Who is your favorite professional creationist?

[James]

After reading a lot of stuff by the enigmatic Kent Hovind, it's apparent that not all creationists are created equal in terms of examining evidence. Here's a chance to nominate your favorite evolution eviscerator from one of the well-known creationist organizations. Pick your own criteria, such as integrity, strength of argument, dashing good looks, humor, and so on. Help end claims that creationists never get recognized. Here are two of my favorites:

http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org/home/area/bios/images/ken_events.jpg
Ken Ham: Despite his uncanny resemblance to the "missing link," you have to admire the copious number of articles Ken writes, whether they are factually based or not.

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/images/j_sarfati.jpg
Jonathan Sarfati: Have to respect chess skills, even if a guy believes that the world is 6000 years old.

[Korihor]

I respect Kurt Wise the most, by far. He is arguably the smartest and most honest creationist on the planet.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/kurtwise.jpg


"This gets me in a lot of trouble with a lot of creationists, ... the material that's out there is - uh, I'll hold back and be nice - garbage. It's really atrocious"

-- Kurt Wise, from the article:
Monkey Trouble: Shaking the Family Tree (http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/05-18-98/knox_feat.html)

:thumb:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91227#post91227)
James:
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/images/j_sarfati.jpg
Jonathan Sarfati: Have to respect chess skills, even if a guy believes that the world is 6000 years old. I was looking at the AIG scientists and Sarafati only has 6 papers to his credit, for atleast 15 years, probably more. From talking to a PhD, good PhD's get many more papers under their belt. And seeing that Safarati merely has only 2 papers in which he is listed as the head scientist, I've got to wonder what he was doing in the science field for the remainder of that time.

There are a few other scientists I checked and they list a decent amount of published work, and some merely a brief list of some of their work. They seem to be more in the science field than Safarati seems to be.

[Kyle]

I've gotta give props to Kurt Wise as well. I think it's refreshing that he can admit when there is no good answer. Many creationists come off as much too easy going, in that they'll accept work and evidence much too easily. This does seem to be changing a bit however, as creationists now sometimes debate issues out and criticise eachother, but nobody seems quite as blatant as Kurt Wise.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy,
You need to get your facts straight. Dr. Sarfati (note the spelling is not SarAfati) has written scores of technical and semi-technical papers published in the scientifically peer-reviewed journal, TJ.

For example see the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4174.asp
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4148.asp

I'd love to see you or even someone that actually has qualifications prove that it is not a scientific paper by rebutting it.

[Minnesota]

My vote goes to DrDino.

http://www.drdino.com/img/products/208.jpg

Without doubt Kent Hovind is the most unscrupulous and dishonest of all the creationist clowns on the internet. This and his unbridled audacity to hoodwink Christians through the idiocy of his "science" and the pomposity of his convictions makes him a joy to read. Like watching a very, very bad movie: it's so incredible that it fascinates one that anyone would bother to put the thing together.
.
.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91568#post91568)
TheFiveSolas:

Jimmy,
You need to get your facts straight. Dr. Sarfati (note the spelling is not SarAfati) has written scores of technical and semi-technical papers published in the scientifically peer-reviewed journal, TJ.

For example see the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4174.asp
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4148.asp

I'd love to see you or even someone that actually has qualifications prove that it is not a scientific paper by rebutting it. Wow! He almost does some sort of experiment in those papers. :smile:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91568#post91568)
TheFiveSolas:
You need to get your facts straight. Dr. Sarfati (note the spelling is not SarAfati) has written scores of technical and semi-technical papers published in the scientifically peer-reviewed journal, TJ.


Pseudo-scientifically peer-reviewed you mean. TJ, as owned and published by AiG, is not a scientific journal. AiG admits up front (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tjguidelines.asp) that all papers are judged based on whether they support the AiG statement of faith. In other words, submissions are not evaluated based on the quality of experimentation or how well the conclusions are supported by data, instead they are evaluated based on the tenants of AiG. Sorry, but actual scienctific journals do not have such requirements.

[Woman]

Kurt Wise and Hugh Ross

I believe both are men of integrity.

Dr. Dino is good for chuckles.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy Higgins:
Wow! He almost does some sort of experiment in those papers.


Do you mean that drawing inferences from data, as Dr. Sarfati does in the articles I linked to, doesn't count as science, but only experiments do?

Your fellow evolutionists have been insisting otherwise in the Differences between Observed and Inferred Data thread. :rofl: They have been asserting that there is no difference between data observed and inferred from repeatable experiments and inferences drawn from unobserved (non-experimental) data.

[Socrates]

TheFiveSolas:


You need to get your facts straight. Dr. Sarfati (note the spelling is not SarAfati) has written scores of technical and semi-technical papers published in the scientifically peer-reviewed journal, TJ.

Indeed so. It's pathetic for Jimmy to whinge that he hasn't published in secular scientific journals for years when he has made a career choice from a physical chemist/spectroscopist to be a full-time creationist apologist. Strangely enough, the Ph.D. plant physiologist Dr Batten also published a lot less frequently in secular science literature after he became a full-time research scientist for AiG, but his publications show beyond doubt that he is a real scientist -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp and pic below.

RA:Pseudo-scientifically peer-reviewed you mean. TJ, as owned and published by AiG, is not a scientific journal. AiG admits up front that all papers are judged based on whether they support the AiG statement of faith. In other words, submissions are not evaluated based on the quality of experimentation or how well the conclusions are supported by data, instead they are evaluated base on thetenantseof AiG.Sorry, ut actul scientific jurnals do not have such requirements.Once more, RA resorts to stipulative definitions — it's creationist, therefore it's not science. But under any mormal criterion for science, e.g. qualifications of the reviewers and actual research, TJ counts as a true peer-reviewed science journal.And once more, RA's hypocrisy comes to the fore. Blatantly atheistic articles by the likes of Dawkins and Coyne should also be disqualified, as should most other evolutionary work that presupposes materialism throughout the universe's history and interprets the data to fit.

No, RA can't refute the science but resorts to viewpoint discrimination. Boring "science [including origins/inferential] must be materialistic arguments" leak like a sieve, and are just self-serving because they bolster RA's own dogmatic materialistic faith.

[Socrates]

Woman:Kurt Wise and Hugh Ross

I believe both are men of integrity.Wise can be a loose cannon at times, and suffers from HDD (Humility Deficit Disorder). I also can't think of many contributions to creationist theory that would warrant his being placed on a pedestal. But his recent book Faith, Form and Time is pretty good in Biblical exegesis, philosophy of science, and science itself.

:whack: But Hugh Ross :poke: He's a preposterous bluff artist who pontificates about Hebrew, yet he couldn't even say "yes" or "no" in the language. And he is either sloppy or mendacious in his claims about the Church Fathers' interpretations of Genesis 1 --- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53088#post53088

I'm also surprised that you neglect the AiG scientists, since you've commended several of their articles for integrity, e.g. www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp and www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp. And they would not be inferior to Kurt in the intellectual department either.

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

:whack: But Hugh Ross :poke: He's a preposterous bluff artist who pontificates about Hebrew, yet he couldn't even say "yes" or "no" in the language. And he is either sloppy or mendacious in his claims about the Church Fathers' interpretations of Genesis 1 --- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53088#post53088

Im not sure if I would call him a "bluff artist" although I do think he is wrong about several things. And one does not need to speak Hebrew to discuss the meaning of the text. Indeed there are many learned and respected Christians who disagree with the 24-hour day view.

As to the church fathers.....yes I believe that he strongly overstates the "support" for his position among the fathers. As I have said before, among the fathers who spoke on the exact nature of the days (in an unambiguous way), the majority were 24-hour day proponents.

I have also read some of the issues that Glenn Morton raises about Ross. The arguments are nothing new, but I have never heard Dr Ross answer the charges that Morton makes.

I sent Dr Ross the following email......


Dr Ross:

I have recently been having some difficulities with several of your views. In addition to this I have also been having some dificulties with some of the Intelligent Design arguments used by Dembski and others. These difficulties have caused me to consider theistic evolution as a possibility.

So my question is this:

How do you respond to the critisisms made by Glenn Morton of your book The Genesis Question?

I am sure you are aware of this article, but I will provide the link just in case.
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/rossrev.htm

These are some serious charges which appear to be well documented. I would appreciate a response providing an explanation of how you deal with the points Morton raises.

I look forward to a response (either by email or on the webcast)

Sincerely,

Russell Steadele

He has yet to answer. As someone who has supported his ministry in the past, I hope he eventually answers my request in some form.


So who is my favorite creationist? I would say at the moment it is Ross, although that is providing he answers my questions.


Russ

[Socrates]

Steadele, email to Hugh Ross:I have recently been having some difficulities with several of your views. In addition to this I have also been having some dificulties with some of the Intelligent Design arguments used by Dembski and others. These difficulties have caused me to consider theistic evolution as a possibility.You wouldn't be the first. David Young and Glenn Moron are other examples. But this merely shows the weakness of OEC, and more foundationally, the evidentialist approach that leads to it. Biblical presuppositionalism is the correct approach. Fact is, the likes of Moron NEVER truly accepted the authority of Scripture, even when he was a professing YEC.

Biblical presuppositionalism also recognises the role of axioms in constructing a paradigm by which data are interpreted. Philosophers of science such as Kuhn recognise the role of paradigms and the way in which data are interpreted. It's a pity that many churchian scientists have a naive Baconian approach.

[Socrates]

Kyle:I've gotta give props to Kurt Wise as well. I think it's refreshing that he can admit when there is no good answer. Many creationists come off as much too easy going, in that they'll accept work and evidence much too easily. This does seem to be changing a bit however, as creationists now sometimes debate issues out and criticise eachother, but nobody seems quite as blatant as Kurt Wise.His new book is a refreshing change. But previously, I hardly saw any contributions to creationist theory from him. And his criticisms of other creationists were far too scattergun and seemed more to be promoting himself as the top creationists and dismissing other creationists who stole his limelight.

Certainly, creationists should not use fallacious arguments (let's leave that to the evolutionists :tongue:). But when AiG criticises weak creationist arguments, they are specific and give reasons, rather than argue from authority, e.g. www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp and www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp.

Also, Wise erred by objecting to "evolution-bashing" -- one must wonder whether 2 Corinthians 10:5 was in his Bible, or what he would think of Elijah's mockery of the Prophets of Baal.

[Minnesota]

Excuse me, I'm quite new here a not at all up to speed as to the various factions on the forum or the various argumentative tactics specific individuals like to employ, so I my comments may miss their mark and fail to be as relevant as I suppose them. Also, this is the first time I've encountered the works of Dr. Sarfati and Dr Batten.

From what I have read of each of these individuals, neither appears to be degreed in the fields they have written about. Sarfati, a Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist, writes on astronomy and cosmology, biology, anthropology, morals, abiogenesis, etc.. Now there is nothing wrong in this, but by the same token my aunt Ruth, a psychologist, is no less qualified.
Moreover, it is folly to claim that TJ is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal on par with any established scientific journal. So, it is hardly appropriate to claim that any paper it accepts for publication deserves the respect legitimate science journals have earned. As for the two examples of Sarfati's scholarship that JH provides

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4174.asp
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4148.asp

neither qualify as scientific work. Both are no more than resource research and extrapolated conclusions: hardly works worthy of anyone's reviewl, peer or not. If this is the kind of "science" Sarfati is now engaged in it falls far short of what he knows would be acceptable in the academic world. Should he do honest scientific work (and I am sure he knows what that entails) and get it accepted by a true peer-reviewed journal, then one could say he is doing honest science. But, rummaging through various reference works etc. to build a case for a particular position--be it Venus--cauldron of Fire, New monkey Clones, or Mammoth: Riddle of the Ice Age isn't going to cut it. Like I say, Sarfati's degree in chemistry no better qualifies him as an expert on these subjects than does my aunt Ruth's degree in psychology. To claim other wise is just using the fallacy of ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

The same would apply to any claim made for Dr. Battan. Unless he is expounding on plant physiology or roots and their diseases, his writings don't deserve any more respect than had they been made by aunt Ruth. Battan's qualification as a plant physiologist certainly doesn't qualify him to speak on Ligers and wholphins? What next?,A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus) or Australopithecus ramidus ‘the missing link’?. Nothing says he can't speak to these topics, but just because he's degreed doesn't mean that what he says carries the weight some people would like to give it.

There seems to be a real blind spot among many people when it comes to the pronouncements of the educated. Too many falsely assume---or knowingly try to convince others---that expertise in a particular field somehow translates into expertise in other fields. The fact is, when one reaches the level of PhD the sphere of knowledge gets very small--just look at the papers Dr. Battan has written. By necessity, doctors in all fields specialize, and, as such, seldom have the opportunity to keep up on the progress made in other fields, and even other branches of their own field. So, it is very unlikely that anyone with an advanced degree would be well enough versed to speak intelligently outside his sphere of expertise. Just because one is a "scientist" doesn't mean they know everything, or even anything outside there field. So being a "real scientist" just isn't all that big of a deal. Being an expert in the field in which you speak is, but that's the limit of it.

[Socrates]

Minnesota minces:Excuse me, I'm quite new here a not at all up to speed as to the various factions on the forum or the various argumentative tactics specific individuals like to employ, so I my comments may miss their mark and fail to be as relevant as I suppose them. Also, this is the first time I've encountered the works of Dr. Sarfati and Dr Batten.I.e. you have spluttered forth against creation without understanding what the leading creationists actually believe. :poke:From what I have read of each of these individuals, neither appears to be degreed in the fields they have written about. Sarfati, a Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist, writes on astronomy and cosmology, biology, anthropology, morals, abiogenesis, etc.. Abiogeneis would be very approriate for a highly qualified chemist, since it is a synonym for chemical evolution.Now there is nothing wrong in this, but by the same token my aunt Ruth, a psychologist, is no less qualified. The hypocrisy is glaring. No one seems to mind when Dawkins, whose field is animal behavior, spruiks forth the most asinine anti-Christianity; or when he and cell biologist Kenneth Miller make crass arguments about the alleged bad design of the eye. In fact, a spectroscopist like Sarfati and an opthalmologist like Dr Peter Gurney are in a vastly better position to talk about the eye than those two buffoons --- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=58473#post58473 Also, as Jimmy Higgins inadvertently admitted, evolution is irrelevant to the vast bulk of true science -- www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90024#post90024 Moreover, it is folly to claim that TJ is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal on par with any established scientific journal. Rubbish -- this is more viewpoint discrimination. So, it is hardly appropriate to claim that any paper it accepts for publication deserves the respect legitimate science journals have earned. As for the two examples of Sarfati's scholarship that JH provides

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4174.asp
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4148.asp

neither qualify as scientific work. Both are no more than resource research and extrapolated conclusions: hardly works worthy of anyone's reviewl, peer or not. If this is the kind of "science" Sarfati is now engaged in it falls far short of what he knows would be acceptable in the academic world.Rubbish -- they were hardly different from, say, perspectives in Nature, but showing how cutting edge data makes more sense in a creationist paradigm rather than a materialist one. Creationists do not have the bottomless pit of funds coerced from taxpayers, so it's understandable that much of their work should be showing how the published research fits better with creation. In any case, there IS original research published in TJ.Should he do honest scientific work (and I am sure he knows what that entails) and get it accepted by a true peer-reviewed journal, then one could say he is doing honest science. It is so -- there is nothing dishonest about analysing other people's research. It's not as if Dr Sarfati CLAIMS to be gathering new data. For goodness' sake, how many evolutionary propagandists use "evidence" that they have discovered personally?? Published data is the property of everyone not those who believe in materialism.But, rummaging through various reference works etc. to build a case for a particular position--be it Venus--cauldron of Fire, New monkey Clones, or Mammoth: Riddle of the Ice Age isn't going to cut it. Like I say, Sarfati's degree in chemistry no better qualifies him as an expert on these subjects than does my aunt Ruth's degree in psychology. The main point should be not who wrote them, but are they accurate! :poke:To claim other wise is just using the fallacy of ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.No it's not, because not once does he say "believe me because I', a scientist". But it's reasonable for him and Dr Batten to use their scientific qualifications as a disproof of crass claims such as "no real science believes in biblical creation."The same would apply to any claim made for Dr. Battan. Unless he is expounding on plant physiology or roots and their diseases, his writings don't deserve any more respect than had they been made by aunt Ruth. Battan's qualification as a plant physiologist certainly doesn't qualify him to speak on Ligers and wholphins? What next?,A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus) or Australopithecus ramidus ‘the missing link’?. Nothing says he can't speak to these topics, but just because he's degreed doesn't mean that what he says carries the weight some people would like to give it. Actually, as Dr Batten has published research into hybridization, he is superbly qualified to write about ligers and wholphins and the boundaries of the created kinds. As for the other topics, once again, where are the objections when evolutionists make crass comments outside their fields and resort to TRUE argumentum ad verecundiam fallacies as Minnie affects to despise. For example, Australia's most prominent and obnoxious anti-creationist Ian Plimer is a mining geologist, who often pontificates about radiometric dating, biology, philosophy and theology (although he is a fanatical atheist)! For example, in his loopaper-quality book Telling lies ..., he spruiks:


‘As a scientist, I would be prepared to predict that within the next 50 years a self-reproducing RNA molecule will be manufactured. This will be the test for various ideas on the origin of life.’

Here is a blatant appeal to authority -- ‘as a scientist’. But Dr Sarfati, as a chemist, is in a far better position to discuss the weakness of chemical evolution, including the RNA World, e.g. www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3974.asp, than a mining geologist! :whack:

Slimer is also too logic-challenged to realize that if it takes heaps of intelligent input to produce such a molecule, it would hardly support the idea that life arose without any intelligence! See pic below :lol:

[Archimedes]

Socrates, which one is it: are both the AiG scientists and the evolutionists you mentioned qualified to make statements outside their fields, or should both of them refrain from it? You seem to condemn the evolutionists for a particular behaviour and defend, almost praise the creationists for exactly the same thing.

[geochron]

Today @ 08:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91813#post91813)
Socrates:

Rubbish -- they were hardly different from, say, perspectives in Nature


Perspectives in Nature and Science don't normally count as peer reviewed publications. :)

[SLPx]

Today @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91672#post91672)
TheFiveSolas:



Do you mean that drawing inferences from data, as Dr. Sarfati does in the articles I linked to, doesn't count as science, but only experiments do?

Your fellow evolutionists have been insisting otherwise in the Differences between Observed and Inferred Data thread. :rofl: They have been asserting that there is no difference between data observed and inferred from repeatable experiments and inferences drawn from unobserved (non-experimental) data.

You just don't get it.

Digging through the actual work of others for "damning" quotes to use and drawing wild unsupported conclusions from undue extrapolations - ala creation "science" - is hardly the same thing as using inferrence or observation.

For Pete's sake...

Of course, none of that really matters since Safarti is merely a chemist, and to take his word on anything other than chemistry is indulging in a fallacious form of reasoning.

Argumentum ad verucundiam, I believe it is called.

[SLPx]

Today @ 04:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91681#post91681)
Socrates:

TheFiveSolas:



Indeed so. It's pathetic for Jimmy to whinge that he hasn't published in secular scientific journals for years when he has made a career choice from a physical chemist/spectroscopist to be a full-time creationist apologist. Strangely enough, the Ph.D. plant physiologist Dr Batten also published a lot less frequently in secular science literature after he became a full-time research scientist for AiG, but his publications show beyond doubt that he is a real scientist -- see [url]

"Real" scientists do not adhere to oaths - implicit or explicit - that they will ignore, twist, distort, or misrepresent contrary information to prop up the cause.

Of course Batten, like Safarti, makes laughably huge blunders whenever they venture outside of their narrow fields of ... "expertise"..

We of course cannot blame them for making such blunders, nbeing mere chemists or plant physiologists, but it is easy for me, a trained anatomist/molecular systematist to spot these errors a mile away.

[SLPx]

Today @ 07:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91789#post91789)
Socrates:

You wouldn't be the first. David Young and Glenn Moron are other examples. But this merely shows the weakness of OEC, and more foundationally, the evidentialist approach that leads to it.

Nice ad hominem from the resident chemist. What are your amazing qualifications in biblical scholarship and such? Or are you just pontificating in matters that you have no qualifications in? AGAIN!


Biblical presuppositionalism is the correct approach. Fact is, the likes of Moron NEVER truly accepted the authority of Scripture, even when he was a professing YEC.
Is that a "fact"? How did you establish this "fact"?

And I was under the distinct impression that name calling and the "tone" of your drivel was frowned upon?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91681#post91681)
Socrates:
Indeed so. It's pathetic for Jimmy to whinge that he hasn't published in secular scientific journals for years when he has made a career choice from a physical chemist/spectroscopist to be a full-time creationist apologist. That's funny. AIG seems to think Sarafati went to become a "research scientist" in '96.
In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for the Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane. In this capacity, he writes and reviews articles for its magazine Creation Ex Nihilo and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, as well as contributing to the Answers in Genesis website.Last time I checked, people who did research, usually got published in peer reviewed journals.

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:
First of all let me say that my problems with Ross and Dembski are not a recent development. I have been having "problems" with some of their stuff for over a year now. Until about six months ago I was letting it slide, but now I am not.


You wouldn't be the first. David Young and Glenn Moron are other examples. But this merely shows the weakness of OEC, and more foundationally, the evidentialist approach that leads to it. Biblical presuppositionalism is the correct approach. Fact is, the likes of Moron NEVER truly accepted the authority of Scripture, even when he was a professing YEC.
I am in contact with Morton via email and I find him to be quite honest and open about his experiences. I do not think such a charge is warrented.

As to the whole OEC issue........Again let me remind you that I was drawn to OEC through scripture first, not science. I think that the framework view, day-age view, and the days of proclamation make a strong case scripturally against the 24-hour view. So while I do not take the 24-hour view (and in fact do not think it is the correct one scripturally) I do understand how one could reach such a conclusion about Genesis 1.
Not all OECs are "compromising" scripture. Im sure you would not claim John Ransom(Im hoping I remembered his name here) is doing such a thing with his framework view. Likewise there are OECs who defend scripture and yet see an OEC view clearly in the pages of Genesis. I am one who clearly sees OEC in scripture and not YEC. I do not claim that you are compromising scripture by the scientific views of the ancients, yet you truly believe that I am compromising scripture by the current scientific views.
But I have to disagree with you on that point.


I believe that even if evolution occured, then it did so because it was designed to occur. So I do not see evolution or the age of the earth to be a threat to scripture in any way.


Russ

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Indeed so. It's pathetic for Jimmy to whinge that he hasn't published in secular scientific journals for years when he has made a career choice from a physical chemist/spectroscopist to be a full-time creationist apologist.

Jimmy Higgins flutters:That's funny. AIG seems to think Sarafati went to become a "research scientist" in '96. This was at AiG. So not only can Jimmy not spell the name correctly, despite being corrected by TheFiveSolas, but he can't even read! :dufus:


In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for the Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane. In this capacity, he writes and reviews articles for its magazine Creation Ex Nihilo and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, as well as contributing to the Answers in Genesis website.

Jimmy Higgins flutters:Last time I checked, people who did research, usually got published in peer reviewed journals.That's exactly what TJ is! :poke:

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

That picture you have in post #17.......
:rofl:
I love that cartoon since I think it is hilarious and makes the point very well.
:thumb:




Russ

[Socrates]

Steadele:First of all let me say that my problems with Ross and Dembski are not a recent development. I have been having "problems" with some of their stuff for over a year now. Until about six months ago I was letting it slide, but now I am not.I see no problems with Dembski's design criteria. In fact, if they are wrong, then we have no criteria at all to detect ANY design. The materialists (including the ones at his ostensibly Christian university) just don't accept any challenge to materialist dogma.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Ross doesn't answer your email. Simply giving him a URL to a review by a person with such mediocre scientific credentials is hardly going to persuade him that he ought to waste lots of time. Perhaps if you had raised some specific examples of errors Moron claims. One would be about the impossibility of a Mesopotamian Flood (although Whitcomb and Morris said the same things 40 years ago!). But, for example, Morton is dead wrong in my area of chemistry, and Ross is right -- that is about homochirality being one of many insoluble problems for chemical evolution. You would have been on far stronger ground to challenge Ross about some specifics such as his misuse of the Church Fathers.

Socrates


You wouldn't be the first. David Young and Glenn Moron are other examples. But this merely shows the weakness of OEC, and more foundationally, the evidentialist approach that leads to it. Biblical presuppositionalism is the correct approach. Fact is, the likes of Moron NEVER truly accepted the authority of Scripture, even when he was a professing YEC.

SteadeleI am in contact with Morton via email and I find him to be quite honest and open about his experiences. I do not think such a charge is warrented.I do. I have seen his bitter attacks against creationists on news groups. And it says a lot that his main followers are rabid God-haters. I think you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps. John Woodmorappe writes http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp


Finally, in order to further inform the unwary, a comment is in order pertaining to Morton’s past profession of creationism. Though once claiming to be a creationist, Morton’s thinking has always been strongly pro-uniformitarian. This is obvious from most of his articles that had been published in the CRSQ (Creation Research Society Quarterly). (His 1986 paper delivered at the First International Conference on Creationism was just icing on the cake). In fact, I had been one of the referees to Morton’s submissions to the CRSQ when the late Harold Armstrong had been editor. While, at the start, I of course did not know who the author was and had no idea that his profession of creationism was to be ephemeral, I readily discerned the pro-uniformitarian bias of this writer, and repeatedly brought it to Dr. Armstrong’s attention—all to no avail. So Morton’s eventual abandonment of his past creationist profession does not represent a major change in his thinking at all. His theology may have changed, but not his uncritical attitude towards uniformitarian thinking.

And I know for a fact that one German atheist who translated one of Moron's articles for his website couldn't believe it when informed that Morton claims to be a Christian.

Steadele:As to the whole OEC issue........Again let me remind you that I was drawn to OEC through scripture first, not science. Ah yes, I remember, when you first came to TWeb, you showed very little familiarity with leading creationist arguments, and raised lots of long-ago answered questions, as well as refuted some straw man arguments not advanced by the major creationist organisations. I think that the framework view, day-age view, and the days of proclamation make a strong case scripturally against the 24-hour view. Sorry, but this is incoherent -- all these views are mutually exclusive. So while I do not take the 24-hour view (and in fact do not think it is the correct one scripturally) I do understand how one could reach such a conclusion about Genesis 1.And how the vast majority of exegetes of Church hhistory came to that view!!
I am one who clearly sees OEC in scripture and not YEC. Really, but can't tell which of the mutually exclusive positions to hold, as long as it's not the one held by the vast majority of exegetes throughout Church history!

And theistic evolution is the final capitulation of origins study to the materialists. Once Christians have compromised the Bible with materialism so far, they have no challenge left for the philosophical materialists.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91930#post91930)
Socrates:

Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins flutters:Flutters?


Last time I checked, people who did research, usually got published in peer reviewed journals.That's exactly what TJ is! :poke: Ah, are there that many scientists that would agree? I mean other than the YEC'ers. You do know that peer review is more than just spell checking, right? If TJ is run by AIG, and AIG has a statement of faith requiring concepts to be consistent with the Bible, then the TJ is obviously biased from the beginning. Besides, how many research papers has Sarafati published in this TJ anyways?

[Warcraft3]

I see no problems with Dembski's design criteria. In fact, if they are wrong, then we have no criteria at all to detect ANY design. The materialists (including the ones at his ostensibly Christian university) just don't accept any challenge to materialist dogma.
Have you read the forum on www.iscid.org ? There are some good challenges raised to Dembski in that forum. I do not think that ALL of Dembskis points are completely wrong, but ID has a long way to go.



Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Ross doesn't answer your email. Simply giving him a URL to a review by a person with such mediocre scientific credentials is hardly going to persuade him that he ought to waste lots of time. Perhaps if you had raised some specific examples of errors Moron claims. One would be about the impossibility of a Mesopotamian Flood (although Whitcomb and Morris said the same things 40 years ago!).
Yes I could have done that, and perhaps I should. You may be right about me being more specific.


But, for example, Morton is dead wrong in my area of chemistry, and Ross is right -- that is about homochirality being one of many insoluble problems for chemical evolution.
Gonna have to look into that one a bit deeper. Ill let you know what I think once I do. But just to let you know....I DO think there are some serious challenges to purely natural chemical evolution from the little bit Ive read/seen on the issue.


You would have been on far stronger ground to challenge Ross about some specifics such as his misuse of the Church Fathers.
Yes, you may be correct about that.


I do. I have seen his bitter attacks against creationists on news groups. And it says a lot that his main followers are rabid God-haters. I think you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps. John Woodmorappe writes http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
Well so far I simply do not agree with you Soc. I guess for now I will agree to disagree.


I think you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps.
Um I have many friends who are atheist and agnostic in addition to those who are Christian. I think your statement is far too general and I reject the implications inherent in the statement. Having friends who are not believers or are evolutionists is not the same as hanging out with a "bad crowd".


And I know for a fact that one German atheist who translated one of Moron's articles for his website couldn't believe it when informed that Morton claims to be a Christian.
Well not having spoken to this German atheist myself I will have to take your word for it.


Ah yes, I remember, when you first came to TWeb, you showed very little familiarity with leading creationist arguments, and raised lots of long-ago answered questions, as well as refuted some straw man arguments not advanced by the major creationist organisations.
Now there you go again Soc!! Please stop repeating this statement over and over and over.....
I explained this during our first conversation. I was answering a question by Socratism about what first caused me to question YEC and embrace OEC. I listed several problems, some scriptural some scientific. These were in answer to the question and did not necessarily represent my current reasons for rejecting YEC. You imply that I am not familiar with AIG, but I assure you I am. I even sent them an email or two (which they never responded to) about some of thier views. Do you think I never click on the links you provide? Do you think I havent read articles by AIG? I have read articles by and am somewhat familiar with several viewpoints on this issue, and that includes AIG.


