to
define the creation/evolution debate so as to win arguments, but when
the definitions are distorted and when truth is suppressed naturally
the evolutionist can congratulate himself. He can say that his view
won over the strawman that he blew down.
What distorts the picture is your not understanding genetics or the
evidence for evolution. You've demonstrated here you don't even know
the difference between mendalian genetics and an adaption.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: mccoy
- Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- References:
- Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: mccoy
- Misrepresenting Creationism
- Prev by Date: Re: Science and Transcendental Logic
- Next by Date: Re: Did the Babylonian world view sneak into the Bible?
- Previous by thread: Misrepresenting Creationism
- Next by thread: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
