Is YEC belief a cult??

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:43 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Mod note: TGamble: I notice that you are fond of referring to YEC and YEC organizations as "cults." There are well established defintions for cults both on a religious and on a sociological level. I believe that YEC fits neither. Unless you are prepared using established and accepted criteria for a cult to demonstrate that such are indeed cults, please refrain from such terminology.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult

Like cults, YEC is a minority position. Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma. Like cults, YECism is considered to be false.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

"n 1: adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices 2: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal: "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season" [syn: fad, craze, furor, furore, rage] 3: a system of religious beliefs and rituals [syn: religious cult]"

YEC is a small, minority sect that is considered to be false by the majority of Christians. It's fanatical in it's teachings, produces no evidence, has a strict statement of faith and allows no questioning or revision of their set dogma. That, IMO makes it a cult.


http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study_whatisdescult.htm

Charismatic or messianic leader(s) (Messianic meaning they either say they are God OR that they alone can interpret the scriptures the way God intended.....the leaders are self-appointed.

Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising

http://www.fwselijah.com/cult.htm

The Ten Characteristics of a Harmful Faith System

from Faith that Hurts, Faith that Heals by Stephen Arterburn & Jack Felton © 1991 Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville Tenn.

1. Special Claims The members of the harmful faith system make claims about their character, abilities, or knowledge that make them "special" in some way

3. An "Us Versus Them" Mentality Religious Addicts are at war with the world (flesh and the devil) to protect their terrain and establish themselves as godly persons who can't be compared to other persons of faith.

That should do it!

[dizzle]

Dear TGamble, no that does not do it. Unfortunately I am tied up with some other concerns to adequately address this at this very moment, but I am sure that there are others who can, or I will get to it when I get time. But some your criteria anyone who holds to almost any belief is part of a cult and that simply is not the sociological definition of a cult. A great deal of your other criteria is simply not applicable here.

In the same way that I requested a Christian here to much less frequently use a certain term with regards to the nonbeleivers here though they believed it was true, I am requesting that you much more judiciously use your cult perogative. It's cumulative inflammatory effect far outweighs any probative value you may feel it has. I am going to split off your comments about whether or not YEC is a cult so that the merits or lack therof can be debated separately and not hijack this thread.

Notice I did not forbid you from using that term if it is your true feelings, but I did ask for at least some restraint in its use so as not to be overly disruptive or inflammatory. I hope you can respect that.

[tgamble]

Today @ 10:52 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear TGamble, no that does not do it.

What would?

But some your criteria anyone who holds to almost any belief is part of a cult and that simply is not the sociological definition of a cult. A great deal of your other criteria is simply not applicable here.


They aren't my criteria. While some chararteristics do not applly, many do.

Notice I did not forbid you from using that term if it is your true feelings, but I did ask for at least some restraint in its use so as not to be overly disruptive or inflammatory. I hope you can respect that.

It's my true feelings that YEC is a cult for reasons already noted. However, if you prefer I didn't use it I won't. How about "bunch of crackpot, ignorant, deceptive loonies" instead? :lol:

[dizzle]

Well this thread is discuss the validity or lack thereof of the reasons you posited. I am not trying to suck all the life or color out of your posts, believe me, we are not heavy-handed in our moderating, just be cognizant not to generate more heat than light okay? I think you know where I am coming from.

[$cirisme]

Like cults, YEC is a minority position. Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma. Like cults, YECism is considered to be false.

I think all of these can be used against evolutionism, too.

:smile:

[tgamble]

Today @ 11:39 PM
cirisme:

I think all of these can be used against evolutionism, too.

:smile:

Well, let's see.

Like cults, YEC is a minority position. >>

Nope, evolution is a majority position.

>>Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma.>>

Nope, science is all about questioning and challenging. No statement of faith required. No censorship of questions. Scientists can challenge it as much as they want. If they do so with legitimate evidence. Notice Behe hasn't been fired, executed, tortuted, shot, crucified etc.

>>Like cults, YECism is considered to be false.>>

Evolution is only considered to be false by the ignorant and religious fanatics who reject it solely on religious grounds.

Sorry, evolution isn't a cult by any definition.

[Socrates]

Humph, this TGamble is an emotive slanderer. Christianity itself is a minority view -- remember it's the wide road that leads to destruction :bonk: Also, YEC was the majority view among Christians throughout church history, as can be shown from the writings of the Church Fathers and Reformers. This became questioned ONLY because of uniformitarian and evolutionary ideas by deists then atheists.

No anti-cult ministry would agree with tgamble's inflammatory statement. Rather, a Cult must be in error about the Person and Work of Christ, while YEC organisations like AiG and ICR have orthodox statements on both. That by itself is enough to demoish tgamble's nonsensical outburst :bonk:

As for his/her/its "points" :dufus:

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. Talk about begging the question!!
YEC is a small, minority sect that is considered to be false by the majority of Christians.Already answered above, by showing that this "majority" questions YEC ONLY because of so-called "science", NOT because of the Bible, otherwise why did we see NOTHING but YEC before the rise of uniformitarianism?
It's fanatical in it's teachings,And of course, tgamble is not fanatical in his obsessive anti-YECism, e.g. by using a word like "Cult" contrary to the way leading anti-cult ministries do.
produces no evidence,Obviously tgamble hasn't even read the voluminous evidence at www.answersingenesis.org/ And since when has this been a mark of any cult anyway?
has a strict statement of faithIn AiG's case, the vast majority of their Statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp) www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp is a standard evangelical Christianity, so good on them for not tolerating any departure from Biblical inerrancy, the Trinity, Virginal Conception, etc. and allows no questioning or revision of their set dogma.What crap :eww: -- there is PLENTY of questioning in journals like TJ and CRSQ. AiG even published a list of creationist arguments that should NOT be used http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp That, IMO makes it a cult.Who gives a monkey's about your opinion?

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. How can this be the case with AiG or ICR, which are NOT membership organisations!! :doh:
The group is preoccupied with making money. Put up or shut up!! I bet most of the staff could earn a lot more outside. :doh:
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Again, put up or shut up!! Creationist groups are in no position to punish anyone, even if they wanted to! :doh:

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).
What complete garbage. :duh: Every time I've been to a creationist talk, the speaker tells us NOT to place trust in him, because ALL have "feet of clay", but in the Word of God.
The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. What "Group"?? YECs do not form any group per se but come from a wide range of Christian denominations.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). What gutter website wallowing in the darker cesspools of the WWW did you dredge up such utter CRAP from?? :eww:

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. What "leaders" and what "members"? :huh:
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/study...atisdescult.htm
Charismatic or messianic leader(s) (Messianic meaning they either say they are God OR that they alone can interpret the scriptures the way God intended.....How inflammatory can you get -- NONE of the major YEC organizations say anything remotely approaching this.
the leaders are self-appointed. Since the "leaders" typically founded te organisations, big deal. No one has to follow them.
Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising
Once more, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!! :hrm:
1. Special Claims The members of the harmful faith system make claims about their character, abilities, or knowledge that make them "special" in some wayno, merely pointing out that YEC is the historic view of the Christian Church.

3. An "Us Versus Them" Mentality Religious Addicts are at war with the world (flesh and the devil) to protect their terrain and establish themselves as godly persons who can't be compared to other persons of faith.Rather, YECs hope to persuade those they regard as GENUINE BRETHREN to stand up for the authority of the Word of God against uniformitarian evolution MASQUERADING as "science".

TGamble, you have borne FALSE WITNESS against your Christian brethren (that's assuming that you are a Christian, of which you have so far given no evidence), and need to repent.

[Socrates]

TGamble continues his tirade, this time with his ignorance of science: :dufus:
Nope, science is all about questioning and challenging. Except where challenge of evolutionary materialism is concerned. Anyway, evolution has NOTHING to do with REAL science of what is testable or repeatable, and EVERYTHING to do with a materialistic view of Earth history. I suggest you study Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism) www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

But for the sake of the argument, I'll continue as if evolution counts as real science. No statement of faith required. Yes there is, according to the evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson (R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137–138, 1992.):

‘Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
‘Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.’

No censorship of questions. No, just censorship by scientific jounrals of letters and articles that question it, and discriminatory hiring practices that would discourage people from letting their objections become public. :doh: See www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

Scientists can challenge it as much as they want. If they do so with legitimate evidence.tgamble is either ignorant or plain dishonest. Forrest Mims III was not hired by Scientific American SOLELY because he revealed he was a creationist, although they agree that the quality of his work was "first rate" -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp :duh: Notice Behe hasn't been fired, executed, tortuted, shot, crucified etc.And his objections against at least some aspects of evolution were purely scientific, so that junks your next crass statement:
Evolution is only considered to be false by the ignorant and religious fanatics who reject it solely on religious grounds.That's the problem with liars -- they have great difficulty keeping their stories straight!! :bonk:

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:18 AM
Socrates:

TGamble continues his tirade, this time with his ignorance of science: :dufus:
Nope, science is all about questioning and challenging. Except where challenge of evolutionary materialism is concerned.

No such thing.

Anyway, evolution has NOTHING to do with REAL science of what is testable or repeatable, and EVERYTHING to do with a materialistic view of Earth history.

If you want to believe such lies, go ahead.

I suggest you study Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism) www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism


I have no interest in reading the lies of AIG crackpots.

But for the sake of the argument, I'll continue as if evolution counts as real science. No statement of faith required. Yes there is,

Nope. You're lying!

No censorship of questions. No, just censorship by scientific jounrals of letters and articles that question it, and discriminatory hiring practices that would discourage people from letting their objections become public. :doh: See www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp


Not interested in their lies. Scientific journals have standards. Creationist fail to meet them.

Scientists can challenge it as much as they want. If they do so with legitimate evidence.tgamble is either ignorant or plain dishonest. Forrest Mims III was not hired by Scientific American SOLELY because he revealed he was a creationist, although they agree that the quality of his work was "first rate" -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp :duh:

No evidence for that claim is given of course. SA isn't a scientific journal!

Notice Behe hasn't been fired, executed, tortuted, shot, crucified etc.And his objections against at least some aspects of evolution were purely scientific, so that junks your next crass statement:


Not really. Just arguments from ignorance!

Evolution is only considered to be false by the ignorant and religious fanatics who reject it solely on religious grounds.That's the problem with liars -- they have great difficulty keeping their stories straight!! :bonk:

That's your problem Liar.

[dizzle]

And I thought it was the YEC who were allegedly "obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing " with "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal." Pot meet Mr. Kettle, you two have a lot in common.

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:06 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

And I thought it was the YEC who were allegedly "obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing " with "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal."

You were right.

[dizzle]

I repeat: Pot meet Mr. Kettle, you two have a lot in common.

[The Laughing Man]

Like cults, atheism is a minority position. Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma. Like cults, atheism is considered to be false.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

Atheism is a small, minority sect that is considered to be false by the majority of people worldwide. It's fanatical in it's teachings (they go out of their way to debate or just plain ridicule believers), produces no evidence (in fact, they dodge having to do so), has a strict statement of unbelief (either "I don't believe in God/I have no belief in God" or "your God doesn't exist") and allows no questioning or revision of their set dogma. That, IMO makes it a cult.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 04:15 PM
Jinx72:

Like cults, atheism is a minority position. Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma. Like cults, atheism is considered to be false.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

Atheism is a small, minority sect that is considered to be false by the majority of people worldwide. It's fanatical in it's teachings (they go out of their way to debate or just plain ridicule believers), produces no evidence (in fact, they dodge having to do so), has a strict statement of unbelief (either "I don't believe in God/I have no belief in God" or "your God doesn't exist") and allows no questioning or revision of their set dogma. That, IMO makes it a cult.

Like a cult, a clot contains the letters "a", "c", "l", and "t". Like a cult, a clot has two syllables. I guess you could say, the only reason a clot is not a cult is that despite several similarites, a clot does not meet the definition of a cult.

[Jaltus]

I believe that was his point.

Ever hear of satire?

[dizzle]

Today @ 04:24 PM
Bald Ape:



Like a cult, a clot contains the letters "a", "c", "l", and "t". Like a cult, a clot has two syllables. I guess you could say, the only reason a clot is not a cult is that despite several similarites, a clot does not meet the definition of a cult.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 04:45 PM
Dee Dee Warren:
Thank you for proving my point.

Truthfully, Dee Dee, from the moment I pressed "submit", I regretted my decision to post on this topic. I think you, as a moderator, are walking a very fine line on the whole inflammatory semantic issue, and I think you're doing a tremendous job of it. Nobody, not even a "true cultist" ;), would think of themselves as a cultist, or reespond well to being labeled as such. Regardless of its validity, I agree that calling YEC believers cultists does little to promote useful discussion, and only lowers "God hater's" to the level of those who would kick off an immature flame war to begin with.

[dizzle]

Well Bald Ape, despite our fundamental disagreements on a foundational level, I appreciate that you see my point with the label.

[Socrates]

tgamble has made a number of totally baseless claims about YEC, e.g.
Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). I challenged Gamble to put up or shut up. He has failed the challenge to provide the slightest evidence for such scurrilous charges. Therefore I contend that gamble was not raising these points with the slightest sincerity, and was only interested in dishonest muckraking. Accordingly, I respectfully request from the moderators that this thread be closed.

[Woman]

Oh fer cryin' out loud! Of course YEC belief is not a cult!!

And just for the record, atheists aren't God-haters!!
(any more than YECers are Martian-haters)

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:21 AM
Socrates:

tgamble has made a number of totally baseless claims about YEC, e.g.
Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising

The whole YEC movement is based on deception! It's a false dogma that is unsupported by anything else!