Sorry, but this is incoherent -- all these views are mutually exclusive.
In some respects, yes they are. But they all show (I think quite clearly) that a 24-hour view is NOT explicately and clearly stated in the text. On this point they agree, and I agree with them.


And how the vast majority of exegetes of Church hhistory came to that view!!
I am aware of that, and do not simply discount it or find it unimportant. I have taken that into account and still hold to my position.



Really, but can't tell which of the mutually exclusive positions to hold, as long as it's not the one held by the vast majority of exegetes throughout Church history!
Okay first of all I am still undecided on which position I hold, but so what? That means I am searching for truth, and not being hasty about it. Such things are important to me and I will be cautious and thoughtful concerning the issue.


as long as it's not the one held by the vast majority of exegetes throughout Church history!
Oh come on Socrates, the implication you make about me is unwarrented. You make it sound like Im saying,"Oh not the 24-hour view!! Anything but that!!!". But that is not what I am thinking or feeling or doing by any means.


And theistic evolution is the final capitulation of origins study to the materialists. Once Christians have compromised the Bible with materialism so far, they have no challenge left for the philosophical materialists.

Socrates I know you think I am a compromiser and that you doubt my motivations for being an OEC, but I assure you that I am not compromising and my motivations are just as much scripture as they are anything else. There is nothing I can do to convince you, so you either believe that I am sincere or you believe that I am not. Either way there is little I can do to convince you.



Russ

[Korihor]

Today @ 08:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91978#post91978)
Socrates:
And theistic evolution is the final capitulation of origins study to the materialists. Once Christians have compromised the Bible with materialism so far, they have no challenge left for the philosophical materialists.

You often imply that the "compromisers" (Christians who accept evolutionary science) are leading believers astray. If I understand your view correctly, when devout Christians agree with atheists and unbelievers that evolution was correct after all, it seeds doubt among the church laity (e.g. how can we trust the Bible if it's not literally true!!) -- the "compromisers" end up making atheists instead of evangelizing them.

While that may be true sometimes (evolution sowing doubt about the divinity of the Bible), I would argue that a hard YEC stance will end up sowing even greater doubt. It is my opinion that groups like AiG probably end up creating more atheists than converting them. At first, kids go learn YEC in Sunday school or Christian schools, and eventually will later go on to university. They do some research in natural sciences and find conflicts with what they were taught in their youth. They investigate AiG's or the ICR's claims and their critics, learn of the intellectual bankruptcy of YEC, and conclude that they've been misled all along. As a result, they become resentful from feeling deceived, and conclude that the divinity of the Bible as a whole is a falsehood.

I have read 'deconversion' experiences like this time and time again. I probably fit in this category as well. I rememer being taught YEC as science from the 2 years I spent at Christian jr. high school. When I came to learn real science in university ten years ago, I was aghast, and it was one of the the factors that led me to discard my belief in a god and the Bible's divinity.

Glenn Morton documents similar experiences here (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/whocares.htm).

Yes, evolution may sow doubt and questions for a thinking believer (e.g. why would God put everything on autopilot? How can I reconcile the Bible with science?). But on the other hand, promoting YEC pseudoscience as Christian apologetics will create even far greater doubt and cynicism of Christianity. Who knows, if the majority of Christians I encountered ten years ago were people like Glenn Morton, Denis Lamoureux, or steadele, I might not have rejected theism or Christianity. It's the "compromisers" who actually end up making Christianity more attractive to the skeptics. Perhaps this is why Morton has more "God-haters" for friends.

[Socrates]

Steadele:Have you read the forum on www.iscid.org ?Which particular things? Here again is the scattergun approach, like with your email to Ross. More specificity would be best, as you seem to realise now.

Steadele:There are some good challenges raised to Dembski in that forum. I do not think that ALL of Dembskis points are completely wrong, but ID has a long way to go.And they would go a lot further if they bit the bullet rather than repeat the mantra "leave the Bible out of it". At present they haven't a satisfactory answer to extinctions and allegedly malevolent design, but the Biblical Fall and Flood answer both of these. But as for the pseudoscientific arguments against Dembski, I think he's easily refuted them.

Steadele:Um I have many friends who are atheist and agnostic in addition to those who are Christian. I think your statement is far too general and I reject the implications inherent in the statement. Having friends who are not believers or are evolutionists is not the same as hanging out with a "bad crowd".I was talking about the number of atheists who gleefully use Moron's material to bash the Bible.

Steadele:I even sent them an email or two (which they never responded to) about some of thier views. Did you follow their feedback rules?

[TheFiveSolas]

Korihor:
They investigate AiG's or the ICR's claims and their critics, learn of the intellectual bankruptcy of YEC, and conclude that they've been misled all along. As a result, they become resentful from feeling deceived, and conclude that the divinity of the Bible as a whole is a falsehood.


The main problem with someone using the above approach is that it assumes an epistemological stance that is completely antithetical to Scripture. In other words, such an approach begs the very question by assuming that there is an epistemological standard that is more sure than God's revelation in Scripture (i.e., man's autonomous intellect).

Therefore, it should come as no surprise when a person that takes such an approach gets lead down the inevitable path away from the view that Scripture is ultimately authoritative. Their a priori approach inevitably sent them in that direction from the very outset.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

And theistic evolution is the final capitulation of origins study to the materialists. Once Christians have compromised the Bible with materialism so far, they have no challenge left for the philosophical materialists.

Korihor:You often imply that the "compromisers" (Christians who accept evolutionary science) are leading believers astray.Yes they are. If I understand your view correctly, when devout Christians agree with atheists and unbelievers that evolution was correct after all, it seeds doubt among the church laity (e.g. how can we trust the Bible if it's not literally true!!)Rather, how can we trust the Bible if it's not true. Genesis is literal history. -- the "compromisers" end up making atheists instead of evangelizing them. Yep. Because they have already told young people from Christian families that they should trust "science" over the Bible. I've explained this to you before. There is also the insoluble problem that the Bible teaches that death of humans and other nephesh chayyah is the result of Adam's sin, while evolution teaches that time and death brought humans into existence.While that may be true sometimes (evolution sowing doubt about the divinity of the Bible), I would argue that a hard YEC stance will end up sowing even greater doubt.Argue all you like, but the opposite has been true over and over again, e.g. for Sonia (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0418.asp) and Joel Galvin (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp). It is my opinion that groups like AiG probably end up creating more atheists than converting them. Not so as shown. And if that were true, then the atheist groups would not hate them so much -- they don't bother to attack compromisers so much precisely because they have conceded all "real world" ground already.At first, kids go learn YEC in Sunday school or Christian schools, and eventually will later go on to university. Depends on what sort of YEC. The sort that YEC learned or AiG materials that set forth the role of presuppositions.They do some research in natural sciences and find conflicts with what they were taught in their youth. Lots of question-begging and elephant hurling here. If they had been taught in a presuppositionalist manner rather than an evidentialist one, this would not happen. (Edited to add: I see TheFiveSolas beat me to this one in the succinct post above:thumb:)They investigate AiG's or the ICR's claims and their critics, learn of the intellectual bankruptcy of YEC,Booooring. ... and conclude that they've been misled all along. As a result, they become resentful from feeling deceived, and conclude that the divinity of the Bible as a whole is a falsehood.Rather, thanks to groups like AiG, they can see how they were misled by staged pix of peppered moths and forged embryo diagrams, and realise that they can trust the Bible right from the start.I have read 'deconversion' experiences like this time and time again. I probably fit in this category as well. I rememer being taught YEC as science from the 2 years I spent at Christian jr. high school. When I came to learn real science in university ten years ago, I was aghast, and it was one of the the factors that led me to discard my belief in a god and the Bible's divinity.In reality, people like you are looking for excuses to reject God, and can readily find them. And obviously Lamoureux hasn't made much difference to you. No wonder you like him -- he's a useful idiot (to use Lenin's term about pro-communist people in the West who were too stupid to realise that they were undermining their own position). People like Lamoureux and Miller are useful to misotheists like you because they help undermine the Bible, and even more importantly, don't challenge your atheist faith in the slightest!! :poke: But like Lenin, atheists have contempt for such useful idiots because they don't believe their own book.Yes, evolution may sow doubt in a thinking believer (e.g. why would God put everything on autopilot?).Yes, and far more important, why did he say in Genesis that he did something as diametrically opposed to evolution? But on the other hand, promoting YEC pseudoscience as Christian apologetics will create even far greater doubt and cynicism of Christianity.Rubbish, in the experience of AiG, as shown, and even in my own. Who knows, if the majority of Christians I encountered ten years ago were people like Glenn Morton, Denis Lamoureux, or steadele, I might not have rejected theism or Christianity. But you have, and that's because you were looking for an excuse. It's the "compromisers" who actually end up making Christianity more attractive to the skeptics.If they were so great, then the likes of you wouldn't still be God-haters. Perhaps this is why Morton has more "God-haters" for friends.But in a famous experiment of Morton's, he failed to win any atheists over.

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91672#post91672)
TheFiveSolas:
Do you mean that drawing inferences from data, as Dr. Sarfati does in the articles I linked to, doesn't count as science, but only experiments do?

You're confused. It's creationists who claim inferences don't count as REAL science.

Or have you forgotten all that nonsense about real science vs. historical science?

[Warcraft3]

Which particular things? Here again is the scattergun approach, like with your email to Ross. More specificity would be best, as you seem to realise now.
Oh boy...Ive read alot of things on that website and will have to do some digging to find several specific examples that I think are good ones. But here are two examples (off the top of my head) which are both general and specific at the same time.

The first is the difficulty in nailing down the definitions of things like complex, specified, and information. Ive seen hair splitting over the concept of specified complexity and sometimes an exact definition is hard to nail down. Dembski did a decent job in his latest book NFL trying to define mathematical criteria for SC, but I still found it somewhat open ended. I think the concept is still in its infant stages and needs work. I do find it very interesting though and think Dembski may be on to something.

The second one is the issue of false positives. Dembski addressed this in NFL, but even then I saw some weaknesses in his explanation. False positives could be a big problem for SC ( it could also potentially be a problem for IC, but I believe IC is now well defined enough to avoid false positives) and need to be addressed further.


And they would go a lot further if they bit the bullet rather than repeat the mantra "leave the Bible out of it". At present they haven't a satisfactory answer to extinctions and allegedly malevolent design, but the Biblical Fall and Flood answer both of these.
No I think ID is on the right track trying to keep the Bible out of the picture. There are plenty of creationists out there to incorporate the Bible into the picture, so I do not think that ID needs to address the issue.


But as for the pseudoscientific arguments against Dembski, I think he's easily refuted them.
Yeah I think specifically some of Millers arguments for "precursor systems" miss the point of the ID arguments. Possible physical precursors such as the type 3 secretory system are not the same as actual physical precursors. So I do agree with Dembski on that point in general. Mike Gene also has some good info concerning this issue on his website at www.idthink.net



I was talking about the number of atheists who gleefully use Moron's material to bash the Bible.
My mistake.


Did you follow their feedback rules?
Hmmm well it was a while back that I sent the emails, but as far as I know I followed the rules for feedback. I read the sections on feedback and did what it said, so I think I followed the rules. Maybe Ill send another email in the near future and see if I have better luck.



Russ

[Warcraft3]

The main problem with someone using the above approach is that it assumes an epistemological stance that is completely antithetical to Scripture. In other words, such an approach begs the very question by assuming that there is an epistemological standard that is more sure than God's revelation in Scripture (i.e., man's autonomous intellect).
I disagree with that statement since Im an OEC and I certainly dont think some "epistemological standard" is more sure than Gods revelation.


Therefore, it should come as no surprise when a person that takes such an approach gets lead down the inevitable path away from the view that Scripture is ultimately authoritative. Their a priori approach inevitably sent them in that direction from the very outset.
Is scripture ultimately authoritative? I remember having some interesting discussions with some Eastern orthodox Christians about this issue. Im not sure if you are advocating Sola Scriptora, but I certainly would not advocate such a position. Some things are crystal clear in scripture, while others are not. I believe Genesis easily falls into the "not crystal clear" category. I find good reasons within scripture for rejecting the YEC position and adopting an OEC viewpoint.


Russ

[Kyle]

To Soc on Wise:

It is my understanding that Wise is currently involved in a few corraborative projects with top creationists, so his work could end up being much more substantial by the end of his career than you think. I agree with you, however, that there is nothing wrong with "evolution-bashing", particularly if one then argues positively for their own interpretation of the data.

Also, I am glad that AIG discounts bad arguments often, and like I said creationists are getting better in the critical analysis department.

On second thought, however, I think I may wish to give John Baumgartner the prize for my favorite creationist because he has done a lot and is still in his prime. Addittionally, he definitely seems honest to me.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91681#post91681)
Socrates:

And once more, RA's hypocrisy comes to the fore. Blatantly atheistic articles by the likes of Dawkins and Coyne should also be disqualified, as should most other evolutionary work that presupposes materialism throughout the universe's history and interprets the data to fit.

Apparently the point in my post was completely lost on Socrates. Why am I not suprised?

Can any TJ apologist find me mainstream scientific journals that expect articles to support a "statement of faith" for them to be considered?


No, RA can't refute the science but resorts to viewpoint discrimination.

And Socrates, who can't address what I said, resorts to straw-men and false witnessing. What viewpoint discrimination? Pointing out why TJ is not a scientific journal is not viewpoint discrimination. Sorry, but real science doesn't require articles to support a "statement of faith," because such requirements go against the tenablility and falseifiability of science.

[Minnesota]

From Socrates


Minnesota minces:........
...............................
..........................Slimer
is also too logic-challenged to
...any intelligence! See pic below

My GOD!!! It's difficult to believe that anyone could be so supercilious and thick as to make such an response---it's as if I slipped into some Alice in Wonderland world, half expecting teapots to start talking. I'm sorry that it fails to merit a reply---it evidently took a good deal of effort to compose---(where would one begin even if they wanted to?), which is why I will leave it as is, although I am E-mailing it to a few friends. My sincere wishes that someone will eventually turn the light bulb on.

Minn.

[Socrates]

KyleIt is my understanding that Wise is currently involved in a few corraborative projects with top creationists, so his work could end up being much more substantial by the end of his career than you think.But Wise has been talking about "building his creation model" for 20 years, and lambasting other creationists who actually produce tangible work. I agree with you, however, that there is nothing wrong with "evolution-bashing", particularly if one then argues positively for their own interpretation of the data.Exactly. I hope Wise will come to his senses. I think his chapter in In Six Days is the second worst, after Ben Clausen's.Also, I am glad that AIG discounts bad arguments often, and like I said creationists are getting better in the critical analysis department. Yes, it's important to get the facts right and argue logically. AiG has come under fire inn their Feedback pages for "attacking" Hovind (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp) and Petersen (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp) and publishing a Don't Use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp) article that "takes away our evidences" (although Woman appreciates these articles). Of course, this goes back to the faulty evidentialism behind much populist creationist writing, as TheFiveSolas and I have pointed out.

I am happy to say that Wise has avoided that trap, and is a Biblical presuppositionalist like AiG. But then Wise doesn't seem to like AiG much. I have to say that seems to be because AiG doesn't regard Wise as THE top creationist. I also hope you see the difference between the specific criticisms of the AiG articles and Kurt Wise's scattergun approach as has been cited earlier in this thread.On second thought, however, I think I may wish to give John Baumgartner the prize for my favorite creationist because he has done a lot and is still in his prime. Addittionally, he definitely seems honest to me. Yes, JB is great -- both honest and a fine researcher who has developed the important Catastrophic Plate Tectonics theory. His supercomputer model is regarded as top notch even by secular geophysicists. He has also developed a cogent probability argument against chemical evolution (see his chapter in In Six Days. TheFiveSolas has documented his impressive qualifications and secular science publishing record.

[Woman]

Soc


Yes, it's important to get the facts right and argue logically. AiG has come under fire inn their Feedback pages for "attacking" Hovind and Petersen and publishing a Don't Use article that "takes away our evidences" (although Woman appreciates these articles). Of course, this goes back to the faulty evidentialism behind much populist creationist writing, as TheFiveSolas and I have pointed out.

I do appreciate those articles. In some small way, at least, they help to balance the destruction to YEC's that Kent Hovind and his kind spread.

I cannot understand any educated, thinking Christian who isn't actively trying to remove these kinds of idiots from the scene. They are the ones who continue the stereotype, rightly or not, that YEC's are gullible, unlearned and not interested in the truth. If I were a YEC and wanted to help, I'd launch an all out campaign against creationists who don't keep up, creationists who spout lies and half truths even when they have been proven false and anyone preaching YEC on TBN. (just for general principals)

AiG is very aware of what they are up against. Not only do they have to "do the work" but they have to constantly educate their readers who have childish attitudes like "don't bad mouth Hovind and take away our evidence." :bawl:

And although AiG is lightyears ahead of most creatiionist sites, I think they are sometime slow to drop an argument or call a sloppy advocate to task.

[James]

Today @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92559#post92559)
Woman:

And although AiG is lightyears ahead of most creatiionist sites, I think they are sometime slow to drop an argument or call a sloppy advocate to task.

Well, in all possible fairness, if AiG was far more critical of their own work, there wouldn't be much of it left. :read:

[Dee Dee Warren]

anyone preaching YEC on TBN. (just for general principals)


Can I get an amen?!!! :rofl:

[Socrates]

Woman:


I do appreciate those articles.

:cheers:


In some small way, at least, they help to balance the destruction to YEC's that Kent Hovind and his kind spread.

Yes, the leading YECs value truth.


I cannot understand any educated, thinking Christian who isn't actively trying to remove these kinds of idiots from the scene.

People can do only so much, since AiG has also to defend the Bible against atheists and their compromising allies.


They are the ones who continue the stereotype, rightly or not, that YEC's are gullible, unlearned and not interested in the truth. If I were a YEC and wanted to help, I'd launch an all out campaign against creationists who don't keep up, creationists who spout lies and half truths even when they have been proven false and anyone preaching YEC on TBN. (just for general principals)[quote]

[quote]AiG is very aware of what they are up against. Not only do they have to "do the work" but they have to constantly educate their readers who have childish attitudes like "don't bad mouth Hovind and take away our evidence."

Yep, it's not easy, that's for sure. AiG has to defend the reliability of the Bible as well as caution people not to use dud evidence. And with the latter, AiG has to try to avoid the carping of the likes of Kurt Wise.


And although AiG is lightyears ahead of most creatiionist sites, I think they are sometime slow to drop an argument or call a sloppy advocate to task.

What examples do you have in mind? They can't do everything at once, ya know :shrug:

James:Well, in all possible fairness, if AiG was far more critical of their own work, there wouldn't be much of it left. What would you know? :poke:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92582#post92582)
Dee Dee Warren:



Can I get an amen?!!! :rofl:

LOL Ill say amen to that.


Russ

[TheFiveSolas]

I'm not sure who my favorite professional creationist is. However I do have several vying for top gun.

In no particular order.
Dr. Keith Wanser, Tenured Professor of Physics, California State University, Fullerton.
Dr. D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
Ken Ham, for having the guts and fortitude to take on "Goliath".
Dr. John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. (retired)
Dr. David Menton, Professor Emeritus of Anatomy, Washington University (retired).
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. Physical Organic Chemistry, Dr.es.Sc. Pharmacological Science. (deceased)

[Socrates]

TheFiveSolas :thumb: all fine by me. I would add: Dr Carl Wieland (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/c_wieland.asp), medical doctor and the erudite CEO of AiG in my country, who has shown the importance of information, and that examples of variation, natural selection and even speciation have nothing to to with the GTE.
Dr Don Batten (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp), Ph.D. plant physiologist now with AiG, for his contributions to creationists biology, e.g. the kind boundaries and biological design.
Dr Andrew Snelling (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp), Ph.D. Geologist, formerly of AiG and now with ICR, for his primary research into geology and radiometric dating.
Dr Tas Walker (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_walker.asp), Ph.D. Engineer and B.Sc. (Hons.) Geologist, now with AiG, for developing a Biblical Geology model and understanding geology deeply enought to explain it so laypeople can understand the issues.

[Woman]

Dee Dee, AMEN SISTA!

Steadele - Ditto (and is your message box full or sumthin'?)

Solas, Who is "Goliath" that you refer to?

[TheFiveSolas]

Woman,
Why, the currently accepted paradigm of Evolution, of course.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91822#post91822)
Archimedes:

Socrates, which one is it: are both the AiG scientists and the evolutionists you mentioned qualified to make statements outside their fields, or should both of them refrain from it? You seem to condemn the evolutionists for a particular behaviour and defend, almost praise the creationists for exactly the same thing. Here's the difference: Slimer actually appealed to his authority in a field in which he was unqualified. This doesn't happen on the AiG site. Another way of looking at it: evolutionists often appeal to authority to go on the offensive, "We should teach/believe evolution because most scientists do." The AiG scientists use it mainly defensively, i.e. to defend creation against the lie, "no qualified scientist/intelligent person doubts goo-to-you evolution/believes in Biblical creation."

[Socrates]

SPLx SPLutters:"Real" scientists do not adhere to oaths - implicit or explicit -OK, let's grant that "real" scientists don't, but that would not apply to atheistic evolutionists like SPLX and Dawkins who have an implicit oath to defend materialism at all coast. I.e. if living things give the strong impression of being designed, they are not really designed but are "designoid", to keep their FAITH.... that they will ignore, twist, distort, or misrepresent contrary information to prop up the cause.Oh, you mean, like the obvious Piltdown hoax that wasn't disproven for 40 years, Haeckel's forged embryo pix, staged pix of peppered moths, ...[list]Of course Batten, like Safarti, makes laughably huge blunders whenever they venture outside of their narrow fields of ... "expertise".Oh, you mean, like SPLX's pathetic comments about the Ark? Or his own forays into logic and the philosophy of science, or even chemical evolution?

[SlaveOfGod]

I have no favourite creationist scientist because all are the humble servants of the lord, preaching us the truth... they are some of the few faithful that will reach the final kingdom of heaven, unlike the devil worshipping atheists that plague this forum, and the compromsising Christians like Socrates who seems to imply that Dr.Kent Hovind, one of the greatest minds of the century, is not a true scientist, whose works are the envy of devil worshippers like Dawkings, and Darwin (thought the last one has greater worries here he is now,other than the work of real scientists, hehehehe).

Slave,
Your posts appear to be those of an immature evolutionist pretending to be a creationist in an attempt at making creationists look bad. However, as an intellectually honest evolutionist has pointed out, by reporting your idiocy, you are instead making evolutionists look bad. Please refrain from such attempts at creating strife, etc.

TWeb has a section just for Ranting in the Janitor's Closet Forum. Please use that section from now on for posts such as this one.

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 02:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91930#post91930)
Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins flutters:


That's funny. AIG seems to think Sarafati went to become a "research scientist" in '96.

This was at AiG. So not only can Jimmy not spell the name correctly, despite being corrected by TheFiveSolas, but he can't even read!



Note that this is coming from the person who refers to Glenn Morton as 'Moron' and Ian Plimer as 'Slimer'.

So either Socrates can't read, can't spell, is immature, or his arguments are so weak he has to resort to name calling. Possibly all four.

Roy

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socrates, please ease up on the satirization of person's names into adjectives that move beyond satire into being overly insulting and distracting from the facts being presented. "Plimer = Slimer" and "Morton = Moron" are out. A person's real name can be precious to them, let's try to honor that. Thank you!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92701#post92701)
rthearle:


[QUOTE]

Note that this is coming from the person who refers to Glenn Morton as 'Moron' and Ian Plimer as 'Slimer'.

So either Socrates can't read, can't spell, is immature, or his arguments are so weak he has to resort to name calling. Possibly all four.

Roy

And haven't you just done the same? You could have simply pointed out your disagreement with the use of certain names and moved on, but you felt free to state that Soc maybe cannot read, cannot spell, or is immature. I really dislike hypocrisy. There was nothing wrong with your post as far as the rules here, but it is really getting old the way that certain persons here only criticize or see flaws in their ideological opponents.

[James]

James:Well, in all possible fairness, if AiG was far more critical of their own work, there wouldn't be much of it left. What would you know? :poke:
Well, since AiG publishes their articles on the internet for everyone to see, and that I have read quite a few of them which I find to be in error or misleading, I can fairly make this statement. I am sure you will disagree with me about the number and extent of these errors, but you can probably see that there are a few arguments that even AiG should recant to their "list of arguments creationists should not use." The magnetic field one would be a good example off the top of my head, if it isn't already there.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92637#post92637)
Socrates:
Oh, you mean, like SPLX's pathetic comments about the Ark? Or his own forays into logic and the philosophy of science, or even chemical evolution? Or your own foray into the ark, using some other persons research that is incomplete and when presented with this fact, run away like you do with quite a few of my threads. I wouldn't call it "pathetic", however, I would call it unscientific.

[James]

Socrates:
Yes, JB is great -- both honest and a fine researcher who has developed the important Catastrophic Plate Tectonics theory.

Would you like to discuss this in the "Noah's Flood" thread?

[Socrates]

James: Well, in all possible fairness, if AiG was far more critical of their own work, there wouldn't be much of it left.

Soc: What would you know?

James:Well, since AiG publishes their articles on the internet for everyone to see, and that I have read quite a few of them which I find to be in error or misleading, I can fairly make this statement.I meant, what would you know about whether they are in error or misleading? I am sure you will disagree with me about the number and extent of these errors, but you can probably see that there are a few arguments that even AiG should recant to their "list of arguments creationists should not use." Elephant hurling will get you nowhere.The magnetic field one would be a good example off the top of my head, if it isn't already there.Why? Are you going to trot out the boring reversals argument as though it refutes the case? See www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Oh, you mean, like SPLX's pathetic comments about the Ark? Or his own forays into logic and the philosophy of science, or even chemical evolution?

Jimmy Higgins continues with his anti-Christian rantings :rant:Or your own foray into the ark, using some other persons research that is incomplete and when presented with this fact, What fact? A mere B.S. engineer whinges because there is something that he doesn't understand in a paper by professional naval architects on the stability of a ship! Or rather, it's typical evolutionary arrogance, where an evolutionist is automatically more knowledgeable than a creation on ANY subject. ... run away like you do with quite a few of my threads.Oh yes, because I don't kiss Jimmy's patoot and concentrate on answering his vexatious posts, I must be running away :dufus: Well, a Poster of the Month has other demands on his time too, even on TWeb with other threads. Jimmy's still smarting over the drubbing I gave him at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90633#post90633 which calls into question his values and his honesty.

[Socrates]

There were some posts of the Korihor (#30), answered by TheFiveSolas (#32) and me (#33), about whether capitulating to materialism or holding firm to a grammatical-historical approach was most effective for witnessing. In fact, Korihor is living proof of how pathetically unchallenging the compromisers are to atheists, since they have already conceded the "real world" to them.

On the front page of the AiG website which vindicates the practical effectiveness of the no-compromise position. Of course, the most important reason to remain firm on Scripture is not such a pragmatic consideration but faithfulness to God's Word. But here is the article ( www.answersingenesis.org/australia/newsletters/0403lead.asp ):


Christians ‘ducking and weaving’ on campus
by Gary Bates, AiG-Australia

10 May 2003

Recently, I was advised that the leader of a major Christian outreach organization on university campuses was a theistic evolutionist. I know some students involved with this group, and asked each: ‘Do you get many questions about evolution when witnessing to other students?’ They replied, ‘All the time,’ so I asked how they dealt with this. The standard reply was, ‘We try to avoid it.’ The repetition sounded like ‘company policy!’

I was staggered! How can we hope to win people to Christ if we refuse to answer their questions and defend our faith? It grieved me to think of how the faith of the young Christians serving in this ministry, and the other Christians on campus, would be tested in their classes in the face of inevitable evolutionary indoctrination.

That happened to Robert D., who told us: ‘I must say that you have greatly impacted my life. A few months ago I started on my … geology course, and my faith was weakened by the evolutionary arguments presented in it. A few months later, I received a number of your books for Christmas. These books, as well as this [AiG] website, have greatly strengthened my faith. Thank you so much for what you are doing.’

....

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92762#post92762)
Socrates:

Or your own foray into the ark, using some other persons research that is incomplete and when presented with this fact, What fact? A mere B.S. structural (added) engineer whinges because there is something that he doesn't understand in a paper by professional naval architects on the stability of a ship!Didn't say that Socretes. I said, that virtually no legitimate strucutral analysis was included with the "technical" paper. How can I look into their design, if I don't even know what they used for their design?

Or rather, it's typical evolutionary arrogance, where an evolutionist is automatically more knowledgeable than a creation on ANY subject. Socretes, now I know why you are "Poster of the Month". It takes great mind abilitity to be able to say a structural engineer shouldn't be more knowagable in the field of structural engineering than say some group of architects. I mean, are you nuts!?!? That is equivalent to me saying that a chemist should know more about geology than say, a geologist!


run away like you do with quite a few of my threads.Oh yes, because I don't kiss Jimmy's patoot and concentrate on answering his vexatious posts, I must be running away :dufus:Yep.
How did fine grained laminated varves form? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3653)
Math and the Ark (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3852&perpage=16&pagenumber=6)
The "Great" Flood and Cuyahoga County (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1914&highlight=cuyahoga+county)
And I'm itching to see a reply on the new thread:
That Whacky Red Bedford Shale (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4297)

Problem is Socretes, you haven't answered any issues on geology yet. All you can do is bring up irrelevent, non-science issues.

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx:
"Real" scientists do not adhere to oaths - implicit or explicit -


Actually, everyone adheres to a worldview through which they interpret all facts they come into contact with. In addition, though such adherence isn't generally explicit it can be deduced from the evidence.

Case in point, the refusal to publish even a scientific "response to critics" in a peer-reviewed journal since it challenges the predominant paradigm of evolution.

Here's a telling statement from the editor of the journal in question:



I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive.

