Creationist "Scientist". Really??

[Minnesota]

In considering the moniker, "creationist scientist," does anyone, other than those who choose to call themselves such, really take the term "scientist" seriously? And if they do, what qualifications can be cited that lend legitimacy to the term?

[Bob Jenkins]

I equate creation science at the same level as parapsycology

[Rusty T]

well, many of those who are creationists do hold scientific degrees.

[Minnesota]

Dolemite

I thought it would be evident that the term, "creationist" is there to describe the supposed science the "scientist" does. It's like someone committed to studying Greek history calling themselves a "Greek historian," the implication being that he studies the history of the greeks, NOT that he is a Civil war historian or English historian that happens to be Greek.

[Socrates]

Minnesota:In considering the moniker, "creationist scientist," does anyone, other than those who choose to call themselves such, really take the term "scientist" seriously?Does anyone care what the likes of Minnesota think?And if they do, what qualifications can be cited that lend legitimacy to the term?In fairness, the normal criteria would apply. I.e. high qualifications, published papers. In fact the only reason to deny them the term "scientist" is a stipulative definition to rule out supernatural acts of creation and the Flood from contention, a priori. Otherwise the anti-creationists need to provide a clear demarcation criterion between science and non-science that isn't a blatantly self-serving one from a bigoted materialist.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"...non-science that isn't a blatantly self-serving one from a bigoted materialist."

Wasn't there a proclamation from the moderators that the use of the term "bigot" was banned from these boards? Just wondering...

It was not banned from these boards. Please see the thread in the top of this forum.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101122#post101122)
Socrates:
Does anyone care what the likes of Minnesota think?I do, despite the irony of him having Michigan Frog as his avatar when his username is Minnesota. :smile:

In fairness, the normal criteria would apply. I.e. high qualifications, published papers.And granted, many YEC scientists are high qualified and have published papers in there respective fields. But that is as a scientist, not as a creation scientist. Very few, if any, scientists have published papers in peer reviewed journals, in the field of creation science. Therefore, I believe this is where Minnesota may be coming from. Once a scientist goes from their science field to creation science, all their "achievements" seem to be quited. There are no huge gains in creation science, like they've been seen in virtually every field of science since 1980, creation science is stuck in a rut and therefore to say that there are Creation Scientists is a misnomer. They aren't published in the field of creation science, nor are they making any large strides in the field of creation science.

[Joe Meert]

In considering the moniker, "creationist scientist," does anyone, other than those who choose to call themselves such, really take the term "scientist" seriously? And if they do, what qualifications can be cited that lend legitimacy to the term?

Hi,

I am new to this forum and I have enjoyed some of the threads. In answer to your question, there are a number of creationists who also happen to be scientists. For example, John Baumgardner (Los Alamos) has published a number of papers in journals such as Nature and Science. What's interesting is that these papers are 'old earth' articles and take a contrarian position to John's stated 'young earth' status. John Woodmorappe has also published in J. Vert Paleontology under his real name, Jan Peczkis (J. Vert Paleo, 14, 520-533, 1994; "Implications of Body-Mass estimates for Dinosaurs'). The topic of the article? Evolutionary development of dinosaur size! Kurt Wise and Steve Austin have presented at the Geological Society of America meeting. Their topic was clearly flood related (regarding nautiloid shells in the Grand Canyon). As an aside---when I asked Austin to tell me the timing of the mass nautiloid kill in terms of the Noachian flood, he refused to answer.
Creationists argue that the scientific journals will not allow creationists to publish, but this is not true. Austin published an article on the biblical earthquake of Amos in the journal "International Geology Review". Here is a good example of proper science by a creationist on a biblical subject that passed peer review.
Most creationists, who also happen to be scientists, publish their creation science through creation science journals. Unfortunately, this mode of publication is not helpful in getting the science noticed in the mainstream and has the added effect of relegating creation science to just another pseudoscience.
So, yes there are young earth creationists who also happen to possess scientific credentials. The problem is that few, if any of them, will publish their science in mainstream journals. Therefore, it is true that many young earth creationists happen to be accomplished scientists---the problem is that they are recognized (by mainstream scientists) for anything BUT their work on young earth creationism.

Cheers

Joe Meert


Joe, welcome to TWeb. I had to edit the above because one of the rules at TWeb is that we respect the privacy/anonymity of others (even those that aren't members of TWeb). The following is the relevant rule:

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.

Please review TWebs Decorum at:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum

Thanks

[Minnesota]

Joe_Sixpack

One has to be a bit understanding of Socrates here--I took him to task in another thread and I fear he's still smarting from it. I know his response is poorly-conceived and ad hominem, but it's not unexpected. This is how Socrates operates, so be ready for more of the same, wherever he posts.

Jimmy

I got your PM, thanks. It IS somewhat ironic that I, Minnesota, chose Michigan J. Frog as my avatar, but he's been my musical muse for years--I have a signed cell from the short and a statute of him sits on my piano. I don't know that he's been of significant help, but I've grown kinda fond of the guy.

Joe Meert

If you haven't done so, please read my above response to Dolemite.

The term "creationist scientist" implies that such people have qualifications and degrees in the "science" of creationism, which are comparable to those qualifications and degrees that they hold in a secular science. It also implies that as a creationist scientist they have or now do actual scientific work in accordance with the universal standards of the scientific method. Furthermore, calling something a "science" no more makes it so than calling John Wayne an American hero makes him a hero, just because the characters he played were. Unless the supposed operation of creationist science conforms to standard methodological norms of science, it is undeserving of the title. If you're going to call yourself a plumber you'd better be doing plumbing stuff. If you're going to call yourself a creationist scientist, you'd better be doing creationist science stuff. If not, drop the idiotic pretense.

[Joe Meert]

Joe Meert

<snip> If you're going to call yourself a creationist scientist, you'd better be doing creationist science stuff. If not, drop the idiotic pretense.

JM: Exactly true. But you've a problem with such a definition. Creation 'scientists' DO 'creation science'. It's just that their definition of what science entails and your definition of what science entails are different. I think what you want to know, and indeed the more relevant question, is whether or not creation science is really science? According to the most accepted definitions of science, young earth creationism does not fit the bill as you have suggested.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Archimedes]

Today @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101129#post101129)
Joe_Sixpack:

Wasn't there a proclamation from the moderators that the use of the term &quot;bigot&quot; was banned from these boards? Just wondering...
That was just for two weeks and it expired a few days ago.

