Re: Misrepresenting Creationism

On May 3, 2:43 pm, urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

True. Mendellian genetics does not mean adaptation. MG accounts for
the diversity in life. This diversity helps with adaptation. And
also, the use of your brain also helps with adaptation. But clearly,
at this point you aren't adapting very well.




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.

Genetics is clearly understood as the fact that the parent has genes
that are passed down to the children. If a white and a black mate a
brown often results. This is genetically understood and proves that
traits are passed down and are not new. Evolution believes that all
change is due mostly through mutations. The brown, however, is not the
result of a mutation, it's the result of a white and black mating.
It's really easy to understand, and clearly this shows how God created
traits as limited.








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.

My thesis, which you have failed to dislodge, that evolutionists
continue to misrepresent creationists in regard to their true
position, is one that continues to plague you. I said that change is
accounted for by genetic expression. This expression has been a part
of humans since the beginning. If two brown/olive skinned individuals
mated, some will be white, some may be brown, and some may be black.
Your unprovable view is that these genetic traits, from magic,
evolved. This has not been demonstrated. Ancient records and drawings
indicate that traits have remained the SAME since those times.
Diversity has always existed. This diversity is proven by Egyptian
drawings. So historic documents reinforce creationism, and
creationist assertion that change is limited.

But you do need a time machine because you claim that men came from
monkeys and no one has viewed a monkey, through subsequent generations
produce a man. There are no drawings that show a monkey turning into
a man over subsequent generations.



Evolution is
based on mountains of evidence, your view is based on 0 evidence.

Evidence mounts that evolutionists see what they want to see. An
evolutionist looks at a monkey and says, "that's what are ancestors
looked like." He decries the idea that he is trying to escape from
an intelligent creator and the Ten Commandments and says such claims
are false, that the reason he believes that nature can create
everything without anyone's help is because he has mountains of
observations. Yet, without a time machine such observations are
largely based on what evolutionists want to see.

The hopes and desires of evolutionists is that nature can do a whole
lot more then what scientists in their laboratory can do. Scientists,
for example cannot create life yet. So at this stage you would have to
conclude that evolutionists want nature to perform miracles. This is
the where the word "supernatural" comes from. You see, you have
nature taking on powers that aren't observed.


Evolutionists desire to see what they want to see. And this is what
happened when evolutionists argued as to whether Piltdown Man was from
a later or earlier period. When some questioned Piltdown Man as
authentic another specimen found elsewhere surfaced. Fakes multiply.
When Archeopterxy was questioned more specimens surfaced. But these
don't have feather imprints. I supposed that since I am questioning
Archeopterxy right now evolutionists will fabricate another one.
Reminds me of the fake trillobite that the dealer downtown is trying
to sell. I saw him the other day.

Oh, yes, Java Man was just a fragment of the skull (skull cap - see
picture on Talk.origins.com), and a part of the jaw bone. From this an
entire skull was made. I have a picture of an early textbook that
accurately shows, by picture, the feeble fragments as they are put
together with the plaster of paris reconstruction. Later textbooks
show only a drawing, giving the impression that the entire skull and
jawbone is in possession. How could scientists claim from a few
fragments that this is an apeman? Sounds like faith to me.

And of course the great evolution scientist Henry Fairfield Osborne
passed off his Nebraska Man in a peer reviewed scientific publication
as a true ape man. It was just a tooth. Hey, if peer review will
allow an evolutionist in with a tooth, why can't they let my critique
in too?





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.

I've just gave a few examples where evolutionists apparently saw what
they wanted to see. Most European evolutionists accepted Piltdown Man
as proof. Controversy raged as to where the specimen fit into the
evolutionary timeline. Efforts to dethrone Piltdown failed when
another specimen showed up elsewhere, just as other specimens of
Archeopterxy pop up, especially when criticism is directed toward
it.

Since Piltdown Man appeared in a number of textbooks it seems that
even scientific peer review fails, all the time.

Evolutionists see what they want to see. Do you disagree with that?

JM




You've demonstrated here you don't even know
the difference between mendalian genetics and an adaption.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... were not objective since you did not include evolutionists as well. ... consistent a phenomenon as the errors made by creationists. ... accomodate science, not by actual evidence. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
    ... lists no creationists books in his bibliography. ... that all modern day creationists accept Mendellian genetics. ... evolutionists now focuses ... Let us know when you find a brain McClueless. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats with the personal attacks on Darwin?
    ... ignorant of everything, and die ignorant of most things, and Dawkins ... creationists. ... creationists than evolutionists do. ... camouflage themselves in an air of objectivity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for Ray Martinez
    ... does not even presuppose that these creationists are liars: ... You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty. ... This identification could include anyone, especially evolutionists, ... Scott, are not brilliant, or based on facts, or even particularly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Flank overstates the state of our knowledge of genetics; Post of
    ... if the creationists are correct that "most ... mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information ... genetics in general and population genetics in particular. ... Noah's Ark founder population of humans. ...
    (talk.origins)