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

Obviously adherence to a certain paradigm, and resistance to that which overtly challenges the paradigm does implicitely exist and in some instances becomes explicitely stated as in the above quote.

[QED]

In fact, Korihor is living proof of how pathetically unchallenging the compromisers are to atheists, since they have already conceded the "real world" to them.

It is telling that Socrates considers nature, not spirit, to be the realm of the "real" world.

Mind you, OEC's and theistic evolutionists do not "concede" any part of the world to atheists. They honestly acknowledge that mainstream science (which most atheists agree with) is the most accurate model of the how and when of creation, and they seek to harmonize their interpretation of scripture with scientific knowledge, but they never "concede" creation, nor do they deny God's role in it.

OEC's and theistic evolutionists are less willing to compromise Creation. They refuse to bind it to un- and pseudo-scientific creationism.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92618#post92618)
Woman:

Dee Dee, AMEN SISTA!

Steadele - Ditto (and is your message box full or sumthin'?)

Solas, Who is "Goliath" that you refer to?

Woman:
Hmmmmm no it isnt full or anything. In fact I think right now its almost empty. If you have responded to my PMs I havent received any of your messages. I thought you werent getting them or were mad at me or something. Try resending them and hopefully Ill get em.

Russ

[Warcraft3]

Mind you, OEC's and theistic evolutionists do not "concede" any part of the world to atheists. They honestly acknowledge that mainstream science (which most atheists agree with) is the most accurate model of the how and when of creation, and they seek to harmonize their interpretation of scripture with scientific knowledge, but they never "concede" creation, nor do they deny God's role in it.

OEC's and theistic evolutionists are less willing to compromise Creation. They refuse to bind it to un- and pseudo-scientific creationism.

Quite correct QED. I do not concede anything to you heathens
:teeth:. My take on Genesis is based as much on scripture as it is on observation of nature. In fact I would add something to your last statement......

They refuse to bind it to un- and pseudo-scientific creationism.
I would say I also refuse to bind it to a view I find unscriptural.


Russ

[Bubba]

For once (God Forbid) I have to agree with Socrates on something-I do think that Wieland, Baumgartner, and Don Batten are men of real integrity. My favorite is Baumgartner...I would like to buy the guy lunch sometime and just listen to his thoughts...

I find Ken Ham entertaining and a good orator.

Kurt Wise is legit also as far as I am concerned.

On the other hand, I personally dislike Henry Morris and most of the ICR gang.

Just my two cents...

Bubba

[Bubba]

Steadele-Good to have someone else from the electrical industry posting here as well!

Bubba

[QED]

Yesterday @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92851#post92851)
steadele:

I would say I also refuse to bind it to a view I find unscriptural.


Russ

Depends how you mean unscriptural. Scripture definitely accomodates the YEC view, as much as any other, except perhaps where it concerns a "global" flood. It is a mistake to think that scripture demands the YEC view, or any relative of it. It is very clear from observation of nature that (if nothing else), the universe, and the planet earth, are much older than 6,000 years, so obviously the YEC interpretation is in error. However, if we did not already know that the universe was old, then scripture could accomodate the YEC view. To give an analogy (lost on some in this forum), if we did not already know that there were no windows in the sky, Gen 7:11 would accomodate the a (literalist) view that there were. We only know that this literalist view is incorrect because we have airplanes and satellites flying up there and we know there are no windows.

What YEC's fail to do, and don't want you to do, is to make a distinction between scripture accommodating a certain interpretation and requiring that interpretation.

They want you to believe that, because their view is derived from scripture, that their view holds the authority of scripture - that is, the authority of God's Word. Since they are preaching God's Word, any other view - derived from scripture, in part from scripture, or as a harmonization of scripture and science (that is accomodated by scripture) - must be against God's word.

In other words, they wish to replace God's word with their so-called "Grammatico-historical approach" (AKA Young Earth Creationism). They are, in effect, declaring their interpretive scheme to be the Inerrant, Infallible, word of God. Since it is their word that they wish to present as God's word, then they are attempting to place themselves in God's throne. Thus the arrogance, the "mocking taunts," the childish put-downs, the characterization of their opponents as "bozos, compromisers, churchians, Morons, etc". You can expect such behavior from someone who believes their own opinions and interpretations carry the authority of "God's Word."

[/rant]

[Korihor]

05-08-2003 @ 10:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91707#post91707)
steadele:

I have also read some of the issues that Glenn Morton raises about Ross. The arguments are nothing new, but I have never heard Dr Ross answer the charges that Morton makes.


Hi Steadele,

I found some information that might interest you.

I went to the Reasons to Believe website, did a search, and found an old Creation Update webcast where a caller asked Hugh Ross if he was aware of Morton's review of The Genesis Question.

You can listen to the webcast here (http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/cu_archives/cu20021022.ram) which is dated from Oct. 2002. Fast forward to 1h 25min into the program.

Ross is aware of Morton's critique and responded to a few of Morton's criticisms. Basically, he thinks the homochirality found from the meteorite was from contamination and he defends his arguments for a local flood. He also concedes some mistakes and claims they were corrected in the second edition of his book. I didn't really find Ross's arguments convincing though.

Hope this helps. :smile:

[Socrates]

QED:To give an analogy (lost on some in this forum), if we did not already know that there were no windows in the sky, Gen 7:11 would accomodate the a (literalist) view that there were. We only know that this literalist view is incorrect because we have airplanes and satellites flying up there and we know there are no windows.Of course this "analogy" is lost on anyone with more than a single functioning braincell. QED has failed to demonstrate that ANYONE thought of this in any other way but metaphorical. And this was for thousands of years before satellites and airplanes were invented, despite his repugnant chronological snobbery.

QED even tacitly agreed that the author INTENDED the phrase that way. But that's the whole point of honest hermeneutics -- to determine what the author intended.

Conversely, we have ample evidence that Josephus, the early Church Fathers and the Reformers were practically unanimous that the author/editor of Genesis INTENDED to teach that the Earth was about 6000 years old.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


In fact, Korihor is living proof of how pathetically unchallenging the compromisers are to atheists, since they have already conceded the "real world" to them.

QED:It is telling that Socrates considers nature, not spirit, to be the realm of the "real" world. Can't QED understand what it means to put "real world" in quotes? :dufus: It's not what I think, obviously, as can be amply shown from my post. Rather, it's what NOMA teaches, and in the context it's the atheists who regard matter as the only reality. Far too many churchians have fallen for NOMA. But faithful allegiance to Scripture is the antidote for this faulty distinction.

[Socrates]

Korihor the self-confessed apostate wrote to Steadele:I went to the Reasons to Believe website, did a search, and found an old Creation Update webcast where a caller asked Hugh Ross if he was aware of Morton's review of The Genesis Question.[list]Good pickup.[list]You can listen to the webcast here which is dated from Oct. 2002. Fast forward to 1h 25min into the program.It's still unacceptable that there is nothing in writing, even if Morton is an unreliable and unqualified nuisance writer.[list]Ross is aware of Morton's critique and responded to a few of Morton's criticisms. Basically, he thinks the homochirality found from the meteorite was from contaminationAnd he is correct. ... and he defends his arguments for a local flood. There he is wrong. The Mesopotamian half-bowl topography can't hold water, literally. As usual, compromises cause more problems than they solve.[list]He also concedes some mistakes and claims they were corrected in the second edition of his book. Most of Ross's goofs are still there, alas. I didn't really find Ross's arguments convincing though.I'm not surprised knowing what Ross is like, not that Korihor's opinion means much.

[QED]

To give an analogy (lost on some in this forum),

Like I said...


QED has failed to demonstrate that ANYONE thought of this in any other way but metaphorical.

And Socrates has failed to demonstrate that ANYONE didn't know from observation of nature that the sky did not contain windows. So here we find a huge irrelevancy.


And this was for thousands of years before satellites and airplanes were invented, despite his repugnant chronological snobbery.

Who is the one who is the chronological snob? The one who gives modern evidence that there are no windows, or the one who feels the ancients can not be given credit for figuring out that there are no windows without the aid of modern technology? I would definitely say the latter. Socrates, your chronological snobbery is repugnant.


QED even tacitly agreed that the author INTENDED the phrase that way.

QED did no such thing. Socrates is talking through his hat.


But that's the whole point of honest hermeneutics -- to determine what the author intended.

And "what the author intended" as to the physical existence of windows in the sky would only be a matter of guesswork if it weren't for our knowledge of the atmosphere from observation.

WHOA! The point of the analogy is to be found in the above paragraph? Will you be thick enough to miss it when it is spelled out so plainly?


Conversely, we have ample evidence that Josephus, the early Church Fathers and the Reformers were practically unanimous that the author/editor of Genesis INTENDED to teach that the Earth was about 6000 years old.

And none of them were dogmatic about it. Indeed, they recognized that the view that the "days of creation" were 24 hours was not the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, they did not have access to scientific information on the age of the earth, so it is not unlikely that they defaulted to a young earth view. They were not so cavalier to pretend that this was a theological doctrine, or important to the understanding of scripture, or to following Christ. In other words, they guessed wrong about the interpretation of a matter that was very tangential to the subject matter of scripture. So sue them.

[QED]

Today @ 08:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93395#post93395)
Socrates:

Socrates:



QED:It is telling that Socrates considers nature, not spirit, to be the realm of the "real" world. Can't QED understand what it means to put "real world" in quotes? :dufus: It's not what I think, obviously, as can be amply shown from my post. Rather, it's what NOMA teaches, and in the context it's the atheists who regard matter as the only reality. Far too many churchians have fallen for NOMA. But faithful allegiance to Scripture is the antidote for this faulty distinction.

Let's see where this idea that the "real world" (seems creationists are allergic to the word "nature") must be separate and distinct from the spiritual world comes from:


From Answers in Genesis (http://answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp)

Despite Darwin’s obvious anti-Christianity, Gould claimed on this program that Darwin didn’t intend to disparage ideas of God. This is consistent with Gould’s widely publicized claims that religion and science are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA).2 That is, science deals with facts of the real world, while religion deals with ethics, values, morals, and what it means to be human.

So what is the confusion? Creationists seem unable to discern the difference between aspects of reality, and methods of learning about reality. Science and religion are definitely two separate methods, each particularly well suited for gaining certain types of knowledge about the same reality. The Bible is clear that knowledge of God and the Spirit is what you can expect to find there (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible does not hint that God is going to waste words in the Bible on science lessons. We have our physical senses for a reason.

Science is clear that it cannot comment on supernatural claims -- that it lacks the tools to answer questions about God and the Spirit. But, as an observational method, it is quite good at discerning knowledge about nature. Using science to gain knowledge about nature, we may be able to apply that scientific knowledge to gain understanding of the spirit.

Thus, we have Non-Overlapping Magesteria (in Gould's silly hyperbole) -- or rather, we have different methods for answering different questions. Not so much more tough than using a screwdriver for screws and a hammer for nails. Socrates would have the carpenters using a hammer for both, and would criticize the carpenter with the screwdriver as someone who was "compartmentalizing compromising carpentian".

[Korihor]

Today @ 01:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93397#post93397)
Socrates:
I'm not surprised knowing what Ross is like, not that Korihor's opinion means much.

:egad:

Soc, do you really hope to sway people with ad hominems like that? Most Christians that I encounter do not take an aggressive tone with those they disagree with. Do you think it sets a good example?

I was curious how you would interpret this verse:

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
-- I Peter 3:15

"Those who sling mud, lose ground."

[Socrates]

Socrates:


I'm not surprised knowing what Ross is like, not that Korihor's opinion means much.

Korihor:Soc, do you really hope to sway people with ad hominems like that? Yep -- and others must think so since I was voted Poster of the Month :teeth: It's also helpful to point out that QED too much of an ignoramus to be in a position to instruct me on either science, philosophy, exegesis ot the history of interpretation. Anyway I was just stating a fact. Most Christians that I encounter do not take an aggressive tone with those they disagree with. And a fat lot of good the WFJ and/or theistic evolutionary compromise approach has done in your case. Do you think it sets a good example?Yep, because it follows the Biblical challenge-riposte paradigm www.tektonics.org/madmad.html I was curious how you would interpret this verse:

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
-- I Peter 3:15Yep, for those who are asking for the reason for the hope that I have, I should be gentle and respectful. For vexatious misotheists who are not interested in knowing the reason and are out to undermine the Bible and the faith of Christians, then 2 Corinthians 10:5 applies:


We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

[Korihor]

Today @ 08:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93474#post93474)
Socrates:
Yep -- and others must think so since I was voted Poster of the Month :teeth: It's also helpful to point out that QED too much of an ignoramus to be in a position to instruct me on either science, philosophy, exegesis ot the history of interpretation. Anyway I was just stating a fact.


Well, to each his own, Soc. All I can say is that I don't think a 'metaphysical bullyboy' approach to Christian apologetics will be that productive. :whip: To demean others because they disagree with one's beliefs does not appear persuasive, but obnoxious and intolerant. :whack:

Take Christians like steadele, William Craig, Glenn Miller, and Kurt Wise. Although I disagree with their worldview, I would enjoy going for coffee and a chat with them, hear them out, exchange views, and get to know them. On the other hand, if either of them took the persona of a Christian 'Madalyn Murray O'Hair', I'm not likely going to take them seriously or hang around them too often. And to those who might consider Christianity, an approach like that will leave a bad taste in their mouths (e.g. becoming a Christian means becoming like that? :eek: ).

That's all I'm going to say on this matter. I hope you come to realize someday that worthwhile human communication depends on respect with those who disagree.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/peace.gif

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 01:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92854#post92854)
Bubba:

Steadele-Good to have someone else from the electrical industry posting here as well!

Bubba

LOL thanks man. I dont know too much stuff in your area of expertise, although Id like to learn it eventually. I find technology and anything dealing with electricity (or general physics or mathematics) to be very fascinating. My education has only served to increase my curiosity and was a very humbling experience. I found alot of the stuff I learned about electronics and electricity to be,....well.......

shocking


:no: Yeah I know, that was a lame joke but hey I never claimed to have a normal sense of humor.:cool:


Anyway good to have you here too man.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

QED:
I say "unscriptural" with some reservation. I have looked into several views on the days in Genesis and I find that a YEC interpretation leaves me with more questions (scripturally) than answers. Next to the gap theory I find it to be the weakest interpretation (I think the gap theory is a bit weaker). So I use the term "unscriptural" with caution since I do not find the whole "exactly how God did it" issue of creation to be a critical one.



Russ

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93267#post93267)
Korihor:



Hi Steadele,

I found some information that might interest you.

I went to the Reasons to Believe website, did a search, and found an old Creation Update webcast where a caller asked Hugh Ross if he was aware of Morton's review of The Genesis Question.

You can listen to the webcast here (http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/cu_archives/cu20021022.ram) which is dated from Oct. 2002. Fast forward to 1h 25min into the program.

Ross is aware of Morton's critique and responded to a few of Morton's criticisms. Basically, he thinks the homochirality found from the meteorite was from contamination and he defends his arguments for a local flood. He also concedes some mistakes and claims they were corrected in the second edition of his book. I didn't really find Ross's arguments convincing though.

Hope this helps. :smile:

Wow do I feel a little bit embarassed. I actually listened to that webcast last year and simply plain forgot about it. The whole homochirality issue is not really a big one for me anyway, so even if Ross was wrong about it i wouldnt be bothered since I think it is debatable.

As to some of the flood problems......I find Ross's explanation to be a bit lacking of detail, but perhaps the latest edition of the genesis question will have some better data in it. Since I plan on buying it soon, Ill read it and see what it says.

I know Mortons review is somewhat dated now, but I just simply forgot that Ross did a quick reply on his webcast. I will send him an apology through email later on today.

I do like Ross (though I do not agree with him on everything) and I think he is an honest person in general. He really should put things in writing on the website though.

Anyway thanks for the link. I appreciate it.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

I'm not surprised knowing what Ross is like, not that Korihor's opinion means much.

Again let me say that I may not agree with Ross on everything, but I respect him and find him to be the best creationist out there thus far. He is respectful of those who disagree with him, as is shown quite clearly during his interviews on the webcast.

One of my problems is he does not put enough information into writing and frequently answers critisims on the webcast. I simply forgot about the 2002 webcast and sent an email in error. I admit this mistake and will send him an apology.

Now.....I find AIG to NOT BE RESPECTFUL of those who disagree, and I believe they should take note of how Ross deals with people. Dr Sarfati and Ken Ham are not very respectful of people and I find them to be somewhat repulsive at times. Indeed I find AIG in general to be somewhat repulsive at times.

YEC will slowly die out as a viewpoint unless corrective measures are taken.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

QED:


And none of them were dogmatic about it. Indeed, they recognized that the view that the "days of creation" were 24 hours was not the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, they did not have access to scientific information on the age of the earth, so it is not unlikely that they defaulted to a young earth view. They were not so cavalier to pretend that this was a theological doctrine, or important to the understanding of scripture, or to following Christ. In other words, they guessed wrong about the interpretation of a matter that was very tangential to the subject matter of scripture. So sue them.

Quite correct, they were not dogmatic about it by any means.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Korihor:


[i]Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93498#post93498)

Take Christians like steadele, William Craig, Glenn Miller, and Kurt Wise. Although I disagree with their worldview, I would enjoy going for coffee and a chat with them, hear them out, exchange views, and get to know them.

Thank you for those kind words. Im not sure how good the conversation would be, since I think most people on this site know much more than I do. I am not as well read as many of you, or as qualified. Thus I can only listen to the "experts" and try and sort out the truth for myself.

But if I am ever going to be in your area, I might be interested in coffee. You seem like a reasonable person, and I enjoy discussions with such people. I guess thats why Im on TWEB.


Russ

[Roy]

Today @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93567#post93567)
steadele:
I am not as well read as many of you, or as qualified. Thus I can only listen to the "experts" and try and sort out the truth for myself.

Russ,
From what I've seen of your comments so far, I suspect that it's just a matter of time before you'll be an 'expert' yourself.

(insert your own Achilles + tortoise allusion here)

Roy

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93605#post93605)
rthearle:



Russ,
From what I've seen of your comments so far, I suspect that it's just a matter of time before you'll be an 'expert' yourself.

(insert your own Achilles + tortoise allusion here)

Roy

(To quote another person here at TWEB........)

HUH?
You suspect soon Ill be an expert in what? Hopefully in the future I will have a PHd in EE and will indeed have some expertise in that field. I also hope to dig deeper into Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics as time permits. Maybe Ill even learn more about apologitics and become better equipped to defend the faith. But I would still be far from an "expert" in these areas.

It sounds as if you are somehow concluding that I am some kind of arrogant "know it all" or something. I assure you I think no such thing. I have been through enough in life and have learned enough to know I am far from knowing everything about ANYTHING.


Russ

[Dr.GH]

that rthearle was being complimentary. That, as seen in your posts, you were intellegent and open minded, and that plus interest leads to expertise.

But, I could be projecting my own perception.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 08:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93741#post93741)
Dr.GH:

that rthearle was being complimentary. That, as seen in your posts, you were intellegent and open minded, and that plus interest leads to expertise.

But, I could be projecting my own perception.

Hmmm you may be correct about that Dr.GH and I thank you for the compliment.

Rthearle: I apologize if I misunderstood your post.



Russ

[Socrates]

Steadele:Again let me say that I may not agree with Ross on everything, but I respect him and find him to be the best creationist out there thus far. He is respectful of those who disagree with him, as is shown quite clearly during his interviews on the webcast. Oh really? What about Ross's inflammatory comparison of young-Earth creationists with some heretics that the Apostle Paul anathematized in the book of Galatians (Creation and Time p. 162):


‘Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism.’

I can't think of any article in AiG which implies that Ross is an anathematized heretic!

And what about the way he mocked the fine scholar Ussher (Ross, H. and Bundschuh, R., Destination: Creation, Reasons to Believe Comix, p. 5, 1997) in the pic below? Again, AiG has never to my knowledge written anything so insulting of a OEC scholar.

Ross (Creation and Time pp. 26-27) also claims that Ussher was ignorant of Hebrew scholarship. In fact, Ussher was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his time, being an expert on Semitic languages and ancient history. He was one of only six theologians allowed to address Parliament and the King. In 1628, King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) appointed him to his Privy Council in Ireland. Ussher was critical of Oliver Cromwell’s rebellion against James’ son and successor Charles I. However, Cromwell also held Ussher in great esteem. When Ussher died in 1656, Cromwell held a magnificent funeral for him and had him buried in Westminster Abbey.

I wonder if Ross would dare to mock Ussher's rough contemporary Kepler who calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Newton also strongly defended Ussher's chronology.

By contrast to Ross's disgraceful cartoon, the late atheistic evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould treated Ussher very fairly. While obviously Gould thinks Ussher was completely wrong, he shows that Ussher used the best scholarship available in his day:


‘I shall be defending Ussher’s chronology as an honourable effort for its time and arguing that our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness based on mistaken use of present criteria to judge a distant and different past. …

‘Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology. …

‘I close with a final plea for judging people by their own criteria, not by later standards that they couldn’t possibly know or assess.’

Interesting that an anti-Christian like Gould treat Ussher more fairly than Steadele's hero Ross who of course is sooooo respectful.

Steadele continues, not content with painting a rosy picture of Ross, but has to inflame AiG:Now.....I find AIG to NOT BE RESPECTFUL of those who disagree, and I believe they should take note of how Ross deals with people. Dr Sarfati and Ken Ham are not very respectful of people and I find them to be somewhat repulsive at times. Indeed I find AIG in general to be somewhat repulsive at times.Poor baby. And of course, no examples are given. I find their CRITICS to be hypocritical because of their REPULSIVE double standards. Evidently there's one rule for YECs and another for their opponents!

Steadele:YEC will slowly die out as a viewpoint unless corrective measures are taken.YEC will die out only if there is no one left who believes in the primacy of Scripture over uniformitarian science.

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

Oh really? What about Ross's inflammatory comparison of young-Earth creationists with some heretics that the Apostle Paul anathematized in the book of Galatians (Creation and Time p. 162):

“ Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism.’ ”

Socrates, we have already discussed this one. I agree with you that in this specific example Ross did say something out of line here. I do not think that YEC distorts the gospel by any means. So here I agree with you that such language is not warrented.


I can't think of any article in AiG which implies that Ross is an anathematized heretic!
Well I cant think of one with that specific charge, but they certainly do paint Ross in a somewhat negative light. Claiming someone is a "compromiser" is a serious charge that I disagree with unless it is warrented. I do not think it is warrented in Ross's case.


And what about the way he mocked the fine scholar Ussher (Ross, H. and Bundschuh, R., Destination: Creation, Reasons to Believe Comix, p. 5, 1997) in the pic below? Again, AiG has never to my knowledge written anything so insulting of a OEC scholar.
That cartoon is a new one to me. It is an insulting cartoon and I would not use such a thing. So here I disagree with Ross.


Ross (Creation and Time pp. 26-27) also claims that Ussher was ignorant of Hebrew scholarship. In fact, Ussher was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his time, being an expert on Semitic languages and ancient history. He was one of only six theologians allowed to address Parliament and the King. In 1628, King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) appointed him to his Privy Council in Ireland. Ussher was critical of Oliver Cromwell’s rebellion against James’ son and successor Charles I. However, Cromwell also held Ussher in great esteem. When Ussher died in 1656, Cromwell held a magnificent funeral for him and had him buried in Westminster Abbey.
Yes I have read the book and I remember that section. I do not think there is anything inflamatory in that section. Ross disagrees with Usher and presents his case as to why. I do not see misrepresentations of Usher or insulting comments in that section.


I wonder if Ross would dare to mock Ussher's rough contemporary Kepler who calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Newton also strongly defended Ussher's chronology.
Socrates, Im not Ross's spokesperson.


By contrast to Ross's disgraceful cartoon, the late atheistic evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould treated Ussher very fairly. While obviously Gould thinks Ussher was completely wrong, he shows that Ussher used the best scholarship available in his day:

“ ‘I shall be defending Ussher’s chronology as an honourable effort for its time and arguing that our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness based on mistaken use of present criteria to judge a distant and different past. …

‘Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology. …

‘I close with a final plea for judging people by their own criteria, not by later standards that they couldn’t possibly know or assess.’ ”
Hmm I am not sure if I have ever read that statement by Gould before. Interesting statement though.




Interesting that an anti-Christian like Gould treat Ussher more fairly than Steadele's hero Ross who of course is sooooo respectful.
Socrates Ross is not my hero. You know I disagree with him on several things. But from his dealings with YECs i have found him to be respectful. I listened to the broadcast by AIG about Ross and I do not think they were as respectful as Ross is. People should simply listen to both and then decide who is more disrespectful.


Steadele continues, not content with painting a rosy picture of Ross, but has to inflame AiG:
My purpose is not to "paint a rosy picture of Ross" or to "inflame AIG" but to simply state things I have found to be true.


Poor baby. And of course, no examples are given. I find their CRITICS to be hypocritical because of their REPULSIVE double standards. Evidently there's one rule for YECs and another for their opponents!
First of all why do I need to give examples? Just read any article about Ross or OECs from AIG and compare them to Ross's articles on YECs. Both have some personal attack garbage in them but I find AIG to be much worse. There is not one rule for YECs and another for OECs in my book. I have friends and acquaintences who are YECS and I do not disrespect them by any means.


YEC will die out only if there is no one left who believes in the primacy of Scripture over uniformitarian science.
Well I disagree with you on the whole "YEC is demanded by scripture" issue, but you already know that.

I respectfully disagree with you on this issue Socrates, while I whole heartedly agree with you on alot of other issues.


Russ

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93495#post93495)
Minnesota:
* edited by a moderator *
Moderator Note:
Minnesota, I have sent you a PM explaining how posts such as this one are a violation of TWeb's rules.
Edit to add: I checked to see if you read the PM I sent last night but you have not. Here are the relevant details regarding the Rule that two of your latest posts have violated.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum
Participant Anonymity
In conjunction with our Privacy Statement please respect the anonymity of other posters on TheologyWeb. Personal information of another participant is not to be disclosed in any of the public forums. Requests for personal information such as name or location may be done but any refusal of the information by other participants is to be honored.

All members are required to read and abide by TWeb's Decorum upon sign-up. Since you have violated the rules you are now placed on Moderate Status. Please email an Administrator for further details. While I understand why the anonymity issue, I don't see why the entire few paragraphs had to be deleted. Any and all issues regarding Socretes' identity should have been editted, however, the remaining issues of the paragraphs that had nothing to do with Socretes' secret identity should have remained.

[Socrates]

Steadele says (about Ross's section on Ussher in Creation and Time pp. 26-27):Yes I have read the book and I remember that section. I do not think there is anything inflamatory in that section. Ross disagrees with Usher and presents his case as to why. I do not see misrepresentations of Usher or insulting comments in that section. OK, here is what Ross said:


‘Both Lightfoot and Ussher ignored Hebrew scholarship and assumed that no generations were omitted from mention in the biblical genealogies. They also assumed, based on the wording of the King James Version, that the numbered days of the Genesis creation account could only be six consecutive twenty-four-hour periods.’

I would say that it's inflammatory for Ross to claim that these two men were ignorant of Hebrew scholarship. I've already shown that this is false about Ussher, Lightfoot was an expert in Hebrew, including the Old Testament, and later Jewish writings called the Talmud and the Midrash, as well as being skilled in Latin and Greek.

While not inflammatory, it's just plain daft to claim that they were misled by the KJV wording -- both these scholars published exclusively in Latin and relied on the Hebrew. And as Steadele agrees, most of Christendom throughout Church history agreed that the world was <6000 years old at the time of writing, so this rough figure was hardly an invention of Lightfoot and Ussher. All they did was try to be more precise, but this was what a lot of scholars of their day tried to do, including Kepler as I showed.

Steadele:Just read any article about Ross or OECs from AIG and compare them to Ross's articles on YECs. Both have some personal attack garbage in them but I find AIG to be much worse. I've done so, and heard the broadcasts that Steadele recommends, and I have yet to find anything from AiG implying that Ross is a heretic or portraying a leading OEC in a dunce cap. Rather, AiG's criticisms mainly focus on the issues.

I'm pleased that you disapprove of Ross's mocking cartoon of Ussher :thumb:. Here is the other Ussher one from that comic.

[Socrates]

I found this on another bulletin board a while back and copied it, and now it can be put to some good use here (slightly edited):

AiG published Arguments creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp), which people like Woman appreciate. Will Ross have the integrity to publish "Arguments OECs shouldn't use"?, for example, The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood (1 G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close since 1 day = 86,400 sec).

The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species (only 250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and these are probably highly taxonomically "split").

YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this discussion board, most Church Fathers and Reformers who addressed the issued explicitly stated that the Earth wasn't even 6000 years old. And the 19th century Scriptural Geologists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_mortenson.asp#bookinfo) long predated Price.

Also Ross fails to acknowledge that his local flood arguments are essentially the same as those of 19th century compromiser John Pye Smith and were virtually unheard of before the rise of old- Earth "science".).

Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands of years to form. (This is fallacious, and there are a number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts, which certainly haven't been around for thousands or millions of years! World karstology expert Emil Silvestru (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_emil.asp) points out that it boggles the mind how anyone could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long when there is ample evidence that the water courses changed dramatically in the past. )

Planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood (Ross
needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been damped very quickly. Even anti-creationist Morton was embarrassed by such an absurd argument.)

Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field decay" argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Dr Ross who overlooks, or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID reversals over 15 years ago. Humpreys even sent Ross his papers and Ross acknowledged receiving them. See The earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the earth is young (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp)).

The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior burial of plant matter and millions of years. (Fact, for most of history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal. See The Pitch for Noah's Ark (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v7n1_ark.asp))

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jimmy, come on. You know better than that, that there is a procedure and forum for addressing grievances with Moderator action. Please abide by it. Many forums do not allow any public disagreement with its moderators. We are not such a forum but reasonably ask that you follow the proper procedure for same.