[Socrates]

Joe Meert:Creationists argue that the scientific journals will not allow creationists to publish, but this is not true.Actually, they argue that establishment scientific journals will not allow them to publish criticisms of the materialistic evolutionary paradigm, or even to defend themselves via the normal courtesy of the right of reply. And they have good reason to fear discrimination, after Scientific American refused to hire Forrest Mims despite admitting that his work was "first rate".

JM:Most creationists, who also happen to be scientists, publish their creation science through creation science journals. Yep, because that at least gets the work published -- and criticised, even by fellow creationists!Unfortunately, this mode of publication is not helpful in getting the science noticed in the mainstream... Not noticed?! :rofl: Oh, so the mass hysteria by the evoutionary establishment every time the slightest challenge to materialism is raised is "not noticing" creationist arguments?? ... and has the added effect of relegating creation science to just another pseudoscience. No, rather it shows that creationists will not be blocked by establishment censorship, the bane of scientific advance since the time of Galileo.I think what you want to know, and indeed the more relevant question, is whether or not creation science is really science? According to the most accepted definitions of science, young earth creationism does not fit the bill as you have suggested.Oh, so what are these, then? Please state your demarcation criteria. The most laughable ones are simultaneously claiming that creation is not falsifiable and listing the ways it has supposedly been proven false!

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101129#post101129)
Joe_Sixpack:


Socrates:...non-science that isn't a blatantly self-serving one from a bigoted materialist.

Wasn't there a proclamation from the moderators that the use of the term &quot;bigot&quot; was banned from these boards? Just wondering...

:bonk:Wonder no longer. There was a two-week ban from 28 April, but that's up now :whack:

Besides, this was not addressing anyone in particular :teeth:

[Joe Meert]

Joe Meert:Creationists argue that the scientific journals will not allow creationists to publish, but this is not true.Actually, they argue that establishment scientific journals will not allow them to publish criticisms of the materialistic evolutionary paradigm, or even to defend themselves via the normal courtesy of the right of reply. And they have good reason to fear discrimination, after Scientific American refused to hire Forrest Mims despite admitting that his work was &quot;first

JM: You've made false claims about me before, better stick to checking the facts before you post. I am neither agnostic nor atheistic! People's beliefs evolve as well, so best update your materials again.

Mod note - check your PMs

Anyway, I've offered Walt Brown, and I'll offer you or any other creationist the chance to publish an article in Gondwana Research. These are the simple requirements:
(1) It must somehow relate to Gondwana (easy since this was 1/2 of Pangea).
(2) It will be subject to scientific peer-review, but only scientific arguments against the material will be allowed.
Guidelines can be found at http://gondwanaresearch.com



JM:Most creationists, who also happen to be scientists, publish their creation science through creation science journals. Yep, because that at least gets the work published -- and criticised, even by fellow creationists!Unfortunately, this mode of publication is not helpful in getting the science noticed in the mainstream... Not noticed?! :rofl: Oh, so the mass hysteria by the evoutionary establishment every time the slightest challenge to materialism is raised is &quot;not noticing&quot; creationist arguments??


JM: Be careful. Mass hysteria? Most geologists I talk to are only vaguely aware of what creationists are proposing. When a scientist speaks of a body of work being 'noticed'; they really mean 'cited'. To the best of my knowledge the citation index of 'cre-sci' journals are non-existent. You won't find reference to their articles in any scientific journals and therefore the scientific impact of young earth creationism is nil.
A few of us know that creationists are really fowarding their own socio-political (not scientific) agendas and so we pay a bit more attention to what is happening. This allows us to be knowledgeable when some school board member calls us in to discuss the latest proposed book banning or other form of fundamentalist propoganda. As far as the significance of creation science publications, I will only say that it is quite easy to publish a book---quite another thing for that book (or article) to have any impact! It's also the scientist's social responsibility to make the public aware of their field of study, of advances in that field and of false claims about their field of study. Therefore, it is important to be ready to point out false claims made in support of a socio-political agenda and be able to speak intelligently about those false claims.



... and has the added effect of relegating creation science to just another pseudoscience. No, rather it shows that creationists will not be blocked by establishment censorship, the bane of scientific advance since the time of Galileo.

JM: This statement is clearly false based on the publication record of Baumgardner, Austin and others. They can, do and will be published so long as they do good science. Articles are rejected or accepted based on the quality of the data.



Oh, so what are these, then? Please state your demarcation criteria. The most laughable ones are simultaneously claiming that creation is not falsifiable and listing the ways it has supposedly been proven false!

JM: Nice try Soc, but you're simply playing some word games with this argument. Creation science is NOT falsifiable to anyone who has reached the foregone conclusion that it cannot be falsified. Kurt Wise is perhaps the most honest about this when he claims that --Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand. Kurt knows that young earth creationism is a faith-based belief system. ICR even plainly states the foregone conclusion on its website. So, creation science is NOT falsifiable to those who hold steadfastly to its tenets. Because of this, creation science is aimed solely at 'creating' evidence in support of the foregone conclusion. Henrt Morris of the ICR states; "It is precisely because biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the bible and, therefore, there is no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a verdict in favor of evolution". Therefore, the strongest argument against creationism as a science is that it is dogmatic. It will not yield to contrary evidence because it has already concluded that such evidence cannot exist.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Minnesota]

As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

AND


"It is precisely because biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the bible and, therefore, there is no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a verdict in favor of evolution".

Wow, for scary!! And I bet they have the same right to vote as normal people. :no:

Thanks Joe.

[QED]

I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.[emphasis added]

At least Wise is honest enough not to conflate his own interpretation with what the Word of God really is.

[WinAce]

Oh, I didn't notice that before. My respect for Wise just went up a notch or two.