Just one example.
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie012.html

Their endless lies supporting the myth of a young earth and global flood. Their list of scientists claiming those who were NOT yec were.

Their lies about Dawn Horse being a Hyrax
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie015.html

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

The whole "you aren't a REAL Christian unless you agree with us". and the "Either God or Evolution" nonsense seems to work.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Statement of blind faith forbidding questioning a set dogma seems to count. Also Glenn Morton's first hand account. Despite Socrates rabid and unjustified hatred of him.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

One would hope that members consider lying, slandering scientists, selling rags with misinformation admitted etc. was unethical. But maybe not!

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Most if not all of AIG's/ICR's efforts are focused on recruitment. Their endless seminars, their endless publications of junk etc. They certainly don't do any science.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). I

Well, they don't go THAT far but they do claim to arrogantly have the truth. They dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as "god haters", they blather on about conspiracies to hide the truth, claim censorship with no evidence etc.

challenged Gamble to put up or shut up. He has failed the challenge to provide the slightest evidence for such scurrilous charges. Therefore I contend that gamble was not raising these points with the slightest sincerity, and was only interested in dishonest muckraking. .

and as always, you're wrong.

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 09:15 PM
Jinx72:

Like cults, atheism is a minority position. Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma.

What dogma would that be? Since when do atheists not allow questioning?

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

How is atheism like that? It's not.

Atheism is a small, minority sect that is considered to be false by the majority of people worldwide.

Atheism is not a sect of anything.

It's fanatical in it's teachings (they go out of their way to debate or just plain ridicule believers),

Which shows their willingness to question.

produces no evidence (in fact, they dodge having to do so),

By useing basic logic. You forgot that part.

[QUOTE[has a strict statement of unbelief (either "I don't believe in God/I have no belief in God" or "your God doesn't exist") and allows no questioning or revision of their set dogma. That, IMO makes it a cult. [/QUOTE]

It would if it were true. Of course, it isn't.

[Jaltus]

Um, you quote Tim LeHaye as a supposed YEC expert?

Sorry, many people may read his fiction, but nobody I know of takes him as a scholar. That just shows how little you (or that website) knows. He helped raise money for the institute, but he was never a "scientist" there.

At least try to have credible sources.

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:55 PM
Jaltus:

Um, you quote Tim LeHaye as a supposed YEC expert?


where did I claim he was an expert?

[Solly]

03-19-2003 @ 10:21 PM
tgamble:



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult

Like cults, YEC is a minority position. Like cults, they do not allow questioning of their dogma. Like cults, YECism is considered to be false.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

"n 1: adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices 2: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal: "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season" [syn: fad, craze, furor, furore, rage] 3: a system of religious beliefs and rituals [syn: religious cult]"

YEC is a small, minority sect that is considered to be false by the majority of Christians. It's fanatical in it's teachings, produces no evidence, has a strict statement of faith and allows no questioning or revision of their set dogma. That, IMO makes it a cult.


http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study_whatisdescult.htm

Charismatic or messianic leader(s) (Messianic meaning they either say they are God OR that they alone can interpret the scriptures the way God intended.....the leaders are self-appointed.

Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising

http://www.fwselijah.com/cult.htm

The Ten Characteristics of a Harmful Faith System

from Faith that Hurts, Faith that Heals by Stephen Arterburn & Jack Felton © 1991 Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville Tenn.

1. Special Claims The members of the harmful faith system make claims about their character, abilities, or knowledge that make them "special" in some way

3. An "Us Versus Them" Mentality Religious Addicts are at war with the world (flesh and the devil) to protect their terrain and establish themselves as godly persons who can't be compared to other persons of faith.

That should do it!

In light of current events, I think most of this critieria would be used against the incumbent American administration, if Eirann and Kiwimac ever found this thread.

There is a very fine line between declaring what is to be considered orthodoxy and what can be considered cultish. YEC is not a religion, but attracts people from religion who meet firstly on that basis, then the YEC basis. It would be political correctness gone mad for a non-YECer to claim the right to join their club while not adhering to the reason for that club. Equally, thre are no snactions imposed against those who do not hold that position, unlike in a real cult. Nor do they rquire my unwavering obedience, or bank account contents.

But tgamble strikes me as the kind of person who would consider Christianity itself as a cult, if we didn't have so many adherents.

[tgamble]

YEC is not a religion,

Of course YEC IS a religion!

but attracts people from religion who meet firstly on that basis, then the YEC basis. It would be political correctness gone mad for a non-YECer to claim the right to join their club while not adhering to the reason for that club.

You completely miss my point. YECs claim to be doing science. YECs have a strict statement of faith that dictates the conclusions of any and all research. They already claim to have all the answers.

THAT_IS_NOT_SCIENCE!!!!

"The fundamentalists, by ´knowing´ the answers before they start
(examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket
of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of
science---or of any honest intellectual inquiry."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Bully for Brontosaurus," 1990, quoted in "2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt", by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science
collapses on three major grounds: the creationists´ need to invoke
miracles in order to compress the events of the earth´s history into
the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to
abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all
fossils are products of Noah´s flood; and their reliance upon distortion,
misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the
ideas of their opponents."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186]

[Socrates]

tgamble, who wouldn't know science if it strangled him, spouted:
You completely miss my point. YECs claim to be doing science.They are. But tgamble bigotly defines science as materialism. YECs have a strict statement of faith that dictates the conclusions of any and all research.Rather, it provides a historical framework from an eye-witness account as a basis by which to interpret the data. They already claim to have all the answers.Another lie --- the creationist organisations explicitly say they do not have all the answers. But they refuse to give up, just as evolutionists refuse to give up because of the many unanswered questions.
THAT_IS_NOT_SCIENCE!!!!"Oh, and of course it is science to reject a designer even if all the evidence was in favor of it, as Scott Todd said he would do? Or to adopt a materialistic framework no matter how counterintuitive or absurd?

[Solly]

Today @ 02:48 PM
tgamble:
Of course YEC IS a religion!

--Of course YEC is NOT a religion. You might just as well says that Seminaries are cults, and religions. They are the apparatus of religious belief, but they are not religion, which is the service of God.

You completely miss my point. YECs claim to be doing science. YECs have a strict statement of faith that dictates the conclusions of any and all research. They already claim to have all the answers.

THAT_IS_NOT_SCIENCE!!!!

--YECs claims to be doing science.
More accuratley, some YECers are doing science, others are following and supporting their work or reading the magazines/web sites they produce. The thing that unites them firstly is their religious belief: be rather unusual to get an atheist supporting YEC, so that's hardly a indictment. Secondly, are you saying scientific method does not involve the propounding of an idea, and the looking for evidence to support it. I think you are probably holding to the naïf idea of science as neutral investigation chancing upon results. Most "science" is research driven, and theoretical science is seeking a goal.

"The fundamentalists, by ´knowing´ the answers before they start
(examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket
of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of
science---or of any honest intellectual inquiry."

--Just as honest an inquiry that says that creationism is not acceptable per se, and anybody who raises the idea of a creationist theory will be howled out of the halls of academia: You'll never get funding in this field again!!
Oh, but they don't do that do they?Plate Techtonics...

Just as honest as anybody who sets out to investigate the universe, on the implicit assumption (which is explicit to the Christian) that the universe CAN be investigated by objective and rational means, and be relied upon to produce results. Like it or not, the western scientific endeavour is predicated upon the rejection of Christian orthodoxy with regard to natural science.

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:57 PM
Socrates:

tgamble, who wouldn't know science if it strangled him, spouted:

More insults. More lies.

You completely miss my point. YECs claim to be doing science.They are. But tgamble bigotly defines science as materialism.

Of course, I've never defined science as anything. Socrates is making assumptions and as usual they are wrong. YECs are not, of course, doing science at all.

Science involes research and finding answers and going where the evidence takes you. YECs dictate answers beforehand nad filter all evidence and data through their presumptions.

YECs have a strict statement of faith that dictates the conclusions of any and all research.Rather, it provides a historical framework from an eye-witness account as a basis by which to interpret the data.

An eyewitness account that is nothing of the sort. An accout that they presume to be true without any evidence and regardless of any evidence. An account that was proven false many years ago. An account that is actually a modified version of an older myth.

They already claim to have all the answers.Another lie --- the creationist organisations explicitly say they do not have all the answers.

Rubbish! Their conclusions are claimed to be the absolute truth regardless of evidence. Their answer to everything is goddidit.

THAT_IS_NOT_SCIENCE!!!!"Oh, and of course it is science to reject a designer even if all the evidence was in favor of it,

There is no evidence in favor of it. You are twisting things around as usual. You obviously have no understanding of how science works.

In any case, even if a designer WAS a part of science, science would be merely a way of figuring out his design and evolution and an old earth would STILL be a fact. The data doesn't change. The facts don't change.

[Socrates]

tgamble continued with his scurrilous muckraking. But then I'm not as surprised as many, because he believes in evolution to avoid the fact that he's accountable to his Creator. And of course, if we're just rearranged pond scum, then UNDER THIS SYSTEM there is nothing objectively wrong with such lies and slander. So there is no reason to trust him, since HIS OWN SYSTEM cannot provide any basis for honesty.

Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising

The whole YEC movement is based on deception!Another elephant hurl. It's a false dogma that is unsupported by anything else!As if you'd know.

Just one example.
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus...ies/lie012.htmlWow. such an authoritative site, and about Tim LaHay, who is hardly a leading creationist scientist, and nor does he claim to be. And of course it papers over the fact that National Geographic paraded Archaeoraptor as a irrefutable proof of dino-to-bird evolution, yet it was a fraud.

Their endless lies supporting the myth of a young earth and global flood. And gambles endless baseless accusations. And even if they were wrong, it doesn't follow that they INTENDED to deceive, which is required for a lie.
Their lies about Dawn Horse being a Hyrax
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus...ies/lie015.htmlAnother mention of this gutter website by a gutless anonymous wonder.
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
The whole "you aren't a REAL Christian unless you agree with us". and the "Either God or Evolution" nonsense seems to work.Irrelevant since creationist organisations are NOT membership organisations. And they also make it clear that it IS possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist. But this is still inconsistent, and there is nothing cultic about pointing out the baneful effect of evolution on Biblical Christianity (the only sort of Christianity there is!). But of course an anti-Christian bigot like Gamble resents that Christians would defend their holy book!

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Statement of blind faith forbidding questioning a set dogma seems to count. Also Glenn Morton's first hand account. Despite Socrates rabid and unjustified hatred of him.So where is the punishment? How COULD there be, since creationist organisations are NOT membership organisations (got that?). People actually support them voluntarily, unlike the tax dollars coerced from the public to support chemical evolutionary fantasies.

And as for Moron, his vituperative nature brought it on himself, e.g. calling the CEO of AiG-Australia (a gentle man and ex medical doctor) a "junkyard dog". And why NOT question the Christian character of someone who's happy for his articles to go on atheist websites and be used against Christians. One German atheist was actually stunned when told that Moron claims to be a born-again Christian.


The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). One would hope that members consider lying, slandering scientists, selling rags with misinformation admitted etc. was unethical. Yes, they would, because they follow Christ who was "the truth". Conversely, gamble's religious faith in evolution gives him no objective basis to regard any of those things as unethical.But maybe not!OK, so where is the collecting money for bogus charities. Oh, perhaps he means the organisations themselves, but that's more question begging from the maestro at this. And of course, people who donate to creationist organisations know exactly who they are donating to.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Most if not all of AIG's/ICR's efforts are focused on recruitment.Again, crap, because there IS NO MEMBERSHIP!!!! Their endless seminars, their endless publications of junk etc.gamble is so full of junk that he can't see the gems produced by creationists. They certainly don't do any science.Which gamble stipulatively defines as evolutionary science.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

Well, they don't go THAT far You DID go that far, and now you've been caught in another lie :bonk:
but they do claim to arrogantly have the truth. No, they disclaim having the truth, but point out that the All-Knowing Creator DOES have the truth and He has revealed it in the Bible. gamble just basely trashes this because of his chronological snobbert.They dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as "god haters", No, they reserve this for obvious candidates like Dawkins and the Skeptics groups. They prefer "useful idiot" to churchians who ally with these people against Biblical creation.they blather on about conspiracies to hide the truth,The major creationist organisations are skeptical of conspiracy theories. ...claim censorship with no evidence etc. Or rather, provide ample evidence, but gamble, like David Irving when confronted by testimonies of Holocaust victims, just screams "all lies!".

[tgamble]

tgamble continued with his scurrilous muckraking. But then I'm not as surprised as many, because he believes in evolution to avoid the fact that he's accountable to his Creator. And of course, if we're just rearranged pond scum, then UNDER THIS SYSTEM there is nothing objectively wrong with such lies and slander. So there is no reason to trust him, since HIS OWN SYSTEM cannot provide any basis for honesty.


More lies, more insults, more nastiness. Are you bitter because you have no evidence? Actually, I accept evolution because of the overwhelming evidence and it is YOU who are making idiotic claims about being rearranged pon scum having anything to do with either evolution or morality and ethics.

Obviously, our physical makeup doesn't change regardless of the explanation for it. But you're obviously to stupid to see that.

Wow. such an authoritative site, and about Tim LaHay, who is hardly a leading creationist scientist, and nor does he claim to be. And of course it papers over the fact that National Geographic paraded Archaeoraptor as a irrefutable proof of dino-to-bird evolution, yet it was a fraud.

And of course, YOU ignore the fact that NG merely published prematurely and then retracted it when the fossil was exposed BY SCIENTISTS months later. DUH! In truth, you're lying again. NG didn't present it as irrefutation proof, and it the site makes it quite clear what happened and your accusations are (as usual) false.