A post containing material in violation of our rules is subject to being edited in full. The best way to avoid that is to not violate the rules. This is solely within the Moderator's discretion. Minnestota may repost the information if he so desires.

[Minnesota]

Edited version of my original post, in which I had revealed the identity of Socrates.


I was just going over the threads to this discussion when I recalled the following posted by Socrates. (slightly reedited for structural clarity)

Replying to
TheFiveSolas:


You need to get your facts straight. Dr. Sarfati (note the spelling is not SarAfati) has written scores of technical and semi-technical papers published in the scientifically peer-reviewed journal, TJ.

Indeed so. It's pathetic for Jimmy to whinge that he hasn't published in secular scientific journals for years when he has made a career choice from a physical chemist/spectroscopist to be a full-time creationist apologist. Strangely enough, the Ph.D. plant physiologist Dr Batten also published a lot less frequently in secular science literature after he became a full-time research scientist for AiG, but his publications show beyond doubt that he is a real scientist -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp and pic below.

Replying to
RA:

Pseudo-scientifically peer-reviewed you mean. TJ, as owned and published by AiG, is not a scientific journal. AiG admits up front that all papers are judged based on whether they support the AiG statement of faith. In other words, submissions are not evaluated based on the quality of experimentation or how well the conclusions are supported by data, instead they are evaluated based on the tenants of AiG. Sorry, but actual scienctific journals do not have such requirements.

Once more, RA resorts to stipulative definitions-- it's creationist, therefore it's not science. But under any mormal criterion for science, e.g. qualifications of the reviewers and actual research, TJ counts as a true peer-reviewed science journal.

My comments (which were edited by the administration), with necessary revisions:


Please note that Socrates defends the accusation that TJ is not a peer reviewed journal by not only simply restating that it is, but by insisting that it IS truly reviewd by peers. My question to him is, just which peers have reviewed it and what are their qualifications? In as much as I have been unable to find this information, and Socrates evidently does have access to it--asserts that it does exist--I challenge him to provide the information. Unless he can prove that TJ is truly peer-reviewed, in the sense that submissions to real scientific journals are peer-reviewed by qualified scientists in the subject matter, I suggest he drop the pretense and call TJ what it is; just another creationist publication whose writers freely and uncritically address subjects outside their field of expertise.

I await an answer.................................or a telling silence :ahem:

[TheFiveSolas]

Moderator Note:
Jimmy,
I edited out all of Minnesota's post because it was the second time he had made a post violating TWeb's privacy/anonymity Rule.

However, after reading your above comments, I re-read his post and edited out the offending material, leaving his original challenge to Socrates intact.

Thanks for the suggestion. In the future please send a PM or Email rather than posting in the thread itself when you have a disagreement with a moderator's actions.


Edit to Add: I just validated a post by Minnesota where he reworded his original post. I've since deleted the text of the original so as to not be redundant.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Socrates writes:

“Abiogeneis would be very approriate for a highly qualified chemist, since it is a synonym for chemical evolution.”

And

“In fact, a spectroscopist like Sarfati and an opthalmologist like Dr Peter Gurney are in a vastly better position to talk about the eye than those two buffoons…”

I don’t know if they operate Ph.D. chemistry programs differently in Australia, but a Ph.D. physical chemist in the U.S. would not typically be qualified to talk authoritatively about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis would be a subject that an organic chemist or a biochemist with an advanced degree might speak on with some authority. But I wouldn’t take what a physical chemist has to say on the matter as authoritative unless he has some specific advanced classes in this area. On the other hand, a physical chemist should be more knowledgeable on thermo and quantum mechanics than the other branches of chemistry.

Having said that, I do believe that AIG is the best of the bunch. I still find a number of their articles misleading, but I applaud them for their stance on Hovind.

FK

[Socrates]

Socrates writes:


Abiogeneis would be very approriate for a highly qualified chemist, since it is a synonym for chemical evolution.

And


In fact, a spectroscopist like Sarfati and an opthalmologist like Dr Peter Gurney are in a vastly better position to talk about the eye than those two buffoons…

I note that Fedmahn Kassad had no answer to the latter. But he spouted (applying only to the former):I don’t know if they operate Ph.D. chemistry programs differently in Australia, but a Ph.D. physical chemist in the U.S. would not typically be qualified to talk authoritatively about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis would be a subject that an organic chemist or a biochemist with an advanced degree might speak on with some authority. But I wouldn’t take what a physical chemist has to say on the matter as authoritative unless he has some specific advanced classes in this area. On the other hand, a physical chemist should be more knowledgeable on thermo and quantum mechanics than the other branches of chemistry. I don't know where you took chemistry, but in the Antipodes, before people are admitted to a Ph.D. program in any branch of chemistry, they must already have obtained qualifications in a wide range of chemical fields. And abiogenesis impinges directly on physical chemistry because reaction thermodynamics and kinetics are most relevant. Physical chemists also study rates of synthesis and destruction by radiation. See also the Origin of Life thread.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=93891#post93891)
Minnesota:

Please note that Socrates defends the accusation that TJ is not a peer reviewed journal by not only simply restating that it is, but by insisting that it IS truly reviewd by peers. My question to him is, just which peers have reviewed it and what are their qualifications? In as much as I have been unable to find this information, and Socrates evidently does have access to it--asserts that it does exist--I challenge him to provide the information. Unless he can prove that TJ is truly peer-reviewed, in the sense that submissions to real scientific journals are peer-reviewed by qualified scientists in the subject matter, I suggest he drop the pretense and call TJ what it is; just another creationist publication whose writers freely and uncritically address subjects outside their field of expertise.

For goodness's sake, another feature of peer review is the anonymity of the reviewers. For example, with the journals in which I've published, I have no idea who the referees were. But I don't dispute that they were qualified to review my papers.

There are certainly many creationists in many fields of science www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp#presentsci that the TJ editorial board can call upon. And there are theologians and Hebrew scholars that they can call upon for their technical theological articles they publish from time to time. So even in the cases where a writer is writing outside his or her specialist area, there is every reason to believe that the article would have been checked by those who are specialists in the area.

[Socrates]

While Dr Gish is over 80 now, when he was in his prime as a debater, he was unbeatable. For example, Gish faced the misotheistic biochemist Russell Doolittle in a televised evolution/creation debate held before 5,000 people at Liberty University on 13 Oct 1981. The rabidly pro-evolution science writer Roger Lewin described the debate as a ‘rout’ in favour of Gish (Science 214:638, 1981). The next day, the debate was reported by the pro-evolution Washington Post under the headline ‘Science Loses One to Creationism’. The sub-headline cited Doolittle’s anguished remark: ‘How am I going to face my wife?’ showing that Doolittle himself knew he was splattered. And he has no excuse that he was unprepared, because he had debated ICR creationists before.

Also, while Gish might make a few mistakes (nothing like the evolutionary whoppers like staged photos of peppered moths and Haeckel's forged embryo pix), when he is in his specialist area of biochemistry and protein synthesis, he is superb. Even the leading chemical evolutionist Sydney Fox admitted (The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside, p. 46, Basic Books, NY, 1988—note also that the very title showed that HE didn't whinge that abiogenesis wasn't part of evolution:tongue:):


Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesised peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.

Gish's critiques of chemical evolution as far back as 1976 are still mostly very cogent. New fancy theories about RNA world (http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm) etc. shouldn't pull the wool over people's eyes that most of the problems Gish raised are STILL major hurdles. See his three-part series on the origin of life, ICR Impact 1976:[list=1] Critique of early stage chemical evolution theories (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-031.htm)
Fox Thermal Model of the Origin of Life (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-033.htm)
On the Origin of Biological Order (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-037.htm)[/list=1]

[Roy]

Today @ 01:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93747#post93747)
steadele:

Hmmm you may be correct about that Dr.GH and I thank you for the compliment.

Rthearle: I apologize if I misunderstood your post.



You did. Don't worry about it.

Roy

[DivineOb]

Today @ 10:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94031#post94031)
Socrates:

While Dr Gish is over 80 now, when he was in his prime as a debater, he was unbeatable. For example, Gish faced the misotheistic biochemist Russell Doolittle in a televised evolution/creation debate held before 5,000 people at Liberty University on 13 Oct 1981. The rabidly pro-evolution science writer Roger Lewin described the debate as a ‘rout’ in favour of Gish (Science 214:638, 1981). The next day, the debate was reported by the pro-evolution Washington Post under the headline ‘Science Loses One to Creationism’. The sub-headline cited Doolittle’s anguished remark: ‘How am I going to face my wife?’ showing that Doolittle himself knew he was splattered. And he has no excuse that he was unprepared, because he had debated ICR creationists before.



Did you get Sarfati's permission to copy his words, rearranging them a little? Just wondering cause it looked like you turned up the venom a bit from his version ;).

[Socrates]

Borrowing and putting in one's own words a small portion of an article would be well within "fair use" provisions of copyright law :wink:. Also, it seems to fall within the principle of AiG's permission on the inside cover of Creation magazine (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/) for people "who broadly share our ministry aims" to share material "for non-commercial Christian educational purposes."

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93902#post93902)
TheFiveSolas:

Moderator Note:
Jimmy,
I edited out all of Minnesota's post because it was the second time he had made a post violating TWeb's privacy/anonymity Rule.

However, after reading your above comments, I re-read his post and edited out the offending material, leaving his original challenge to Socrates intact.

Thanks for the suggestion. In the future please send a PM or Email rather than posting in the thread itself when you have a disagreement with a moderator's actions.


[color=red][b]Edit to Add: I just validated a post by Minnesota where he reworded his original post. I've since deleted the text of the original so as to not be redundant.
Much better

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94119#post94119)
Socrates:
Also, it seems to fall within the principle of AiG's permission on the inside cover of Creation magazine (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/) for people &quot;who broadly share our ministry aims&quot; to share material &quot;for non-commercial Christian educational purposes.&quot; (Jimmy Higgins Pondering if it truly is for non-commercial use.)

[SLPx]

05-10-2003 @ 08:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92637#post92637)
Socrates:

SPLx SPLutters:&quot;Real&quot; scientists do not adhere to oaths - implicit or explicit -OK, let's grant that &quot;real&quot; scientists don't, but that would not apply to atheistic evolutionists like SPLX and Dawkins who have an implicit oath to defend materialism at all coast.
The implication being that I am not a real scientist.

Typical and sad attempt by the desperate zealot to dispagare his superior. After all, a simple chemist cannot stand up to a well-trained scientist and has to resort to this sort of verbal vomit so characteristic of the poster...


I.e. if living things give the strong impression of being designed, they are not really designed but are &quot;designoid&quot;, to keep their FAITH.

Wow. I don't recall ever writing such a thing. Pity that Socrates cannot seem to keep different posts and posters apart. But better to spew SOMETHING than to write nothing.


... that they will ignore, twist, distort, or misrepresent contrary information to prop up the cause.

Oh, you mean, like the obvious Piltdown hoax that wasn't disproven for 40 years, Haeckel's forged embryo pix, staged pix of peppered moths, .
:bonk:
:lol:
You are as informed about the historical context of evolution as you are about the theory of evolution.
"Staged" pictures of moths? Thats a good one! Tell us all, supoer chemist - is placing chemicals in beakers "staged" chemistry?



..[list]Of course Batten, like Safarti, makes laughably huge blunders whenever they venture outside of their narrow fields of ... &quot;expertise&quot;.Oh, you mean, like SPLX's pathetic comments about the Ark? Or his own forays into logic and the philosophy of science, or even chemical evolution?

I don't recall saying much about the ark myth - what did you have in mind that you will not simply blow off with a pathetic AiG link?
I wrote nothing on the philosophy of science. And I only commented on the silliness of those "impossibility of abiogenesis" calculations.

UI recall seeing nothing in rebuttal from you in any of those threads.
Having trouble keeping things straight?

Of course, it is at least nice to see you making the implicit admission that you have and do make silly blunders in areas outside your own, as have you AIG heros.

[SLPx]

05-10-2003 @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92707#post92707)
Dee Dee Warren:



And haven't you just done the same? You could have simply pointed out your disagreement with the use of certain names and moved on, but you felt free to state that Soc maybe cannot read, cannot spell, or is immature. I really dislike hypocrisy. There was nothing wrong with your post as far as the rules here, but it is really getting old the way that certain persons here only criticize or see flaws in their ideological opponents.

Pathetic.

Why not just come right out and let everyone know that Socrates can write whatever he wants becaus ehe is a protected YEC hero?

That way at least you would not have to ignore all those complaints that you get about his angry, insulting posts and try to justify his uncivil activity by blaming his victims.

[SLPx]

05-10-2003 @ 04:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92792#post92792)
TheFiveSolas:



Actually, everyone adheres to a worldview through which they interpret all facts they come into contact with. In addition, though such adherence isn't generally explicit it can be deduced from the evidence.

Of course it is.... :roll:


Case in point, the refusal to publish even a scientific &quot;response to critics&quot; in a peer-reviewed journal since it challenges the predominant paradigm of evolution.
Here's a case in point: Can you provide a single example of any author being allowed to publish a response to critics article in response to letters ot the editor in any journal?

This is just a self-fulfilling prophesy set up by Behe.



Here's a telling statement from the editor of the journal in question:


http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

Obviously adherence to a certain paradigm, and resistance to that which overtly challenges the paradigm does implicitely exist and in some instances becomes explicitely stated as in the above quote.

The editors of a journal are free to limit the contents of said journal. There are journals just for discussion of theoretical issues. That is hardly the same thing as requiring all articles to prop up a specific belief system.

[GrayPilgrim]

SPLX

Questions of the the Administration's decisions are to be appealed via PM's or Emails as stated in the Decorum

[Minnesota]

Thank you Jimmy for bringing up the Creationist.

I've not had the chance to read much of the AiG publication, so I'm not at all familiar with its overall quality; however, in looking at the writing guidelines for submission I found it telling that its editors found it necessary to instruct prospective authors in the basics of writing.

"Articles must be written clearly and concisely"

"Be careful of too many big or extra words. For example, 'in spite of the fact that' when 'although' would do, 'in a manner similar to' to mean 'like', 'two metres in length' for 'two metres long', or 'termination' when 'end' would do. The phrase 'this present writer' meaning 'I/me' is verbose false modesty and is ambiguous - which writer? Care with spelling is crucial . . . ."

"Quotes must be verbatim, with omissions clearly shown by ellipsis (...). Even erroneous grammar and spelling in the original must be reproduced, and indicated by [sic]. Any additions or explanations within a quote need to be placed in square brackets [ ]."

"References and Endnotes should be indicated in the main text by superscript numbers in sequence and then listed in numerical order at the end of the text. Full details of all references are required. This includes all authors and their initials, the full title of the paper or book, the full title of the journal or its accepted abbreviation, the volume number, the page number(s), the editor(s) of the book or proceedings (if applicable), the publishers and place of publication (in the case of a book), and the year of publication. If a citation is repeated, then the same superscript number needs to be used."

Such a magazine, which is willing to accept articles from those who are in need of such rudimentary instruction in English composition, would obviously also accept submissions from those equally lacking in scholarship or expertise. I know the thought may not have occurred to some, but there is a strong correlation between possessing basic writing skills and possessing the fundamental qualifications to speak intelligently on complex matters--it usually comes from spending at least a few years in college. So, what does this say about Creation?. That an author's qualifications are pretty much secondary to what (s)he says. "We don't care if you know what you're talking about or not, as long as you talk like a creationist." This is equally applicable to the articles by Sarfati and Batten.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

SPLx SPLutters:

"Real" scientists do not adhere to oaths - implicit or explicit -

OK, let's grant that "real" scientists don't, but that would not apply to atheistic evolutionists like SPLX and Dawkins who have an implicit oath to defend materialism at all coast.

SPLx raves:The implication being that I am not a real scientist.If a strong religous bias disqualifies you, YES. But you were the one who brought it up!!Typical and sad attempt by the desperate zealot to dispagare his superior. :whack:Yes, quite, you desperate atheist zealots should give up trying to disparage your intellectual superiors who don't swallow the goo-to-you nonsense. After all, a simple chemist cannot stand up to a well-trained scientist and has to resort to this sort of verbal vomit so characteristic of the poster..A simple biologist cannot stand up to a well-trained scientist who deals with REAL operational science as opposed to speculations about the past, and has to resort to this sort of verbal vomit. :dunce:

Socrates:


I.e. if living things give the strong impression of being designed, they are not really designed but are "designoid", to keep their FAITH.

SPLx:Wow. I don't recall ever writing such a thing.It was implied, and and stated explicitly by Dawkins who is practically identical to SPLx. Pity that Socrates cannot seem to keep different posts and posters apart. But better to spew SOMETHING than to write nothing.You've had a lot of practice at that, evidently!



SPLX:

... that they will ignore, twist, distort, or misrepresent contrary information to prop up the cause.

Socrates: Oh, you mean, like the obvious Piltdown hoax that wasn't disproven for 40 years, Haeckel's forged embryo pix, staged pix of peppered moths

SPLX:You are as informed about the historical context of evolution as you are about the theory of evolution. As if you'd know. Fact is, it took 40 years to expose the Piltdown hoax, although the file marks on the teeth and iron stains on he bone should have been obvious."Staged" pictures of moths? Thats a good one! Tell us all, super chemist - is placing chemicals in beakers "staged" chemistry?Tell us, if Kettlewell's was really supposed to demonstrate NATURAL selection due to camouflage, then how is this demonstrated by staged pix of moths glued to tree trunks?

And how desperate the evolutionary zealots must have been for so long that this was one of their top examples. Never mind that there wasn't, even aside from the staged pix, any demonstration of any NEW genes arising. Figures though -- sometimes "white" moths do better and sometimes black ones do, yeah, that proves the goo-to-you thoery and refutes the Bible :poke:



SPLx: Of course Batten, like Safarti, makes laughably huge blunders whenever they venture outside of their narrow fields of ... "expertise".

Soc: Oh, you mean, like SPLX's pathetic comments about the Ark? Or his own forays into logic and the philosophy of science, or even chemical evolution?

SPLx:I don't recall saying much about the ark myth Yes you did. You claimed it was unseaworthy. what did you have in mind that you will not simply blow off with a pathetic AiG link? You mean a paper by Korean naval architects, who one would assume would know more about the Ark's stability than a biologist (or an engineer).I wrote nothing on the philosophy of science.Yes you did, but you're too ignorant even to know that. The statement about oaths above belongs to the domain of philosophy of science, even if it is just a reflection of self-serving atheistic question-begging.And I only commented on the silliness of those "impossibility of abiogenesis" calculations.Merely showing your own incompetence in understanding probability by your pathetic comparison with lottery winners.Of course, it is at least nice to see you making the implicit admission that you have and do make silly blunders in areas outside your own, as have you AIG heros.How is it an admission, since neither AiG nor I claim infallibility? And the errors are nothing like the evolutionary forgeries and twisted logic of evolutionary propagandists.

[Minnesota]

I wrote:

"Please note that Socrates defends the accusation that TJ is not a peer reviewed journal by not only simply restating that it is, but by insisting that it IS truly reviewed by peers. My question to him is, just which peers have reviewed it and what are their qualifications? In as much as I have been unable to find this information, and Socrates evidently does have access to it--asserts that it does exist--I challenge him to provide the information. Unless he can prove that TJ is truly peer-reviewed, in the sense that submissions to real scientific journals are peer-reviewed by qualified scientists in the subject matter, I suggest he drop the pretense and call TJ what it is; just another creationist publication whose writers freely and uncritically address subjects outside their field of expertise. "

To which Socrates responded:


For goodness's sake, another feature of peer review is the anonymity of the reviewers. For example, with the journals in which I've published, I have no idea who the referees were. But I don't dispute that they were qualified to review my papers.

Point taken; however, I infer by "journals" you mean to include only journals recognized by main-stream science, not TJ.

And:


There are certainly many creationists in many fields of science www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/....asp#presentsci that the TJ editorial board can call upon. And there are theologians and Hebrew scholars that they can call upon for their technical theological articles they publish from time to time. So even in the cases where a writer is writing outside his or her specialist area, there is every reason to believe that the article would have been checked by those who are specialists in the area.

That they can is one thing, that they do, is another. Also, the question remains, would TJ editors EVER use a neutral scholar for review, one who does not subscribe to the creationist view point? I strongly suspect not. So, although YOU may have "every reason to believe that the article would have been checked by those who are specialists in the area," I seriously doubt that more than a few submissions, if that, ever receive any such review, and none by a non-creationist. The reason for my doubt? TJ has little reason to do so. Why would they bother to seek peer-review, even among its creationist-friendly scientists? Only two reasons come to mind. One: so they can trumpet the fact that the are a "peer-reviewed" publication (one such review is all it would really take). And secondly, they may occasionally ask one of these scientists to look over a submission to make sure it doesn't conflict with the creationist position--such as the one by the fourteen year-old boy. But as long as it comes from a person with some credentials (what they are appears pretty irrelevant), I seriously doubt that it would be passed along--and that goes for articles outside of an author's area of expertise.
Simply review the extent to which the editors of TJ go in explaining to prospective authors just how to write an acceptable paper. Think they really care about the scholarship of a piece when they are willing to accept works from people who need instruction in basic English composition? Not in a million years. Tj may boast that it's a peer-reviewed journal, but it no more qualifies to be in the same company as main-stream science journals as does "creation science" qualify as a legitimate science.

[TheFiveSolas]

Moderator Note: The topic of this thread is "Who is your favorite professional creationist?". The past several posts have gone FAR astray of the original topic. Please return to topic or start a new thread.

Thanks.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 05:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94086#post94086)
rthearle:



You did. Don't worry about it.

Roy

Boy do I feel like a dunce.:dunce: Your post was actually meant to be a compliment ,but because of my cynical attitude I mis - read your post as an attack against me.:fight:

I then proceded to take up arms and defend myself against the percieved attack:rant:

Dr GH brought to my attention the idea:idea: that perhaps your post was actually a complimentory one .

So I read your post over again and realized that I was wrong.

So with sincere regret :bawl: and humility :shy: I offer you my apologies:bow: .

I will try to be less defensive and quick to judge in the future.


Russ

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Socrates: I note that Fedmahn Kassad had no answer to the latter.

Actually I do. It was just late, I was tired, and I forgot to address it. You seem to have a different view of what qualifies as an authority than I do. By your criteria, I would be an authority in biochemistry since I have had some graduate level classes in biochemistry. However, I consider an authority to generally be along the lines of:

1. Someone who has performed research (real research) and published on a subject.
2. Someone who teaches a subject at the university level.
3. Someone who specializes in a subject.

I am sure there are other examples that would qualify as well. But to put Sarfati up as an authority on the eye because he has studied spectroscopy is ludicrous. Give me an anatomist who published a dissertation on the inner workings of the eye. I would agree, though, that the ophthalmologist that you mentioned should be qualified to speak authoritatively on the eye.


Socrates: I don't know where you took chemistry, but in the Antipodes, before people are admitted to a Ph.D. program in any branch of chemistry, they must already have obtained qualifications in a wide range of chemical fields. And abiogenesis impinges directly on physical chemistry because reaction thermodynamics and kinetics are most relevant. Physical chemists also study rates of synthesis and destruction by radiation. See also the Origin of Life thread.

I took chemistry at a top 20 graduate school in the U.S. We also received a good background in all of the branches of chemistry. But if my specialty happened to be physical chemistry, this would hardly make me an authority in organic chemistry, for example. Abiogenesis impinges only superficially on physical chemistry, and it covers a number of different disciplines. I will grant you that kinetics is relevant. But abiogenesis is primarily concerned with reaction mechanisms and biochemistry. As I said, by your standards, I can claim to be an authority on the subject, as can anyone who has expertise in several different areas. But it would be quite pretentious to do so when there are active researchers working and publishing in the field.

That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced. The general public might not realize that a physical chemist writing about the eye is writing well outside his area of expertise, or that a plant pathologist is not necessarily an authority on biological information, but scientifically literate people do know this. Of course there is nothing wrong with Sarfati writing on any subject he chooses, as long as doesn’t try to present himself as an authority on every subject that might superficially impinge on physical chemistry. After all, there are numerous specialties within physical chemistry as well. I don’t know too many physical chemists who would put themselves forward as authorities on everything from thermo to quantum mechanics to kinetics.

FK

[Jason Gastrich]

Soc,

Do you know where I could get the audio clip of Gish vs. Doolittle, at Liberty Univ., in 1981? I was born in 1974 and I grew up in San Diego (home of ICR). Gish was one of the prime defenders of creation science and my parents introduced me to him long ago. Incidentally, I attended Liberty Seminary, so I have a few connections to these things (not to mention I debate evolutionists). :cheers:

My favorite creation scientist . . . . hmmm. Well, some great ones were already mentioned. Ken Ham and Sarfati head up a large, quality institution - AIG. I recommend Ken Ham's book called, "Why Won't They Listen?" After hearing Ken Ham speak, I bought it from the Steeling the Mind Conference, in Colorado Springs (last summer), and read it in about 12 hours.

I also recommend "The Answers Book." Sarfati, Weiland and Ham converge on this dynamic defense of biblical creation. It's a great read and reference book.

Did somebody say Kent Hovind? You mean Dr. Kent Hovind (of course)! My wife has all of his videos and now we actually have his DVDs. Very funny and interesting stuff. It's amazing how much atheists hate him . . . he must be doing something right. Any atheist who has ever visited an organized forum of atheists has surely talked about him or seen people talking about him . . . and I'm certain that "any press is good press" and he is very happy that his name is tossed around - even if they try and debunk him and bring out all of the negatives of his life, ministry, Dinosaur Adventureland, etc.

BTW - If you're in or near Southern California, come and hear the MAC Bible Conference in August! MAC stands for Missions, Apologetics and Creation. Pastor Howard Everett is speaking on Missions, I'm speaking on Apologetics and Kent Hovind is speaking on Creation. You can read about it here: http://macsd.org

God bless,
Jason G

[James]

Honestly, I don't think that even other creationist organizations respect Hovind's arguments. He hasn't come up with anything new or not falsified in a few decades. It seems that his hectic travel schedule exempts him from little details like the validity of his arguments.

[Korihor]

Today @ 04:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94669#post94669)
Jason G:
Did somebody say Kent Hovind? You mean Dr. Kent Hovind (of course)!


No, we mean 'Kent Hovind'. :teeth:

His PhD "thesis" (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm), sorry to say, is not worth the paper it's written on. :eww:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/patriot/pucampus.jpg

Especially if he got a PhD from such a renowned world class scholarly institution like Patriot University:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/patriot/pucampus.jpg

Even AiG thinks he's a little too far out there:

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



Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.


Kent is not exactly the most intellectually credible creation advocate out there, to put it very mildly. :eww:

Also, I'd have to differ with Socrates who claims that Gish was 'unbeatable' during debates. Here's a transcript of the Saladin/Gish debate (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/index.shtml). Having read it, I think Gish clearly lost this one. Saladin writes:



Following the debate I was surrounded by well-wishers and chagrined creationist students...
...The creationists at my table seemed as disappointed with Gish's performance as Democrats reviewing the last Bush-Dukakis debate. The student organizer seemed almost grudgingly to present me with the check for my expenses and honorarium.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add). :rofl:

Anyhow, since this thread is about your favorite creation scientist, who is yours, Korihor? And do you have a thesis for us to read and a picture of your university? This isn't it . . . is it?

http://members.aol.com/jcsaves3/toilet.jpg

JG

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94783#post94783)
Jason G:

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add). :rofl:

JG

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

So AIG is an "atheist web site"? Wow, I've heard it all.

To stay on topic, my favorite Creationist is Kurt Wise. I do believe he is a stand up guy. I have a long list of least favorites, but I guess that's for another thread.

FK

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94119#post94119)
Socrates:

Borrowing and putting in one's own words a small portion of an article would be well within &quot;fair use&quot; provisions of copyright law :wink:. Also, it seems to fall within the principle of AiG's permission on the inside cover of Creation magazine (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/) for people &quot;who broadly share our ministry aims&quot; to share material &quot;for non-commercial Christian educational purposes.&quot;

Actually it is not fair use because you did not cite your source. Furthermore, by academic standards it is still plagiarism and inheriently dishonest to pass someone else's words off as your own.

[Jason Gastrich]

I've read AIG's statement about Hovind. It is hardly condemning. I'm glad they posted what they think about him and some of his arguments. However, it is clear that they are "on the same side", but they have some differences in opinions and some differences in handling sensitive issues.

I wasn't talking about AIG's sites, though. I was referring to the atheist ones.

JG

[Minnesota]

Korihor,

Thank you for providing the great link to Hovind's "PhD" thesis. Too bad it can't be reproduced, although on second thought, who needs more toilet paper.

Thanks again,

Minn.

[Korihor]

Today @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94783#post94783)
Jason G:

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add). :rofl:

As Fedmahn noted, AiG's not exactly an atheist website, unless there was a miraculous deconversion in their ministry recently. :teeth:


Anyhow, since this thread is about your favorite creation scientist, who is yours, Korihor?

Check post #2 in this thread to see who, and read why. :teeth:

By the way, I checked out your website. I lurked in your forum a few times. I also enjoyed your webcast interview/debate with Barker. Do you plan on doing a similar thing some day with an evolutionary biologist? Perhaps try Denis Lamoureux (http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/) or Glenn Morton (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/Cre-Ev.htm) (Glenn's actually a geologist). (Neither of them are atheists, by the way).

[geochron]

Just as a point of information, the link describes the US system for awarding PhDs...



There is only one committee member, a Dr. Wayne Knight. Normally, a thesis must pass muster with 3-5 committee members, all of whom make suggestions and ultimately "sign off" on the thesis. Even the undergraduate honors theses at my institution require the signatures of two faculty members.