It's so unfortunate what creationism can do to a mind... :sad:

[Socrates]

I presume JM got that Kurt Wise quote from In Six Days, edited by John Ashton. But even a cursory glance at this book would show that his view is hardly typical. Most leading creationists are presuppositionalists, while Wise's position borders on fideism, at least in that part JM quoted. Wise's new book Faith, Form and Time is a bit better because it's not quite so fideistic. And he also justifies the straightforward interpretation of the Creation and Flood narratives, so he is not as existentialist about hermeneutics as QED thinks.

[QED]

Of course he justifies his own interpretation. That is a lot different than conflating his interpretation with the Word of God. The one is a humble seeking after knowledge. The other is blasphemy.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 02:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101682#post101682)
Socrates:

I presume JM got that Kurt Wise quote from In Six Days, edited by John Ashton. But even a cursory glance at this book would show that his view is hardly typical. Most leading creationists are presuppositionalists, while Wise's position borders on fideism, at least in that part JM quoted. Wise's new book Faith, Form and Time is a bit better because it's not quite so fideistic. And he also justifies the straightforward interpretation of the Creation and Flood narratives, so he is not as existentialist about hermeneutics as QED thinks.

Fideism is the basic tenet of ICR and AIG as well. Science seems to be an aside with these organizations. In the end, there is nothing more than a perceived fit to one narrow interpretation of scriptures. As an aside, Kurt Wise admitted that creationists have no coherent flood model. This confession was also amazing since the flood was purportedly THE major geologic event in earth history. This amazes me since the global flood, if it occurred should have produced such a dominant signature in geology it should be eas to identify pre, post and syn flood deposits. Interestingly, it was precisely this lack of geologic evidence that led the creationists of the 1700-1800's to abandon the notion of a Noachian flood. Remember, these are scientists who would make people like Henry Morris or Jonathan Sarfati look like liberal theologians!

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101705#post101705)
Joe Meert:

Fideism is the basic tenet of ICR and AIG as well.

Pure assertion, overlooking the difference between fideism and presuppositionalism, because the latter uses logic to deduce theorems from the axioms and build an interpretive framework for the data --- an alternative to the dogmatic establishment materialistic paradigm.


Science seems to be an aside with these organizations. Nonsense, as amply shown by their publications. Oops, sorry, by "science", JM means the materialistic paradigm masquerading as science.


In the end, there is nothing more than a perceived fit

And of course, materialists are the epitome of objectivity -- yeah, right. Rather, as shown by these quotes of Lewontin and Todd, nothing will shake their faith in materialism -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=40404#post40404 And Dawkins has made it amply clear that he's motivated by his fanatical anti-theism.


... to one narrow interpretation of scriptures.

Not that an unbeliever in Christ really cares about Scripture anyway. "Narrow interpretation" is really existentialist nonsense, because the creationists accept the grammatical-historical interpretation that the historical christian church believed for the first ~1800 years of its history. Nor does the other anti-Christian QED have the slightest basis for the blasphemy charge, especially against Christians who beleive God meant what He said and said what He meant! :poke:

[Joe Meert]

Not that an unbeliever in Christ really cares about Scripture anyway


JM: Be careful, you don't know that this is true. For example, Jonathan Sarfati made many incorrect claims about me (including my name) on AIG's website. People's religious beliefs can, and do, change through time. You should always ask your source before making assertions. As to AIG and ICR, they are clearly and unequivocally fideistic organizations. There's no defending any other position. Check your sources, this is not lightning chess after all!

Moderator Note: Joe Meert, Check your PM's.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Joe Meert:For example, Jonathan Sarfati made many incorrect claims about me (including my name) on AIG's website. If you mean the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp then the fault would seem to be yours, since it seems that you had explicitly identified yourself as an atheist at one time, then apparently informed the website editors that you had since changed to agnostic. Sorry mate, but it's a bit much for us to be expected to follow yet another religious change in less than a year since that article was published -- if indeed you have made one. And if you have changed your position, you can't expect AiG scientists to read your mind -- if their information is no longer correct, you should inform them.

A comment contained therein has sparked a flurry of identity speculation. The member did not intend for this to be taken as an admission of identity or waiver of privacy and thus has been unilaterally edited.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 05:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101797#post101797)
Socrates:

Joe Meert:For example, Jonathan Sarfati made many incorrect claims about me (including my name) on AIG's website. If you mean the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp then the fault would seem to be yours, since it seems that you had explicitly identified yourself as an atheist at one time, then apparently informed the website editors that you had since changed to agnostic. Sorry mate, but it's a bit much for us to be expected to follow yet another religious change in less than a year since that article was published -- if indeed you have made one. And if you have changed your position, you can't expect AiG scientists to read your mind -- if their information is no longer correct, you should inform them.


Us? Are you associated with Answers in Genesis, Socrates?

DivineOb, see the next post

[Minnesota]

Us? Are you associated with Answers in Genesis, Socrates?

I have promised the moderators here not to get into specifics--- revealing true identities--- but the answer is most assuredly, Yes. (But don't look for him under that name.)


Minnesota and DivineOb, I will warn you only once since you obviously know the rule. Respect the privacy of others or you will be placed into Moderated Status.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Soc said:


Not that an unbeliever in Christ really cares about Scripture anyway. "

Amen!!! Some of it gets really deep (and I do not mean profound) around here when the faux concern and analysis of what the Scriptures say is hurled around here by SOME (pay careful attention that I said SOME) unbelievers with a concern that some of us have a "narrow" view that we need their assistance to be liberated of, in fact Christiendom needs their assistance. :rofl: Pluuuuhhheeease.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101797#post101797)
Socrates:
If you mean the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp then the fault would seem to be yours, since it seems that you had explicitly identified yourself as an atheist at one time, then apparently informed the website editors that you had since changed to agnostic.How do you know that? :huh:

Sorry mate, but it's a bit much for us to be expected to follow yet another religious change in less than a year since that article was published -- if indeed you have made one.How did you know when that article was "published"?

And if you have changed your position, you can't expect AiG scientists to read your mind -- if their information is no longer correct, you should inform them. Why not, you are trying to. I mean to claim to be an expert of all things is one ideal, but to claim knowledge of the workings at AIG, ie knowing when an article is released, what process J.M. went through with AIG on the atheism issue, there is no way you could know that. You are guessing just as you guess with everything else. But this only comes from a "Village Atheist".