Another mention of this gutter website by a gutless anonymous wonder.

and of course, you can't refute the facts presented there. So (yet again) you resort to insults.

Irrelevant since creationist organisations are NOT membership organisations. And they also make it clear that it IS possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist.

Both ICR and AIG are membership organizations. Both require members to sign a statement of faith and both have repeatedly stated you can't be a Christian AND accept evolution. Or geology, astronomy, cosomology etc. etc. etc.

But of course an anti-Christian bigot like Gamble resents that Christians would defend their holy book!

More nastiness, insults and lies.

People actually support them voluntarily, unlike the tax dollars coerced from the public to support chemical evolutionary fantasies.

Known to intelligent people as scientific research. Something creationists never both with.

And as for Moron,

More nastiness and insults.

his vituperative nature brought it on himself, e.g. calling the CEO of AiG-Australia (a gentle man and ex medical doctor) a "junkyard dog". And why NOT question the Christian character of someone who's happy for his articles to go on atheist websites and be used against Christians.

Actually, to be used against pseduscience and antiscience loonies.

None of your nastiness changes the fact that Morton is a former YEC whose work in the field made him realize that YECism was total garbage.

Yes, they would, because they follow Christ who was "the truth".

hmm, yet they do these things anyway!

Conversely, gamble's religious faith in evolution gives him no objective basis to regard any of those things as unethical.

More lies, more insults and more nastiness.

OK, so where is the collecting money for bogus charities.

Never claimed that. That was one example given. Never claimed it applied to YEC groups.

gamble is so full of junk that he can't see the gems produced by creationists.

More lies, more insults and more nastiness. Creationists have never offered any evidence for their absurd myths.

Which gamble stipulatively defines as evolutionary science.

More lies, more insults and more nastiness.

You DID go that far, and now you've been caught in another lie

More lies, more insults and more nastiness.

No, they disclaim having the truth, but point out that the All-Knowing Creator DOES have the truth and He has revealed it in the Bible.

Which is a claim without the slightest shred of evidence.

And of course, they DO claim to have the absolute truth when it comes to interpretation treating anyone who disagees (ie. Hugh Ross) with contempt and hatred.

The major creationist organisations are skeptical of conspiracy theories.

Rubbish! They're always making such claims about censorship.

Or rather, provide ample evidence, but gamble, like David Irving when confronted by testimonies of Holocaust victims, just screams "all lies!".

More lies, more insults and more nastiness.

Creationists haven't been unable to produce any evidence of censorship. The only evidence YOU have brought up is a journal that doesn't publish creationist letters and Scientific American not hireing somone allegedly because he was a creationist, a claim without any evidence to support it.

Naturally, neither case has anything to do with actually scientific papers being refused publication. Creationists have never published any scientific papers because they have nothing of any scientific value to offer.

[RufusAtticus]

I guess this point needs to be put in this thread too.

Every religion is cultic to one degree or another. That's because "cult" is a subjective term. One man's cult is another man's denomination. It is hardly the pejorative that mainstream denominations make it out to be.

[Zakath]

While one religion may view another as a cult, it is usually out of place for a member of a religious sect to use that label on members of other sects of the same religion.

My $0.02

[dizzle]

Both require members to sign a statement of faith and both have repeatedly stated you can't be a Christian AND accept evolution.

Proof that AIG ever claimed that you cannot be a Christian (i.e. you are unsaved) if you accept evolution. And no equivocating here.

[tgamble]

Today @ 07:22 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41826#post41826)
Dee Dee Warren:
Proof that AIG ever claimed that you cannot be a Christian (i.e. you are unsaved) if you accept evolution. And no equivocating here.

Visit their website and read any of their articles attacking theistic evolution and/or old earth creationism.

[dizzle]

That is not an answer. I would like specific URLs please. I am very familiar with their website, and you have some retracting to do.

[RufusAtticus]

AiG Statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

Creation Compromises (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp)

This article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp) calls the documentary hypothesis "ant-christian" for example (the editors note in the fourth paragraph).

I have seen Ken Ham argue to a church group (I think it was on PBS's evolution series), that either Genesis is litterally true or Christianity is false. The implicit conclusion is that one can't both have faith in Jesus and view Genesis as anything other than litteral history.

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:16 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41909#post41909)
Dee Dee Warren:

That is not an answer. I would like specific URLs please. I am very familiar with their website, and you have some retracting to do.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_tractor.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp

Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?
A leading creationist answers an often-asked question.
by Duane Gish

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1152.asp

"Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v23n3_literal_creation.asp

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html

I guess they make both claims depending on who you talk to.

And that's about all the bile, lies, distortions and blind faith dogma BS that I can handle for today!

[dizzle]

Not so fast there....

You said:


Both require members to sign a statement of faith and both have repeatedly stated you can't be a Christian AND accept evolution.

And I said,

Proof that AIG ever claimed that you cannot be a Christian (i.e. you are unsaved) if you accept evolution. And no equivocating here.

And you provide a quote by Duane Gish which states....

Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist...

So, you have some retracting to do. AIG has never taught that a belief in evolution renders one NOT a Christian or UNSAVED.

Your statement is incorrect, and you are equivocating.

And you proceed after your putting your foot royally in it with bigotry (sorry there is no other word for it), to then insert said foot back into your mouth with:

And that's about all the bile, lies, distortions and blind faith dogma BS that I can handle for today!

Please demonstrate from within the links you provided in your last post any bile or lies.

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 09:36 PM And you provide a quote by Duane Gish which states....

Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist...

So, you have some retracting to do. AIG has never taught that a belief in evolution renders one NOT a Christian or UNSAVED.


Oh please, there are dozens of articles on their website saying that biblical Christianity and evolution are incompatible. If they really thought one could be a TRUE CHRISTIAN (TM) there wouldn't be a problem!

They wouldn't spend their lives attacking science.

Please demonstrate from within the links you provided in your last post any bile or [/b] lies.

Their whole site is filled with both. Their bile against churches who accept evolution, their constant lies attacking evolution, and old earth etc.

[dizzle]

The logical conclusions of things do not render one a nonChristian nor has AIG ever taught such. They have never implicitly or explicitly stated that a belief in evolution renders one unsaved. They have clearly stated that such a belief renders a person inconsistent and holding to nonBiblical beliefs. They have never stated otherwise, and have in fact gone out of their way to state that those who disagree are their brothers and sisters in Christ.

By analogy... I as a preterist believe that futurists in many areas are highly inconsistent and unbiblical, and have gone so far to say that if Jesus did not "come" in some sense in the first century then the very integrity of the Bible is at stake. Strong words, but do I ever mean to imply that nonpreterists are unsaved?? Unequivocably no.

[dizzle]

Master of Equivocation aren't you?

Their whole site is filled with both. Their bile against churches who accept evolution, their constant lies attacking evolution, and old earth etc.

Your statement was made in the context of specific links, and I asked you for specific quotes from those specific links of "bile" or "lies"... hey I will make it easy for you... I will limit it to "bile." Let's see some bile please.

[dizzle]

Oh please, there are dozens of articles on their website saying that biblical Christianity and evolution are incompatible. If they really thought one could be a TRUE CHRISTIAN (TM) there wouldn't be a problem!



So they believe that Christians who hold to evolution are inconsistent and unbiblical. How does that differ from Calvinists or preterists or OVers etc? It doesn't. You just have pet doctrine to despise, and you are painting distorted images.

I am opposed, even adamently opposed, to a lot of doctrines, but I try to bend over backwards to be fair to my opposition. Anyone can be fair to their friends.

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:50 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41932#post41932)
Dee Dee Warren:

Master of Equivocation aren't you?

our statement was made in the context of specific links, and I asked you for specific quotes from those specific links of "bile" or "lies"... hey I will make it easy for you... I will limit it to "bile." Let's see some bile please.

It's quite obvious. If you can't see it, look harder. Look at the way they talk about people like hugh Ross, the "churchian allies" etc. etc.

[dizzle]

That is not an answer. Specific quotes of specific bile please. So far the only bile I have seen demonstrated is your own.

[dizzle]

And while you are at it, let's take your accusation as true for the sake of argument, that said links are loaded with "bile" - why is that wrong? Be careful lest that plank in your eye get caught in the doorway as you attempt to walk through.

[Socrates]

So gamble is not only a liar and slanderer, he also has the reading comprehension ability of an Alzheimeric Ardipithecine. He cites a link from AiG (by a leading ICR scientists) and even quotes it saying "Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist", but used this as "evidence" for his mendacious claim "both have repeatedly stated you can't be a Christian AND accept evolution".

Not that tgamble cares anyway since he hates Christianity, and he has enough devilish nous to attack it at its foundation in Genesis. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and that's why gamble defends it so desperately and lashes out with dirty fighting against the only people who are undermining his pseudo-intellectual support.

tgamble:Both ICR and AIG are membership organizations. Both require members to sign a statement of faithThat is for STAFF of the organisations, which is a different concept from MEMBERS, because there are none! Or does gamble the bigot object to an organisation's right to make sure its staff agree with its aims?

RufusAtticus, in his desire to support the proven liar gamble, relies on his faulty memory on what Ken Ham has said on a program he's not even sure about. In any case, AiG obliterated that series at http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/ And Ken Ham has said at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_big_picture.asp:

Being wrong about the six days of creation does not automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture.

Here, the President of AiG says the opposite of what gamble claims, and this is what he has ALWAYS said or written. And his second statement is hardly objectionable. I've found, even on this website, that professing Christian evolutionists are wrong on many other areas too, e.g. Biblical inerrancy, marrying non-Christians (as RA's "Christian" evolutionist wife did by RA's own admission!), mythologising clear statements by Christ, etc.

Then RA whinges that AiG called the Documentary Hypothesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp) anti-Christian. Tough. It WAS formulated by anti-Christians such as Wellhausen, and the hypothesis is anti-Christian because it expressly contradicts Christ's teaching that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Indeed, He taught that if people don't believe Moses, they would be too hard-hearted to believe even in a Resurrection (Luke 16:31). And in John 5:46-47, Jesus linked unbelief in Moses's words to unbelief in His own words.

[tgamble]

>>So gamble is not only a liar and slanderer, he also has the reading comprehension ability of an Alzheimeric Ardipithecine.>>

I thought such vile ihsults were discouraged on this board. Do these rules not apply to the anti science bigots like Socrates?

"We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter."

>>He cites a link from AiG (by a leading ICR scientists) and even quotes it saying "Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist", but used this as "evidence" for his mendacious claim "both have repeatedly stated you can't be a Christian AND accept evolution". >>

And I also linked to many articles saying that Christianity and evolution were incompatable which contradicts the statement from Gish. If they thought the two were compatible, there would be no reason for either organization to exist! The whole point of their existence is that they see modern science as antichristian! They wouldn't show such contempt for Churches that accept science.

>>Not that tgamble cares anyway since he hates Christianity,>>

Another lie.

>>and he has enough devilish nous to attack it at its foundation in Genesis. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,>>

completely irrelvent.

>>and that's why gamble defends it so desperately and lashes out with dirty fighting against the only people who are undermining his pseudo-intellectual support.>>

You're wrong as usual. Actually, you are doing no such thing. Lies, distortions, out of context quotes, fabrications, emotional drivel and bible thumping do nothing to undermine the overwheming evidence for evolution. That's the kind of dirty fighting AIG use because you have no actual evidence to support your vile attacks against science. You have no evidence to support your archaic, childish myths.

You've given no evidence to support a young earth. None. You merely parrot "proofs" from AIG and when rebuttals are given, you resort to personal attacks and insults. Ditto with the global flood myth.

>>That is for STAFF of the organisations, which is a different concept from MEMBERS, because there are none!>>

What amazing logic. Of course the staff are members of the organization!

"One that belongs to a group or an organization: a club member; a bank that is a member of the FDIC." The ICR is an organization. The staff are part of that organization. They are MEMBERS!

<< Or does gamble the bigot object to an organisation's right to make sure its staff agree with its aims?>>

More insults and lies. The statement forbids questioning of a set dogma and yet they claim to be doing science. Neither ICR nor AIG do science. Their whole purpose is to fight science and replace it with superstition and ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with agreeing with it's aimas,

It has to do with the anti science of dictating conclusions and answers regardless of evidence.

[Socrates]

Woman wrote:
And just for the record, atheists aren't God-haters!!
From the Biblical perspective, which I make no apology for defending, yes they are. There is a single Greek word in Romans 1:30 &theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&upsilon;&gamma;&eta;&sigmaf; theostuges, translated God-haters/haters of God, so my term is completely biblical. So to deny me the right to use this would deny me the right to defend the Bible. The passage in context is:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.


The point of this is that atheists are "without excuse" because the evidence from creation is plain. So instead, they "knew God" but "suppress the truth" in their "wickedness".

Psalm 14:1 says:

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

2 Peter 3 is most relevant to many of the discussions here:


3 ¶ First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water,
6 through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.


Here, Peter prophesied about scoffers who would come, and gives two denials that characterize them. That is, they would deny creation by a special act of God, and deny the global Flood. More than that, it's a deliberate ignorance of these doctrines. This started with James Hutton, who pronounced this ipse dixit (‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.):

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.

Note that at this time, geology was in its infancy, so this decree was NOT based on science. Rather, it was based on an a priori rejection as an allowable explanation of the special acts of creation or a global Flood, since they are not happening now.

Hutton wasn't an atheist (Darwin hadn't made it "intellectually" respectable yet) but a DEIST. So he affirmed that there was a creation, but that everything had gone on the same way since. So Peter's prophecy in v. 4 seems most apt.