...but systems differ from country to country. UK PhD vivas, for instance, tend to have just an internal and external examiner, rather than a panel, and it will be the external (an academic from another university) who takes the lead in the examination. The home institution shouldn't have let it get that far if they didn't think it was up to snuff.

I'll be honest - I really don't care whether someone has a PhD or not. I know some fine scholars who don't have one and some complete doofuses who do (and I do mean from high standard universities). I've always thought that one thing a PhD gave you was the tendency not to be impressed by the qualification.

[Socrates]

Fedmahn Kassad:I am sure there are other examples that would qualify as well. But to put Sarfati up as an authority on the eye because he has studied spectroscopy is ludicrous. Nonsense -- if people want to whinge about allegedly faulty light detection and processing, it makes perfect sense for someone with great familiarity with artificial light detection and processing devices. Certainly better than an animal behavior specialist like Dawkins or a cell biologist like Miller who just have no idea what they are talking about.

Fedmahn Kassad:Give me an anatomist who published a dissertation on the inner workings of the eye. I would agree, though, that the ophthalmologist that you mentioned should be qualified to speak authoritatively on the eye. That's generous of you, for sure. The combination seemed ideal to me. The opthalmologist can explain the deep workings of the eye, and the spectroscopist can comment on how the light is detected and processed compared to man's puny efforts.

Fedmahn Kassad:I took chemistry at a top 20 graduate school in the U.S. We also received a good background in all of the branches of chemistry. But if my specialty happened to be physical chemistry, this would hardly make me an authority in organic chemistry, for example. Abiogenesis impinges only superficially on physical chemistry, and it covers a number of different disciplines. I will grant you that kinetics is relevant. But abiogenesis is primarily concerned with reaction mechanisms and biochemistry. Actually, the organic chemistry involved is not that difficult for any Ph.D. physical chemist. And the latter is well qualified to discuss the many problems in reaction mechanisms, kinetics as well as noting the cross-reaction problem. Side reactions are the bane of even undergraduate organic synthesis, as is the common need to use protecting groups to prevent these as much as possible. Contamination is also a problem.

Fedmahn Kassad:As I said, by your standards, I can claim to be an authority on the subject, as can anyone who has expertise in several different areas.Then why not contribute to the thread. This issue should be decided by the chemical evidence.

Fedmahn Kassad:But it would be quite pretentious to do so when there are active researchers working and publishing in the field. Indeed, and each branch pokes holes in rival branches. The only thing that they agree upon is their materialistic FAITH.

Fedmahn Kassad:That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced. Come off it -- where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy? I have seen NOTHING to parallel even remotely the evolutionary propagandists mantra "We should teach evolution because most scientists believe it," or Plimer the mining geologist saying "As a scientist ..." before pontificating about the RNA world. I don't see many evolutionist protesting against this sort of thing.

Fedmahn Kassad:The general public might not realize that a physical chemist writing about the eye is writing well outside his area of expertise, A spectroscopist commenting on the light detection properties of the eye and comparing them with artificial devices is not.

Fedmahn Kassad:... or that a plant pathologist is not necessarily an authority on biological information, but scientifically literate people do know this. If you mean Dr Batten, he relies on people who ARE experts in information theory such as Dr-Ing Werner Gitt.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94806#post94806)
Jason G:

I've read AIG's statement about Hovind. It is hardly condemning. I'm glad they posted what they think about him and some of his arguments. However, it is clear that they are &quot;on the same side&quot;, but they have some differences in opinions and some differences in handling sensitive issues.

I wasn't talking about AIG's sites, though. I was referring to the atheist ones.

JG


Maybe you should make yourself more clear. You said "We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same."

There were two sites linked to that had something to say about Hovind. One was AIG. Clearly your reference to the plural "atheistic sites" would include AIG.

FK

[Socrates]

Korihor:Also, I'd have to differ with Socrates who claims that Gish was 'unbeatable' during debates. Here's a transcript of the Saladin/Gish debate. Having read it, I think Gish clearly lost this one. Saladin writes:Oh, naturally Saladin would claim that he won. But then look at the notes where Saladin claims: "in theistic trigonometry pi = 3.0 (see 1 Kings 7:23)." That boring old canard is almost enough by itself to write off Saladin as a charlatan -- but that's typical of the bozos who associate with the Internet Infudgels.

[QED]

Today @ 03:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94882#post94882)
Socrates:

Korihor:Also, I'd have to differ with Socrates who claims that Gish was 'unbeatable' during debates. Here's a transcript of the Saladin/Gish debate. Having read it, I think Gish clearly lost this one. Saladin writes:Oh, naturally Saladin would claim that he won. But then look at the notes where Saladin claims: &quot;in theistic trigonometry pi = 3.0 (see 1 Kings 7:23).&quot; That boring old canard is almost enough by itself to write off Saladin as a charlatan -- but that's typical of the bozos who associate with the Internet Infudgels.

Typical. Ignore the debate transcript, pick out one tiny apologetic issue siezed on in Saladin's assessment of the debate, and pretend that it saves Gish from a debating loss.

Typical creationist, miss the forest of evidence for the opposing view for the pine needle of evidence that looks good for your own.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels comes to mind.

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94791#post94791)
RufusAtticus:
Socrates:


Borrowing and putting in one's own words a small portion of an article would be well within "fair use" provisions of copyright law . Also, it seems to fall within the principle of AiG's permission on the inside cover of Creation magazine for people "who broadly share our ministry aims" to share material "for non-commercial Christian educational purposes."

Rufie whinges: Actually it is not fair use because you did not cite your source. Furthermore, by academic standards it is still plagiarism and inheriently dishonest to pass someone else's words off as your own.

Get a life! There was enough rewording, and it was about something that was public knowledge. Also, I normally do give my sources, but this is a bulletin board not a scientific paper so cut me some slack!

Whinge to AiG if you still have any complaints :poke:

[Socrates]

Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton (as TheFiveSolas has already mentioned). I'e had the privilege of listening to his fascinating and informative talks on the Eye, Flight, "Ape-men, and Skin.

Professional Affiliation: Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)
Professional Activities:
Guest lecturer in gross anatomy
Former coursemaster of Microscopic Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine
Consulting editor in Histology for 'Stedman's Medical Dictionary', a standard medical reference work Extraprofessional activities:
Vice-president of Congregation of Faith Lutheran Church of Ballwin, Missouri
Sunday school teacher for high school students
President of the Missouri Association for Creation, St. Louis, Missouri
Technical Advisor for the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California
Lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the Creation-Evolution controversy
Education
B.A. from Mankato State University in Mankato, Minnesota
Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University Honors/Awards/Associations Member of the American Association of Anatomists
Member of Sigma Xi
Silver Award for Basic Research from the American Academy of Dermatology
Given 'Distinguished Service Teaching Award' from Washington University School of Medicine in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
Named 'Teacher of the Year' at Washington University School of Medicine in 1979
Elected 'Professor of the Year' in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000
Profiled in American Men and Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences for almost two decades
Publications

Numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94899#post94899)
Socrates:
Get a life! There was enough rewording, and it was about something that was public knowledge. Also, I normally do give my sources, but this is a bulletin board not a scientific paper so cut me some slack!
Just curious, when was the last time you were published?

[DivineOb]

Today @ 03:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94882#post94882)
Socrates:

Korihor:Also, I'd have to differ with Socrates who claims that Gish was 'unbeatable' during debates. Here's a transcript of the Saladin/Gish debate. Having read it, I think Gish clearly lost this one. Saladin writes:Oh, naturally Saladin would claim that he won. But then look at the notes where Saladin claims: &quot;in theistic trigonometry pi = 3.0 (see 1 Kings 7:23).&quot; That boring old canard is almost enough by itself to write off Saladin as a charlatan -- but that's typical of the bozos who associate with the Internet Infudgels.

In the Saladin / Gish debate Gish claims that the 2LoT disproves evolution. Right there, he loses all credibility.

[TheFiveSolas]

DivineOb:
In the Saladin / Gish debate Gish claims that the 2LoT disproves evolution. Right there, he loses all credibility.


That's akin to asserting that a single spelling error in an entire paragraph renders the entire paragraph meaningless.

[Socrates]

DivineOb:In the Saladin / Gish debate Gish claims that the 2LoT disproves evolution. Right there, he loses all credibility.Nice soundbite, but what are you going to do -- trot out the old boring "open systems" canard as well?

For the record, I don't like using the 2LoT except for chemical evolution.

[Socrates]

Nigel Farndale (journalist), The Sunday Telegraph, 4 May 2003, p.25:


It is possible that some of the teachers do actually believe in creationism, but this seems far-fetched. A more likely explanation is that these mischievous people are indulging in the national sport of Dawkins-baiting. Prof Dawkins is cursed with having the fussy, fragile air of an unworldly and frustrated curate. He speaks in a mild but testy voice which sounds like it might rise a couple of octaves at any moment. Even if you agree with him it is hard to resist the temptation to tease him. Dawkins-baiters tweak, prod and poke their victim in the hope that he will suddenly snap or internally combust. I think it is cruel.

See also Skeptics choke on Frog: was Dawkins caught on the hop? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp)

[Jason Gastrich]

Come on. Wake up and smell the coffee. Do I have to list the atheist sites? Apparently, I do because some of you all are having trouble counting.

1) http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ - This is the site where the pictures were located. This is an atheist site (not to mention the questionable act of someone taking Kent Hovind's name and setting up a site devoted to negative information about him)

2) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/index.shtml - This is the site with the Saladin/Gish rhetoric.

3) http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm - This is the site with the "review" of Kent Hovind's thesis. It is also an atheist web site.

There we have it. 1, 2 and 3.

JG

[Minnesota]

Socrates.

Interesting that you bring up another creationist scientist, Dr. David Menton, who seems to have grown bored with his own field of expertise and has wandered off, pontificating on a myriad of subjects, and no doubt expecting that his words will carry the same academic weight as if he was expounding on bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and
biomechanics of skin (the listed topics on which he has published in technical and scientific journals).

Is he qualified to speak on bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and
biomechanics of skin? Very much so, I would expect. Any more so than, say, a geologist, anthropologist, taxonomist, systematisist, philosopher of science, paleontologist, sociologist, historian, sedimentologist, or cosmologist? You betchum he would.

Now, considering the list of his articles below, many, if not most, of which are in fields developed and overseen by geologists, anthropologists, taxonomists, systematisists, philosophers of science, Paleontologists, sociologists, historians, sedimentologists, and cosmologists, who is better qualified to speak intelligently on these subjects? Pleaasseeee don't say he is. PPPPlease!

Is Dr. Menton at all qualified to speak intelligently on ANY of the topics (on a level commensurate with his touted status as a scientist)? Perhaps one or two, but other than that . . . nope! Want good, reliable information on the epidermal barrier function and
biomechanics of skin, ask ol' doc Menton. Want good, reliable information on the geology of the Grand canyon? Ask a geologist. Want good, reliable information on the fossil record? Ask a paleontologist.

Am I getting my point across? I've tried to put it as simply as I can.

Menton--as well as so many other scientists that write on creation topics--is out of his depth when it comes to evaluating the work and conclusions of experts in fields other than his own.


(from the Prophecy And Apologetic Site,
Exposing the Works of the Evil One, And False Teachings)


Articles by Dr. David Menton


The Origin Of Man

*Making Monkeys Out of Man
*Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
*There Ought to Be a Law Against Evolution -- And There Is
*The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism
*The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man


Fossils And Geology

*What Do the Fossils Say?
*The Fact Of Evolution Is Supported by A Rather Well Formed Sequence Of Intermediate Stages In The Fossil Record
*Climbing The "Ladder of Life" In The Grand Canyon

Biological Evidence

*The Origin of Life
*Can Evolution Produce an Eye?
*Natural Selection and Macroevolution
*Species, Speciation, and the Genesis Kind
*Does the Human Embryo Have Gill Slits?
*The Human Tail & Other Tales of Evolution / The Appendix Of Man Is A Vestigial And Useless Organ Left Over From Back When Primative Man Ate Mainly Raw Vegetation
*Sickle Cell Anemia & Other "Good" Mutations
*The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution
*Homology - Evidence For Evolution
*Man And All Other Living Organisms Have Evolved From A Primitive Life Form By Means Of A Vast Number Of Lucky Mutations
*Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny

Dating Methods, Time, And The Big Bang

*The Dating Game
*What a Difference a Day Makes!
*Given Enough Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution

[TheFiveSolas]

Minnesota:
(from the Prophecy And Apologetic Site,
Exposing the Works of the Evil One, And False Teachings)


Articles by Dr. David Menton


I'm not sure if the above statement was a subtle attempt at ad hominem, but I'll point out that the site Prophecy and Apologetic Site, Exposing the Works of the Evil One is not run by, nor affiliated with Dr. Menton.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yesterday @ 08:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94783#post94783)
Jason G:

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add). :rofl:
JG

What point has been proven?

I think the fact that so many atheists often point to Mr Hovind, kind of indicates his ignominious reputation is well-earned---it's not likely they'd rely on it so, if it weren't.

You can downplay AiG's concerns regarding Mr Hovind's tactics but it will bring your own into question. Too many on your side recognize him as a liability. I asked Howard Phillips to give his opinion of Kent Hovind; he changed the subject.

There are very intelligent Christians here at TWeb in whom a concern will be raised if you continue to tout Kent Hovind. Hovind has let you down before, Jason; don't let him do it again.

Of course if you believe that admitting you were wrong about Hovind would indicate that you may not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit to "know truth", then you have no choice; carry on.

[mrsnacks]

I must confess that I am pleased at the material I have received in the past few months from Kent Hovind's ministry. His DVD's are excellent and I also learned a lot from his 2 debates I have on tape.

I hold to a 6 day literal creation thanks to Hovind and Gentry's teachings. My apologetics have been strengthened thanks to Hovind.

I have received materials from Phillip Johnson, Ross, Ham, and Gish. I like Ham also.

Ross , I just have to many problems with his eschatology (Left Behind theology) and his UFO's and billions of years of creation among other things. He's also very dry.

I think that Hovind gets the grass out of the loft and on the ground so the cows can eat it . He along with Ham relate a lot more easier with the non- scientific crowd.

On one tape I have , Hovind even comes across humble and even admits ignorance regarding certain scientific theories. He even says some of what he is saying is just his opinion. I like that.

I'm sure a lot of you out there have problems with some of what he teaches and I understand that. You mention any name scientist or theologian and there's always a number of christians that have problems with that person.

In apologetics for example-- the late Bahnsen and Van Till had problems with the evidentialists Geisler, Sproul, Montgomery and etc in their methodology.

Back to Hovind. he did say to "eat the meat and spit out the bones. " No matter who is teaching or speaking whether it's Ross, Gish,Ham, Hovind, Johnson, Dawkins, Gould or whoever-- you'll find things to agree with on the other hand -- and criticize .

I am grateful to the creation scientists and their stand against evolution and the scientism that is being passed off as science in the learning institutions.

[Jason Gastrich]

Very nice, Mr. Snacks. I agree.

If an atheist can scare a Christian or a seeker away from examining Kent Hovind's material, then they have succeeded in wounding that person quite severely. This is a poor and wretched tactic, though. Every word should be evaluated. The wonderful and true things should be made known and remembered. The things that science has shown to be outdated and wrong should be dismissed and forgotten.

One thing that pop-scientist, atheist types don't like is Kent Hovind's tendency to embrace possible, yet unproven scenarios for creation. He generally admits that these scenarios are unproven, though. However, atheists who want to say he isn't a scientist and there is no such thing as creation science like to jump on him for this.

I've proposed that the evolution of species (not evolution, because evolution is a fact - only within the created kinds) and the theory of creation are on a level playing field. Neither can be reproduced and one or the other happened a very long time ago. Furthermore, both use "forensic type sciences" to make guesses about the past. Neither is perfectly scientific because the scientific method is not involved in either. It cannot be utilized because observation is impossible.

On this premise, it would be logical to give "special creation" equal time with the evolution of species in our classrooms.

JG

[DivineOb]

Today @ 04:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94927#post94927)
TheFiveSolas:



That's akin to asserting that a single spelling error in an entire paragraph renders the entire paragraph meaningless.

Not at all. If Gish were to come out and admit that him stating what he did was an error, I would have no problem (well, still some, since an error of that magnitude is quite significant), but we both know he didn't commit an error... he flat out (and I hesitate to state but I don't see that I have any choice) lied when he said the the 2LoT disproves evilution.


Stated by Socrates




Nice soundbite, but what are you going to do -- trot out the old boring "open systems" canard as well?

For the record, I don't like using the 2LoT except for chemical evolution.



Can you clarify how the 2LoT makes a difference in any context, chemical evolution or otherwise?

Also, I think the issues we are talking about seem to be simple enough that even a computer scientist such as myself can understand them. Do you believe that Gish's statements in that argument were in error? Do you believe his statements were borne out of an attempt to deceive? Do you believe that a man with as much formal training as Gish could make 'errors' of the magnitude necessary for him to have not been trying to deceive in claiming that the 2LoT disproves evilution?

[DivineOb]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94783#post94783)
Jason G:

Hmmmm. Let's see. We have an atheist telling me they don't like Kent Hovind . . . and providing some atheist web sites that say more of the same. The point in my last post has been proven (and quite speedily, I might add). :rofl:



True or false, Hovind has claimed that Lucy's bones were found far apart?
True or false, ICR has indicated that these bones were found close together?
True or false, one of these organizations is incorrect about where Lucy's bones were found, 30 years after the fact?

[DivineOb]

Today @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95047#post95047)
Jason G:

Very nice, Mr. Snacks. I agree.

If an atheist can scare a Christian or a seeker away from examining Kent Hovind's material, then they have succeeded in wounding that person quite severely. This is a poor and wretched tactic, though. Every word should be evaluated. The wonderful and true things should be made known and remembered. The things that science has shown to be outdated and wrong should be dismissed and forgotten.



Absolutely Jason. I agree with you 100%. Right here I would like you challenge you to create a thread defending any particular 'proof' for a young earth advanced by Kent Hovind, and we can try to get to the bottom of the real science behind it. I'd authorize any moderator to censor / erase any of my messages that they deem more focused on 'winning' rather than discovering where the true science pointed. I'm only interested in pursuing the truth, no matter where it leads. Are you willing to pursue it as well?




One thing that pop-scientist, atheist types don't like is Kent Hovind's tendency to embrace possible, yet unproven scenarios for creation.



Primarily because such behavior is *not science*. Science should not embrace scenarios which lack evidence. Any scientific hypothesis which embraces unproven and untestable ideas should not be treated as anything more than a guess as to how the world works, and nothing more.




He generally admits that these scenarios are unproven, though. However, atheists who want to say he isn't a scientist and there is no such thing as creation science like to jump on him for this.



He makes up scienarios (where's his evidence for humans that were massively tall or much smarter in the past?) for which he has no evidence at all. If he wants to present such as mere guesses about the world, he can be my guest. But he shouldn't present them as anything but guesses. If he wants to present them as a scientific alternative to the science we have today, then he needs *evidence*.




I've proposed that the evolution of species (not evolution, because evolution is a fact - only within the created kinds) and the theory of creation are on a level playing field. Neither can be reproduced and one or the other happened a very long time ago. Furthermore, both use &quot;forensic type sciences&quot; to make guesses about the past. Neither is perfectly scientific because the scientific method is not involved in either. It cannot be utilized because observation is impossible.



That is true. It is impossble to *prove* that (macro)evolution occured. But it is certainly possible to prove that it didn't occur, and (macro)evolution has survived numerous attempts to disrpove it. In contrast, there have been numerous observations made in the world which are very difficult to explain in the context of a 6-10k year old earth. If you want to take a crack of them, one of them is the endogenous retroviruses thread (which is, btw, the evidence I wanted to discuss after our debate). If you think you can explain endogenous retroviruses in the context of a 6k year old earth, then I strongly welcome you to do so.

The thread is here http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3444




On this premise, it would be logical to give &quot;special creation&quot; equal time with the evolution of species in our classrooms.

JG

Yes I agree. When we lack any evidence one way or the other, they are on equal playing fields. But, that does not describe the situation.

[Minnesota]

Fivesolas,

I'm not sure if the above statement was a subtle attempt at ad hominem, but I'll point out that the site Prophecy and Apologetic Site, Exposing the Works of the Evil One is not run by, nor affiliated with Dr. Menton.

Tis nothing more than a source reference for the list that follows.

[SLPx]

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94855#post94855)
Socrates:


Fedmahn Kassad:That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced. Come off it -- where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy? I have seen NOTHING to parallel even remotely the evolutionary propagandists mantra &quot;We should teach evolution because most scientists believe it,&quot; or Plimer the mining geologist saying &quot;As a scientist ...&quot; before pontificating about the RNA world. I don't see many evolutionist protesting against this sort of thing.

You do this is nearly each of your posts.




Fedmahn Kassad:... or that a plant pathologist is not necessarily an authority on biological information, but scientifically literate people do know this. If you mean Dr Batten, he relies on people who ARE experts in information theory such as Dr-Ing Werner Gitt.


Gitt? You mean the information TECHNOLOGIST that is basically unknown outside of creationist circles? The Gitt that defines information as "coming from a conscious mind" ? That is, arguing via definition? That gibberish would only impress non-biologists such as yourself.

I did write a lengthy rebuttal to your earlier bilge, but it was.... 'moderated'.
But it was illinformed bilge nonetheless.

[SLPx]

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94918#post94918)
Socrates:

Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton (as TheFiveSolas has already mentioned). I'e had the privilege of listening to his fascinating and informative talks on the Eye, Flight, &quot;Ape-men, and Skin.

I have had the excruciating pleasure of encountering Dr,Menton as well.

After reading his "technical and in depth article"(which was, strangely, only a few paragraphs long and contained no citations) on vestigial organs, I emailed him and asked for some 'necessary' functions of the auricularis muscles in humans.
He replied with a cut and pasted spiel about the anatomy of these muscles (which I already knew) and several paragraphs about facial nerve paralysis, which did not even mention the auricularis muscles.

I replied, pointing out that he did not actually address my question.

He responded with words to the effect of "my belief system is superior to yours, so I am right". This despite the fact that I had not mentioned my belief system or anything else - just asked a question. He did not reply again.

No wonder Socrates finds him 'great' - they are so much alike...

[biter]

Today @ 05:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94983#post94983)
Minnesota:

Socrates.

Interesting that you bring up another creationist scientist, Dr. David Menton, who seems to have grown bored with his own field of expertise and has wandered off, pontificating on a myriad of subjects, and no doubt expecting that his words will carry the same academic weight as if he was expounding on bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and
biomechanics of skin (the listed topics on which he has published in technical and scientific journals).

Is he qualified to speak on bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and
biomechanics of skin? Very much so, I would expect. Any more so than, say, a geologist, anthropologist, taxonomist, systematisist, philosopher of science, paleontologist, sociologist, historian, sedimentologist, or cosmologist? You betchum he would.

Now, considering the list of his articles below, many, if not most, of which are in fields developed and overseen by geologists, anthropologists, taxonomists, systematisists, philosophers of science, Paleontologists, sociologists, historians, sedimentologists, and cosmologists, who is better qualified to speak intelligently on these subjects? Pleaasseeee don't say he is. PPPPlease!

Is Dr. Menton at all qualified to speak intelligently on ANY of the topics (on a level commensurate with his touted status as a scientist)? Perhaps one or two, but other than that . . . nope!

Reading through this and other threads, I have noticed a distinct tendency for creationists to engage actively in the argument ad verucundiam, while often simultaneously attempting to dispagare evolutionists who are claimed to be doing the same thing.

It is a common example of dichotomous thinking.

My favorite creationist that is also a scientist would also have to be Kurt Wise. His honesty in assessing "creation science" is refreshing to say the least.

As far as actual "creation scientists", that is, individuals with legitimate science credentials actively pursuing research, testing creation-based hypotheses, well, I do not believe that there are any such people.

There are many that use their credentials in one legitimate aspect of science to attempt to cast doubt on some aspect of evolution - as Menton does - but I am unaware of any actual research going on.

I have read about the baraminology study group. However, their research is so bias and presupposition- laden as to render it worthless.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95047#post95047)
Jason G:
If an atheist can scare a Christian or a seeker away from examining Kent Hovind's material...
Remember, Jason, it isn't only atheists who are incredulous and express concern about Mr Hovind's background, tactics, and integrity; they're creationists, too.


..., then they have succeeded in wounding that person quite severely. This is a poor and wretched tactic, though.
If, as suggested by you below [my inference], Mr Hovind's presentations are filled with specious, salesman/persuasive tactics, then his audience's ability to think for oneself is wounded---I, too regard that as severe.

If your raison d'etre is to win points with the Peanut Gallery through spurious sound-bites and specious sloganry, then "pop-scientist" may be a bit of projection.


Every word should be evaluated. The wonderful and true things should be made known and remembered.
It seems to me "wonder" is discouraged for some. When one is confined to "flail within the Pale", significant paths of thought are placed in visceral shadows. Many of those paths can lead to epiphanies and a more genuine sense of faith.

It also seems that Mr Hovind's ilk* demand more concessions than they are apt to allow.

*---[to be read with a non-perjorative tone]


The things that science has shown to be outdated and wrong should be dismissed and forgotten.
The things that one's peers prudently place outside propriety should be also considered for dismissal. You can easily compose complimentary coup-fourres to counter criticism of Mr Hovind but have you yet set your sights slightly closer to cogent censure?

Many of your peers have---and your audience is left to "wonder" about your dedication to even-handedness and respecting their intelligence.

[This is a topic for another thread, but] it doesn't seem to me that holding-fast to a literal/inerrant Genesis is required to avoid a charge of apostasy.


One thing that pop-scientist, atheist types don't like is Kent Hovind's tendency to embrace possible, yet unproven scenarios for creation. He generally admits that these scenarios are unproven, though.
...and he generally dispenses shotgun assertions which can never quite "pssssst" away the faint scent of guile from the air.


However, atheists who want to say he isn't a scientist and there is no such thing as creation science like to jump on him for this.
Some peer-reviewed scientists can often be froggier than others----meanwhile the non peer-reviewed creation scientists, I'm sure, don't like conjuring an answer to why Mr Hovind makes himself so flippin' jumpable.


I've proposed that the evolution of species (not evolution, because evolution is a fact - only within the created kinds) and the theory of creation are on a level playing field. Neither can be reproduced and one or the other happened a very long time ago.
That doesn't seem a cogent criterion. Surely there are varieties of scientific "verities" through which conclusions can reasonably be drawn. The question becomes what degree of guile is proportional to the personality of the preacher, whose adopted role is to inculcate rather than inform----thereby flauting an incumbency of Free Will.


Furthermore, both use &quot;forensic type sciences&quot; to make guesses about the past. Neither is perfectly scientific because the scientific method is not involved in either. It cannot be utilized because observation is impossible.
These don't seem like clearly drawn conclusions.

"Science offers proofs without certainty; Creationsits offer certainty without proof." Ashley Montague


On this premise, it would be logical to give &quot;special creation&quot; equal time with the evolution of species in our classrooms.
It's doubtful to me that that equivocal countervalance would be upheld anytime soon by federal judges.

I agree with you that creation and Scripture should be presented "as truth" in classrooms---but with truly countervaling arguments and insights offered in classes taught by qualified non-believers. Fighting rhetorical wars with "atheistic" evolution focuses only one aspect without addressing the more cogent and thought-provoking notions which challenge Christianty's claims and methods of purveying them.

Christianity is an important part of our make-up and that of Society, surely it should be discussed and understood in all its dynamics amongst our children. What could be more fair than to teach with an intellectual balance from both sides all the way through school?

Surely truth and epiphanies can survive on their own; morality and integrity function within an "expected range" irrespective of underpinnings.

It's ok to get it wrong, sometiemes.

[GrayPilgrim]

It is in poor taste to recount an email conversation with someone, especially when they are not available to verify the story in question. As this Dr. Menton is not a member of this board I do not find it in good taste to report an story that can not be verified.

GP

[SLPx]

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95399#post95399)
GrayPilgrim:

It is in poor taste to recount an email conversation with someone, especially when they are not available to verify the story in question. As this Dr. Menton is not a member of this board I do not find it in good taste to report an story that can not be verified.

GP




Of course it can be verified. I archived all the exchanges.

What you are doing is accusing me of lying.

I find THAT in poor taste.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95399#post95399)
GrayPilgrim:
It is in poor taste to recount an email conversation with someone,I've seen quotes from personal correspondances in plenty of books from biology, physics, to biblical theology. It is not the most common use of sources, but I wouldn't say its poor taste, unless the person is being taken out of context.
especially when they are not available to verify the story in question. I'm sure someone must know him, or contact him to ensure the legitimacy of the email conversation.

[Korihor]

05-11-2003 @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93538#post93538)
steadele:

As to some of the flood problems......I find Ross's explanation to be a bit lacking of detail, but perhaps the latest edition of the genesis question will have some better data in it. Since I plan on buying it soon, Ill read it and see what it says.

I know Mortons review is somewhat dated now, but I just simply forgot that Ross did a quick reply on his webcast. I will send him an apology through email later on today.

I do like Ross (though I do not agree with him on everything) and I think he is an honest person in general. He really should put things in writing on the website though.


Hey Russ, you're famous! :teeth: Hugh Ross mentioned your name and discussed your email in his recent Creation Update (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/) webcast today.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95447#post95447)
SLPx:



Of course it can be verified. I archived all the exchanges.

What you are doing is accusing me of lying.

I find THAT in poor taste.