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101989#post101989)
Dee Dee Warren:
Amen!!! Some of it gets really deep (and I do not mean profound) around here when the faux concern and analysis of what the Scriptures say is hurled around here by SOME (pay careful attention that I said SOME) unbelievers with a concern that some of us have a &quot;narrow&quot; view that we need their assistance to be liberated of, in fact Christiendom needs their assistance. :rofl: Pluuuuhhheeease. Oh come on! I've read more and studied more on the Bible since becoming an atheist than before. The fine tuned qualities of Genesis makes it one of the best written scripts in the world for its time. There is plenty of appreciation to be made with the Bible. Appreciation and all out blind faith are two completely different things.

[Minnesota]

My Apologies


Moderator Notice:
Minnesota and DivineOb, I will warn you only once since you obviously know the rule. Respect the privacy of others or you will be placed into Moderated Status.

Damn, I did it again--and not even intentionally (didn't think a person's affiliations were that significant). Sorry about dragging you down with me DivineOb, your question was an innocuous and reasonable one. And my apologies to everyone else for causing the momentary burp in the thread.

[Joe Meert]

www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp[/url] then the fault would seem to be yours, since it seems that you had explicitly identified yourself as an atheist at one time, then apparently informed the website editors that you had since changed to agnostic. Sorry mate, but it's a bit much for us to be expected to follow yet another religious change in less than a year since that article was published -- if indeed you have made one. And if you have changed your position, you can't expect AiG scientists to read your mind -- if their information is no longer correct, you should inform them.


JM: The fault always lies with the reporter (in this case Sarfati) to get their facts straight. For example, the original version named me as GE Meert. Secondly, Jesus changed lives overnight so it should come as no great surprise to anyone that someone might change their religious viewpoints through time. A good reporter would not write a story solely based on a few snippets of information gathered from the web without checking their source. Once your hand is removed from the piece, the move is sealed. Sarfati did not do a very thorough job of fact checking and he posted the AIG article to soon.
As for the difference between fideism and presuppositionalism when applied to AIG and ICR, there is no difference. Henry Morris said it succinctly in the quote I provided earlier. I'll paraphrase--"It doesn't matter what science says because the bible is authoratative on all matters". The term presuppositionalism is a weasel word used by creationists such as yourself, Sarafati, Morris and others in an effort to make it appear that you are open to what the data will say. In reality, the entire goal of 'creation science' is to fit the data to the conclusion and if the data can't be made to fit, then it is the data and not the conclusions that are thrown out. Anyway you slice it, that is fideism at its best. You seem to know a lot about the inner workings of AIG and Sarfati, hmm. PS: I'm not your 'mate' yet so don't presuppose that.

Cheers

Joe Meert

PS: Moderator--there was nothing in my PM file

[Socratism]

If he is not technically an atheist ( a person who knows that there is no God) it would seem that he is fairly close to it.

Nevertheless there is always the possibility that he will someday be able to overcome his belief that he is the measure of all things and humble himself before God, for the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

For many this is the difficult path to the Truth, and few find it.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102184#post102184)
Socratism:

If he is not technically an atheist ( a person who knows that there is no God) it would seem that he is fairly close to it.

Nevertheless there is always the possibility that he will someday be able to overcome his belief that he is the measure of all things and humble himself before God, for the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

For many this is the difficult path to the Truth, and few find it.

He, meaning me is neither atheist nor agnostic. As I mentioned to Sarfati when he wrote the article, I stated that an agnostic position is an ultimately untenable position. However, let me state here that there is a common fallacy expressed by young earth creationists that one cannot believe in God and also an old earth, global flood and evolution. This is patently false as is demonstrated by a host of Christian and muslim scientists throughout the world. It comes from worshipping the bible as God rather than the God of the bible.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Socrates:


If you mean the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp then the fault would seem to be yours, since it seems that you had explicitly identified yourself as an atheist at one time, then apparently informed the website editors that you had since changed to agnostic.

Jimmy Higgins blunders in, as his wont:How do you know that? I said "apparently", based on what the article said :dunce:


Dr Joseph G. (‘Joe’) Meert, is a vocal anti-creationist active on the Internet, who certainly used to describe himself as an atheist, as most evolutionary propagandists are (see A Who’s Who of Evolutionists; Ed. note: he informed us, ‘while I may have described myself as an atheist in the past, that is no longer an accurate description’, and ‘You can put me down as “agnostic” which I believe to be an ultimately impossible position to maintain’ although for all practical purposes there is hardly any difference).

But it's typical of a self-confessed village atheist like Higgins not to bother to read! And it's pathetic for Meert to whinge (as well as to show ignorance about how Australians use the word "mate"), when evidently the "source" of the article's claims about Meert was Meert himself!! :whack:

Socrates:


Sorry mate, but it's a bit much for us to be expected to follow yet another religious change in less than a year since that article was published -- if indeed you have made one.

Jimmy Higgins:How did you know when that article was "published"?It's obvious from the filename :dufus: That is, if you follow AiG's lead article postings, the filenames tend to end with the month and day of publication, and it's in the 2002 directory, so it's reasonable to assume that it was published around 30 October 2002.

Socrates:


And if you have changed your position, you can't expect AiG scientists to read your mind -- if their information is no longer correct, you should inform them.

Jimmy Higgins:Why not, you are trying to. I mean to claim to be an expert of all things is one ideal, but to claim knowledge of the workings at AIG, ie knowing when an article is released, what process J.M. went through with AIG on the atheism issue, there is no way you could know that. Well there is, providing one uses one's brain, but then, according to the Bible, "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1), so I won't get my hopes up where Jimmy is concerned.

[Joe Meert]

But it's typical of a self-confessed village atheist like Higgins not to bother to read! And it's pathetic for Meert to whinge (as well as to show ignorance about how Australians use the word &quot;mate&quot;), when evidently the &quot;source&quot; of the article's claims about Meert was Meert himself!! :whack:

JM: But the problem is that Sarfati was so lax in his fact checking that he did not even get my name right! With that sort of sloppiness, it's not surprising that he did not try to find out what my theological underpinnings are. Nor does Sarfati recognize the very simple fact that ones theological underpinnings have nothing to do with one's scientific endevaors unless one is a young earth creationist.