The more puzzling thing is why professing Christians would want to unequally yoke themselves with the scoffers, and join them in attacking special creation and a global Flood!

[tgamble]

From the Biblical perspective, which I make no apology for defending, yes they are.

The point of this is that atheists are "without excuse" because the evidence from creation is plain.

The bible is wrong yet again! The bible merely gives the ignorant opinion of the writers. The evidence doesn't support creation.

This started with James Hutton, who pronounced this ipse dixit (‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.):


Actually, it started many years earlier.

"In the 1700's belief in a 6000 year old Earth crumbled. Attempts to calculate the age of the Earth from physical considerations yielded estimates that ranged from 75,000 years (Buffon, 1774) to several billion years (de Maillet, Buffon)."

1625 Nathaniel Carpenter: Geography delineated forth in two Bookes In this early work Carpenter argued that the Flood could not have been the major agent of geological change,

1669 Nicholas Steno: The Produmus. Steno did the basic analysis of how fossils got embedded in stone. From his field observations of the Tuscan landscape he concluded that the Flood was important but did not completely explain the observed geology.

1705 Robert Hooke: Lectures and Discourse of Earthquakes and Subterranean Eruptions. Hooke believed that the fossils were the remains of extinct species and could not be accounted for by the Flood.
"Asking himself how the present areas of land came to be dry, he answers 'it could be from the Flood of Noah, since the duration of that which was but about two hundred natural days, or half a year could not afford time enough for the production and perfection of so many and so great and full grown shells, as these which are so found do testify; besides the quantity and thickness of the beds of sand with which they are many times found mixed, do argue that there must needs be a much longer time of seas residence of the seas above same, than so short a space can afford."

1774 Comte de Buffon: Epochs of Nature. Buffon assumed that the earth started molten, measured cooling rates of iron spheres, scaled up, and calculated the age at ~75,000 years. He himself was suspicious that this was much too young and, in manuscripts published after his death, suggested longer chronologies, including one estimate of nearly 3 billion years.

As is quite obvious from these writings, the myth of the flood was being exposed and realized long before Hutton. Over a hundred years before Hutton.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html#Estimates

Note that at this time, geology was in its infancy, so this decree was NOT based on science. Rather, it was based on an a priori rejection as an allowable explanation of the special acts of creation or a global Flood, since they are not happening now.

that's a lie of course. The global flood was rejected because the evidence clearly didn't support it. In fact, It had already been rejected by many even before Hutton.

The more puzzling thing is why professing Christians would want to unequally yoke themselves with the scoffers, and join them in attacking special creation and a global Flood!

It's called intellectual honesty. Most Christians (unlike you) have no problem with accepting the clear facts of science. They are unwilling to lie to themselves and cling to something that simply isn't true. They, unlike you, are willing to accept what the evidence shows. There was never any global flood!

They "yoke themselves with the scoffers" because they realize the "scoffers" are right, and those who cling to the global flood myth are wrong. It's really that simple.

[dizzle]

Everyone, lets please keep this thread on topic.

And I am still waiting Gamble for you answer to this, and your specific exmaples of "bile" from the linked articles. I will not let that drop. Either pony up or retract.

03-21-2003 @ 05:34 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41946#post41946)
Dee Dee Warren:

And while you are at it, let's take your accusation as true for the sake of argument, that said links are loaded with &quot;bile&quot; - why is that wrong? Be careful lest that plank in your eye get caught in the doorway as you attempt to walk through.

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:47 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42920#post42920)
Dee Dee Warren:

Everyone, lets please keep this thread on topic.

And I am still waiting Gamble for you answer to this, and your specific exmaples of &quot;bile&quot; from the linked articles. I will not let that drop. Either pony up or retract.

bile
2. Bitterness of feeling; choler; anger; ill humor; as, to stir one's bile. --Prescott.

If you can't see it for yourself, that's your problem I'm afraid. I'm not wasteing my time with silly questions.

[dizzle]

Actually then TGamble that is your problem. You have completely lost credibility with your failure to substantiate your rhetoric. If you cannot produce specific examples of bile from those linked articles, then you need to drop that accusation. Strong and potentially inflammatory characterizations are permitted if evidence is provided to the truth of the matter. If you refuse to do that, then you lose your privilege to use such rhetoric, at least with regards to those linked articles. And I am still waiting also for your answer to this my inconsistent friend...


And while you are at it, let's take your accusation as true for the sake of argument, that said links are loaded with "bile" - why is that wrong? Be careful lest that plank in your eye get caught in the doorway as you attempt to walk through.

You have falsely accused AIG of believing something that they do not, and do not even have the sense to salvage any credibility by conceding that point, and the mistated point you made about them being a "membership" organization. I am not a "member" of AIG and have never had to agree with anything on their statement of faith. In fact I am in large disagreement with the majority of the staff's eschatological position, and ironically enough find them inconistent in that regard, and have said so on many occasions. By your standards, TWeb is a "membership" organization because we require our moderators to subscribe to a statement of faith.... but no such requirement is made of participants, in fact such requirements is explicityly disavowed.

You pick and choose to feed your bigorty against a particular point of view and I find it quite sad. I am opposed to many points of view, including atheism, but I hope I am never reduced to misrepresentations to "prove" my point.

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:21 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42936#post42936)
Dee Dee Warren:

Actually then TGamble that is your problem. You have completely lost credibility with your failure to substantiate your rhetoric. If you cannot produce specific examples of bile from those linked articles, then you need to drop that accusation.

:argh: :argh: :argh:

[dizzle]

You have yet to produce specific examples of bile from those linked articles. If I have missed them simply refer me to the post number in this thread where you referenced them. The thread is only four pages long so that should not prove to be difficult for you.

And with your definition of "bile" in view

bile
2. Bitterness of feeling; choler; anger; ill humor; as, to stir one's bile. --Prescott.


Please stop dodging this question:
And while you are at it, let's take your accusation as true for the sake of argument, that said links are loaded with "bile" - why is that wrong? Be careful lest that plank in your eye get caught in the doorway as you attempt to walk through.

I am waiting to see how you squirm out of your hypocrisy.

[Socrates]

tgamble parrots from talk origins (although that's unfair to parrots, because they seem to have rudimentary understanding of what they vocalize):
1669 Nicholas Steno: The Produmus. Steno did the basic analysis of how fossils got embedded in stone. From his field observations of the Tuscan landscape he concluded that the Flood was important but did not completely explain the observed geology.Anyone who trusts the garbage on talk origins needs his head read! But his flood model was very like Dr Tas Walker's, and I understand Dr Walker thought of it independently. And creationists today don't believe the Flood explains today's geology either!! We allow for post-Flood catastrophes, e.g. the Ice Age.
The more puzzling thing is why professing Christians would want to unequally yoke themselves with the scoffers, and join them in attacking special creation and a global Flood!

It's called intellectual honesty.I.e. agreeing with gamble. Most Christians (unlike you) have no problem with accepting the clear facts of science.I've never disputed a fact of science in my life! I've disputed plenty if interpretations of these facts. They are unwilling to lie to themselves and cling to something that simply isn't true. Instead they pretend that Genesis doesn't mean what they say, whereas you just ignorantly dismiss it as a myth, which says more for your chronological snobbery and parochial bigotry than the Bible. And you wouldn't care anyway since you just use them as "useful idiots" to help protect your atheistic faith, and provide no challenge to it. They, unlike you, are willing to accept what the evidence shows. There was never any global flood! As if you'd know. Were you there?They "yoke themselves with the scoffers" because they realize the "scoffers" are right, and those who cling to the global flood myth are wrong. It's really that simple.Another ipse dixit from the scientifically unqualified gamble. And in reality, you despise these compromisers in not going the whole way and throw out the whole Bible like you do. But I'll stick with the Apostles God inspired over gamble and his ilk.

tgamble, although he knows naught of what he spruiks:
It has to do with the anti science of dictating conclusions and answers regardless of evidence.Therefore naturalism is anti-science because, by deduction from this quote by Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University (correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999).

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

However, creationists are MORE scientific because they permit the hypothesis of an intelligent designer if all the data point to it.

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:28 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42940#post42940)
Socrates:

tgamble parrots from talk origins (although that's unfair to parrots, because they seem to have rudimentary understanding of what they vocalize):

Socrates continues with his abuse and insults because he can't deal with the facts.

1669 Nicholas Steno: The Produmus. Steno did the basic analysis of how fossils got embedded in stone. From his field observations of the Tuscan landscape he concluded that the Flood was important but did not completely explain the observed geology.

Anyone who trusts the garbage on talk origins needs his head read! But his flood model was very like Dr Tas Walker's, and I understand Dr Walker thought of it independently. And creationists today don't believe the Flood explains today's geology either!! We allow for post-Flood catastrophes, e.g. the Ice Age.

Yeah, creationsts all all confused on that as well.

But they do claim that the fossil record was deposited by Noah's flood. Fossils is what he was talking about.

It's called intellectual honesty.I.e. agreeing with gamble.

sorry, I wasn't around 200 years ago. twit.

No, intellectual honesty is not denying the facts in favor of religious dogma as you do and as AIG does.

Most Christians (unlike you) have no problem with accepting the clear facts of science.I've never disputed a fact of science in my life!

ROTFL! You do nothing but dispute facts of science! You dispute the fact that evolution occurs, you dispute the fact that the earth is billions of years old, you dispute the fact that a global flood is impossible and never happened.

I've disputed plenty if interpretations of these facts.

Yeah, that's the lame excuse creationists use to excuse their rejection of science. Their endless blather about "interpretation".

Naturally, they "interpret" everything on the assumption that their conclusions are the absolute truth rejecting anything that shows them to be wrong.

They are unwilling to lie to themselves and cling to something that simply isn't true. Instead they pretend that Genesis doesn't mean what they say, whereas you just ignorantly dismiss it as a myth, which says more for your chronological snobbery and parochial bigotry than the Bible.

Whatever. They accept what the facts show and you don't.

They are honest, you are not. Your accusatons are (as usual) false. Hugh Ross accepts what it says he just has a different view of it.

And you wouldn't care anyway since you just use them as &quot;useful idiots&quot; to help protect your atheistic faith, and provide no challenge to it.

Your lies, insults and abuse do not change reality!

They, unlike you, are willing to accept what the evidence shows. There was never any global flood! As if you'd know. Were you there?

Ah yes, the old "were you there" idiocy. Shows how ignorant creationists are of how science works.

They &quot;yoke themselves with the scoffers&quot; because they realize the &quot;scoffers&quot; are right, and those who cling to the global flood myth are wrong. It's really that simple.Another ipse dixit from the scientifically unqualified gamble.

And from the thousands and thousands of qualified scientists over the last 200 years. But of course, they must be wrong because you say so. LOL! Once again, you abuse doesn't change reality.

And in reality, you despise these compromisers in not going the whole way and throw out the whole Bible like you do.

Wrong again LIAR! I don't despise them in the least.

But it's rather obvious that you do for NOT rejecting science in favor of ignorance as you do.

Once again, you abuse doesn't change reality.

Therefore naturalism is anti-science because, by deduction from this quote by Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University (correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999).


Science IS naturalistic you silly twit. It's about finding NATURAL answers to questions. ie. bacteria istead of deamons. lightning NOT caused by angry gods.

It cannot, by definition, deal with the supernatural which can't be tested or observed or falseified or meet any of the criteria of science.

However, creationists are MORE scientific because they permit the hypothesis of an intelligent designer if all the data point to it.


Or even if it doesn't. They just assume it. Not only that, they assume a paticular method of creation and take it as absolute truth. Nope, creationists aren't scientific at all. They are totally anti science.

But I'll stick with the Apostles God inspired over gamble and his ilk.

Yup, you'd rather stick with the lies rather than accept the truth.

You justify this with your delusions that ignorance was devinely inspired by God.

Basically you're calling God a liar. How amusing!

[dizzle]

I am still waiting.

[Socratism]

03-21-2003 @ 02:16 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41820#post41820)
Zakath:

While one religion may view another as a cult, it is usually out of place for a member of a religious sect to use that label on members of other sects of the same religion.

My $0.02

I don't think it out of place for Christians to point out sects that do not believe the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Many people are lured into cults that claim to be Christian but do not subscribe to basic Christian beliefs like the divinity of Jesus Christ.

People are free to believe what they want and to form groups freely as well, but it is not legitimate to "fly under false colors".

If a group claims to be "Christian" but will not answer whether they believe Jesus Christ was God in the flesh or will not agree that He was, then they are a "Christian cult". It is as simple as that.

"Truth in advertising".

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 05:06 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42851#post42851)
Socrates:

RufusAtticus, in his desire to support the proven liar gamble, relies on his faulty memory on what Ken Ham has said on a program he's not even sure about.

Socrates chooses to use an ad hominem instead of actually addressing the comment.

In any case, AiG obliterated that series at http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/ And Ken Ham has said at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_big_picture.asp:

Irrelevant to wheather Ham said it or not.

I've found, even on this website, that professing Christian evolutionists are wrong on many other areas too, e.g. Biblical inerrancy, marrying non-Christians (as RA's &quot;Christian&quot; evolutionist wife did by RA's own admission!), mythologising clear statements by Christ, etc.

Once again Socrates jumps to conclusions in his attempt to use ad hominems. One must wonder why Socrates immediatly assumes that when we got married, my wife was a Christian and I was not. Why has the fact that I am married to a Christian upset him so much that he keeps bringing it up?

Then RA whinges that AiG called the Documentary Hypothesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp) anti-Christian. Tough. It WAS formulated by anti-Christians such as Wellhausen

What makes you think they were anti-Christians? Because you disagree with them? HA!

