Creationists

[UltimateReality]

The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.



Creationist Whoppers

Creationist Whoppers

This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.

[plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.

Well, maybe a little.

Max Webb

Once again, you prove you are only the regurgitator of your materialist websites and your Fundie Evo Saint Will Provine.

 

[Hollie]

If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.

Do you understand what conjecture is ?

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

You're not paying attention.

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith.

I think your desperate need to create some weird, metaphysical world is inhabiting your ability to operate in the rational world.

 

[Hollie]

The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.



Creationist Whoppers

Creationist Whoppers

This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.

[plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.

Well, maybe a little.

Max Webb

Once again, you prove you are only the regurgitator of your materialist websites and your Fundie Evo Saint Will Provine.

Once again, you find yourself unable to defend the crackpots and misfits who define fundie creationists.

 

[Hollie]

Another passel of creationist lies

Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, it’s because they’ve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap I’m tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled — some would say lied to — to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.


Check this out:
…then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.

To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level…

Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.

The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earth’s original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water — much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So it’s no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?

Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out… unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.

To continue…
According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moon’s surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?

It doesn’t work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.

This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.

One of Lisle’s associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early ’80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.

This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earth’s and Saturn’s, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while it’s true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphrey’s model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesn’t predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isn’t really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesn’t actually predict those features.

Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target… by accident.

More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.

It's important for others to be able to come to their own conclusions about the behavior of the fundie crowd.

I've offered my own comments about the dishonest tactics that you and the other supernaturalist have employed in this thread: the altered "quotes", the false "qoutes" and manufactured information that comes from your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

You're not paying attention.

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith.

The theory of evolution requires HUGE faith!!! Have you been ignoring everything since you have been posting here? If you weren't so busy cutting and pasting fundie evo websites like Will Provine, you might have actually seen the information.

 

[UltimateReality]

The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.



Creationist Whoppers

Creationist Whoppers

This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.

[plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.

Well, maybe a little.

Max Webb

Once again, you prove you are only the regurgitator of your materialist websites and your Fundie Evo Saint Will Provine.

Once again, you find yourself unable to defend the crackpots and misfits who define fundie creationists.

And you find yourself unable to make a single post without rehasing something from Will Provine or Dawkins. You need to spend more time reading the posts than cutting and pasting from Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" or copying from IHEU websites.

 

[UltimateReality]

Another passel of creationist lies

Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, it’s because they’ve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap I’m tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled — some would say lied to — to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.


Check this out:
…then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.

To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level…

Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.

The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earth’s original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water — much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So it’s no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?

Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out… unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.

To continue…
According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moon’s surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?

It doesn’t work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.

This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.

One of Lisle’s associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early ’80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.

This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earth’s and Saturn’s, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while it’s true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphrey’s model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesn’t predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isn’t really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesn’t actually predict those features.

Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target… by accident.

More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.

It's important for others to be able to come to their own conclusions about the behavior of the fundie crowd.

I've offered my own comments about the dishonest tactics that you and the other supernaturalist have employed in this thread: the altered "quotes", the false "qoutes" and manufactured information that comes from your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

And yet you do the same thing from Will Provine and Dawkins.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/64...ators-sean-faircloth-the-amaz-ng-meeting-2012

 

[newpolitics]

If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.

Do you understand what conjecture is ?

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there. A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be. That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.

 

[Hollie]

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

"Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.


In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)

"Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.

Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.

In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his children’s Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).

The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).

The Court ruled, "Adding ‘ism’ does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose ‘evolution’ into a religion. ‘Evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)


Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution

 

[UltimateReality]

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there. A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be. That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.

Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.

 

[Hollie]

More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.

It's important for others to be able to come to their own conclusions about the behavior of the fundie crowd.

I've offered my own comments about the dishonest tactics that you and the other supernaturalist have employed in this thread: the altered "quotes", the false "qoutes" and manufactured information that comes from your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

And yet you do the same thing from Will Provine and Dawkins.

And yet you have no issue with the dishonest tactics of altered "quotes", the false "quotes" and manufactured information that you cut and paste.

 

[UltimateReality]

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

"Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.


In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)

"Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.

Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.

In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his children’s Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).

The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).

The Court ruled, "Adding ‘ism’ does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose ‘evolution’ into a religion. ‘Evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)


Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution

More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.

 

[Hollie]

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there. A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be. That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.

Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.

The TOE is science.

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.

 

[Hollie]

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

"Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.


In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)

"Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.

Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.

In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his children’s Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).

The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).

The Court ruled, "Adding ‘ism’ does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose ‘evolution’ into a religion. ‘Evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)


Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution

More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.

They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.

 

[Hollie]

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

"Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.


In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)

"Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.

Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.

In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his children’s Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).

The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).

The Court ruled, "Adding ‘ism’ does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose ‘evolution’ into a religion. ‘Evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)


Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution

More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.

The legal history of creation "science", therefore, has been remarkably consistent --- the creation "scientists" have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. In every instance where creation "scientists" or intelligent design "theorists" have attempted to argue that their viewpoints are "science" and should be taught in schools, or that evolution is not science and should not be taught in schools, their claim has been rejected by the courts -- soundly, starkly, and unequivocably.

 

[UltimateReality]

What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there. A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be. That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.

Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.

The TOE is science.

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.

The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.

 

[Hollie]

An Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2006

An Index to Creationist Claims

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's Newpage for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information.These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.

 

[Hollie]

Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.

The TOE is science.

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.

The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.

You're getting a little frothy there, dear.

I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.

You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?

 

[UltimateReality]

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)



"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

"Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.


In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)

"Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.

Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.

In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his children’s Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).

The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).

The Court ruled, "Adding ‘ism’ does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose ‘evolution’ into a religion. ‘Evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)


Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution

More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.

They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.

I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.

 

[UltimateReality]

An Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2006

An Index to Creationist Claims

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's Newpage for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information.These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.

More garbage from Lawrence Krauss. I don't know why you think these websites will support your belief in a 4 Billion year old universe. Or that you think you can prove the origins of life questions with such secular humanist dogma.