Well there is, providing one uses one's brain,

JM: Given that the answer is so utterly and blatantly obvious, I think Jimmy was just toying with you. Checkmate!
Cheers

Joe Meert

PS: I am well aware of how Ozzies use the word 'mate', it's obvious you have no sense of humor.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102217#post102217)
Socrates:
Jimmy Higgins:How did you know when that article was &quot;published&quot;?It's obvious from the filename :dufus: That is, if you follow AiG's lead article postings, the filenames tend to end with the month and day of publication, and it's in the 2002 directory, so it's reasonable to assume that it was published around 30 October 2002.Crayfish tail inspires Mars robot design (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/yabby.asp)

The World's Tiniest Motor (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/207.asp)
Stem Cells and Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/stem_cells.asp)
How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp)
I don't see dates in there. You know, when you tell one lie, it just snowballs into one very large one. I see a snowball the size of 42 hippos right now.

The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'&quot; (Psalm 14:1), so I won't get my hopes up where Jimmy is concerned. Only a fool would say there is no God. The wise man says there are no gods.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 08:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102013#post102013)
Jimmy Higgins:

Oh come on! I've read more and studied more on the Bible since becoming an atheist than before. The fine tuned qualities of Genesis makes it one of the best written scripts in the world for its time. There is plenty of appreciation to be made with the Bible. Appreciation and all out blind faith are two completely different things.


Reread my post Jimmy, you missed the point.

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins:
How did you know when that article was "published"?

Socrates: It's obvious from the filename That is, if you follow AiG's lead article postings, the filenames tend to end with the month and day of publication, and it's in the 2002 directory, so it's reasonable to assume that it was published around 30 October 2002.

Jimmy still blunders in (and Meert is too blind to his own biases even to notice his goofs):Crayfish tail inspires Mars robot design
The World's Tiniest Motor
Stem Cells and Genesis
How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?

I don't see dates in there. You know, when you tell one lie, it just snowballs into one very large one. I see a snowball the size of 42 hippos right now.Where is the "lie"?? I said TEND to have dates. And obviously the one where Meert is concerned DID have a date incorporated in the filename, so I could tell roughly when it was posted. And I can see indications of dates in the other articles too. E.g. with the Stem Cell article, it has a date of its last update, so again it would be possible to tell. In some of the others, the reference dates can provide a clue that the article must have been written after them, and most likely within a year.

Any sensible person would have given up making inflammatory accusations of lying, but then Jimmy is not, considering the drubbing I gave him at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90633#post90633 :poke: This proved to the satisfaction of DDW that I did NOT lie when I pointed out that Jimmy had made the disgusting claims that Hitler was a Christian and that the Bible claims negroes are inferior.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102236#post102236)
Joe Meert:

JM: But the problem is that Sarfati was so lax in his fact checking that he did not even get my name right!

You mean it's not Joseph G. (‘Joe’) Meert?


With that sort of sloppiness, it's not surprising that he did not try to find out what my theological underpinnings are.


Stop whinging -- it sure looks like he found out perfectly well -- from what you had written! :whack: Can't blame someone for going by your own written testimony. Judging by the article, you at one time had affirmed that you were an atheist, and this statement was still apparently public at the time Sarfati wrote. And it seems that you told AiG that you had moved towards agnosticism by the time the article was posted ? And even now, you're just being evasive -- have you reverted to atheism or moved into deism or theism, or none of the above?


Nor does Sarfati recognize the very simple fact that ones theological underpinnings have nothing to do with one's scientific endevaors unless one is a young earth creationist.

And I have already demonstrated that the fanatical atheism of the likes of Dawkins has EVERYTHING to do with his bombastic evolutionary propaganda.


PS: I am well aware of how Ozzies use the word 'mate', it's obvious you have no sense of humor.

Yeah, right -- just an "after the fact" explanation for your Americocentrist low-context reading :poke:

[Joe Meert]

You mean it's not Joseph G. (‘Joe’) Meert?

JM: Yes, but originally Sarfati wrote GE "Joe" Meert.



Stop whinging -- it sure looks like he found out perfectly well -- from what you had written! :whack: Can't blame someone for going by your own written testimony. Judging by the article, you at one time had affirmed that you were an atheist, and this statement was still apparently public at the time Sarfati wrote. And it seems that you told AiG that you had moved towards agnosticism by the time the article was posted ? And even now, you're just being evasive -- have you reverted to atheism or moved into deism or theism, or none of the above?

JM: How about Christianity? Or don't you think that is possible?




And I have already demonstrated that the fanatical atheism of the likes of Dawkins has EVERYTHING to do with his bombastic evolutionary propaganda.

JM: You've demonstrated nothing. If you think that I am going to be impressed by someone who hides behind a pseudonym proclaiming he has made a point without really making one, then you are more pompous than you appear in your writings.




Yeah, right -- just an &quot;after the fact&quot; explanation for your Americocentrist low-context reading :poke:

JM: Yes, Jesus taught us to insult our fellow man at every opportunity. Take a valium before you post your vitriol.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

Socrates:


You mean it's not Joseph G. (‘Joe’) Meert?

JM: Yes, but originally Sarfati wrote GE "Joe" Meert. It's not there now, so I see little point in whinging about it. And possibly there was a good reason for that too in something you had said. It's really not fair of you to write things and then attack people for taking you at your word.

Socrates:


Stop whinging -- it sure looks like he found out perfectly well -- from what you had written! Can't blame someone for going by your own written testimony. Judging by the article, you at one time had affirmed that you were an atheist, and this statement was still apparently public at the time Sarfati wrote. And it seems that you told AiG that you had moved towards agnosticism by the time the article was posted ?

So do you intend to answer? You made some false accusations, yet it seems that the author was going by what you had said!

Socrates:


And even now, you're just being evasive -- have you reverted to atheism or moved into deism or theism, or none of the above?

JM: How about Christianity? Or don't you think that is possible? Of course it's possible, but your continued attacks on creation and existentialist view of Biblical hermeneutics provide no evidence that it's actual. And note that some of what passes for "Christianity" these days, e.g. Spongism, is not Christianity at all.