From what I've read, the Documentory Hypothesis was originated by Jewish and Christian biblical scholars. Hardly the anti-christians that you imagine.

and the hypothesis is anti-Christian because it expressly contradicts Christ's teaching that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.

And I've heard many christians explain that Jesus was simply refering to it in terms the people of the day would understand. Similar to how we file The Illiad and The Odyssey despite the fact that we know that "Homer" didn't write it.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
I've found, even on this website, that professing Christian evolutionists are wrong on many other areas too, e.g. Biblical inerrancy, marrying non-Christians (as RA's "Christian" evolutionist wife did by RA's own admission!), mythologising clear statements by Christ, etc.

Rufus:
Once again Socrates jumps to conclusions in his attempt to use ad hominems. One must wonder why Socrates immediatly assumes that when we got married, my wife was a Christian and I was not. Nonsense, I made it clear when you first mentioned her that IF she became a Christian after marriage then she would be obliged to stay with you. But you ignored that and instead hinted that she was a "Christian evolutionist" from an early age.Why has the fact that I am married to a Christian upset him so much that he keeps bringing it up?Because it demonstrates that compromise on Biblical history often leads to compromise on Biblical morality.

Then RA whinges that AiG called the Documentary Hypothesis anti-Christian. Tough. It WAS formulated by anti-Christians such as Wellhausen
What makes you think they were anti-Christians? Because you disagree with them? HA!No, because that's what they were. They had an a priori rejection of miracles and acceptance that religion evolved. Therefore any mentions of "high monotheism" were decreed as "late" writings.From what I've read, the Documentory Hypothesis was originated by Jewish and Christian biblical scholars. Hardly the anti-christians that you imagine.They might have been seminarians, but liberal theology which even denies the Resurrection is not Christian.

and the hypothesis is anti-Christian because it expressly contradicts Christ's teaching that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.

And I've heard many christians explain that Jesus was simply refering to it in terms the people of the day would understand. Similar to how we file The Illiad and The Odyssey despite the fact that we know that "Homer" didn't write it.More assertion, but this is an ad hoc compromise that doesn't do justice to the text. Rather, Jesus was NOT simply accommodating to mistaken views of his day, but rebuking them for not believing in Moses.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 09:30 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43265#post43265)
Socrates:

Nonsense, I made it clear when you first mentioned her that IF she became a Christian after marriage then she would be obliged to stay with you. But you ignored that and instead hinted that she was a &quot;Christian evolutionist&quot; from an early age.

Yet you keep harping on her not followig Paul despite the fact that you have no idea whether or not when we got married she was a christian and I was not.

What makes you think they were anti-Christians? Because you disagree with them? HA!No, because that's what they were. They had an a priori rejection of miracles and acceptance that religion evolved. Therefore any mentions of &quot;high monotheism&quot; were decreed as &quot;late&quot; writings.

Which has absolutely no bearing on whether they were "anti-Christians or not."

They might have been seminarians, but liberal theology which even denies the Resurrection is not Christian.

Got any evidence that these people didn't believe in the Ressurrection? That might be an interesting read.

More assertion, but this is an ad hoc compromise that doesn't do justice to the text. Rather, Jesus was NOT simply accommodating to mistaken views of his day, but rebuking them for not believing in Moses.

I've read those passages and it is clear from them that "Moses" is being used to refer to the Old Testament. For example, John 5:45-46 concerns belief in scripture and not belief in Moses. Anyways, what does "not believeing in Moses" have to do with the Documentary Hypothesis? Clearly Moses could still have existed even if he isn't responsible for the Pentateuch. Clearly, Jesus could still use "Moses" liberally to refer to the O.T., just as we use "Homer" to refer to The Illiad and The Odessey.

[dizzle]

Guys, I once again request, that this please be kept on topic.

[RufusAtticus]

OKay, DDW.

[SLPx]

I came in late to this one, but I had to laugh:


03-21-2003 @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41579#post41579)
Socrates:

tgamble, who wouldn't know science if it strangled him, spouted:
You completely miss my point. YECs claim to be doing science.They are. But tgamble bigotly defines science as materialism.

What, I wonder, science are the folks at AiG engaging in?

I did not realize that quote mining for bombastic propaganda counted as science...

[SLPx]

03-23-2003 @ 01:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42876#post42876)
Socrates:

Woman wrote:
And just for the record, atheists aren't God-haters!!
From the Biblical perspective, which I make no apology for defending, yes they are. There is a single Greek word in Romans 1:30


The prefix a- means without. Theism essentially means religious Faith.

Atheism, therefore, means without religious faith.

There is nothing about "hating" anyone, except in Luke 14:26....

[dizzle]

Did you even read Romans 1:30??

[WinAce]

I first started hating God when I was 11 and my dad didn't let me go to the circus. This follows a pattern of hating Santa for not getting a new bicycle and hating the Easter bunny for making me fat from all those chocolate rabbits.

[Warcraft3]

WinAce:

"hating the Easter bunny for making me fat from all those chocolate rabbits."

Have you now overcome your hatred for the Easter bunny? I only ask this since you are the Wascally Wabbit Wuver.:bunny::smile:

Anyway....

While I must admit I frequently find the insults and word play that Socrates and tgamble engage in to be rather funny, I think that a little bit of restraint would be good also. Pretty much EVERYONE disagrees with my position as an OEC, but I dont take it personally.

The evolutionists see me as some crazy misguided intelligent design advocate who just went right over the deep end into full fledged OEC.

The young earthers see me as a misguided creationist who has been duped into the OEC view camp and engages in a "tad" bit of "scripture stretching" to make my view biblical.

But thats ok with me, cause I just write all your names on soda cans and draw little faces on them and then BLOW THEM AWAY with my twelve gauge shotgun:teeth: .........

But seriously.....I really can see how one could come to many of the views represented here and I have a degree of respect for all of them. I assume that in person you are all nice, reasonable people without a violent criminal record:shifty:

So while you may not agree with another view at least TRY to see where they are coming from. Who knows, maybe you will learn something in the process.


Russ

:thumb:

[AtheistArchon]

- Oooo, my favorite topic has surfaced. I need to make it a new thread in Rel101. Everyone run there, now! :poke:

[Warcraft3]

Okay since this thread got a little bit off topic, let me give my answer to the original question.

Is YEC belief a cult?

My answer can be found here:

http://www.bvvp.com/images/no.jpg



Russ

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 07:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71231#post71231)
steadele:

Okay since this thread got a little bit off topic, let me give my answer to the original question.

Is YEC belief a cult?

My answer can be found here:

http://www.bvvp.com/images/no.jpg



Russ

:thumb: :lol:

[dizzle]

:rofl: Can I use that?

[djnoz]

heh... that rocks. :cheers:

[Warcraft3]

Dee Dee:

Can I use that?

:lol: Absolutely

Russ

:thumb:

[dizzle]

The various comments comparing belief or disbelief in God with belief or disbelief in leprechauns or UFOs don't prove the points they're trying to, I think. First of all, yes I lack belief in leprechauns and UFOs, and yes, that means I deny their existence. It's the same thing. To say that the evidence in favor of them is unconvincing to me, and I'll disbelieve until any positive evidence turns up is to deny their existence.


Exactly!! I find the atheistic argument here pretty silly and an exercise in gnat straining.

[jpholding]

Mods,

Perhaps this should break into Theology101 or 102? It's not YEC anymore.

[TheFiveSolas]

(Moderator Note)
If you would like to discuss whether or not "weak atheists" deny God (or similar topics), please start a thread in Theology 101. The topic has gone far from the original purpose of this thread.

Thanks!

[dizzle]

The thread has been split into here:

Do Atheists Deny God? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=68112#post68112)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is YEC a cult thing?

http://www.yesworld.com/images/30white_thn_small.jpg

Of course it is. YEC is the alter-ego of science. Its the anti-science. If all science was persued like YEC science was, nothing would ever be discovered. Just articles being written on how stupid the rest of the scientists are.

[Socrates]

In blunders Jimmy with more ignorance:If all science was persued like YEC science was, nothing would ever be discovered.:dufus:Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science WERE YECs!! I shouldn't have to remind people of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle and Faraday for example.

[WinAce]

They lived in an age where science hadn't yet disproved their pet religious ideas. One can blame them no more than one can blame an ancient Greek for his ignorance in thinking Helios moved the sun in his chariot.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72756#post72756)
Socrates:

In blunders Jimmy with more ignorance:If all science was persued like YEC science was, nothing would ever be discovered.:dufus:Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science WERE YECs!! I shouldn't have to remind people of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle and Faraday for example. What winace said, and in addition, I don't see the AIG frauds actually doing any research. The scientists above all did critical research in their field. They didn't use their "degree" in a field as an authority, they put up or shut up with actual work, something the AIG is incapable of doing because they know their cause is false.

[TheFiveSolas]

Winace wrote:

They lived in an age where science hadn't yet disproved their pet religious ideas.


You mean ideas like:
1) The world is rational rather than random.
2) We are created to be rational beings rather than products of millions of years of chance accidents.
3) Our senses were designed to be generally reliable rather than being the product of millions of years of random accidents.
:lol:

Sorry, but the evolutionary paradigm destroys the grounds for rationality, logic, reliability of sense perception, etc.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73415#post73415)
TheFiveSolas:

Winace wrote:

You mean ideas like:
1) The world is rational rather than random.
2) We are created to be rational beings rather than products of millions of years of chance accidents.
3) Our senses were designed to be generally reliable rather than being the product of millions of years of random accidents.
:lol:

Sorry, but the evolutionary paradigm destroys the grounds for rationality, logic, reliability of sense perception, etc. No, I'm sorry, that you are so scared of really being nothing in this universe so badly, that it makes you think that science has to prove a god and that you didn't come to exist because of some sort of luck. You know, I'm pretty comfortable with that. What you and virtually all theists want, is a guarentee. A guarentee that this isn't all there is. Hence, god, hence an afterlife.

[WinAce]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73415#post73415)
TheFiveSolas:

Winace wrote:

You mean ideas like:
1) The world is rational rather than random.

And? You won't really be able to think in a "random" world where gods and demons intervene during every illness and forest fire, much less investigate anything. The mere fact that you can indicates reality abides by underlying principles.

2) We are created to be rational beings rather than products of millions of years of chance accidents.

Change that to "we are created by entities themselves the products of nothing and chance coincidences" and you'll be closer to what you believe. :teeth:

3) Our senses were designed to be generally reliable rather than being the product of millions of years of random accidents. :lol:

Amazing how the logic of "originating in something aside from intelligent action = unreliable" doesn't make you think God's senses are unreliable. :teeth:

Sorry, but the evolutionary paradigm destroys the grounds for rationality, logic, reliability of sense perception, etc.

Not really, since genetic algorithms result in designs so effective, unorthodox and optimized that even intelligent agents can't match them. But maybe if you repeat an untruth long enough without anyone to correct the BS, someone will actually believe you.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy wrote:

No, I'm sorry, that you are so scared of really being nothing in this universe so badly, that...


:rofl:

Nice attempt at psychologizing (more correctly, prejudicial conjecture by means of a psychological epithet). However the fact remains, evolutionary dogma would, if true, destroy the foundation for knowledge, rationality, ethics, logic, etc.

In a universe that is governed by purely physical laws, freedom of thought or action is completely ruled out.

In a universe governed by chance and accident, rationality is ruled out.

So, if you wish to continue affirming rationality you will first have to give up your faith in millions of years of accidents changing you from a "Frog to a Prince". :lol:

[dizzle]

[something the AIG is incapable of doing because they know their cause is false.[/quote]

Shame on you Jimmy. You have no proof of any of that. All you know is that you believe they are propogating falsehood, you have no proof that they know it is false and do not care.

I am not an AIG scientist... but no matter how false or wrong you may think I am, I can assure you I hold it sincerely and without guile.

Shame on you.

[DivineOb]

Certainly they either know they are lying about how compelling their evidence is, or they are lying by calling themselves scientists (which implies that they are somehow qualified to evaluate 'science')...

Otherwise, I'll just start honestly calling myself a bible scholar... After all, I went through Catechumenate...

[TheFiveSolas]

Divine,
I'll simply call you on this. Prove either of your two premises.

1) YEC'ers that have advanced degrees in scientific disciplines are lying when they call themselves scientists.
2) YEC'ers "know they are lying about how compelling their evidence is."

At this point I won't even hammer you on your assertion implying that evidence somehow speaks for itself (i.e., is or is not compelling).

[Socrates]

Winace persists in misrepresenting creationist theory:You won't really be able to think in a "random" world where gods and demons intervene during every illness and forest fire, much less investigate anything. The mere fact that you can indicates reality abides by underlying principles.This is a pagan view, not the Biblical Creationist view where the universe is orderly because it was created by a God of order. Rather, it's the atheists have no basis for believing that the universe is orderly. See www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

Winace continues his misinformation:Not really, since genetic algorithms result in designs so effective, unorthodox and optimized that even intelligent agents can't match them. But maybe if you repeat an untruth long enough without anyone to correct the BS, someone will actually believe you.Boring, old news. They were once called iterative algorithms and go back at least as far as Newton. Now they have been hijacked by evolutionists, although they are impotent at explaining the complexity of life. But there are a number of major differences as explained at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 10:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73466#post73466)
TheFiveSolas:
However the fact remains, evolutionary dogma would, if true, destroy the foundation for knowledge, rationality, ethics, logic, etc.

Perhaps you can justify this "fact"?

In a universe that is governed by purely physical laws, freedom of thought or action is completely ruled out.

In a universe governed by chance and accident, rationality is ruled out.

