Re: Credibility of ICR
- From: John Harshman <jharshman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:21:13 -0700
Jonathan D wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:03 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Jonathan D wrote:These are direct claims taken directly from the "Acts and Facts"Having read several of ICR's publications I feel it would be helpfulJH said: It would be good to give real citations for these quotes and claims.
to point out some reasons why anyone who reads their publications
should do so with caution. Not only do they make up their own stuff
about evolution, but in many cases they flat out lie. Here are some
statements which I have read recently.
publication. Specifically for February 2009 although I have also seen
them written in various other monthly issues. If by quotes you mean
what the people of ICR have actualy said verbally I can't accomodate
since I'm not in the habit of visitign their seminars. However if you
mean printed quotes and claims then yes I can give you lots.
I mean the latter, and suggest that you back up your claims about what ICR is claiming by providing them.
A transitional fossil which, in the case of a dinosaur into a bird,1.) Evolution lacks a mechanism. "It is a curious fact that noone hasJH said: What exactly do they mean by "true" transitional fossil?
ever figured out what the actual mechanism of evolution is...One would
think that in the 100+ years since Darwin and all the 1,000s of
scientists working on it someone would have figured it out."
Answer of course being natural/sexual selection. This statement is so
stupid it gives me a headache.
2.) There are no "true" transitional fossils.
*sigh* Once again for those that haven't already heard, An organism
does not, I repeat, _DOES_NOT_ change over night. To expect to find
what they call a transitional fossil is unrealistic.
would be a dinosaur with feathers. as in major very noticeable changes
which cannot be expected of a process which is slow and gradual.
Please present a quote from ICR that clarifies what they mean by "transitional fossil".
3.) NO fossil evidence.
Must I retype everything I am reading?Here is a prime example of what I said earlier about flat out lying.JH said: Those weren't even quotes. If you're going to make claims for them, you
4.) No order to the fossils.
This is just total ignorance. Ignorance that is willful and stupidity
that is self induced.
They ignore the various family trees, pictures of fossils in various
strata, etc.
have to show that they do in fact make those claims.
No. Just enough to substantiate your claims.
Fine. page 18 of the
february issue 2009 of Acts and Facts states starting on paragraph 7
going through paragraph 12 quote "NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE" as the heading
and then begins (here's a direct quote) "It used to be claimed that
the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is
that the billions of known fossils have not yielded a single
unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the
process of evolving." end quote. This was adapted from a previous
article by Dr. Morris, founder of ICR.
There. Was that so hard? So what they mean by "transitional fossil" appears to be one with some structure in an intermediate state. As, for example, the wing of Archaeopteryx. But I believe the party line on that is that it's "just a bird".
here's a quote from Dr. John Morris, "Once God is relegated to the5.) Darwinism leads to athiesm and lowered moral conduct since..."It
takes away man's responsibility to God and are then free to do as they
please."
*double sigh* I has led some, but not all. which leads me to my next
point.
long ago and far away, it is easy to dismiss him from the affairs of
men altogether. Evolution and long ages free man to live as if there
is no Creator to whom he is accountable for his actions and choices."
end quote. Dr. J. Morris is the current president of ICR.
What is the source of that quote?
I say that last statement as a challenge to anyone to give6.) Those that chose to believe naturalistic evolution are
compromisers and not true Christians.
This is insulting to theistic evolutionists, extremely arrogant, and,
as usual, religious bigotry shown by almost every creationist I've
met. I may disagree with people about the existence of god but I'm not
going to be insulting to someone, unless they insult me first. *cough*
*cough* Ray-Nashton *cough* I'm not picky so long as you realize the
truth of evolution and the total lack of evidence for creationism.
definitive proof to the contrary. If you can't then don't say anything
about it.
I'm not sure what you're even asking for here. But this is another claim about ICR that isn't supported by a quote and/or reference.
The options of A, B, and C are directly taken word for word from7.) Darwin himself concluded that there were many "problems" with his
theory. Including:
A.)Lack of transitional forms. (LOL here we are again)
B.)Complexity of such organs as the eye.(Dear, God! How long is this
one going to survive? A prime example of quote mining. If you want to
know what Darwin actually said then read the "Origin of Species".)
C.)Sterility of crossbreeding species. (Neither Darwin or any
scientist during that time knew about genetics. Their idea of heredity
was that a "gene pool" or mixture of all you ancestors somehow
combined to create a child.[correct me if I'm wrong on that statement
but that's what I have heard/read.])
the publication.
I will note that you didn't even tell us, in your original post, what the publication was, or that these were quotes.
I hope you are now satisfied with the revised version.CONCLUSION---ICR shows a complete lack of knowledge of the ToE or it's
predictions. They also throw out the scentific method and replace it
with random assumptions about the ToE. Never do they explain their
quote "scientific experiments." I'm very curious as to how they prove
god exists or that anything was created. But that seems to be the one
thing they don't have: !EVIDENCE! _EVER_
JH said: I know from other sources that your central claim here is correct, but I
wouldn't really know that based on this post. It may be true that
ordinary claims demand only ordinary evidence, but your claims hardly
seem to be backed by any evidence at all. Perhaps you could try this
again with a) real quotes and b) real citations.
I'll agree that it's better. Not good enough, but better. I am merely attempting to hold you to the standards we demand from creationists, which are just ordinary standards of evidence. If you claim somebody said something, you have to provide evidence of that. Quotes and citations are the minimal standard.
I know you
probably meant well so thanks for the useful criticism. If you like I
would be happy to go through the collection I have acquired before I
take them to be recycled; if you want more evidence of their
ignorance. I get them from my parents. Oh, and ICR also keeps bringing
up the second law of thermodynamics as proof against evolution. (LMFAO
it really doesn't help their case much when they don't even understand
the basic laws of science) That one is located on page 18 of the
February issue. in case anyone is wondering. And don't take my word
for it, if you would like to see for yourself then visit their
website.
A url would have been nice too. Is that issue of Acts & Facts available online?
.
- References:
- Credibility of ICR
- From: Jonathan D
- Re: Credibility of ICR
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Credibility of ICR
- From: Jonathan D
- Credibility of ICR
- Prev by Date: Re: This pretty much says it all
- Next by Date: Re: Another God question
- Previous by thread: Re: Credibility of ICR
- Next by thread: Re: Credibility of ICR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