Socrates:


And I have already demonstrated that the fanatical atheism of the likes of Dawkins has EVERYTHING to do with his bombastic evolutionary propaganda.

JM: You've demonstrated nothing. Are you seriously denying that Dawkins' evolutionary writings are NOT motivated by his ardent atheism? As an atheist, he NEEDs evolution, because he said that before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Or are you so philosophically naive that you think that only biblical Christians can be biased, while rabid anti-theists like Dawkins are the epitome of objectivity?

JM:If you think that I am going to be impressed by someone who hides behind a pseudonym proclaiming he has made a point without really making one, then you are more pompous than you appear in your writings.The rule on Theology Web is that anyone can use a pseudonym, and doesn't have to justify it. Many on "your" side also use them, so stop whinging, or else find some other forum to annoy.

Socrates:


Yeah, right -- just an "after the fact" explanation for your Americocentrist low-context reading

JM: Yes, Jesus taught us to insult our fellow man at every opportunity. He followed the challenge-riposte paradigm (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html), as opposed to the WFJ (wimp for Jesus) philosophy that anti-Christians often demand of Christians, although said anti-Christians feel perfectly free to dish out the bile themselves. In fact, nothing I have said on Theology Web even remotely approaches the vitriol that anti-creationist bigots dish out, and is published.

It's a shame that some Christians fall for WFJ philosophy, and also fail to understand Biblical love www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html

JM: Take a valium before you post your vitriol.Maybe you want to become addicted to benzodiazepines, but we Australians are more cautious :poke:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102667#post102667)
Socrates:
Where is the &quot;lie&quot;??You know what I mean, you slipped. We all make mistakes.

And I can see indications of dates in the other articles too. E.g. with the Stem Cell article, it has a date of its last update, so again it would be possible to tell.But we weren't talking about those. Your knowledge of AIG's web format is impressive. :hrm:

Any sensible person would have given up making inflammatory accusations of lying, but then Jimmy is not, considering the drubbing I gave him at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90633#post90633 :poke: This proved to the satisfaction of DDW that I did NOT lie when I pointed out that Jimmy had made the disgusting claims that Hitler was a Christian and that the Bible claims negroes are inferior. When appropriately flanked, it is always customary for that who is being beaten to drum up irrelevancy to draw attention away from the point made. Sorry Socrates, you slipped.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102725#post102725)
Jimmy Higgins:

You know what I mean, you slipped. We all make mistakes.

What slip? None has been demonstrated, especially as I said that AiG articles TEND to have dates in the filename, and the one about Meert did.


But we weren't talking about those. Your knowledge of AIG's web format is impressive. :hrm:

It's pretty simple for anyone to work out, as I've amply explained. But then I'm forgetting that according to Romans 1:20 ff., the wilful rejection of God by the likes of Higgins leads to futile thinking.

[Socrates]

Obviously the author is far from sympathetic towards creation, but he certainly has the impression that the evolutionary establishment is dogmatic and even censorial.


Confessions of a Skeptic
Comment

By RICHARD T. HALVORSON
www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=347399

Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every culture constructs an idol unto itself, punishing heresy by excommunication. We can discover the sacred idol of any culture by finding its taboo question.

In Medieval Europe, the peasant was forbidden to question the truth of the Church. Under Communism, comrades doubting the Party were thrown in gulag labor camps. Now, citizens must recite principles of Darwinism through compulsory schooling.

We are encouraged to learn nuances like punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, but questioning the universal explanatory power of evolution is met with intellectual excommunication.

I make no apology for those who blindly reject scientific evidence due to contrived religious doctrines; I have equally little tolerance for those who ignore scientific evidence to prop up a naturalistic anti-religious dogma.

Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded 20th century scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that evidence for the Big Bang was ignored for decades because it “smacks of divine intervention.” For fear of theological implications, there were “a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.”

Intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental premises—yet expressing hesitation about Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of academia.

Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains an scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas.

Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.”

Biologists continue to recite the worn credo, “the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.” But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant, “the central, unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,” until he could not see beyond its limitations?

Scientific innovations originate outside the dominant paradigm—demanding orthodoxy invites stagnation. Scientists who question evolution, like Intelligent Design theorists, do not reject evolution entirely, but argue that evidence supports a limited explanatory role. Faithful Darwinists, however, like Teilhard de Chardin, insist that evolution is “a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow.”

Luckily, no one needs a doctorate to separate honest skepticism from institutionalized dogma. Skip Evans, of the National Center for Science Education, worried that classroom discussions of evidence against evolution might “cast seeds of doubt in students’ minds.”

Professors expressing doubts about evolution are often ostracized, demoted or fired. A Baylor University professor found research funds rescinded because his project would undermine evolutionary presuppositions. Other skeptical professors have resorted to using pseudonyms, fearing for their jobs and careers if they openly publish contrary evidence.

Evolution skeptics are almost universally dismissed with an ad hominem charge of “religiously-motivated propaganda.” Yet science students and professors consistently fail to address the merits of critics’ arguments. They cannot answer the relevant evidential questions of: (1) what is the most compelling critique of evolution; (2) and on which points the evidence or arguments fail.

Most Darwinists have not read or considered biochemist Michael Behe, geneticist Michael Denton, embryologist Jonathan Wells, or information theorist William Dembski. These dissenting voices are systematically marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism.

We must refuse to bow to our culture’s false idols. Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden.

—Richard T. Halvorson is an editorial editor.

[TheFiveSolas]

Soc,

Interesting article. :thumb:

[Joe Meert]

JM: Yes, but originally Sarfati wrote GE &quot;Joe&quot; Meert. It's not there now, so I see little point in whinging about it. And possibly there was a good reason for that too in something you had said. It's really not fair of you to write things and then attack people for taking you at your word.

JM: The point, which obviously escapes you, is that Sarfati blew it both in terms of my name and my religious belief system. He did not check. There is no reason whatsoever for making a mistake on my name. I never, ever went by the name GE Meert. You don't know what happened, so why pretend?



So do you intend to answer? You made some false accusations, yet it seems that the author was going by what you had said!