So, if you wish to continue affirming rationality you will first have to give up your faith in millions of years of accidents changing you from a &quot;Frog to a Prince&quot;. :lol:

Yes, :lol:

Those are some all-encompassing assertions.

Anything to substantiate any of them?

[Socrates]

I pointed out:

Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science WERE YECs!! I shouldn't have to remind people of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle and Faraday for example.

Jimmy tries to get around the fact that the above refuted his crass claim, "If all science was persued like YEC science was, nothing would ever be discovered.":What winace said, and in addition, I don't see the AIG frauds actually doing any research. As I've pointed out, they have, e.g. into radiometric dating flaws and hybridization experiments helping to determine the boundaries of the created kinds.The scientists above all did critical research in their field. They didn't use their "degree" in a field as an authority, what a joke. Jimmy is the main one spouting, "I'm a geological engineer, take my word for it, how dare you disagree with me," (paraphrased).

[SLPx]

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73589#post73589)
TheFiveSolas:

Divine,
I'll simply call you on this. Prove either of your two premises.

1) YEC'ers that have advanced degrees in scientific disciplines are lying when they call themselves scientists.

Hmmm... Well, what is it when, say, a medical doctor, or a chemist makes a proclamation on, say, molecular genetics and it is shown to be in error? And what about when they are made aware of the error, and refuse to correct the errors in their online publications?



2) YEC'ers &quot;know they are lying about how compelling their evidence is.&quot;

See above.

Although I once read an article on Duane Gish. Everyone has probably heard of his "bullfrog protein" debacle. he tells some other big whoppers - and even after acknowledging, in priovate, the error, he will copntinue to use the erroneous claims.

Anyway, the author explained that he did not really think that Gish was being dishonest or purposely deceptive. This person (I forget who the author was - Ruse maybe?) knows Gish and has talked with him on many occasions. He thinks that Gish actually believes the things he says, so, in a sense, when he "lies" about some studies on bullfrog proteins indicating that they are closer to humans than are chimps (implicitly disproving the efficacy of molecular phylogenetic methods), he isn't really lying. Maybe that is why Batten, despite being informed of his errors, does not correct his misleading article on human-chimp genetic similarities.

[SLPx]

Today @ 01:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73598#post73598)
Socrates:
what a joke. Jimmy is the main one spouting, &quot;I'm a geological engineer, take my word for it, how dare you disagree with me,&quot; (paraphrased).


Aren't yopu the one that spouts off "I'm a 'scientist' of some sort, not to mention a bible scholar and an expert on anything else that comes up, how dare you disagree with me you so-and-so!"?
(paraphrased, but not much...):huh:

[Socrates]

Jimmy spruiks with the usual cheap psychologization of village atheists:No, I'm sorry, that you are so scared of really being nothing in this universe so badly, that it makes you think that science has to prove a god and that you didn't come to exist because of some sort of luck. You know, I'm pretty comfortable with that. What you and virtually all theists want, is a guarentee. A guarentee that this isn't all there is. Hence, god, hence an afterlife.And of course, Jimmy is so desperate to push atheism, including by demonstrable falsehoods such as "Hitler was a Christian" and "The Bible says negroes are inferior", because he doesn't want to acknowledge that he is accountable to his Creator for his sins. Only one of which is his treasonous wish for 3000 of his own countrymen to die in Iraq rather than end the murderous despotism of Saddam.

[TheFiveSolas]

SPLx wrote:

Maybe that is why Batten, despite being informed of his errors, does not correct his misleading article on human-chimp genetic similarities.


:rofl:

As IF the full genome of chimpanzees has been compared to the entire human genome (which hasn't even been fully decoded yet).

Sorry, DNA hybridization comparisons hardly constitutes an accurate comparison of their respective DNA.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73589#post73589)
TheFiveSolas:

Divine,
I'll simply call you on this. Prove either of your two premises.

1) YEC'ers that have advanced degrees in scientific disciplines are lying when they call themselves scientists.


They are being deceptive because they, as a whole, are not interested in and do not perform science. I admit I cannot prove that every single YEC "scientist" is a liar simply because I do not have information on every single one. But, as a body, it is trivial to show that YEC "scientists" are nothing but liars and frauds.

Here is Duane Gish in 1988 insisting that the 2LoT presents significant problems for evolution (well, there are plenty of other lies told by Gish in there but for now we look at this one). If he really was acting honestly and he was as qualified to judge science as his PhD implies then he never would have made such a claim. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html

I've seen videos with Ken Ham in which he says point blank that he views everything in the world through the lense of the bible. Well, if that is so, then he's just not doing science. Therefore, to tell anyone that he is a scientist, or that his organiziation is a scientific organization is a lie. You know as well as I do that ICR and AiG admit they will throw out any data which does not confirm the Genesis hypothesis. Therefore, to claim they are doing science or are scientists is to *lie*.

AiG constantly *lies* about how information cannot increase naturally. There is not possible response to this other than it is just a bald faced lie borne out of their deceptive and equivocal way of defining 'information'



2) YEC'ers &quot;know they are lying about how compelling their evidence is.&quot;



The hypothesis of an old earth and of common descent have been used to make numerous predictions about the world which have been found to be true. I am not aware of any predictions which have been made and verified based on the hypothesis of Genesis, and even if any have (which I doubt), it is certainly nowhere near comparable to those based on an old earth. Ergo, to state that the two "theories" are on equal footing is either to radically misunderstand science or to *lie*.

Either the above creation "scientists" are liars, or are incompetent to the point that introducing themselves as "Doctor" without adding "but I'm really not that smart" is a deception.



At this point I won't even hammer you on your assertion implying that evidence somehow speaks for itself (i.e., is or is not compelling).

Obviously data has to be interpreted. But to give the impression that "science" consists of this interpretation, and not the use of this interpretation to make falsifiable predictions is yet another *lie* they tell.

[WinAce]

Today @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73590#post73590)
Socrates:

Winace persists in misrepresenting creationist theory:

"Theory" is too good a word for the mishmash of god of the gaps arguments, unevidenced ad hoc hypotheses and pseudoscientific methodology that underly creationism.

This is a pagan view, not the Biblical Creationist view where the universe is orderly because it was created by a God of order.

Unsupported assertions are fun, aren't they? Now, how about explaining how a "God of order" plants evidence like dried out coprolites in layers deposited by a flood? Failing that, a few Bible verses implying the universe is orderly because of God would help.

Rather, it's the atheists have no basis for believing that the universe is orderly. See www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

Well, let's see. First the non-existent distinction between "operation science" and "origins science", which Vorkosigan and several others have demolished right here in this forum.

Then the repeat of common creationist lies like "the peppered moths were stuck on tree trunks!" and "vestigial means functionless".

Oh, woe is me, AiG scholarship makes swiss cheese out of evolution.

Really, Socrates, try not to rely on sources that make proponents of Christianity (and that includes you) look like drunken hillbillies. The religion just doesn't deserve it.

Boring, old news. They were once called iterative algorithms and go back at least as far as Newton.

:rofl: please show me a problem-solving algorithm in Newton's time that had traits encoded in discrete genes that could be randomly mutated and automatically selected for fitness.

Now they have been hijacked by evolutionists, although they are impotent at explaining the complexity of life.

They do show us that complexity and solutions that human engineers can't invent can arise from a few simple rules and an error-prone system of replication.

But there are a number of major differences as explained at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp

Ooh, another link from AnswersInGenecyst! Let's see how many lies they have in this article.

A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Irreducible complexity (which is what this is under a different name) was refuted by Darwin himself in the Origin of Species. A function produced via stepwise increases can coincidentally be coopted in one fell swoop into a different "qualitative" trait, even ignoring the 50 gazillion other ways those can be produced via mutation and selection.

A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/shifting_goalposts.jpg

As if even a supercomputer could model the whole range of environmental factors, selection pressures and possibilities the universe can offer. If anything, this shows us that genetic algorithms modelled on primitive computers represent only a tiny fraction of what genetic algorithms modelled on the megacomputer of Earth can do.

Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected.

Have these bozos ever heard of natural selection, you know, that thing discovered around 2 centuries ago? :huh:

Haldane's Dilemma and "population genetics refutes evolution"... forgive me if I choke from laughter.

The rest was just hair-splitting relating to setting parameters for GAs that differ from their real world counterparts. Remind me how this is relevant once you have computers capable of modelling the entire range of biological factors. :dufus:

The fact remains that natural selection and mutations can and do routinely produce new information by any meaningful definition of the term, and the only ones who claim otherwise are those with pet religious agendas.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 08:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73604#post73604)
Socrates:
]And of course, Jimmy is so desperate to push atheism, including by demonstrable falsehoods such as &quot;Hitler was a Christian&quot; and &quot;The Bible says negroes are inferior&quot;, because he doesn't want to acknowledge that he is accountable to his Creator for his sins. Only one of which is his treasonous wish for 3000 of his own countrymen to die in Iraq rather than end the murderous despotism of Saddam. I want that last line struck from this post. I'm getting tired of having to read such blantant crap from Socretes. I never said such a thing and have never felt the thing. Perhaps Socretes can go somewhere to learn what is real and what is fantasy in some rubber room.

[TheFiveSolas]

Divine Ob,

Wow, such broad sweeping generalizations (a logical fallacy by the way).

Claiming that YEC scientists, whose ranks include people like Dr. Baumgardner are "not really that smart," is a lie on your part.

Ken Ham's truthful assertion that he interprets evidence through the Word of God hardly constitutes a lie.

Your claim that anyone that follows Scripture, specifically with regards to YEC, cannot be said to be doing science begs the question and ignores the work of people like the one I mentioned above (who probably has more published papers than several evolutionist scientists on TWeb combined). If God stands behind the writing of scripture then what is deduced from scripture in the realm of science can truly be called Science since it corresponds to reality (as opposed to being a human's fallible interpretation of a finite number of facts).

With regards to Duane Gish's position on the 2LoT I don't know how his claim (made in the link you gave) that systems tend toward disorder is a false statement. In fact, the first part of his statement was almost a verbatim quote from Isaac Asimov's definition of the 2LoT.

[TheFiveSolas]

Winace wrote:

Well, let's see. First the non-existent distinction between "operation science" and "origins science", which Vorkosigan and several others have demolished right here in this forum.


:lol: Perhaps you haven't seen how poorly Vork did in the actual Thread started on that subject. In fact, he keeps retreating. He started with "no scientist maintains such a distinction" to "nowhere in the philosophy of science has such a distinction been made" to "nowhere in the area of cognitive science..."

In fact, I clearly showed how Vork's assertion that "observation" is "inference" is an example of his utter ignorance of what an inference is.

So much for his "demolition" of the distinction.

By the way, would you like to defend his premise that observations are inferences (i.e., that sense data are premises, assumptions, or propositions)? :teeth:

[DivineOb]

Today @ 02:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73637#post73637)
TheFiveSolas:
Claiming that YEC scientists, whose ranks include people like Dr. Baumgardner are &quot;not really that smart,&quot; is a lie on your part.



I admitted that how you took my initial statement was overbroad, and that I couldn't show dishonesty among all YEC scientists.

I don't have doubts that it is perfectly possible for people who believe in a young earth to be scientific, and to contribute to science, as long as their work is done in areas other than 'origins' science and their work is actually scientific. Notice that my comment was made in the context of AiG.

Furthermore, I made it clear which were the sorts of people I was talking about in that particular statement.


Ken Ham's truthful assertion that he interprets evidence through the Word of God hardly constitutes a lie.


That itself is not a lie. To then claim he is doing science (in the very areas he allows to be influenced by his views on the bible), however, is.

Tell me... if the bible can never be wrong, and everything he interprets is done through the lense of of what the bible says, how can he ever make a falsifiable prediction?


Your claim that anyone that follows Scripture, specifically with regards to YEC, cannot be said to be doing science begs the question and ignores the work of people like the one I mentioned above (who probably has more published papers than several evolutionist scientists on TWeb combined). If God stands behind the writing of scripture then what is deduced from scripture in the realm of science can truly be called Science since it corresponds to reality (as opposed to being a human's fallible interpretation of a finite number of facts).


Would you mind defining science?



With regards to Duane Gish's position on the 2LoT I don't know how his claim (made in the link you gave) that systems tend toward disorder is a false statement. In fact, the first part of his statement was almost a verbatim quote from Isaac Asimov's definition of the 2LoT.

"And that is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about, it seems to me evolution is in trouble. Notice everything, from the state of the galaxies down to the molecular level, everything tends to deteriorate, and run down and decay, to become disorganized, to lose its structure, to lose its organization. Ladies and gentleman the universe is going in the wrong direction for evolution."

Tell me he's not strongly implying to anyone who doesn't know better that evolution cannot possibly happen in any universe governed by 2LoT. Given that he has a PhD, his word carries significant weight with a layman. When Gish says "Ladies and gentleman the universe is going in the wrong direction for evolution." that the layman is going to say to himself "Well, *Dr.* Gish thinks that evolution can't work. Therefore, the 2LoT must be strong evidence against it." Either Gish is incompetent, or he's lying here. The only people who are going to understand what 'tends towards' actually means in this context are people who already understand 2LoT. And then there's still the fact that Gish claims that *he thinks* that 2LoT presents problems for evolution. Certainly *you* know that this is false... then why wouldn't you say he's either unqualified to speak on this topic, or a liar?

[TheFiveSolas]

DivineOb wrote:

That itself is not a lie. To then claim he (Ken Ham) is doing science (in the very areas he allows to be influenced by his views on the bible), however, is.


As I pointed out, you are here begging the question. If the Bible is God's Word then it follows that what is deduced from it in the realm of science is truly Science since it corresponds to reality.