I did not accuse you of that nor did I question the veracity of your account. What I questioned was that unless you attained Dr. Menton's consent to make public a private correspondance between the two of you tehn it is a breach of confidentiality not that you lied.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95474#post95474)
GrayPilgrim:
I did not accuse you of that nor did I question the veracity of your account. What I questioned was that unless you attained Dr. Menton's consent to make public a private correspondance between the two of you tehn it is a breach of confidentiality not that you lied.
Email Discussion Lists Referencing (http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lss/ls/docs/harv4.htm#EMAIL%20DISCUSSION%20LISTS)
Unpublished Letters and Personal Communications (http://writing.colostate.edu/references/sources/chicago/pop3b7d.cfm)

Honestly, if there is not any person to person confidentiality to begin with, ie, the person should speak of in the beginning of a conversation, its free game. If they didn't want it put into argument, they shouldn't have said it.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95471#post95471)
Korihor:



Hey Russ, you're famous! :teeth: Hugh Ross mentioned your name and discussed your email in his recent Creation Update (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/) webcast today.


Cool Ill have to listen to it later on today. Ive actually been a caller on the show before also, and I think Ive had 3 other email questions answered. I wonder if they mentioned that I sent them an apology for forgetting about the October 2002 broadcast? I guess Ill find out later.



Russ

[Warcraft3]

Okay I just listened to the webcast on my email. I think its 1 hour 35 seconds into the broadcast if anyone is interested.

Im not sure about the answers, so I guess Ill have to get the updated version of the genesis question and see what it says. Ill send Glenn Morton an email at the begginning of July(he will have his email situation corrected by that time) and ask him what he thinks. Ill get the references from Ross's book and compare them with Mortons references and try to sort it out.



Russ

[mrsnacks]

I watched a DVD which was a presentation by Hovind and I enjoyed it . I did cringe at times when he expressed his beliefs as a futurist (the anti christ and the great trib is coming ) and his dispensational views- pro Israel all the way. I am an orthodox preterist and not a dispensationalist by no means. So it rubbed me in a wrong way.

I often wonder why someone like Hovind and Hugh Ross as scientists can not apply their expertise in regards to theological issues. They blindly, in my opinion ,accept all this last days madness and assume that Impe, Lindsey, Ice, Jeffires , are experts in their field so they follow their teachings without going and testing what they say .

I say this because Ross has studies available on end times and other subjects outside of science. So does Hovind. If I want to learn how to cook --I'll get a book by Julia Child --not a cooking book from Einstein or Gould for that matter.

I don't have much of a scientific background as many of you here . But what I have noticed is that everyone has a problem with someone or some sort of criticism and disagreement. And it seldom gets a little nasty. That's what i don't like.

I ,for example , lean towards a 6 day creation account. I think there are good arguments in favor of a 6 day literal creation. The Bible to me is the reference point and authority. That's the problem I have with Ross and Hovind on eschatology. And I would expect better exegesis from them .

Please Ross and Hovind ---stay in your own scientific field. Don't go off in eschatology or theology where you don't have the credentials. Next thing you know they will come out with a cookbook.

[TheFiveSolas]

mrsnacks,
Welcome to TWeb! :cheers:

Oh, and by the way is it MRsnacks or MRSnacks? I'm assuming the former :lol:

[Minnesota]

Taken from a post by SLPx.



Fedmahn Kassad:

That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced.

[Socrates' reply to Kassad:]
Come off it -- where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy? I have seen NOTHING to parallel even remotely the evolutionary propagandists mantra "We should teach evolution because most scientists believe it," or Plimer the mining geologist saying "As a scientist ..." before pontificating about the RNA world. I don't see many evolutionist protesting against this sort of thing. ”

[SLPx's reply to Socrates:]
You do this is nearly each of your posts.

My two cents:

You're absolutely right SLPx. He has done this with others. A page or so away Socrates posted the following egregious example:


Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton (as TheFiveSolas has already mentioned). I'e had the privilege of listening to his fascinating and informative talks on the Eye, Flight, "Ape-men, and Skin.
which he follows with a listing of Menton's
Professional Affiliation
Professional Activities
Extraprofessional activities
Education
Honors/Awards/Associations
Publications

Now, why is Socrates touting Menton and his accomplishments? Does Menton offer insight into how his field of study (bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin) impacts creationist theory? Hardly, because almost every one of Mentons writings concerning creationist theory fall outside his field of expertise. "Wait," you say. "If Menton isn't addressing the aspects of bone, wound healing, etc. as they relate to creationist issues, then why should I care about his accomplishments?" YOU SHOULDN'T. "And, why would Socrates even bring them up?" ANSWER: argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Socrates does want us to believe that because Menton is a respected scientist in his particular field that he deserves equal respect for everything else he has to say, including his opinions on What Do the Fossils Say? The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism. and Dating Methods, Time, And The Big Bang (creationist subjects on which he has published).

This is an on-the-money example of the definition of argumentum ad verecundiam, which according to the web site, Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies and others, goes as follows:

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

Definition [abbreviated]:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,

Examples:
Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.

Noted Anatomist Dr. David Menton recommends that you buy his conclusions on C14 dating.

Knock, knock, Socks, any of this sinking in? As

[TheFiveSolas]

Minnesota,

That was one of the best caricatures I've seen in a while.

Nowhere has Socrates or any other creationist on TWeb used an argument such as "Noted Anatomist Dr. David Menton recommends that you buy his conclusions on C14 dating."

Rather, Socrates put forth a post that was perfectly in keeping with the topic of this thread, "Who is your favorite professional creationist?"

Your assertion that Dr. Menton was being put forth as someone with expertise in C14 dating is clearly ridiculous since no such claim was ever made.

In addition, Dr. Menton is free to publish articles on whatever topic he wishes. Rather than claiming that he is making a fallacious appeal to authority why don't you cut and paste ANYWHERE in any of his articles where he says something like, "Believe me because I have a Ph.D." For your information, THAT is what a TRULY fallacious appeal to authority looks like. Dr. Menton nowhere makes assertions that even come close to what you are portraying. Instead he offers arguments. If you dispute his conclusions you might try refuting his argument rather than setting up a straw man.

[mrsnacks]

You are right . It's the former. I am known as Mr. Snacks not Mrs. Nacks. And my wife is Mrs. Snacks , not Mrs. Nacks. You can, by the way, call me anything but --please don't call me late for dinner. :cheers:

[Duvenoy]

A favorite. Hmm. So many choices.

I think I'll go with 'Dr.' Dino. No good reason, really. It's just that in this world of increasing woe, a little comic relief is welcome.

doov

[Socrates]

SPLx SPLutters (post#147):Gitt? You mean the information TECHNOLOGIST that is basically unknown outside of creationist circles? Rubbish -- more false witness by SPLx, but then, I've already pointed out that if evolution from goo to you via the zoo were true, then there is nothing IN THAT PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM that can say that bearing false witness is objectively wrong.

From his bio www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/w_gitt.asp


The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be: [list=1] A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title. [:whack: So not a mere "technologist" despite SPLx's SPLuttering :poke:]

One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.

Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.[/list=1]

SPLx continues with his pontifications :rant: but no one should be under any illusion that he is motivated by science rather than his atheistic self-serving meta-scientific bias:The Gitt that defines information as "coming from a conscious mind" ? Actually, he arues that a certain level of information has only been observed to come from a mind. That is, arguing via definition? That gibberish would only impress non-biologists such as yourself.And your blustering outside your field would impress only non-informaticians and non-physical-scientists such as yourself.

More open-minded readers should study Dr Gitt's paper Information, Science and Biology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v10n2p181.asp).

[Socrates]

GrayPilgrim:


I did not accuse you of that nor did I question the veracity of your account. What I questioned was that unless you attained Dr. Menton's consent to make public a private correspondance between the two of you tehn it is a breach of confidentiality not that you lied.

Jimmy Higgins:Email Discussion Lists Referencing
Unpublished Letters and Personal Communications

Honestly, if there is not any person to person confidentiality to begin with, ie, the person should speak of in the beginning of a conversation, its free game. If they didn't want it put into argument, they shouldn't have said it.Excuse me, but Gray Pilgrim is right.

First, it's a matter of ethics -- something should be assumed to be confidential unless otherwise stated.

Second, it's legal, because the Berne Convention on Copyright, to which about 100 countries are signatories, states that ANY published work is AUTOMATICALLY copyright.

Third, emails are the worst, because they can be so easily wrneched out of context or even doctored. This is an especially serious consideration for anyone with a world view that can provide no objective basis for refraining from false witness.

[Minnesota]

FiveSolas,

The whole thrust of my post was that Socrates IS guilty of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Socrates begins his homage to Merton with the following:


Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton (as TheFiveSolas has already mentioned). I'e had the privilege of listening to his fascinating and informative talks on the Eye, Flight, "Ape-men, and Skin.


Now, I don't care a wit who Socrates' favorite creationist scientist is--please believe me. But Socrates likes Menton, thinks he's an excellent creationist scientist--which in this context can only be interpreted as meaning Socrates feels Menton does excellent work in the area of creation science (the only other possible readings of this would be that Merton is an excellent guy who happens to be a creationist scientist, OR, that he is an excellent creationist who happens to be a scientist--neither of which deserve consideration). Socrates then goes on to list a few of the topics he feels Menton should be lauded for (Socrates was "privileged to hear" these "fascinating" and "informative" talks). Of the four talks Socrates lists, only one, Skin, falls within Menton's field of expertise. It appears pretty obvious that the bulk of Menton's creationists talks, and certainly his creationists writings are not in his academic field.

YET

Socrates goes on to list Menton's accomplishments. But--
Have they any relevance to the vast majority of Menton's creationists writings a talks? NO.
Have they any relevance to Merton being good creationist scientist? NO--they only speak to his work in the secular anatomical field.

So why list them? Well, as I pointed out in my previous post, Argumentum ad verecundiam is why.

And, in illustrating just why this is so, I included a definition and example of the phrase. The point of inserting the remark about C14 was not to fault Menton for committing Argumentum ad verecundiam--he obviously does no such thing--but as an example of an instance in which Menton--as well as so many other scientists that write on creation topics--is out of his depth when it comes to evaluating the work and conclusions of experts in fields other than his own.

FiveSolas PLEASE NOTE: The person committing AaV is NOT the person spoken ABOUT (Frasier Crane, for example) but the person who SAYS: "Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub." By recommending EZ-Rest Hot Tubs Frasier is not appealing to any authority--it is simply his recommendation.


You say that "[my]assertion that Dr. Menton was being put forth as someone with expertise in C14 dating is clearly ridiculous since no such claim was ever made." First of all, Socrates would make that claim. Secondly, I never said that Menton was being put forth as an "expert" on C14. All I said was that "Noted Anatomist Dr. David Menton recommends that you buy his conclusions on C14 dating. PLEASE NOTE THE DIFFERENCE IN MEANING. PLEASE.

For the record
1)In his article, The Dating Game by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. Menton writes as if he has qualifications to talk about C14 decay.

2) Socrates trumpets Menton and his qualifications in fields outside his own by appealing to the Argument from Authority.

3) So in Socrates' mind, why would the topic of C14 decay be taken any less seriously than Menton's talk on "Flight" or "Ape-men"? I don't believe they would.

Hopefully, by now it will be apparent that your closing comment "Rather than claiming that he is making a fallacious appeal to authority why don't you cut and paste ANYWHERE in any of his articles where he says something like, "Believe me because I have a Ph.D." For your information . .etc. . etc." is simply a mistaken understanding of the situation. Hopefully.

[Socrates]

Minnie minces:Of the four talks Socrates lists, only one, Skin, falls within Menton's field of expertise. It appears pretty obvious that the bulk of Menton's creationists talks, and certainly his creationists writings are not in his academic field.Not so. In his anatomy lecturers at a secular university, he lectured on other topics. One can be an expert on something without publishing NEW work on it, which is what journal publications are. For the eye lecture, he used some of his own microscope slides. It was clear that he WAS an expert in all the fields he spoke on, and had far deeper knowledge than most evolutionists who spruik on them.

[DivineOb]

Anyway, to answer the question of this thread, I was going to say Socrates, since I at least find him quite amusing. But, following the incident with him 'quoting' Sarfati I started reading some of Sarfati's writings on AiG... I found what Sarfati had to say quite similar to Soc, but lacking the insults, which I really don't enjoy...

Sorry Soc... better luck next time...

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95791#post95791)
Socrates:
First, it's a matter of ethics -- something should be assumed to be confidential unless otherwise stated. Yipes. Was it alright that I just quoted you? Should I PM you every time I quote what you are saying?

Second, it's legal, because the Berne Convention on Copyright, to which about 100 countries are signatories, states that ANY published work is AUTOMATICALLY copyright. You are really trying to extend the meaning of publish aren't you?

Third, emails are the worst, because they can be so easily wrneched out of context or even doctored. This is an especially serious consideration for anyone with a world view that can provide no objective basis for refraining from false witness. Wow, good point! You would be the expert on wrenching things "out of context".

[SLPx]

Today @ 02:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95661#post95661)
TheFiveSolas:

Minnesota,

That was one of the best caricatures I've seen in a while.

Nowhere has Socrates or any other creationist on TWeb used an argument such as &quot;Noted Anatomist Dr. David Menton recommends that you buy his conclusions on C14 dating.&quot;

Come on! Why does this "argument of explication" crop up all th etime in cre/evo discussions? For example, Walter ReMine writes in his book and elsewhere that the population genetics issue he refers to as "Haldane's dilemma" was "garbled, confused, and prematurely brushed aside" by geneticists and evolutionists, and that "you will not read about it" in textbooks or the professional literature. Besides the fact that all of these assertions are demonstrably false, it is obvious that ReMine is implying that there is a conspiracy to keep this quiet. Yet when this obvious fact is mentioned, he bristles, insists that he is being "misrepresented" because he never wrote anything about a "conspiracy."

The same antic is being used here. No, Socrates did not write that Menton's musings on C14 should be accepted because he has a PhD. and studied wound healing. It is implicit.

In addition, Dr. Menton is free to publish articles on whatever topic he wishes. Rather than claiming that he is making a fallacious appeal to authority why don't you cut and paste ANYWHERE in any of his articles where he says something like, &quot;Believe me because I have a Ph.D.&quot; For your information, THAT is what a TRULY fallacious appeal to authority looks like.
It is a shame that certain people require being bitten on the buttocks by the pit bull to accept that there is, in fact, a dog chasing them...


Dr. Menton nowhere makes assertions that even come close to what you are portraying. Instead he offers arguments. If you dispute his conclusions you might try refuting his argument rather than setting up a straw man.
Having read many of Mentons essays - his "technical and in depth" articles in particular - I can safely say that, in fact, Menton does not offer arguments on these various issues, such as "gill slits" or vestigial structures. He offers assertions and opinions. See his essay on embryonic development
here (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/slits.htm) .
Assertions.

[Minnesota]

After quoting me


Of the four talks Socrates lists, only one, Skin, falls within Menton's field of expertise. It appears pretty obvious that the bulk of Menton's creationists talks, and certainly his creationists writings are not in his academic field.


Socrates whines:


Not so. In his anatomy lecturers at a secular university, he lectured on other topics.

So what? Are you saying that at some secular university he has lectured on anatomy as it relates to creationism? And that these lectures were all sponsored and sanctioned by a secular administration? If not, your remark is irrelevant.


One can be an expert on something without publishing NEW work on it, which is what journal publications are.

Again, so what? It's irrelevant that Menton no longer publishes in his field. I don't deny the Menton is an expert in his particular academic field--bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin--but that's the extent of it.


For the eye lecture, he used some of his own microscope slides.

I hope you're not trying to imply that just because one uses a tool of his trade (in this case, slides relevant to Mentons field) that this automatically imbues whatever he uses that tool on with respectability. Just because a carpenter uses a hammer to break open eggs doesn't mean he is automatically a good cook.


It was clear that he WAS an expert in all the fields he spoke on,

And just what qualifies YOU to make such a judgment? Are you an expert in "all the fields he spoke on"? If not, I fail to see how such a judgment could be made, especially one that was so "clear." Give me a break here.


and [he] had far deeper knowledge than most evolutionists who spruik on them.

Again, I await your qualifications; not only to judge the substance of what Menton said, but to judge the knowledge of "most evolutionists." Am I picking up clues here that these lectures were not so much lectures as they were debates between a creationist and evolutionist? Interesting.

[RufusAtticus]

05-12-2003 @ 10:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94899#post94899)
Socrates:

Get a life!

You first.


There was enough rewording

No such thing when it comes to plagiarism and inproper citations.


Also, I normally do give my sources, but this is a bulletin board not a scientific paper so cut me some slack!

Why should you be cut slack for stealing the words and thoughts of another person?

[Elvis Rehnquist]

mrsnacks: I think that Hovind gets the grass out of the loft and on the ground so the cows can eat it . He along with Ham relate a lot more easier with the non- scientific crowd.

No kidding, since neither is a scientist. By the way, that's not grass Hovind is shovelling.

And Rufus Atticus is correct. Crying "fair use copyright" in defense of plagiarism is beyond pathetic, and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of both copyright law and plagiarism.

[djdavo]

i am a YEC, and have watched all of Kent Hovind's seminar.

POSITIVE: i will say that as a positive he was the 1st creation scientist i found on the web and found it interesting. i think his lectures would be great for church groups, etc.

NEGATIVES: i will also say i think he comes across like a jerk sometimes and doesnt' fully explain himself on many occasions. (saying something's silly or stupid without backing it up is never good advice)


that being said, i like Ken Ham. he's really got a great ministry there!

[Jason Gastrich]

I must mention that I have really appreciated the numerous books Kent Hovind has mentioned in his lectures. I have bought several of them. They include:

The Giant Squid, by Richard Ellis
Noah's Ark: A Feasbility Study, by John Woodmorappe
Astronomy and the Bible, by DeYoung
Dinosaurs, by DeYoung
Archaeology and History, by Free and Vos

There are many others that he has mentioned, but those are the main ones that interested me to the point where I found them and bought them.

JG

[QED]

Kent Hovind has been mentioned in this thread several times. As far as it concerns furthering a cause, he should be every evolutionist's favorite creationist. That's not to mention every atheist's favorite creationist.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97910#post97910)
Jason G:

I must mention that I have really appreciated the numerous books Kent Hovind has mentioned in his lectures. I have bought several of them. They include:

The Giant Squid, by Richard Ellis
Noah's Ark: A Feasbility Study, by John Woodmorappe
Astronomy and the Bible, by DeYoung
Dinosaurs, by DeYoung
Archaeology and History, by Free and Vos

There are many others that he has mentioned, but those are the main ones that interested me to the point where I found them and bought them.

JG

Jason,

You didn't respond to the messages I posed directed at you. That is fine, because I don't really care about that, except I would appreciate it if you will respond to this one, which I will repeat.

True or false, Hovind has claimed that Lucy's bones were found far apart?
True or false, ICR has indicated that these bones were found close together?
True or false, one of these organizations is incorrect about where Lucy's bones were found, 30 years after the fact?

[Jason Gastrich]

Jamison,

I'm sorry, but I didn't see any questions from you directed to me. However, I did take a day or two off and returned to this thread and noticed a TON of responses. I couldn't get to all of them, today.

I don't know what Hovind or ICR thinks on the issue of Lucy's bones. Sorry. Perhaps you can cite web sites and/or videos where they speak on these things.

I do remember hearing that Lucy's bones were found a good distance apart and/or in different rock strata. I also seem to remember hearing this from several sources. I couldn't cite any, though. My anthropology teacher at SDSU may have been one source.

Perhaps you should create a new thread for this subject. If you do, let me know. TWeb is pretty big, so I occasionally miss threads and posts.

JG

http://jcsm.net/jason_jamison1.gif

[Sher]

05-14-2003 @ 01:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95807#post95807)
Minnesota:

The whole thrust of my post was that Socrates IS guilty of argumentum ad verecundiam.

May I point out one glaring error in this accusation that I don't believe has been mentioned?

There would have to be argumentum ... to have argumentum ad verecundiam. Answering this topic thread's question ... "who is ... " doesn't constitute an argument ... it is an answer to a question of personal opinon ... and giving reasons for that opinion are valid in this case.

The original post listed the following as examples of why someone "could" pick their favorite ... "Pick your own criteria, such as integrity, strength of argument, dashing good looks, humor, and so on." If "dashing good looks" and "humor" could be used as the only reasons for picking someone ... neither of which has anything to do with a scientist's actual validity ... then the Socrates' opinion on how any talks that scientist gave made him a favorite are acceptable in this thread as well. Soc isn't trying to "sell" the scientist as an authority on anything ... but giving his opinon on one of his favorites.

This seems to be, IMO, another "let's complain about Socrates" rant ... of no particular substance save attempted character assassination.


Now, I don't care a wit who Socrates' favorite creationist scientist is--please believe me.

Yet ... that is the whole point of this thread ... to list who favorites are ... this quote above only serves to strengthen my opinion that you are only "out to get" Socrates ... and frankly, using rather falsified means to do so ...

[Korihor]

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98336#post98336)
Jason G:
I do remember hearing that Lucy's bones were found a good distance apart and/or in different rock strata. I also seem to remember hearing this from several sources. I couldn't cite any, though. My anthropology teacher at SDSU may have been one source.


Jason,

This is somewhat of an embarrassing error among prominent creationists who have made this claim.

Lucy's bones were all found in the same place. The error stems from a misunderstanding of a lecture about Lucy by Donald Johansen. Someone asked from the audience, "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?"

Johanson replied, "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away."

If one wasn't aware of the context of the question, one might misunderstand this as Johansen claiming that Lucy's knee was discovered far away and in different strata. However, the questioner wasn't referring to any bones from Lucy (found in 1974), but of a separate finding from 1973.

You can read more about it here:

Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html)

Unfortunately, many creationists still promulgate this error. This is proven by the fact that your creationist anthropology teacher didn't do his homework before passing on the error to you.

As you will find from the article, some creationists, with a bit of prodding by their skeptics, have made retractions or agreed to stop making the claim. This is what John Morris at the ICR had to say about the admitted error in his absurd attempt at a face saving gesture:



http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-011b.htm

Study of the tactics used in the decades-long harangue by evolutionists to re-establish the pedigree of Lucy's knee is instructive. Evolutionists scour the creationist's literature for any error, no matter how trivial. (Creationists are not infallible, and error does creep in, despite our best efforts.) These minor errors are trumpeted far-and-wide by self appointed evolutionary watchdogs, and used to claim that creationism is not credible, all the while ignoring much more significant misstatements or inappropriate museum displays, etc., by evolutionists.


Some prominent creationists, unfortunately, continue to make the claim or refuse to make a retraction even when called upon it. :dufus:




http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

To summarize: At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.


This is another claim that AiG should add to their article, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

By the way, who are you shaking hands with in your photo?

Edit: added quote from T.O. article

[DivineOb]

Today @ 05:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98722#post98722)
Korihor:

By the way, who are you shaking hands with in your photo?

Edit: added quote from T.O. article

Me :). I'm the guy on the right.

Anyway, Jason here is where icr admits that Lucy's bones were found close together. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-011b.htm Read the addendum, which is where they admit their error.

Now that unambiguous proof that Lucy's bones were found close together has been presented, I trust that you will join us in correcting people who hold to the misconception that the bones were found far apart.

[TheFiveSolas]

DivineOb:
Johanson replied, "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away."

Do you have any clue what the geologic age is that is represented by a difference of sixty to seventy meters lower in a given strata? In other words, how long would it take for the sixty to seventy meters of sediment to accumulate?

[Elvis Rehnquist]

Evolutionists scour the creationist's literature for any error, no matter how trivial. (Creationists are not infallible, and error does creep in, despite our best efforts.) These minor errors are trumpeted far-and-wide by self appointed evolutionary watchdogs, and used to claim that creationism is not credible, all the while ignoring much more significant misstatements or inappropriate museum displays, etc., by evolutionists. - John Morris

LOL!! Classic!

This has got to be the most fabulous, glittering demonstration of poetic irony I've seen in ages. Thank you so much.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98790#post98790)
TheFiveSolas:



Do you have any clue what the geologic age is that is represented by a difference of sixty to seventy meters lower in a given strata? In other words, how long would it take for the sixty to seventy meters of sediment to accumulate?

I don't see how that is relevant. That knee that was found 60-70 meters down was a different knee.

The answer is I don't know.

[Jason Gastrich]

Korihor,

My anthropology professor at SDSU was a woman and surely NOT a creationist. She was an evolutionist and one of the heads of the department. Very nice lady, though. Therefore, she must have received and accepted the same information.

Jamison,

I read the article by ICR. Interesting article. I'm curious why they didn't have some direct quotes from Johanson in their retraction. They mention some evolutionists and how they complained to ICR about that sentence. However, it seems to me that a huge institute like ICR should have went directly to the source and included a statement from him.

Is there a way to prove that Johanson didn't simply change his story after he realized his admission was tainting his find?

This was a good quote from the bottom of the ICR article: "Discovery of the needle does not make the haystack disappear. A look at the big picture finds little evidence that can be used for macro-evolution, and much to support creation."

JG

[Korihor]

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98855#post98855)
Jason G:
Is there a way to prove that Johanson didn't simply change his story after he realized his admission was tainting his find?


Just a quick correction before I give the following quote. The questioner might have been referring to Lucy's knee, but Johanson obviously interpreted the question to refer to the separate 1973 find.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the articles in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had either of these sources been consulted. Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy. All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.

[Bald Ape]

Do you have any clue what the geologic age is that is represented by a difference of sixty to seventy meters lower in a given strata? In other words, how long would it take for the sixty to seventy meters of sediment to accumulate?

If the Green River varves formed in a year - I'd say 60 meters would take 2 or 3 days, with a good windstorm. What do you think?

[Minnesota]

SherBear This is the sequence of post that lead to your present accusations.

Fedmahn Kassad started it off by commenting:
(post #115)
"That’s one of my gripes with AIG. They love to argue from authority, but their authority is too often misplaced."

Socrates responded to this with:
(post #126)
"Come off it -- where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy? I have seen NOTHING to parallel even remotely the evolutionary propagandists mantra "We should teach evolution because most scientists believe it," or Plimer the mining geologist saying "As a scientist ..." before pontificating about the RNA world. I don't see many evolutionist protesting against this sort of thing"

Unrelated to this exchange, Socrates posted his admiration and listing of Dr. Menton's accomplishments.
(post #131)
"Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton"

I responded with:
(post #138)
"Interesting that you bring up another creationist scientist, Dr. David Menton, who seems to have grown bored with his own field of expertise and has wandered off, pontificating on a myriad of subjects . . . ."

Please Note, the subject of argumentum ad verecundiam was first raised by Kassad, and mentioned by name by Socrates, WHO ASKED: where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacys? Up to this point I had not touched the subject.

SLPx then entered a reply to Socrates' remark in post #126.
(post #147)
"You do this is nearly each of your posts."

Biter, then echoed Kassads accusation:
(post #149)
"I have noticed a distinct tendency for creationists to engage actively in the argument ad verucundiam, while often simultaneously attempting to disparage evolutionists who are claimed to be doing the same thing."


Kassad SLPx, and biter had all accused creationists of the fallacy. Socrates had said, in effect, "Prove it," when he challenged: "Come off it -- where do they commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy?" Because Socrates takes the position of being a creationist, he is as much fair game as any other creationist.

So, a bit later, I threw in my two cents:
(post #161)
"You're absolutely right SLPx. He has done this with others. A page or so away Socrates posted the following egregious example." Which I then posted, and followed with:

"Now, why is Socrates touting Menton and his accomplishments? Does Menton offer insight into how his field of study . . . impacts creationist theory? Hardly, because almost every one of Mentons writings concerning creationist theory fall outside his field of expertise."

"Despite his protestations to the contrary, Socrates does want us to believe that because Menton is a respected scientist in his particular field that he deserves equal respect for everything else he has to say."

"Definition [abbreviated]:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
Examples:
Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
Noted Anatomist Dr. David Menton recommends that you buy his conclusions on C14 dating."

These remarks were all aimed to show why I think Socrates homage to Menton reeked of argumentum ad verecundiam. That Socrates wanted to express his vote for a creationist he admired is not in doubt, but neither is the revelation that in doing so he was committing argumentum ad verecundiam.

Socrates challenged to be shown an example of a creationist who had committed the fallacy. I felt the he, himself, had done just that in his post #131.

NOW, as to your accusations.

You say that "If "dashing good looks" and "humor" could be used as the only reasons for picking someone ... neither of which has anything to do with a scientist's actual validity ... then the Socrates' opinion on how any talks that scientist gave made him a favorite are acceptable in this thread as well. To which I say, "Fine," but this certainly does not
mean that the reasons a person gives cannot be characterized. A person's reason for selecting a favorite creationist may be goofy as hell--dashing good looks, and humor. Both of which are quite subjective qualities, and, I agree, have nothing to do "with a scientist's actual validity."
However, Socrates begins his homage to Menton with just such a statement: "Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton (as TheFiveSolas has already mentioned). I'e had the privilege of listening to his fascinating and informative talks on the Eye, Flight, "Ape-men, and Skin. Which he then follows with a list of Menton's accomplishments in secular science. Socrates does not give as his reason for admiring Menton, Mentons dashing looks or good humor, but because Menton is "Another excellent creationist scientist."
So, I went to other sites to see just how Menton was applying his academic knowledge to the Creationists theories. Guess what, He wasn't. But for a few questionable exceptions Menton was speaking and writing far outside his filed of expertise. YET, Socrates was touting Menton as an expert. In fact, he says so in his (post #168):

Minnie minces:
Of the four talks Socrates lists, only one, Skin, falls within Menton's field of expertise. It appears pretty obvious that the bulk of Menton's creationists talks, and certainly his creationists writings are not in his academic field.

Not so. In his anatomy lecturers at a secular university, he lectured on other topics. One can be an expert on something without publishing NEW work on it, which is what journal publications are. For the eye lecture, he used some of his own microscope slides. It was clear that he WAS an expert in all the fields he spoke on, and had far deeper knowledge than most evolutionists who spruik on them.

You say: "Soc isn't trying to "sell" the scientist as an authority on anything ... but giving his opinon on one of his favorites." To which I say, "reread the above."

