Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 51 - 4 Comments
From: Ross Entered on: June 11, 2003 8:06 PM
Trust me, man, you could come up with a hundred more of these finds and it wouldn't matter one fucking bit to a creationist. Science and reason simply do not apply.     I don't know if you guys have ever been to TalkOrigins, but it's a good site if you ever need ammo to debate a creationist. Here is a good FAQ for combating a number of the typical assinine arguments they often put forth:     http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html     Also, if you want to know exactly what a creationist would say in the face of these fossils, look here:     http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
From: Swerb Entered on: June 12, 2003 12:04 AM
That's some fascinating stuff... admittedly a bit over my head, but interesting nonetheless. What I find more interesting about these arguments is how science tends to evolve as humans get smarter (logical, no?), but creationists cling to the same old dumb, arbitrary beliefs that haven't changed EVER, despite the progress human civilization has made. As a friend of mine commented in a philosophy class once, "Today's religion is tomorrow's mythology." And really, when creationists try to dispel scientific facts with their own scientific facts, it's like me discussing astrophysics: I have no clue what I'm talking about because my interests lie elsewhere, and I don't subscribe to your methods, so whatever I'm saying comes completely out of my ass, substantiated only by my farts.
From: Ross Entered on: June 12, 2003 8:47 AM
You've hit on the crux of the problem: by definition science evolves as our knowledge increases. Science roots out its mistakes and modifies accordingly. Religion tends not to. However, in all fairness, over time they do change their arguments to at least accomodate the obvious. For instance, it used to be that evolution on any scale was completely denied. Now, however, most of these guys will admit to "micro" evolution - small changes within a species - but not to "macro" evolution, or speciation. But they still deny the accuracy of radiological dating techniques, which are very well tested. Also, you have to take into account all the people who are semi-intelligent that maintain religiosity but have converted over to believing in evolution.     But yes, the truly offensive creationists are the ones who practice "creation science" - an oxymoron if there ever was one. Instead of simply pleading ignorance as most creationists do, these guys try to fight on our turf and use pseudo-scientific arguments that are easy for evolutionary biologists to refute but do present more problems for the layman to combat. Plus, scientists are not usually as well-spoken as the more outgoing creationist apologists, so they do tend to get batted around debates, even though they're making a lot more sense.
From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 4:31 PM
I actually saw this article in a magazine I was reading recently. Bert is right though, this will have little effect on creationists or their faith which is merely a lack of reason. Creationists are to blinded by their faith to see the evidence for what it is, conclusive. I've read enough to know that evolution is closer to fact than theory. Creationists blatant ignorance in this area and use of pseudo-science is appalling as I have read some of what they have to say. It is best just to ignore them since it's not worth getting pissed about.