You continued:

Tell me... if the bible can never be wrong, and everything he interprets is done through the lense of of what the bible says, how can he ever make a falsifiable prediction?


First, God's word doesn't list for us the "laws" of God's creation. God's Word gives us the metaphysical framework for doing science. For instance, God's providence provides the rational foundation for our belief in induction and the uniformity of nature. Both of which are necessary preconditions for doing science.

Second, the created world is contingent, not necessary, therefore we need to investigate it in order to learn how God regularly governs it. In other words, God created the world so as to require us to investigate it firsthand rather than from "armchair philosophy."

[DivineOb]

Since you declined to define science, I will. This may not be the best definition ever, but I think it is at least a reasonable one.

Science is a process by which existing knowledge about the world is evaluated, and, based on this existing knowledge, a hypothesis governming the behavior of the world is formed. This hypothesis is used to make specific predictions about the physical world. These predictions should be clearly stated such that when precise measurements of the physical world are taken, we will clearly identify whether the measured data agrees with the prediction or not. Based on these experiments, our prediction is found to either agree with the behavior of the physical world, or disagree with it. Based on the correctness or incorrectness of our predictions, our hypothesis is revised or our confidence in it strengthened. Information gained in this process is added to our current pool of knowledge about how the world behaves, and the process repeats.

The most critical component in science is falsifiability. That is, we must be able to tell if a particular prediction made about the world fails to accurately describe it. A scientific hypothesis such as "The world was created 5 minutes ago and made to have apparent age" has no predictive power, and hence, is unfalsifiable, and scientifically worthless.

Here is a more in depth explanation about science, but for now the above will do.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin1.html

Today @ 04:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73745#post73745)
TheFiveSolas:

DivineOb wrote:

As I pointed out, you are here begging the question. If the Bible is God's Word then it follows that what is deduced from it in the realm of science is truly Science since it corresponds to reality.



I have no problem with Ken Ham using the Genesis hypothesis as a basis by which he generates predictions about the world. While I think it is foolish to use such as your 'background knowledge' of the world, if he can form specific predictions about the world using Genesis, more power to him.

But he doesn't. The most important characteristic of any scientific prediction is falsifiability. I have never heard Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or any of these others (To be fair, ID can be falsified) make a specific prediction which might falsify the Genesis hypothesis, and then attempt to falsify this hypothesis.

It gets even worse, though. If Ken Ham were to actually make a falsifiable prediction on accident one day, there is no reason to believe that he will actually do his best to falsify this prediction (our most critical requirement of science). If Ken Ham one day accidentally made a specific prediction about the world based on his reading of Genesis, and finds that his prediction failed to come out, do you know what will happen? He'll say "I guess my reading of Genesis was wrong...", he won't say "I guess Genesis is wrong..." Hence, he falsifies his prediction, but never falsifies the hypothesis by which he generated that prediction. That is not science or a scientific approach. No number of false predictions would ever convince him that the Genesis hypothesis is incorrect.

If you aren't making specific predictions about the world and attempting to falsify them, then you just aren't doing science. If you aren't doing science but insist that you're a 'scientist' or that you're doing 'creation science'... well... you know what my favorite word so far in this thread has been.



First, God's word doesn't list for us the &quot;laws&quot; of God's creation. God's Word gives us the metaphysical framework for doing science. For instance, God's providence provides the rational foundation for our belief in induction and the uniformity of nature. Both of which are necessary preconditions for doing science.

Second, the created world is contingent, not necessary, therefore we need to investigate it in order to learn how God regularly governs it. In other words, God created the world so as to require us to investigate it firsthand rather than from &quot;armchair philosophy.&quot;

So some form of the TAG argument or something.

I have no problems with the above. If you want to believe your god provides an essential framework for science to function, then super. So, in the sense of the above characteristics, basing your science on the bible is acceptable. But I think it was clear that I was talking about interpretaitons of data or making falsifiable predictions based on the Genesis hypothesis, not using the bible as a framework to ensure that science is even possible. As an aside, I would also point out that the bible is a *poor* backing to use as a scientific framework, since it describes incidents in which the physical laws of the universe are *routinely* violated.

But that is not what Ken Ham believes. Ken Ham believes that there was a worldwide flood 4500 or however many years ago (well, I assume he does if he's a YEC). Therefore, he isn't just using the bible as an assurance that the basic requirements of science (uniformity, repeatability, etc) will be met. He is uses the bible to create his Genesis hypothesis, but never attempts to falisfy. Hence, is not doing science. Hence, he is a liar.

So, do we agree that Duane Gish is a liar? And you never (really) answered this question

"Tell me... if the bible can never be wrong, and everything he interprets is done through the lense of of what the bible says, how can he ever make a falsifiable prediction?" When I said 'the bible says' I mean about specific events on this planet or when it does make statements about the physical workings of the universe, not in its assurances of uniforminty etc.

[WinAce]

Yesterday @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73645#post73645)
TheFiveSolas:

Winace wrote:

:lol: Perhaps you haven't seen how poorly Vork did in the actual Thread started on that subject. In fact, he keeps retreating. He started with &quot;no scientist maintains such a distinction&quot; to &quot;nowhere in the philosophy of science has such a distinction been made&quot; to &quot;nowhere in the area of cognitive science...&quot;

Paraphrasing so that you might finally get it doesn't really amount to retreating.

In fact, I clearly showed how Vork's assertion that &quot;observation&quot; is &quot;inference&quot; is an example of his utter ignorance of what an inference is.

Riiiiiight.

By the way, would you like to defend his premise that observations are inferences (i.e., that sense data are premises, assumptions, or propositions)? :teeth:

Anything but the barest, most self-evident observation is, yes. "I see things in what I think is a telescope that look like stars" is a bare observation in that you can't really instill it into lesser observations.

"I see Venus" is an inference from background facts and assumptions about the noble planet, the workings of optic telescopes, etc. I still haven't seen you even attempt to rebut that one.

[Vorkosigan]

[i]Today @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73645#post73645)
[b]
So much for his &quot;demolition&quot; of the distinction.

By the way, would you like to defend his premise that observations are inferences (i.e., that sense data are premises, assumptions, or propositions)? :teeth:

http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/icons/lach.gif Anyone can check out my latest post in that thread, where 5S completely misunderstands what operationalism is in his rummaging through dictionaries. It's a laff riot! http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/icons/lol2.gif

Observations, whether ordinary or scientific, are inferences of one kind or another. There are no inference-free observations. The mind, alas, assembles its image of the world by inferring it from sense data. That's what the cognitive sciences show. I suggest you pick up any good book from the cognitive sciences on perception, teleology, and similar topics.

As for this bizarre distinction between "observation" and "origins" science that 5S has trumpeted, no one in the field of history, philosophy, and sociology of science recognizes such a thing. I've repeatedly challenged 5S to supply the great names in the field, like Toulmin, Lakatos, Bloor, Latour, Merton, Popper, and so on, who recognize this. Alas, failure. I've searched through my collection of works in that field. Amazingly, none contain this distinction. 5S claims he found it on the website of a biology class at a university; I've asked him to give me that link in the thread. Also struck out.

The thread in question may be found here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2821). I await the reply of 5S, hopefully containing the major figures from the field of history, philosophy, and sociology of science who recognize this distinction.

Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

DivineOb:The most critical component in science is falsifiability. How naive can you get? Kuhn pointed out that the ruling paradigm can tolerate many falsifications ("anomalies") before being finally abandoned. Lakatos pointed out that in reality, core theories are protected by auxiliary hypotheses, and any modus tollens is applied to these, not the core theory. That is, we must be able to tell if a particular prediction made about the world fails to accurately describe it. A scientific hypothesis such as "The world was created 5 minutes ago and made to have apparent age" has no predictive power, and hence, is unfalsifiable, and scientifically worthless.And the empiricist philosophy can do nothing to disprove it. But Biblical presuppositionalism DOES disprove it, since it is contrary to the propositions of Scripture.

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 01:16 AM With regards to Duane Gish's position on the 2LoT I don't know how his claim (made in the link you gave) that systems tend toward disorder is a false statement. In fact, the first part of his statement was almost a verbatim quote from Isaac Asimov's definition of the 2LoT.

The same Asimov who described Gish's understanding of thermodynamics as on "a kindergarten level"?

As I pointed out, you are here begging the question. If the Bible is God's Word

Which it isn't.

then it follows that what is deduced from it in the realm of science is truly Science since it corresponds to reality.

But it doesn't correspond to reality at all.

People like Ham and Sarfati beg the question by ASSUMING that the Bible is God's word without the slightest shred of evidence. They filter everything through this false assumption. That simply isn't science.

[WinAce]

The funny part is that they can't force-fit the evidence into a literal Genesis viewpoint even IF they invoke magic comic book superpowers.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74154#post74154)
Socrates:

DivineOb:The most critical component in science is falsifiability. How naive can you get? Kuhn pointed out that the ruling paradigm can tolerate many falsifications (&quot;anomalies&quot;) before being finally abandoned.



Yes this is certainly true. How does it contradict what I said?



Lakatos pointed out that in reality, core theories are protected by auxiliary hypotheses, and any modus tollens is applied to these, not the core theory.



And this is also true. I admitted that my definition wasn't the best, and I am not the most read individual on the philosophy of science, but I still think what I said was a decent definition for the general principles under which science operates, even if it was a simplistic definition.



That is, we must be able to tell if a particular prediction made about the world fails to accurately describe it. A scientific hypothesis such as &quot;The world was created 5 minutes ago and made to have apparent age&quot; has no predictive power, and hence, is unfalsifiable, and scientifically worthless.And the empiricist philosophy can do nothing to disprove it. But Biblical presuppositionalism DOES disprove it, since it is contrary to the propositions of Scripture.

Ok... so what's your point? Even if the 5 minute ago hypothesis did accurately describe the universe, if it represented a perfect deception, then there is no reason that we *shouldn't* act assuming it to be false.

Why are you attacking this really minor issues with what I said rather than demonstrating how I was unfairly representing the work of AiG and ICR?

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73628#post73628)
Jimmy Higgins:

I want that last line struck from this post.

Done. Socrates, that comment was over the line.

[dizzle]

Finally, you didn't even call me DivineBlob or DivineSlob or something, which makes me suspect your heart wasn't really into writing this response :P.

Hey DivineOB, I know you were joking but it is not fair to Socrates for him to get slammed when he responds aggressively, and then wisecracks when he doesn't. Perhaps he is attempting to tone down the rhetoric somewhat as I have asked all the participants of this section to do?

[DivineOb]

Today @ 02:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74195#post74195)
Dee Dee Warren:



Hey DivineOB, I know you were joking but it is not fair to Socrates for him to get slammed when he responds aggressively, and then wisecracks when he doesn't. Perhaps he is attempting to tone down the rhetoric somewhat as I have asked all the participants of this section to do?

Ok. I took it out of the message and I'll refrain from such comments in the future.

[TheFiveSolas]

Vork wrote:

Anyone can check out my latest post in that thread, where 5S completely misunderstands what operationalism is in his rummaging through dictionaries.


You mean where you set up a Straw Man of what I said? Anyone can read the thread and clearly see thats what you did. It was a desperate attempt on your part, but such attempts need to be more subtle for them to have the possibility of fooling anyone. :whack:

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74254#post74254)
DivineOb:



Ok. I took it out of the message and I'll refrain from such comments in the future.


Thank you so much!!!

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 01:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73613#post73613)
TheFiveSolas:

SPLx wrote:


:rofl:

As IF the full genome of chimpanzees has been compared to the entire human genome (which hasn't even been fully decoded yet).

Sorry, DNA hybridization comparisons hardly constitutes an accurate comparison of their respective DNA.

I'm sorry - does that have any relevance? Apparently, you are utterly ignorant of the publications on this very subject.

DNA-DNA hybridization actually directly compares the entire single-copy genome.

But that isn't the issue, and that tells me that did did not even read Batten's article (or maybe he couldn't understand it?) or did not read my demonstration of Batten's incompetence.

This reminds me of an encounter I had with another creationist science 'expert' some time ago. This 'expert' was telling a fellow that she would find it troubling for the YEC paradigm if she saw data indicating a relatively smooth genetic distance between taxa (indicating descent). I posted a link to some such data, and the reply?

"Er, ah, well... The ENTIRE genome isn't sequienced yet, so I will wait until it is."

Or words to that effect. Just what we saw from Solas...

[RufusAtticus]

04-19-2003 @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72756#post72756)
Socrates:

Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science WERE YECs!! I shouldn't have to remind people of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle and Faraday for example.

Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science did not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Therefore, one can not believe that HIV causes AIDS and still be a good scientist. Therefore, the www.hivdoesnotcauseaids.com is doing science.

[RufusAtticus]

04-19-2003 @ 08:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73613#post73613)
TheFiveSolas:
Sorry, DNA hybridization comparisons hardly constitutes an accurate comparison of their respective DNA.

Actually they do. If Homo and Pan DNA were not so similar, it wouldn't anneal as fast as it does and faster than other comparisons.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science WERE YECs!! I shouldn't have to remind people of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle and Faraday for example.

RA:Many of the FOUNDERS of modern science did not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Therefore, one can not believe that HIV causes AIDS and still be a good scientist. Therefore, the www.hivdoesnotcauseaids.com is doing science.Totally different issue. The above founders actually AFFIRMED that God created as per the book of Genesis. They did not affirm that HIV does not cause AIDS.