JM: The author never contacted me prior to publishing the article.



JM: How about Christianity? Or don't you think that is possible? Of course it's possible, but your continued attacks on creation and existentialist view of Biblical hermeneutics provide no evidence that it's actual. And note that some of what passes for &quot;Christianity&quot; these days, e.g. Spongism, is not Christianity at all.

JM: Young earth creationism is not Christianity either. Nor is it even biblical! So, if you are asking if I follow Sarfatism, Morrisism or Socratism, the answer is no. In fact, you've not told us whether you are a Buddhist, agonostic, atheist so why should I? Besides, you've already decided that anyone who disagrees with you regarding ye-creationism cannot possibly be a Christian.



JM: You've demonstrated nothing. Are you seriously denying that Dawkins' evolutionary writings are NOT motivated by his ardent atheism? As an atheist, he NEEDs evolution, because he said that before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

JM: I said that I don't care what Dawkin's theological standing is, nor do I really care about yours when it comes to science. The data stand or fall irrespective of one's belief/non-belief in a deity.


JM:If you think that I am going to be impressed by someone who hides behind a pseudonym proclaiming he has made a point without really making one, then you are more pompous than you appear in your writings.The rule on Theology Web is that anyone can use a pseudonym, and doesn't have to justify it. Many on &quot;your&quot; side also use them, so stop whinging, or else find some other forum to annoy.

JM: If I want to find a post sure to contain hatred and anger, I look to yours. My point is simple, I don't hide behind a pseudonym and quite frankly, I don't understand why anyone on here does, but they choose to do so including yourself. However, your posts positively leak hatred and anger and I find very little substance to them. This makes me think that your pseudonym is merely a venue for you to vent without retribution. If people knew who you really were, they might lose respect for whatever it is you really do for a living. I've been arguing these points on the web for over 6+ years and found that using my real name poses no real issues.


as opposed to the WFJ (wimp for Jesus) philosophy that anti-Christians often demand of Christians, although said anti-Christians feel perfectly free to dish out the bile themselves. In fact, nothing I have said on Theology Web even remotely approaches the vitriol that anti-creationist bigots dish out, and is published.

JM: I don't see that at all. I base my opinion on your posts here. You seem like an angry old man who found a place to hide and hurl insults. I could be wrong and I would very much enjoy a more rational dialogue, but one need only look at nearly every response of yours to see that is not a likely event. People, including me, are going to respond in kind to you so the vitriol you feel is your own doing.

Cheers

Joe Meert


Please review TWeb's Decorum:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum

Specifically:


Participant Anonymity
In conjunction with our Privacy Statement please respect the anonymity of other posters on TheologyWeb.

[Woman]

Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded 20th century scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that evidence for the Big Bang was ignored for decades because it “smacks of divine intervention.” For fear of theological implications, there were “a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.”

Soc,

Surely you are not defending this position though. The "current" fundamentalist thinking will NOT allow for a Big Bang.

[Dilton]

It´s funny to see how Socrates, in one post, has said everything he actually does when being a "evolution eviscerator". Why can´t people accept a theory and analyze what is true in that theory and what is not, without leting their personal feelings or beliefs get in the way?

[TheFiveSolas]

Dilton,

Because neutrality is a myth.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102750#post102750)
Joe Meert:

JM: The point, which obviously escapes you, is that Sarfati blew it both in terms of my name and my religious belief system. He did not check.

Why should he check if you said it yourself? :whack:


There is no reason whatsoever for making a mistake on my name. I never, ever went by the name GE Meert. You don't know what happened, so why pretend?

And you are merely making assertions without proof.


JM: Young earth creationism is not Christianity either. Nor is it even biblical! What would you know?? Once more, it's ludicrous to have non-christians lecturing us in what is or is not biblical. Especially people who don't have anywhere near the biblical knowledge of the church fathers and reformers -- who were nearly all YECs.


So, if you are asking if I follow Sarfatism, Morrisism or Socratism, the answer is no. In fact, you've not told us whether you are a Buddhist, agonostic, atheist so why should I?

I've made it amply clear on this site where I stand -- e.g. Trinitarian, and Biblical inerrantist by the definition of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm)


Besides, you've already decided that anyone who disagrees with you regarding ye-creationism cannot possibly be a Christian.

That's a lie, because I have affirmed the contrary on this site several times.


JM: I said that I don't care what Dawkin's theological standing is, nor do I really care about yours when it comes to science. The data stand or fall irrespective of one's belief/non-belief in a deity.

OK then, so then don't bring up AiG's or ICR's statement of faith! :poke:


JM: If I want to find a post sure to contain hatred and anger, I look to yours. My point is simple, I don't hide behind a pseudonym and quite frankly, I don't understand why anyone on here does, but they choose to do so including yourself. However, your posts positively leak hatred and anger and I find very little substance to them. This makes me think that your pseudonym is merely a venue for you to vent without retribution. If people knew who you really were, they might lose respect for whatever it is you really do for a living.

Given that I am the current "Poster of the Month" and have been picked for the Dean's List a number of times and given a fair number of "pearls", a lot of people disagree with you. And it seems that they respect the fact that I challenge non-christians rather than let them walk all over us as Christendom has largely done for the last 100+ years.


JM: I don't see that at all. I base my opinion on your posts here. You seem like an angry old man who found a place to hide and hurl insults. I could be wrong and I would very much enjoy a more rational dialogue,


So would I, but I have yet to see that you would provide one.


... but one need only look at nearly every response of yours to see that is not a likely event. People, including me, are going to respond in kind to you so the vitriol you feel is your own doing.

Humph - you brought up the biblical faith of creationists, so I brought up the materialistic faith of evolutionists. You slurred creationist integrity and competence, so I replied in kind. As usual, there is one rule for creationists and another for their attackers. And again, there is nothing remotely resembling the vitriol by the likes of tgamble on this site, your own snide reviews on Amazon, Free Iniquity oops Free Inquiry 13(3) containing the article "Is religion a form of mental illness?", the anti-creationist vitriol by the likes of Plimer and Dawkins ...

[Minnesota]

Confessions of a Skeptic
Comment

By RICHARD T. HALVORSON
www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=347399

Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every culture, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. . . . . . . .