You also say: "This seems to be, IMO, another "let's complain about Socrates" rant ... of no particular substance save attempted character assassination." To which I say, "Socrates asked for it (see his post #126 as it applies to his post #131)..

Further, In reply to my,
" Now, I don't care a wit who Socrates' favorite creationist scientist is--please believe me."

You say: "Yet ... that is the whole point of this thread ... to list who favorites are ... this quote above only serves to strengthen my opinion that you are only "out to get" Socrates ... and frankly, using rather falsified means to do so ..." To which I say, I honestly don't care what individual a Socrates admires, just don't try to pass off his work by resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam. So, am I out "to get" Socrates? When he resorts to deception through fallicious logic, you bet I am ESPECIALLY WHEN HE ASKS FOR IT! Is it too much to ask a little honesty and forthrightness of your creationists? I would expect not, but maybe I'm expecting too much.

[Sher]

Minnesota, you hit the nail on the head by your own admission:
Unrelated to this exchange, Socrates posted his admiration and listing of Dr. Menton's accomplishments.

Regardless of who first raised the subject, and Socrates reply, you used an "unrelated" post to beat Soc over the head with the accusation of argument ... when no argument was given. It was an "unrelated" post answering the question the original topic raised.


However, Socrates begins his homage to Menton with just such a statement: &quot;Another excellent creationist scientist is the anatomist Dr David Menton (as TheFiveSolas has already mentioned). I'e had the privilege of listening to his fascinating and informative talks on the Eye, Flight, &quot;Ape-men, and Skin. Which he then follows with a list of Menton's accomplishments in secular science. Socrates does not give as his reason for admiring Menton, Mentons dashing looks or good humor, but because Menton is &quot;Another excellent creationist scientist.&quot;

That is correct ... he names him as his choice for a favorite creationist scientist ... gives personal testimony of some talks he had the privilege of enjoying ... and lists the accomplishments of the scientist ... never claiming that was an authority against any argument presented up to that point ... all in the post you quoted ... "unrelated" to the fallacy exchange.

You then tried to start an argument, to which Socrates replied that you were incorrect ... and frankly, not being at the lecture, your opinion on the matter is only speculative, isn't it? ...

... and BTW, why do you think that someone cannot speak from outside his "field of expertise"? One can be an expert on something, yet not make that his line of work ... or field of expertise. A doctor could also be an expert roofer ... perhaps he worked his way through college in that manner ... yet by your accusation ... that doctor couldn't lecture on roofing in an expert manner?

I maintain that Soc did NOT post argument in the post you quoted saying he had ... the "unrelated" one where he posted in response to the topic ... so with argument not present ... the "fallacy" charge is erroneous ... and pointing out post #168 ... the post after your accusations is strange.


So, am I out &quot;to get&quot; Socrates? When he resorts to deception through fallicious logic, you bet I am ESPECIALLY WHEN HE ASKS FOR IT!

Yet ... by your own admission of "unrelated" to the logic discussion ... you show that you manufactured a complaint

If someone had questioned something and Soc used Menton as an authority against that point in argument ... you may have had issue ... if you could prove that Menton was not an authority on the point at hand

But there was no argument ... authority was not presented against an argument ... so there can be no fallacy of that nature.


Is it too much to ask a little honesty and forthrightness of your creationists? I would expect not, but maybe I'm expecting too much.

Honesty? Well ... you haven't proven Soc dishonest ... just that you are "out to get" him

[Jason Gastrich]

Korihor,

Thanks for your post.

While I appreciate the verbage in the talkorigins quotation, it is really no better than ICR's. In order for us to make an unequivocal and rational conclusion in the matter, we need to see Johanson's words from those sources. Then, we have to evaluate them and consider if they were simply "covering his previous statements" about Lucy's knee being found far away. Do you happen to have those links?

I'm not saying that I've formed any opinion either way. However, since the situation is so "here and there" with numerous sources giving conflicting information, it would be best to hear about the original find from the lips of the finder - and from a source published very close to (if not the day of) the discovery.

JG

[Korihor]

Today @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99044#post99044)
Jason G:
While I appreciate the verbage in the talkorigins quotation, it is really no better than ICR's. In order for us to make an unequivocal and rational conclusion in the matter, we need to see Johanson's words from those sources. Then, we have to evaluate them and consider if they were simply &quot;covering his previous statements&quot; about Lucy's knee being found far away. Do you happen to have those links?


Thanks to Google, I've never felt so powerful. :teeth:

From the horse's mouth: :deal:

A letter from Donald Johanson to Jim Lippard regarding Lucy's knee joint (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint/johanson1.html)



Letter from Donald Johanson
August 8, 1989
Institute of Human Origins

"On November 20, 1986 I did lecture at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Since I give so many lectures all over the world, I do not remember specifically what I say at each and every lecture; however, I believe that I can clear up Mr. Brown's lack of attention to accuracy....

Mr. Brown is thoroughly incorrect in saying that "Lucy"'s femur was found 2-3 km away from the rest of the skeleton. As you can see, these are two very different discoveries; the 1973 knee joint in the lower part of the stratigraphic section, and "Lucy"'s skeleton some 70 m above it.

I find it surprising that he says, "Johanson needs to clarify or deny this in writing. None of his published writings do." If Mr. Brown would use his library card, he would be able to read in Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, published in 1981, details of these two discoveries; and, in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, April 1982, Vol. 57, no. 4, he would be able to see a complete bibliography of all publications up to that point, concerning the stratigraphic positions and the evolutionary interpretations of the discoveries."


Edit: Ah, the link to Johanson's letter was in that talk.origin article. I guess I didn't need Google after all. :dufus:

[Jason Gastrich]

Very good, Korihor.

Yes, google.com is probably the best search engine on the web.

Anyhow, I think you've proven that Johanson indeed specified, in the 80's, that his discovery of Lucy was made in the same location.

The next bit of proof that needs to be shown is that Johanson's words did not simply change between the discovery in 1974 and the printing time of those publications in the 80's. It is one thing to be made aware of a controversy and simply put out the fire. However, it would be even more convincing if we could see Johanson's words from 1974 that described his find as he claimed in the 80's.

JG

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99068#post99068)
Jason G:
The next bit of proof that needs to be shown is that Johanson's words did not simply change between the discovery in 1974 and the printing time of those publications in the 80's. It is one thing to be made aware of a controversy and simply put out the fire.

JG

Frankly, I am stunned that you would even insinuate such a thing. I think it's time to cut your losses on this one and just admit you were wrong. Implying that Johanson may be lying to cover up a controversy is pretty disgusting.

FK

[Korihor]

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99068#post99068)
Jason G:
The next bit of proof that needs to be shown is that Johanson's words did not simply change between the discovery in 1974 and the printing time of those publications in the 80's. It is one thing to be made aware of a controversy and simply put out the fire. However, it would be even more convincing if we could see Johanson's words from 1974 that described his find as he claimed in the 80's.


C'mon man, :shrug: give the guy some credit, eh. :tongue:

When he says in a lecture that the 'knee' happens to be where the precise location of his 1973 knee find is, then he's referring to the 1973 find. If Donald were actually to use a knee from that location and claim it was part of Lucy, no anthropologist at the time would take him seriously and creationists would have had a field day. He could be accused of fraud and lose his career.

But if you really want to make absolutely sure, you can check the complete bibiography provided in those two sources Johanson mentioned. I'm not about to run to my university library to check it, but at this point I'm quite content to take Johanson's word for it.

[Jason Gastrich]

F (something):

Frankly, I am stunned that you would even insinuate such a thing. I think it's time to cut your losses on this one and just admit you were wrong. Implying that Johanson may be lying to cover up a controversy is pretty disgusting.

Jason:

Really? Stunned? Pardon me for wanting verifiable proof.

Cut my losses? Admit I'm wrong? I never put forth any assertions, therefore I cannot be wrong.

I'm simply seeking the truth. I see that you simply want to take this man's word for it. Maybe that is good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.

Do you have some connection with Johanson? Why would you blindly believe something that he says and even fight those that seek to verify his initial words? Wouldn't it be wise to investigate issues (especially controversial ones like this)?

Maybe it's just the creation scientist in me . . . but I like evidence and proof. Can I get an AMEN?

JG

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 02:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99108#post99108)
Jason G:

Really? Stunned? Pardon me for wanting verifiable proof.

Cut my losses? Admit I'm wrong? I never put forth any assertions, therefore I cannot be wrong.

I'm simply seeking the truth. I see that you simply want to take this man's word for it. Maybe that is good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.

Yes, stunned. Johnason is one of the most highly respected anthropologists in the world. You are accusing him of possible misconduct. He has stated and written that there was a misunderstanding of his answer. He has written about these findings in books and papers that were published YEARS before this misunderstanding. Yet you don't have the decency to admit that your implications are improper. Your insinuations would be easily falsified by just checking out a book or reading some of his papers published prior to this misunderstanding.


Do you have some connection with Johanson? Why would you blindly believe something that he says and even fight those that seek to verify his initial words? Wouldn't it be wise to investigate issues (especially controversial ones like this)?

I have read a couple of his books and some of his papers. I am well aware of the nature of this incident. It is Creationists like yourself, always mistrusting the motives of an evolutionist, who have kept this thing alive. You really should stop digging your hole deeper and just admit, "Hey, it looks like some Creationists were just wrong about this one".

Really, your insinuations are appalling. Especially given that they are so easily disproven. Visit your library tomorrow and check out one of his books if you are really interested in the truth of the matter.

FK

[geochron]

Today @ 02:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99108#post99108)
Jason G:

Do you have some connection with Johanson? Why would you blindly believe something that he says and even fight those that seek to verify his initial words? Wouldn't it be wise to investigate issues (especially controversial ones like this)?

Maybe it's just the creation scientist in me . . . but I like evidence and proof. Can I get an AMEN?

JG

Maybe it is wise, so why don't you investigate it and let us know? I believe the information is published for those who care to look for themselves. As usual, it will require someone with the motivation to do the digging, something you seem to have in spades. After all, it would be quite a coup for creation science to demonstrate that Lucy was a fraud, definitely a "Science" publication.

If we don't hear back from you with a well founded assertion that he's lying, I think we can draw our own conclusions.

[Jason Gastrich]

First, I'm not being extra-critical because this man is an evolutionist. Frankly, I don't know anything about this man. I'm simply being critical about the statement and using a proper method of discernment to discover the truth.

You said I should go to a library. You also said I should read some books and that you've read some of his books/abstracts. Well, do you care to mention which ones? Tell me which books or abstracts I should seek at the local library (or on the internet) that would indicate he mentioned in 1974 that he found Lucy in one place. If you could do this and this could be verified, it would put the issue to rest.

JG

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99137#post99137)
Jason G:

Tell me which books or abstracts I should seek at the local library (or on the internet) that would indicate he mentioned in 1974 that he found Lucy in one place. If you could do this and this could be verified, it would put the issue to rest.

JG

Here is one: Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson. Published in 1981, 5 years before the misunderstanding.

Let us know what you find. Unless you have a really small library, they should probably have a copy.

FK

[Jason Gastrich]

Perhaps you didn't understand my last post. I want something from 1974.

JG

[Korihor]

Today @ 07:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99144#post99144)
Jason G:

Perhaps you didn't understand my last post. I want something from 1974.

JG

Just to reiterate: :deal: See the bold text.



If Mr. Brown would use his library card, he would be able to read in Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, published in 1981, details of these two discoveries; and, in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, April 1982, Vol. 57, no. 4, he would be able to see a complete bibliography of all publications up to that point, concerning the stratigraphic positions and the evolutionary interpretations of the discoveries.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint/johanson1.html

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 02:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99144#post99144)
Jason G:

Perhaps you didn't understand my last post. I want something from 1974.

JG

I don't think you understand. The lecture in question, in which the misunderstanding occurred, was in 1986. Anything published before this that detailed the location of the findings should suffice to prove that his answer to the question in 1986 was misunderstood.

FK

[Minnesota]

OKAY, SherBear, LET ME 'SPLAIN. since I've got the time.

First: When I said

Unrelated to this exchange, Socrates posted his admiration and listing of Dr. Menton's accomplishments

I meant that Socrates' initial post mentioning Menton (post #131) was not in response to the topic of exchange between he and Kassad: argumentum ad verecundiam. Socrates was no longer addressing Kassads remark.

However!

What I saw in Socrates post on Menton was exactly what he claimed no creationist was ever guilty of: argumentum .... So, although the SUBJECT of his post was unrelated to the issue of argumentum ... its FORM was not. In declaring his admiration of menton, Socrates was at the same time asserting, through argumentum ... that ALL of Menton's remarks regarding creation science were deserving of the same respect one would be expected to give his comments regarding involving his field of study.
So, when you say:

Regardless of who first raised the subject, and Socrates reply, you used an "unrelated" post to beat Soc over the head with the accusation of argument ... when no argument was given.

let me point out the argument

Premise A: Menton is "an excellent creationist scientist." A given because: Soc says so.

Premise B: Menton is an excellent scientist in his field whose opinions on those subjects deserve our respect. A given because: the list of his accomplishments.

The intended conclusion: Whatever creationist subject Menton talks on deserves the same respect that we would give his remarks within his field of expertise.

Now, is this a logically valid conclusion? Does it follow from the premises? NO, it does not. Is it reasonable to think this is what Socrates intended we should conclude from his homage? It sure is, and here is why.

A. Right up front Soc. says he admires menton because he is "Another excellent creationist scientist." Not that Menton is an excellent creationist, or an excellent scientist, but an excellent creationist scientist. One who supposedly does excellent work in the sciences of creationism. Now, creation science subjects are not Menton's field of expertise--no more so than they may be mine. (you don't know what academic background I may have in the subjects Menton address in his cs (creation science) articles, and talks, AND We Don't Know What Background Menton May Have). However we do know, from the list provided by Soc, that none of these accomplishments relate to any expertise in the cs subjects he addresses.

B. In as much as Socrates admires Menton because for his role as a cs, and not because of what Menton has accomplished in his academic field, there is no rational reason to bother listing his:

3 Professional Activities:

5 Extraprofessional activities:

2 Educational degrees

7 Honors/Awards/Associations

Numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin.

UNLESS, that is, Socrates would like us to make the fallacious connection of authority and expertise between what Menton has accomplished in the past and what he does for cs. That Socrates believe this himself is substantiated in his very own words,

"It was clear that he WAS an expert in all the fields he spoke on."

So, even though Socrates did not come out in his initial Menton-post and actually say, "Listen to whatever this guy says, he's an expert, because he's an expert in other fields," he confirms that this is his belief, which buttress my contention that he wanted us to buy into his argumentum ....


You proceed with:

You then tried to start an argument, to which Socrates replied that you were incorrect ... and frankly, not being at the lecture, your opinion on the matter is only speculative, isn't it? ...

NO, it's not. It makes no difference who was at the lecture. The thrust of my comment was that regardless of what Menton said, Socrates has not provided any evidence that he (Socrates) is is any position to make the judgment that Menton "WAS an expert in all the fields he spoke on."


and BTW, why do you think that someone cannot speak from outside his "field of expertise"? One can be an expert on something, yet not make that his line of work ... or field of expertise. A doctor could also be an expert roofer ... perhaps he worked his way through college in that manner ... yet by your accusation ... that doctor couldn't lecture on roofing in an expert manner?

You're right, one can be an expert on something, yet not make that his line of work ... or field of expertise. However, if you want anyone to believe it you had best show some proof. Just your say so isn't going to be enough. Show me why I should believe that Menton is an expert on the geological stratification of the Grand Canyon and maybe I might buy that he is expert enough in the field to contradict other geological experts.


you haven't proven Soc dishonest ... just that you are "out to get" him

Evidently I hadn't proven it to you. . . . . maybe I have now.
The only thing I care about getting Socrates on, or anyone else, for that matter, is fallacious statements. Socrates is probably a real stand-up guy, deserving of a lot of respect and admiration. I might even find him a delight to talk to on a personal basis, BUT, if he persists in trying to snow people with bad logic and fallacies, I'll call him on it. And that's the entire extent to which I am "out to get him."

[TheFiveSolas]

To everyone that is taking this thread WAY off topic.

Please return to the requested topic of this thread, start another, or if you must Rant take it to the Janitor's Closet Forum.

Thanks.

[Sher]

/ot Minnesota, I am going to respect 5S's moderation and not continue this here ... I'll only close by saying that you have not done anything in this last post save reiterate what you said earlier ... and it is still wrong for the same reasons.

Back on topic ...

[Minnesota]

* Off topic: Sherbear, I am going to respect 5S's moderation and not continue this here ... I'll only close by saying that you have not done anything in this last post save reiterate what you said earlier ... and it is still wrong for the same reasons.
*
Back on topic ...

[Sher]

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati ... his "dashing good looks" :smile: and that accent ... :duh: .... oh (:lol:) ... and I really, really enjoy his AIG articles ... he has some very interesting conclusions on many things that have made me think

Ken Ham ... I may not always agree with him ... but he has done a great job in bringing all the information together for the public ... and has some pretty good articles himself

And of course ... the ones who laid the foundations:

Charles Babbage
Robert Boyle
Johann Kepler
Carolus Linneaus
Gregor Mendel
Sir Isaac Newton
Blaise Pascal
Louis Pasteur

and others that I am sure I have forgotten to add ...

[Jason Gastrich]

While we are listing some famous and awesome people who believed in God and creation, here are some more and a web site I made that is devoted to them. I'm sorry if some repeat the ones above.

From http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Famous.htm

Famous Scientists Who Believed In Creation

Are you trying to understand God and the Bible in light of the "Creation story"? Are you thinking that you have to "turn off" the intellectual part of your brain in order to be a Christian? Well, the following scientists didn't think so.

Many, if not most, of the major branches of science were founded by Bible believing Christians. It's intriguing that the five greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Thompson, Maxwell and Einstein were each outspoken in their conviction and faith that the universe was placed here by a Creator. Plus, four of the five were staunch Christians with firm convictions that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.

I hope and pray that it encourages your faith in God to see that so many, awesome scientists are/were believers in the Bible and believers in Creation. Evolution is not the only option for "scientific intellectuals". In fact, many of the scientists below would put to shame the "wisest" evolutionists.

After you visit some of the links below and read about the famous, God-fearing scientists, please scroll down further. I've included a stunning segment called, "Christian Influences In The Sciences"! Your mouth will drop when you see what Christian intellectuals have discovered.

Happy surfing and God bless you!




Robert Boyle - scientist and chemist

Michael Faraday - physicist, formulated laws electromagnetic induction, did groundwork for making dynamos, electric motors and transformers

James Joule - science of thermodynamics

William Thompson a.k.a. Lord Kelvin - thermodynamics and the Kelvin, temperature scale

Johannes Kepler - laws of planetary motion (more on Kepler)

Carl Linnaeus - botanist, professor

Matthew Maury - leading scientist in oceanography and hydrography

James Clerk Maxwell - electromagnetic theory

Samuel F.B. Morse - invented the telegraph, Morse code is named after him

Isaac Newton - laws of gravity, motion and calculus

Blaise Pascal - invented early calculator, helped discover the theory of probability

Louis Pasteur - invented vaccination, immunization and pasteurization

Sir Henry Rawlinson - archaeologist

George Stokes - physicist and mathematician




Disciplines and Inventions By Creation Scientists




* For further study, the following scientists are also Christians who believe in God and the Creation account in Genesis: Joseph Lister, John Ambrose Fleming, Henri Fabre, John Ray, Nicolaus Steno, William Petty, Georges Cuvier, Georges Cuvier, Louis Agassiz, Gregory Mendel, Joseph Lister, Bernhard Riemann, Joseph Henry Gilbert, Charles Lindbergh, Thomas Anderson, William Mitchell Ramsay, John Ambrose Fleming, Werner Von Braun, John Coach Adams, Johann Baptist Cysat, John Woodward, Humphrey Davy, George Biddle Airy, James Bradley and Albert Einstein (Einstein was Jewish, but still believed in Creation).

* There were many famous, Catholic scientists, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, John Dalton, René Descartes, Jean Baptiste Biot and Richard Kirwan, that believed in Creation. However, they are not included here.

* This web page is dedicated to an "intellectual" atheist and evolutionist named Endymion. May God save his soul.




Christian Influences In The Sciences




ANESTHESIOLOGY. *Crawford Long,* one of the three Americans who discovered anesthesia became a Christian. *James Young Simpson,* who championed its use in Britain was also a professing Christian, an ardent New Presbyterian.

Asked by a reporter what was his greatest discovery, he replied, "When I learned Jesus Christ had died for my sins."

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY. First championed by the Quaker doctor *Joseph Lister* against tremendous opposition, antiseptic surgery was based directly on the theories of *Louis Pasteur.* Antiseptic surgery sought to kill germs, primarily by the use of carbolic acid.

Even in his own lifetime, Lister's innovative idea was giving way to aseptic surgery, surgery which tries to keep germs away from the wound in the first place. Joseph Lister was reared a devout Quaker and migrated to the Church of England. He reminded his pupils that they had to be prepared to give an account to God for their treatment of "the earthly tabernacle" of the soul (ie: the human body). And what of Pasteur? Although not a churchgoer, he was a Franciscan Tertiary and detested atheists and atheism. He proved the impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life.

ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. *David Brewster*, who gave optics several of its laws, was a devout Christian, and a leader in the formation of the British Association for the Advancement of the Sciences. It was Brewster who wrote "It cannot be presumption to be SURE [of our forgiveness] because it is Christ's work, not ours; on the contrary, it is presumption to doubt his word and work."

*James Dwight Dana* was converted in a revival and lived an impeccable life thereafter. He was a leader in the American Association for the Advancement of Science as was *Josiah Willard Gibbs,* a man of quiet Christianity who showed it in conscientious work and steady churchgoing.

ASTRONOMY, MODERN. Because of the Galileo affair, it is popularily supposed that astronomy made its advances over the protests of a closed-minded, dug-in church. A closer look at the facts shows a mixed picture. This is only to be expected. Within any organization there are always some people who oppose new ideas as well as some who welcome them. Although many churchmen did oppose Galileo's ideas, many others supported them. In fact, many of those who supported and created the new learning were men of faith.

Truth to tell, the picture we now have of the universe is largely the product of Christendom. It is a fact that the names of astronomers who professed Christ read like a Who's Who of the field. Here is an alphabetical listing of some of the Christian makers of modern astronomy who have come to my attention.

*John Couch Adams* (1819-1892) shares the honor of being the first to calculate where Neptune could be found. A Wesleyan, he won college prizes for Bible studies.

*George Biddle Airy* (1801-1892), a Christ-professing churchgoer, became one of the first Astronomers Royal of Britain.

*Jean Baptiste Biot* (1774-1862) established beyond dispute the stony nature of meteorites. Late in life he returned to his childhood Roman Catholic faith.

*James Bradley* (1693-1762) trained as a Protestant chaplain but won recognition not in the field of religion but for discovering the aberration of starlight and nutation of the earth.

Whatever his actual relationship to Christ--he was an odd man-- *Nicolas Copernicus* (1473-1543), author of modern heliocentric theory, was a canon in the Catholic church.

It was another Catholic, a Jesuit, *Johann Baptist Cysat* (1586-1657) who became the first man to earn the distinction of discovering a comet through a telescope.

*Eugenio Danti* (1536-1586), a priest, made minor contributions to astronomy by inventing astronomical apparatus and assisting with reform of the Gregorian calendar.

The Quaker *Sir Arthur Eddington* (1882-1944), was an early champion of relativity theory and stayed on the cutting edge of stellar theory throughout his entire life.

Irrascible *John Flamsteed* (1646-1719) trained for the church, but made fame as first Astronomer Royal, establishing Greenwich observatory and providing Newton with essential data for his calculations. Poorly paid, he nonetheless poured his own money into new tools for the observatory. It was he who brought Greenwich to world-wide fame.

*Augustin Jean Fresnel* (1788-1827) contributed to astronomy through his studies of polarized light. He was a gentle Protestant.

Not so *Galileo Galilei* (1564-1642). His abrasive personality antagonized everyone. For all his difficulties with the church, he claimed to be a son of the faith and wrote a book showing that science and faith were not incompatible.

Francesco *Maria Grimaldi* (1618-1663), priest and scientist, in addition to systematically testing Galileo's theories, described the flattening of Saturn and discovered the diffraction of light.

*John Herschel* (1792-1871) surveyed the Southern skies as his father *William Herschel*(1738-1822) had surveyed the Northern before him. Both were at least nominally Christian although John's faith eventually ran deeper.

*William Huggins* (1824-1912) was a Christian of no specific denomination who did spectroscopic studies of stars and differentiated between gaseous nebulae and galaxies.

The faith of *Johannes Kepler* (1571-1630), first to discover the laws of planetary motion, has often been remarked. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to make a living casting horoscopes.

Not nearly so well known is the faith of *Johann Von Lamont* (1805-1879) who cataloged 12,000 previously unrecorded stars of the 7th through 10th magnitudes.

*Urbain LeVerrier* (1811-1871) who co-discovered Neptune was likewise a practicing Catholic.

*Nevil Maskelyne* (1732-1811) published an influential nautical almanac and measured the density of the earth to within 20%. He was a Protestant curate.

Work on double stars was pioneered by a Jesuit, *Christian Mayer* (1719-1783).

*Sir Isaac Newton* (1642-1727) wrote a million words of theology. Arian in outlook, his science was nonetheless motivated by his Christian thought.

One of the giants on whose shoulders Newton stood was the theologian *John Philoponus* (fl. 6th cent AD). Philoponus suggested (on creationist grounds) that the stars are made of the same essential matter as the earth and emit light because they burn. The different colors of stars are owing to differences of composition, he said, drawing his analogy from the differences in colors we see when we burn various substances on earth. He attributed to impetus the movement of celestial bodies (Aristotle said angels moved the planets) and argued for void (vacuum) between the stars. He was the first to suggest dropping balls of unequal weight from a tower. Galileo read and praised Philoponus.

It was a priest, *Giuseppe Piazzi* (1746-1826) who discovered the asteroid Ceres.

*Alexandre Gui Pingré* (1711-1796) made arduous voyages to observe the passages of Mercury and Venus on the sun. He became canon of Paris.

Cardinal *Johannes Regiomontanus* (1436-1476) revived the study of astronomy and mathematics in the Renaissance, preparing the way for the revolution in astronomical knowledge which began in the sixteenth century.

Other cardinals, priests, canons and monks of the Catholic church shine among astronomy's greats.

The binocular telescope was invented by a Capuchin monk, *Schyrle de Rhetia* (1597-1660).

The priest *Giambattista Riccioli* (1598-1671) made significant contributions to astronomy, geography and physics despite his opposition to Galileo.

Yet another Jesuit, *Angelo Secchi* (1818-1878) was a trailblazer in spectroscopic studies and helped define the nature of Saturn's ring.

*Johan W. J. A. Stein* (1871-1951), a Jesuit, published papers on binary stars.

The Canon of Condé, *Gottfried Wendelen* (1580-1667) produced approximations for the parallax of the sun which are close to modern figures.

Apologist Antonio Romaña attributes Christian belief also to the following influential astronomers: *Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel* (1784-1846); *Fedor Aleksandrovich Bredikhin* (1831-1904); *Harve Faye* (1814-1902); *Armand- Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau* (1819-1896); *Jean Bernard Léon Foucault* (1819-1868); *Joseph Fraunhofer* (1787-1826); *James Gregory* (1638-1675); *Alesky Pavlovich Hansky* (1870-1908); *Pierre Jules César Janssen* (1824-1907); *Johann Heinrich Madler* (1794-1874); *Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers* (1758-1840) and *Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli* (1835-1910).

[Jason Gastrich]

Here is the 2nd half of the last post. Notice how many creationists are extremely important to the sciences.

From http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Famous.htm

We see at work in astronomy a characterstic Christian impulse: to learn God's ways by studying creation. That so many famous astronomers were Christians does not validate Christianity. Other astronomers were indifferent or hostile to the faith. What it does show is that Christianity is not incompatible with science and even motivates it.

Remove Christians from the history of astronomy and it would be a far different story than we read. To divorce Christianity from astronomy, one must divorce it from the men who made the science.

ASTROPHYSICS. The name which dominates the first scientific study of the interior working of stars was the Quaker *Sir Arthur Eddington*. He PREDICTED the enormous interior temperatures of stars which have since been confirmed.

ATOMIC THEORY. The Quaker *John Dalton* was the first to put atomic theory on a scientific basis. He CLAIMED that the atomic weights of elements were proportionate to one another. This has since been completely established, a breakthrough absolutely fundamental to modern atomism. However, we should also note that Dalton interest in atomic theory derived at second and third hand from the renewed interest of the French Roman Catholic priest *Pierre Gassendi*. Gassendi had recently attempted to revive the atomic theories of the ancient Greeks, although he was unable to set these on a scientific footing. Gassendi's work came to England and through intermediaries reached John Dalton.

BACTERIOLOGY. Bacteria were first observed by the Reformed Dutchman *Anton von Leeuwenhoek* and were received with considerable skepticism.

BIG BANG THEORY. *Georges Lemaitre*, a Belgian priest, PREDICTED from his reworking of Einstein's theories, that space would be found to be expanding. Einstein himself at first resisted the implications but later applauded them. The expansion of space was soon confirmed. An IMPLICATION of Lemaitre's theories was background radiation. He was notified of the discovery of this radiation as he lay dying. A note found in Lemaitre's manuscripts said "It all had to have begun with light." His was the first scientific-mathematical creation theory, soon supplanted by better models. It is interesting to note that *Bishop Robert Grosseteste*, studying light, advocated (on philosophical-theological grounds) a primitive Big Bang expansionist theory in the thirteenth century.

BINARY MATHEMATICS. Binary arithmetic, so important to modern computer science, was the brainchild of *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.* Leibniz, also invented a binary calculator which was a forerunner of modern computational machines. He was a devout Lutheran who refused opportunistic advancement which would have required him to convert to Roman Catholicism.

BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE. Binomial nomenclature in the biological sciences was not invented by *Carl Linnaeus*, but he was its major champion and the first man to systematically apply it to a vast range of life. Linnaeus was strongly creationist and wrote many exclamations of praise to the Creator.

CALCULUS. Calculus was co-invented by two philosophers who claimed to be Christians. *Sir Isaac Newton* wrote a million words of theology. Although he clearly believed the Bible and its prophecies, he was essentially a Unitarian. *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz* was an ardent Lutheran who refused preferment which would have required him to covert to Roman Catholicism.

CELESTIAL MECHANICS. *Johannes Kepler* made no bones about his faith. He was the first person to calculate that planets travel in ellipses around the sun.

CHEMISTRY. *Robert Boyle* is called by some the Father of Chemistry. His science sprang directly from his faith. All of his writings show the imprint of Christianity. As a young man, newly converted to Christ, he struggled with faith because the science of the day contained so much which was contrary to his belief. He therefore determined that every fact must be clearly established and tested, in which case he felt certain that it would prove compatible with scripture since both had the same author. *John Dalton,* a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry. *Josiah Willard Gibbs* was a creator of statistical mechanics (a specialized branch of chemistry) and in France, the ardent Roman Catholic *Pierre Duhem* also constributed to the emerging science of statistical mechanics. *Sir Humphrey Davy* claimed faith and is noted for his chemical researches as was his protege *Michael Faraday* who first liquified chlorine. The isolater of inert gases, *Sir William Ramsay,* also was a man of Christian faith.

CHEMURGY. Chemurgy is the branch of chemistry which focuses on the industrial use of organic materials. *George Washington Carver,* with his work on peanuts and sweet potatoes was a great pioneer in this field. His faith has been well-documented.

CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY. *Johnannes Weyer* did studies on hysteria and witchcraft which mark him as the Father of Clinical Psychiatry. At a time when his fellows were for burning so-called witches, this compassionate Christian doctor was for understanding and treating the dementia which led to the odd behavior of the poor wretches accused of demonism.

COLOR THEORY. A priest, and science facilitator, *Nicholas de Malebranche,* founded modern color theory.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. The invention of *Georges Cuvier*, comparative anatomy considers the anatomical structures of animals in relation to one another. Cuvier claimed to be a Christian.

COMPOUND MICROSCOPE. *Joseph Lister, Sr.* and *Thomas Hodgkins* were both sincere Quakers who united their efforts in developing a microscope which used laminated lenses to correct for the aberrations which are always caused by a single substance. This compound lens significantly increased the power of the microscope.

COMPUTER SCIENCE. Several Christians had important roles in the development of the computer. *Blaise Pascal* built the first workable computing machine. It was too cumbersome to be cost effective.

Pascal's Pensees and other Christian writings are well known. *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz* advanced the state of computation with a calculator much superior to Pascal's and also invented binary mathematics and attempted an early form of symbolic logic. His Lutheran faith was integral to his life. Charles Babbage, the true theorist of thinking machines, held Christian beliefs but also accepted such nonsense as reincarnation which is clearly unbiblical.

CRYOLOGY. *Lord Kelvin,* a professor who opened each class with prayer and an apologist for creationist ideas, did fundamental work which led to ice-making machines.

CURVATURE OF SPACE. *Nicholas Cusa,* Catholic cardinal, PREDICTED that space must be curved if God were to be equally present at every point. Twentieth Century findings confirmed his fifteenth century prediction. One of the mathematicians who "invented" curved space was *Bernhard Riemann* a devout Christian. He died young of tuberculosis, haivng his wife read his favorite psalms to him.

DIFFRACTION OF LIGHT. Jesuit *Francesco Maria Grimaldi* discovered the diffraction of light.

ELASTICITY THEORY. *Saint Venant* was a key contributor to elasticity theory, which was first investigated scientifically by *Sir Christopher Wren* and other men of his circle.

ELECTRONICS. *John Ambrose Fleming,* who leaned to the evangelical wing of the Church of England, was not only a Christian, but a first-rate pioneer in electronics, inventor of various items, including a "bridge" and electron tubes which were essential to the development of the field.

ELECTRO-MAGNETISM. *Ewald von Kleist* a Pomeranian bishop, discovered the Leyden jar which first made electricity available in amounts which could be studied. *Joseph Henry* discovered inductance. He actually beat Faraday to many discoveries, sometimes by mere months, but did not publish, wanting to refine his researches, thereby losing the immortality which might have been his. He is said to have been a Christian. *Michael Faraday,* a man of humility and Christian faith, discovered the generator and transformer and proposed field theory. He made electricity useful. Because Faraday knew little math, it was left to *James Clerk Maxwell* to state Faraday's findings mathematically. Maxwell united electricity and magnetism with light in his famous theories in which he PREDICTED the discovery of radio waves. At his death science magazines mentioned his deep Christian faith which was well- known to the entire scientific community. *Ampere's* biographers note that he undertook some of his electrical researches to answer questions which he thought had a bearing on the truth of the Christian faith. He gave us the amp. Alessandro Volta for whom the volt and voltage are named, did not live a Christian life, but wrote an apologetic for Christianity, perhaps along the lines of "Do as I say, not as I do."

ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring the characteristics we accept--contributed articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, *John Harris." Earlier encyclopedias with scientific and medical content had been compiled by Christians, including *Cassiodorus,* *Hildegarde,* *Isidore of Seville,* *Rhabanus Maurus,* the Dominican *Vincent of Beauvois,* *Bartholomew de Glanville,* *Johann Heinrich Alsted,* whom Cotton Mather called "the doorway to the sciences," but who is more famous as the mentor of Jan Amos Comenius. A French priest, *Louis Moreri,* also compiled an encyclopedia.

ENTOMOLOGY. *Jean Henri Fabre* is a name almost synonomous with the study of insects. Always opposed to atheism, he converted to Christ late in life.

EXPANDING UNIVERSE. The Belgian priest *Georges Lemaitre* first gave us a viable mathematics for an expanding universe. His PREDICTION that the universe could not be stable was soon proven by Hubble and others. *Sir Arthur Eddington* championed Lemaitre's theories in a book called The Expanding Universe. Eddington was a Quaker who said that the believer found arguments for the non-existence of God to be quaint.

FIELD THEORY. *Michael Faraday* first envisioned field theory. Having little mathematics, he was forced to rely on imagination to describe what he saw. He belonged to a small Baptist group. Faith, humility and love governed his life.

FLUID MECHANICS. *George Gabriel Stokes* was a pioneer in this field. He was a member of an apologetics society. A profound mathematician, he was commonly sought out for advice. He rejected Darwin's theory of evolution, saying it was based on inadequate evidence.

FLUORESCENCE. *George Gabriel Stokes* was a pioneer in the study and explanation of fluorescent effects. He had learned to read by reading the Psalms. As a Christian he said that evidence for Christ's resurrection must lead to action commensurate with the fact. Head and heart must go together.

GAS DYNAMICS. *Van Helmont* gave us the word gas (Dutch chaos=gaas). Believing, on Biblical grounds, that God had breathed life into man, he thought the spirit was to be found in a study of invisible gases and this led him to some profound observations. He might have been disappointed to learn that gases are just matter, after all. *Robert Boyle* also studied gas and gave us Boyle's Law of Gases in refutation of an atheistic opponent. *James Clerk Maxwell* studied heated gases and discovered principles of gaseous behavior. His statistical approach quickly led to quantum theory.

GENETICS. *Gregor Mendel,* a Roman Catholic priest and abbott, first discovered the laws of genetics with his now famous studies of the garden pea. His work lay in obscurity for many years before being rediscovered. Mendel did not accept Darwin's theory, because his own discoveries in genetics showed that creatures tend to revert to kind.

GEOLOGY. *Nels Steno,* who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology. The minister *Adam Sedgewick* discovered and named the Cambrian. Another minister, *William Buckland* refuted Wernerism which said all deposits were laid down by water, showing definitively that volcanism played a major role. He worked closely with the *Reverend Daniel Conybeare* in a study of Irish volcanism. Lyell became interested in geology as a result of Buckland's teaching. *Louis Agassiz* was a prominent voice in promulgating ice-age theory, which he convincingly proved. He was strongly creationist, even to the point of introducing absurd ideas. Still another minister, *John Playfair,* converted Lyell's theories into readable form. *William Smith* professed Christ and drew the world's first substantive geological maps. Smith's work was championed by two clergymen, the Reverends Benjamin Richardson and Joseph Townsend. Smith was in great demand because of his immense knowledge and ability to predict underlying strata. *James Dwight Dana* wrote the first systematic geology of North America. *Hugh Miller* was an ardent apologist and geologist.

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE. *Louis Pasteur,* a Franciscan Tertiary, developed the germ theory of disease and CLAIMED that microbes transmit many diseases. This claim has been thoroughly proven. The doctor who first applied Pasteur's theories to the operating room was the Quaker *Joseph Lister.*

GRAPHING. *Nicole Oresme* is the first person known to have prepared a scientific graphing. Galileo borrowed one of Oresme's graphs in his own work. Oresme was a popular preacher and a vehement opponent of superstitious practices such as astrology. Some claim Oresme's work as the predecessor of Cartesian geometry.

GYNECOLOGY. *James Young Simpson* is but one of several Christian doctors who made significant advances in gynecology.

HELIOCENTRISM. *Nicholas Copernicus* was a canon in the church of Rome. Whether he was a born-again Christian is doubtful, but his mind-set was clearly cast in the Christian philosophic mold, making his discovery possible.

HYDRAULICS. *Blaise Pascal,* author of the famed Pensees, "Thoughts," which have inspired Christians for centuries, was the first to show how water pressure could be applied evenly, the principle of the hydraulic jack.

ICTHYOLOGY. *Louis Agassiz* by his comparison of fossil fish and studies of living fish was one of the great founders of icthyology. He was strongly creationist in his views.

MASS-LUMINANCE LAW. Quaker scientist *Sir Arthur Eddington* did work on stellar masses which led directly to the mass-luminance law. He PREDICTED the existence of variable stars, of a certain threshold mass. These stars, called Cepheids, were soon discovered. Because their mass is known from the work of Eddington and others, they serve as markers for the measurement of distances in space.

MINERALOGY. *Gerogias Agricola* is considered the Father of Mineralogy. Deeply devout and humane, this keen observer attempted to make a science of a mass of seemingly unrelated data he gathered. In more recent times, James Dwight Dana* created a massive, scientific systematization of mineralolgy which long remained the standard, difinitive text on the subject. He was closely allied with *Dr. Benjamin Silliman,* one of America's premier science teachers and helped give Dana his start. Silliman was strongly Protestant. *David Brewster,* whose Christianity almost led him to become a minister, used optics to study minerals, especially polarization. *Augustin-Jean Fresnel was involved in studies of crystal polarization also, and he, too, chose Christ.

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY. When *Bernhard Riemann* died, a biographer noted that he had served Christ outside the pulpit as his father had served Christ in the pulpit. Riemann's father had intended his son for the ministry, but Riemann chose mathematics instead. He created a major branch of non-euclidean geometry and did other mathematics of much value.

OCEANOGRAPHY. *Matthew Maury* created the science of oceanography because he believed the Bible when it said there were paths in the seas. Obtaining millions of observations world-wide he and his assistants compiled charts of currents and winds. The practical result was huge savings for world shipping. His Christian belief ran deep and touched all he did.

OPTICS. *George Berkeley,* idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye. The French protestant *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* invented the Fresnel lens used in lighthouses. *David Brewster,* who gave his name to several laws of light, was devoutly Christian. *Sir Isaac Newton* theorized on the nature of light. Some of his findings were useful, but others erroneous. */Deitrich of Frieberg,* *Witelo,* and others made contributions. See also COMPOUND MICROSCOPE.

PALEONTOLOGY. *Geroges Cuvier* created the science of paleontology, using bones dug from beneath Paris. He was brilliantly able to deduce function from bones.

PHOTOGRAPHY. *Sir John Herschel,* a man won to sincere Christianity by the character of his wife, coined the terms POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. He discovered hypo as a fixative agent.

PHYSICS. It is almost impossible to list the Christians active in the history of physics. A short list would include *Philoponus,* *Bradwardine,* possibly *Buridan,* *Galileo,* and *Newton,* the Mertonians, *Grosseteste,* *Faraday,* *Maxwell,* *Thompson (Kelvin),* *Tait,* and more.

POLARIZATION OF LIGHT. We have already mentioned *David Brewster* and *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* in connection with polarization. See OPTICS.

RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians. The first of these Christians was *Bernhard Riemann* who had developed the mathematics of Riemannian Space, which Einstein found could explain the curvature of space. The other was *James Clerk Maxwell* whose equations and work with pre-quantum physics led directly to modern physics. Einstein's work was to some measure forced by the famous Michelson-Morely measurements of the speed of light which showed that the speed of light is an absolute. Einstein sought and found the explanation. *Edward William Morley* was the Christian half of that experimental duo.

ROYAL SOCIETY. The premiere scientific organization of England was founded by Christians and had an initial membership almost entirely Christian. Among the charter members were the Protestants *Robert Boyle,* *Sir Christopher Wren,* the preacher *John Wilkins,* and the Christian *John Wallis.*

SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste,* a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar *Roger Bacon.* Both PREDICTED that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which followed. Bacon especially ennumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

SCIENTIFIC PAPER. *Robert Boyle* wrote the first scientific paper in modern format, showing what instruments he used, the conditions of experiment, his hypotheses and conclusions. The model he developed has been followed ever since. Among his many Christian activities was funding of Bible translations and provision of support to persecuted Welsh clergy who refused to adopt Church of England liturgy.

SPECTROSCOPY, STELLAR. Two of the most famous pioneers in stellar spectroscopy were Christians: *Pietro Angelo Secchi* and *William Huggins.*

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. *Louis Pasteur* proved that spontaneous generation was impossible. Not so well known is that many of his methods of proof were improvements on work taken directly from the Roman Catholic priest *Lazzaro Spallanzani.*

STATISTICAL MECHANICS. The American Congregationalist *Josiah Willard Gibbs* and the French Catholic *Pierre Duhem* were two Christians whose work led to an understanding of the thermodynamics of and equilibrium in chemical systems.

STELLAR MAPPING. Many Christians were engaged in stellar mapping. Some made contributions of the highest calibre. Among them were *William and John Herschel,* *John Flamsteed* (founder of Greenwich Observatory), and the curate *Nevil Maskelyne* who became director of Greenwich.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC. Even the great Lutheran *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz,* co-inventor of calculus, was unable to invent a workable symbolic logic although he took key steps in that direction. Success awaited the efforts of Irish- born *George Boole,* a man who held and practiced the Christian faith.

THERMODYNAMICS. *James Joule,* and *Lord Kelvin* are two famous names associated with the development of thermodynamics. Both were Christians, Kelvin more openly so.

TOPOLOGY. *Leonhard Euler,* famed as a mathematician and the butt of Voltaire's ridicule for his apologetics, created the science of topology with his study of the seven bridges puzzle.

TRANSFINITE MATHEMATICS. The Roman Catholic Czech theologian *Bernhard Bolzano* was one of the first to attempt a significant infinity theory. However, other Christian mathematicians such as *Weierstrass* and *Cauchy* also made contributions. It was, however, the brilliant mathematician and Protestant convert *Georg Cantor* who finally set the subject on a scientific basis. His work was embraced by the Jesuits.

VACCINATION. The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner,* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.

VACUUM. In the face of furious contradiction, *John Philoponus,* a Christian philosopher of the 6th century, CLAIMED that vacuum existed between the stars. This notion was derived from his creationist beliefs, and was directly contrary to Aristotalian teaching. This has since been confirmed. *Blaise Pascal* of Jansenist leanings, finally proved the possibility of vacuum in the 1600s. *Robert Boyle* developed a vacuum pump in conjunction with Robert Hooke and systematically showed the effects of vacuum and the role of air. Boyle's Law of Gases, found in chemistry texts, was one result.

WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. *Thomas Young,* a Quaker, was the first to perform a double slit experiment and to show that light acted as a wave. The French Protestant *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* confirmed and mathematized Young's findings.

Christian Influences In The Sciences is from "The Revolution Against Evolution" - http://www.rae.org.

[notice]There is not to be back to back posting which is a violation of our Campus Decorum.[/edit]

[James]

And wouldn't all those people you mentioned be upset, Jason G, if they knew what bastardization of science was done in the name of theological interpretation today? To many of those you listed, couching science on a narrow interpretation of God would be as absurd as trying to catch a lightning bolt in a paper bag, and akin to blasphemy.

[DivineOb]

Not to mention the fact that Jason only posted that list as a dodge so he could avoid admitting that his hero Kent "dinosaurs still exist in Africa... honest" Hovind is a charlatan...

Nice try Jason. As has been pointed out, the discoverer of Lucy claimed that the bones were all found close together *before* this controversy arose. ICR believes they were found close together (a reversal of their initial stance). Revolution against Evolution claims they were found close together. Why not just accept the obvious, that the bones were all found close together?

[Jason Gastrich]

DivineOb,

Are you insane? You must be a lunatic. You are still whining about Kent Hovind.

I didn't post my exhaustive research - which is likely the largest compilation of Christian scientists and their contributions to science that you'll ever find on the internet - to avoid some Hovind/Lucy question. Give me a break! If you'll read the post that preceded my posts, you'll see how it jogged my memory and reminded me to post my findings.

You wasted your last post and used it to divert attention from my huge body of research that required hours of study and two message forms. Keep posting your 100 word red herrings, though. Maybe you're on to me. NOT.

Regards,
Jason Gastrich

P.S. We all know what kind of convincing evidence is necessary to prove Johanson originally admitted that Lucy was found in one place. Why doesn't someone produce it? I'm not saying my mind is made up either way. I'd just like to see convincing proof from 1974 and not something he said in the 80's.

P.S.S. Don't let that question divert you from analyzing or responding to my last, two posts. However, I sense another 100 word gem.

[Sher]

Not only that ... but the moderator, TheFiveSolas, has asked that this topic be brought back on topic ...

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=99182#post99182

[Socrates]

James:And wouldn't all those people you mentioned be upset, Jason G, if they knew what bastardization of science was done in the name of theological interpretation today?Yes indeed, a particular one that denies a priori that God exists, or if He does, that He has not performed miracles in Earth's geological and biological history. To many of those you listed, couching science on a narrow interpretation of God would be as absurd as trying to catch a lightning bolt in a paper bag, and akin to blasphemy.Nice fact-free elephant hurl, as we have come to expect. But this doesn't refute Jason G's documentation in the slightest, nor the fact that it gives the lie to the evolutionist propaganda that science would return to the dark ages without evolution.

[Duvenoy]

Excellent list, Jason G.! Well done! With your permission, I'd like to save it for a reference.


Nice fact-free elephant hurl, as we have come to expect. But this doesn't refute Jason G's documentation in the slightest, nor the fact that it gives the lie to the evolutionist propaganda that science would return to the dark ages without evolution.

Soc, I don't see where any attempt was made to refute anything in Jason's excellent list. A caustic comment was made, and that's it. Before you sneer at someone eles's "elephant hurl", I'd suggest that you clean the puke from your own chin.

Would the failure of the ToE return science to the dark ages? I rather doubt it. Would it prove the existance of God? Maybe. It could also hint at some other force working. I don't know much about the workings of the universe, but from what I've read, it is a very strange place. And the minute piece of it that we examine may not much represent the whole.

But all that is thus far moot. The ToE has yet to be disproven.

Edited to get back to topic: Hovind is still my all-time favoriite, followed by Duane "Bullfrog" Gish.

doov

[James]

I apologize if my words were a little harsh in my last post, but it seemed to me that, in the context of the posting, "Christian" was being flaunted as "Creationist who would hold that the world is 6000 years old despite the fact that many of these scientists had a strong commitment to unbiased methodological naturalism with regards to the physical world." I have nothing against Christianity as a religion and respect the great contributions to science that its adherents have given us, but I am annoyed if someone is implying (and I'm not sure if you meant to do this, J G, but in context in seemed as if you were) that every one of these Christian scientists would hold to the modern incarnation of fundamentalist bible literalism.

No one claims that if evolutionary theory is not accepted, science will go back to the dark ages. What people are really claiming is that if pure dogmatism is allowed to take precedence over unbiased interptetation as the core tenet of science, many avenues of exploration will close off or remain untouched for fear of apostasy. That is the key issue. (And, of course, I realize that creationist organizations have tried to turn this around and claim that they, the ones who filter claims through a literal interpretation of the bible, are the ones whe are being persecuted by millions of "dogmatic" scientists of diverse backgrounds).

[Minnesota]

IF I MAY (without intending to starting another digression).

The question was: Who is your favorite professional creationist?

Now, I, and I think everyone else who has posted to the question, have interpreted "creationist" to mean one who rejects the idea of evolution in favor of the theory advanced by creationist scientists. So, although Jason has assembled an impressive array of people he admires, it would be folly to accept the implication that everyone he mentions does, or would have, accepted the theory of creationist scientists. They may have been scientists who accepted the idea of a Biblical creation, but that's a far cry from denying evolution in favor of "creationism." Darwin himself had set off on his Beagle voyage firmly convinced in the truth of Biblical creation. And, of course, there are many scientists today who accept that god created us and all life, AND, also accept the validity of evolution. I would bet good money that a significant number of those Jason lists, had they had the information now available, would opt for evolution over creationism.

[DivineOb]

Jason should have been more clear in his post (well, it also goes to show how many of you actually read through the whole thing). That list was originally compiled by Revolution Against Evolution (in Jason's defense, he does note this at the bottom of the second post and at the bottom of the original document at jcsm). My 'nit' would be that he ought to link to the original source at the top because, as demonstrated, people tend to gloss over long things.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100137#post100137)
Jason G:

DivineOb,

Are you insane? You must be a lunatic. You are still whining about Kent Hovind.



You believe that everything that happens in the world is the will of invisible men in the sky and *I'm* the lunatic. Whatever.




I didn't post my exhaustive research - which is likely the largest compilation of Christian scientists and their contributions to science that you'll ever find on the internet - to avoid some Hovind/Lucy question. Give me a break! If you'll read the post that preceded my posts, you'll see how it jogged my memory and reminded me to post my findings.



You didn't compile this list. Revolution Against Evolution did. Now, you did note this at the bottom of the list, but don't act like it took you any time at all just to copy and paste this list from them.




You wasted your last post and used it to divert attention from my huge body of research that required hours of study and two message forms. Keep posting your 100 word red herrings, though. Maybe you're on to me. NOT.



It isn't *your* research Jason. The first part of that list might be, but that is hardly the impressive part of what you posted.

Anyway, I dont' know what kind of repsonse you want to your list (which you didn't compile). These people might have been creationists, but they certainly weren't 'professional creationists' in the same sense that that idiot Sarfati and others at AiG are (though I have to agree with SherBear... he is rather good looking).

[Fedmahn Kassad]

There is a significant difference between these old time "Creationists" and what are referred to as Creationists today. Creationists of today have one thing in common: They deny large scale biological evolution. Many of the "Creationists" of old, like Isaac Newton, never heard of biological evolution. He never saw much of a fossil record, and he certainly knew nothing of genetics. Therefore, it is disingenuous to claim that these people were Creationists in the same vein as Creationists of today, since today’s Creationists are aware of mainstream scientific interpretations and choose to reject them.

One fact that is important to note is the glaring absence of Creationists among scientists considered to be the best in their fields. For example, how many Creationist Nobel Prize winners are there? How about National Academy of Sciences members? The pickings will be slim to none, I can assure you. Who is generally considered to be the top thinker of today, along the lines of Newton in his day or Einstein in his day? Hawking immediately comes to mind. Of course he isn’t a Creationist.

Who would Creationists nominate as today’s top Creation Scientist? I can guarantee you his/her credentials will pale in comparison to today’s top scientists overall. To put this in perspective, consider the following:


According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

FK

[Sher]

Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100405#post100405)
DivineOb:

[...] that idiot [...]

:nc:

Is it really necessary to attack the person instead of the belief system or argument? :frown:

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100501#post100501)
SherBear:



:nc:

Is it really necessary to attack the person instead of the belief system or argument? :frown:

Well, I don't really see what harm it causes given that he doesn't post or read this forum...

[Sher]

Today @ 01:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100504#post100504)
DivineOb:

Well, I don't really see what harm it causes given that he doesn't post or read this forum...

because it is an abusive ad hominem fallacy?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100512#post100512)
SherBear:
because it is an abusive ad hominem fallacy? That's alright. Jason seems to regard DivineOb in an equally disdain manner.
Jason G:
Are you insane? You must be a lunatic.Why didn't you point that out?

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100512#post100512)
SherBear:



because it is an abusive ad hominem fallacy?

Well now this thread is being rehijacked... anyway, this would only be a fallacy if I were arguing against what he was saying. I'm not. All I was doing was indicating that brain stems like him differ from creationists of the past, and are 'professional creationists' in an entirely different meaning from those on the list Jason pasted from RAE.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100522#post100522)
Jimmy Higgins:

That's alright. Jason seems to regard DivineOb in an equally disdain manner.

If it were directed at Jason, I'd agree.


Why didn't you point that out?

Because I honestly didn't notice it ... that isn't right either ...

no excuses at all ... but I'd like to comment that at least DivineOb is here to defend himself ... as DOb said, the AIG scientists are not ...

BTW, Jimmy ... would you mind editing your last post to show proper attrib .. that the second quote didn't come from me?

Thanks ... appreciated in advance ~Sher

[Sher]

EDIT: I apologize 5S for diverting from the topic

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100532#post100532)
SherBear:
If it were directed at Jason, I'd agree.
Because I honestly didn't notice it ... that isn't right either ...

no excuses at all ...Care to speak out against it now then?

...but I'd like to comment that at least DivineOb is here to defend himself ... as DOb said, the AIG scientists are not ...Well that could be argued. But further to the point, most AIG like scientists have been thrashed in debates in the past and present. To call them idiots may not be nice and not a fair assessment of their intelligence, they are certainly arrogent, having kept up papers on their website that are riddled with mistakes.

BTW, Jimmy ... would you mind editing your last post to show proper attrib .. that the second quote didn't come from me? Its been done, sorry bout that.

[SLPx]

Today @ 06:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100512#post100512)
SherBear:



because it is an abusive ad hominem fallacy?

Really? Would you feel the same way if a fellow creationist called an active forum participant an idiot?

[TheFiveSolas]

If the topic of the thread is not returned to the thread will be closed.

Also, the abusive insults will stop since I've gotten a little tired of the petty and childish behavior. Not to mention the fact that it is a waste of my free time having to edit out the comments of adults that act worse than some children.

In addition, such immature behavior is a violation of TWeb's rules.


...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. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog.


Such tactics detract from intelligent, even spirited, dialogue. Refrain from it, open a Rant in the Janitor's Closet, or we might have to take further action.

[WinAce]

I rather doubt that creationists "choose" their beliefs. It more or less comes involuntarily from upbringing, environmental factors and genetic predisposition, which is why they generally can't be snapped out of it with anything less than dying and being told by God they were wrong.

To not believe the earth is 6000 years old would be similar, to them, to finding the school they went to was merely a hallucination. It can be done, but it sure as heck takes more of a cognitive shock than anything most of them will see in life.

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins burped:But further to the point, most AIG like scientists have been thrashed in debates in the past and present. Another fact-free assertion from our poster with an enormous anti-christian chip on both his shoulders. Of course, if that were true, I doubt that leading evolutionare propagandists such as Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould would have advised evolutionists NOT to debate creationists. Au contraire, I have already documented ( www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=94031#post94031 ) how Dr Gish thrashed Dr Russell Doolittle and he and the evolutionists knew it. I have also seen a video where AiG (Australia)'s CEO Dr Carl Wieland thrashed a Skeptic, and he also documented some of the despicable tactics some of their leading lights used. So Dr W. put them on notice that no further debates or dialogues would be entered into, until the Skeptics repudiated those tactics.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 02:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100801#post100801)
Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins burped:But further to the point, most AIG like scientists have been thrashed in debates in the past and present. Another fact-free assertion from our poster with an enormous anti-christian chip on both his shoulders. Of course, if that were true, I doubt that leading evolutionare propagandists such as Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould would have advised evolutionists NOT to debate creationists. Au contraire, I have already documented ( www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=94031#post94031 ) how Dr Gish thrashed Dr Russell Doolittle and he and the evolutionists knew it. I have also seen a video where AiG (Australia)'s CEO Dr Carl Wieland thrashed a Skeptic, and he also documented some of the despicable tactics some of their leading lights used. So Dr W. put them on notice that no further debates or dialogues would be entered into, until the Skeptics repudiated those tactics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, as the mods have sternly reminded us several times, this thread is for your favorite creationist. What has this rant to do with the topic?

I just remembered another favorite: Jack Chick! I fear his art is slipping a bit and Bob looks like something out of '50s vintage porn, but he always tells a rousing tale, for atheist and theist alike.

doov

[WinAce]

Oh, don't mind Socrates. He thinks winning an oral debate is somehow indicative of which position is correct. You know, like Kent Hovind does by tossing out a few trillion one liners, kilos of BS, and grinning at the audience because he knows a committee couldn't refute it all in the time alloted for the rebuttal.

But then again, creationists aren't a particularly smart bunch.

[TheFiveSolas]

I see that my request to return to the topic of this thread, and to discontinue the flaming, went unheeded and so I am closing it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator's clarification in response to reported posts - A shortening of a member's name is NOT a parody in violation of the rules. Neither is there a rules violation if it is shortend and an "ie" is added to the end. If there is a double meaning that I am missing in a shortening, please specificy that in the complaint. Please stop looking for things to report just because you do not like a certain. Additionally the reported posts in question happened prior to the enactment of this rule addition.

edited after Member objected that the reports happened after a period of four days absence and thus the delay in reporting