And once more, my statement stands as a refutation of Jimmy's absurd claim that one can't be a YEC and be a good scientist.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

And of course, Jimmy is so desperate to push atheism, including by demonstrable falsehoods such as "Hitler was a Christian" and "The Bible says negroes are inferior", because he doesn't want to acknowledge that he is accountable to his Creator for his sins. [Struck in deference to the spirit of the mod's ruling]

Jimmy Higgins:I want that last line struck from this post. I'm getting tired of having to read such blantant crap from Socretes. I never said such a thing and have never felt the thing. Perhaps Socretes can go somewhere to learn what is real and what is fantasy in some rubber room.Jimmy really needs to learn to write more clearly (and spell my username properly]. Same with his comments about being aborted being better than being retarded. Many people took the latter the same way as I did, then Jimmy claimed to have been misquoted (www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=75011#post75011). Similarly, the comment to which Jimmy objects was based on something he said that was certainly understood that way both by me and the mod who nominated my response for the Dean's List www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=55920#post55920

Note also, Jimmy refuses to repudiate the other two falsehoods I mentioned. This calls into question his sincerity in his claims that he was misunderstood the other two times above.

[DivineOb]

Socrates,

You posted some challenges to my definition of 'science' in this thread, and referred to it again in another thread. Would you mind posting your definition of 'science' and how it differs from the (admittedly simple) one I gave above?

[QED]

Totally different issue. The above founders actually AFFIRMED that God created as per the book of Genesis. They did not affirm that HIV does not cause AIDS.

They did AFFIRM that God created as per the book of Genesis (as do many theistic evolutionists today). Many of them further believed the idea that God did so in a way that that Genesis would suggest to the literal-minded sort of fellow.

They only rarely affirmed any of this as a consequence of scientific research. This was an issue of faith to many of them. In cases where it was postulated as a scientific hypothesis, the claims were abandoned due to their untestable nature (where it concerns CREATION), or falsified (where it concerned testable assertions about the natural history of the universe. Newton, for instance, postulated that God stepped in to "correct" orbital motion (his theory accounted for the motion of the planets to a great degree of accuracy, but observations didn't exactly match predictions. His solution was that God stepped in and put them back on their "ordained" paths). Later, the same data that Newton ascribed to God's corrective influence was used by other scientists who restricted themselves to methodological naturalism to predict the existence of as-yet unobserved planets. (Now we have Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto as a result). Thus was falsified Newton's testable claim about God's direct intervention to correct planetary orbits.
Similarly, those who sought to explain geology in terms of the Deluge, found themselves unable to defend their theory against the falsifying evidence from the geological record. Some had the grace to retract their views, and to admit that the scientific evidence seemed to contradict their literal-minded understanding of Genesis.

There were, of course, a few recalcitrant young-earthers. And of course, there still are. I am firmly convinced that each of them either:
1) has been conned (by AiG and the likes) or
2) care more for advancing their personal opinions than they do for accepting the truth.

[TheFiveSolas]

SPLx wrote:

DNA-DNA hybridization actually directly compares the entire single-copy genome.


You are equivocating on the word "compare". DNA-DNA hybridization is a process by which, simply stated, DNA from two different subjects/species are heated until their respective double helix separates. The mixture is then cooled, the amount of DNA from the one that combines with the other is then compared. There are several factors that will affect how much of the DNA recombines, with heat being one of them. However, this procedure is not a comparison of the genetic sequence.

In addition, many problems with this method have been pointed out, including allegations of fraudulent data.

One of the major opponents of this technique is molecular anthropologist Dr. Jonathan Marks, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte who recently stated the following:


As far as I know, the last active defenders of the DNA hybridization work in the anthropological community are David Pilbeam and Maryellen Ruvolo at Harvard. They are both heavily invested in it. Pilbeam recently wrote in a journal called Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution: "I do not discuss the Sibley et al. (1990) data set here, although I will do so elsewhere, except to note that it is of poorer quality than that of Caccone and Powell." Pilbeam, sadly, has never been able to evaluate this work critically, and of course was its earliest promoter in anthropology. I, for one, hope he doesn't make good on his threat to discuss it again elsewhere. Mercifully, thus far he hasn't.

http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/biblio.html

Sheesh, and you said I was the one that was ignorant.

[Socrates]

DO:You posted some challenges to my definition of 'science' in this thread, and referred to it again in another thread. Would you mind posting your definition of 'science' and how it differs from the (admittedly simple) one I gave above?If you want to claim that creation is "unscientific", then provide a watertight definition of "science". You have yet to do so. Meanwhile, I'm more interested in whether it is TRUE.

[Socrates]

QED splutters :rant::I am firmly convinced that each of them either:
1) has been conned (by AiG and the likes) or
2) care more for advancing their personal opinions than they do for accepting the truth.I'm firmly convinced that there are only anti-creationists around because they have been conned by their own rebellion against God (as Romans 1:20 ff. says), or are churchians who love the praises of men rather than God, and whom the materialists cultivate as useful idiots.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 08:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75049#post75049)
Socrates:
Totally different issue. The above founders actually AFFIRMED that God created as per the book of Genesis. They did not affirm that HIV does not cause AIDS.

And Newton affirmed that F = m*a; therefore, people who don't accept relativity today can still be good physicists.

Sure the members of AiG and ICR might have been able to good science 200 years ago, but unfortunately for them, they are not living 200 years ago.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75209#post75209)
TheFiveSolas:

You are equivocating on the word &quot;compare&quot;. DNA-DNA hybridization is a process by which, simply stated, DNA from two different subjects/species are heated until their respective double helix separates.

You're correct so far.

The mixture is then cooled, the amount of DNA from the one that combines with the other is then compared.

Actually, mixture is sampled at various timepoints in the cooling process and the relative proportion of single to double strand DNA is measured. This is plotted as a cot curve. If genome is compared with itself, cot curves can inform about the relative proportion of repeat sequences.
http://mcb1.ims.abdn.ac.uk/djs/web/graphics/cotcurve.gif

There are several factors that will affect how much of the DNA recombines, with heat being one of them. However, this procedure is not a comparison of the genetic sequence.

Yes it is a comparison of the genetic sequence, since the reannealing is influenced by sequence similarity. Hybridization of similar genomes will reanneal faster than hybridization of dissimilar genomes. Although you don't know what the sequences are, you can tell how similar they are on a global scale.

Tne of the major opponents of this technique is molecular anthropologist Dr. Jonathan Marks, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte who recently stated the following:

AFAICT, Marks opposition is to the use of DNA hybridization to resolve the Human-Chimp-Gorilla clade, i.e is it {{H,C}, G}, {H, {C,G}, or {{H,G},C}, not to the process itself, or to its use in evolutionary studies.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75252#post75252)
Socrates:

DO:You posted some challenges to my definition of 'science' in this thread, and referred to it again in another thread. Would you mind posting your definition of 'science' and how it differs from the (admittedly simple) one I gave above?If you want to claim that creation is &quot;unscientific&quot;, then provide a watertight definition of &quot;science&quot;. You have yet to do so. Meanwhile, I'm more interested in whether it is TRUE.

Well, I'd rather you do it so that there can be no accusation of bias or conveniently defining science so as to exclude YEC, but the best definition I can think of would be something similar the one I posted on the previous page. Therefore, to be doing something 'scientific' is to be operating roughly similar to the principles I outlined in that post. Now, since AiG and ICR don't (at least by my perception) operate according to such principles, I wouldn't classify their behavior as scientific. Now, if you disagree with me, I need you to point out what characteristics I defined which you find objectionable.

[SLPx]

Today @ 04:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75209#post75209)
TheFiveSolas:

SPLx wrote:


You are equivocating on the word &quot;compare&quot;. DNA-DNA hybridization is a process by which, simply stated, DNA from two different subjects/species are heated until their respective double helix separates. The mixture is then cooled, the amount of DNA from the one that combines with the other is then compared. There are several factors that will affect how much of the DNA recombines, with heat being one of them. However, this procedure is not a comparison of the genetic sequence.

I don't recall saying that it was, although, in order for the strands to anneal they do, afterall, have to have complementary sequences.
But why do the creationists on this board so rapidly resort to transparent attempts to change the subject?

I was not the one defending DNA-DNA hybridization, I pointed out that Batten was WRONG for claiming that the DNA-DNA hybridization studies were the first to generate the % similarity numbers. Why can't you folks stay on topic?

In addition, many problems with this method have been pointed out, including allegations of fraudulent data.



I am aware of Marks' hysterical personal vendetta against Sibley and Ahlquist. I should point out that a method cannot be fraudulent, nor can data (unless I suppose it were fabricated). Apparently, you did not read much of Marks' essay, for he complains about the irreproducability of the calculations, not the procedure itself. Creationists like to quote Marks. As usual, that is because they do not know enough about the issue to comment themselves. Indeed, there was a series of letters and essays in the professional literature after the charges against S&A were made, culminating in an apology by the authors. Not for 'fabricating' data, but for omitting from their 1989 paper some of the mathematical adjustments they made. (later authors reproduced the experiments and came up with very similar numbers, so the charges of the likes of Marks are overblown, to say the least. Rumor had it that he was just mad because he did not get tenure...)

Of course, AGAIN, that was not my point.

My point, apparently lost on the creationists, was that Batten's claim that the 1989 S&A DNA-DNA hybridization paper was the genesis of the %similarity claims. It is obvious why the creationists would claim this - hence the Marks ref. They can claim that those % figures were all premised on their paper, then point out that the authors had charges of fraud laid on them. They will then make the illogical and unwarranted (but all too common in creationist lit) claim that, therefore, evolution is wrong and that evolutionists are making stuff up to claim otherwise.

The fact is, as I documented in the post ignored by everyone but distorted by Socrates and you, that the % similarity figures were gleaned PRIOR to the S&A paper coming out.

And that the figures have been borne out by multiple additional data analyses.
Sheesh, and you said I was the one that was ignorant

Yes, I did, and I have again demonstrated this. Shall I do it yet again?

[TheFiveSolas]

SPLx wrote:

I was not the one defending DNA-DNA hybridization, I pointed out that Batten was WRONG for claiming that the DNA-DNA hybridization studies were the first to generate the % similarity numbers. Why can't you folks stay on topic?


I was responding to your post, not that of another. No need to get yourself all worked up.

You continued:

Apparently, you did not read much of Marks' essay, for he complains about the irreproducability of the calculations, not the procedure itself.


Really? :hrm:

I have read Marks and do KNOW what I'm talking about. Here, let me quote from him verbatim.

What Dennett has omitted is that the work needs to be buried not because of the conclusions -- which may or may not turn out to be right -- but because the data were, as far as anyone can tell, extensively and egregiously falsified. The review appeared in the Journal of Human Evolution, 24:69, 1993. What directly preceded the extracted remark is this:
Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I'm the Princess of Wales..."

SPLx, please, before you make a claim that I or anyone else are ignorant creationists FIRST get your facts straight. That way you won't look as foolish.

You continued:

...later authors reproduced the experiments and came up with very similar numbers, so the charges of the likes of Marks are overblown, to say the least.


Daniel Dennet made a similar statement in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

The original findings of Sibley and Ahlquist have been roundly confirmed by more sensitive methods of analysis (theirs was a relatively crude technique, path-breaking at the time, but subsequently superseded by more powerful techniques)


Marks responded by pointing out the following:

An interesting non-sequitur, no?.
This is in fact the argument advanced publicly by S&A against the accusation that they blatantly falsified their data. The "confirming" evidence was actually neither independent nor more sensitive, but was put forward in a rhetorical manner, to suggest that it didn't matter whether the S&A data had been falsified.

http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/Dennett.html

On a side note, the full reply to SA over this entire issue, with full references, by Dr. Marks can be read here:
http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/amsci.html

So much for your vacuous claim of ignorance on my part.

[Socrates]

SPLX, who has turned out to be yet another village atheist (spruiking forth on that of which he knows nothing, e.g. Ark stability and Biblical exegesis), spouted:I was not the one defending DNA-DNA hybridization, I pointed out that Batten was WRONG for claiming that the DNA-DNA hybridization studies were the first to generate the % similarity numbers. Why can't you folks stay on topic?What Dr Batten actually said, and he has no superiors on TWeb in biological qualifications, was (from Human/chimp DNA similarity: Evidence for evolutionary relationship? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp)):

Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Indeed, this WAS a widely quoted justification for this oft-repeated figure.

TheFiveSolas has cited very damaging criticisms of this paper, and Dr Batten discovered a major flaw too:

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Then Dr Batten showed why all this proved nothing about evolution, because it is still a difference of tens of millions of "letters" (base pairs).

[SLPx]

04-23-2003 @ 03:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76092#post76092)
TheFiveSolas:

SPLx wrote:


I was responding to your post, not that of another. No need to get yourself all worked up.

I am not worke dup at all. Are you?

You continued:


Really? :hrm:

I have read Marks and do KNOW what I'm talking about. Here, let me quote from him verbatim.


SPLx, please, before you make a claim that I or anyone else are ignorant creationists FIRST get your facts straight. That way you won't look as foolish.

I do have my facts straight. Unlike you, I am not relying on the hysterical rants of John Marks. I have read the ACTUAL exchanges, including Ahlquist's "apology', as well as the papers that reproduced S&As analyses and came to roughly the same conclusions.

AGAIN, that was not the thrust of my post.

You continued:


Daniel Dennet made a similar statement in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea:


Marks responded by pointing out the following:

http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/Dennett.html

On a side note, the full reply to SA over this entire issue, with full references, by Dr. Marks can be read here:
http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/amsci.html

So much for your vacuous claim of ignorance on my part.
The claim remains intact. You are relying on second hand disinformation form a person with a vendetta.
So, do you ever intend to actually respond to my actual post, or are you going to remain content to try to divert attention to this side issue?