From the Crimson Bio:

"Richard T. Halvorson ’03 , is a philosophy and government concentrator. From the rustic outpost of Pforzheimer House, this Crimson editor will apply his varied experience and eclectic academic background to offer unique insights on contemporary global issues. Synthesizing international trends in politics and culture, he will present a “globalist” perspective. His column will appear on alternate Tuesdays."

And you expect us to care what a "philosophy and government concentrator," who is senior in college, says about evolution, because???????

Keep digging Socs, you do come up with some dandies.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102781#post102781)
Minnesota:

From the Crimson Bio:

&quot;Richard T. Halvorson ’03 , is a philosophy and government concentrator. From the rustic outpost of Pforzheimer House, this Crimson editor will apply his varied experience and eclectic academic background to offer unique insights on contemporary global issues. Synthesizing international trends in politics and culture, he will present a “globalist” perspective. His column will appear on alternate Tuesdays.&quot;

And you expect us to care what a &quot;philosophy and government concentrator,&quot; who is senior in college, says about evolution, because???????

Nice little abusive ad hominem from Minnie, who can't deal with the actual arguments from a hostile witness (as far as creationists are concerned).

[Dilton]

Today @ 04:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102773#post102773)
TheFiveSolas:

Dilton,

Because neutrality is a myth.

Yes you are right.

One can only be right or wrong, and there is a god or there isn´t.

But what I was trying to say is that Socrates denies evolution so blindly as he claims 20th century scientists do with creation. But since neutrality is a myth as you have said, we have a "tilt" here, because Socrate´s arguments ask for scientists to be neutral and not deny data when someone shows them creation evidences.

[Joe Meert]

Why should he check if you said it yourself?


I never claimed to be on GE Meert. Apparently, it escapes both you and Sarfati that one should always double check facts before publishing them. It's standard journalistic practice, but I will accept your answer that AIG does not follow this practice. IN fact, I realized this once Sarfati published his article without contacting me.



What would you know?? Once more, it's ludicrous to have non-christians lecturing us in what is or is not biblical. Especially people who don't have anywhere near the biblical knowledge of the church fathers and reformers -- who were nearly all YECs.

JM: Who said I am non-Christian? You? Sarfati? It certainly is not me. Does it secretely scare you that I might, once again, have been reborn? I suspect I have a much stronger and longer Christian upbringing than you might imagine.


I've made it amply clear on this site where I stand -- e.g. Trinitarian, and Biblical inerrantist by the definition of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm)

JM: The only thing you've made clear to me is that you have an utter and deep hatred for anyone who disagrees with you.



OK then, so then don't bring up AiG's or ICR's statement of faith!

JM: There is a difference that you have not noticed. Dawkin's has to stand on data, he cannot stand on his philosophical bent. ICR and AIG have made it quite clear that the data are irrelevant.


Given that I am the current &quot;Poster of the Month&quot; and have been picked for the Dean's List a number of times and given a fair number of &quot;pearls&quot;, a lot of people disagree with you. And it seems that they respect the fact that I challenge non-christians rather than let them walk all over us as Christendom has largely done for the last 100+ years.


JM: LOL! Given that the site and the posters are overwhelmingly 'homers', it's no surprise that you would be 'poster of the month' or collector of pearls. The real question is how many people who disagree with you offered you pearls or nomination as 'poster of the month'? If you garner the same award on a site created by evolutionists, I'd say you'd have a point otherwise it is meaningless.


Humph - you brought up the biblical faith of creationists, so I brought up the materialistic faith of evolutionists. You slurred creationist integrity and competence, so I replied in kind. As usual, there is one rule for creationists and another for their attackers.

JM: Not really. I am interested solely in the data. The data are quite clear and easy to understand. Many Christian scientists, of all denominations, have reached similar conclusions regarding the old age of the earth and the lack of evidence for a global flood. Given that atheists are a clear minority in the global population, your assertion that evolutionism is purely materialistic is without substance.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dilton]

ad hominem is one thing.

I am too stupid to say anything about evolution, since I am a college student in a area that is nothing but scientific.

So, if I published something with lots of stuff to prove an evolution argument valid, I bet lot´s of christians in this thread would shout "hey who the hell are you to say anything?".

So, if that is ad hominem for you, here I go and join Minnesota on our ad hominem whining... "philosophy and government concentrator", wtf?

[Socrates]

JM whinged:I never claimed to be on GE Meert. But now I hear that you used to have an email called gemeert, so it's understandable that the author assumed that the GE were initials. But it's now gone so why harp on about it so much? It belies your professed concern for the dataApparently, it escapes both you and Sarfati that one should always double check facts before publishing them. It's standard journalistic practice, but I will accept your answer that AIG does not follow this practice. IN fact, I realized this once Sarfati published his article without contacting me. Maybe he realised what a vexatious anti-biblical timewaster you are? And why should he when you apparently had stated that you were an atheist?

Socrates:


What would you know?? Once more, it's ludicrous to have non-christians lecturing us in what is or is not biblical. Especially people who don't have anywhere near the biblical knowledge of the church fathers and reformers -- who were nearly all YECs.

Note that this was in reply to Meert's crass statement that YEC was unbiblical :dufus:

JM: Who said I am non-Christian? You? Sarfati? It certainly is not me. Does it secretely scare you that I might, once again, have been reborn?Who's the one who is "scared" since you're the one continuing in evasion?

JM: I suspect I have a much stronger and longer Christian upbringing than you might imagine.Really? What has upbringing to do with anything? Plenty of the most rabid atheists had Christian upbrinings of a sort.

Socrates:


I've made it amply clear on this site where I stand -- e.g. Trinitarian, and Biblical inerrantist by the definition of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

JM: The only thing you've made clear to me is that you have an utter and deep hatred for anyone who disagrees with you.Get some treatment for your paranoia :poke: You are happy to dish out nastiness but can't take the slightest retaliation in return, which is typical of misotheistic evolutionists.

Socrates:


OK then, so then don't bring up AiG's or ICR's statement of faith!

JM: There is a difference that you have not noticed. Dawkin's has to stand on data, he cannot stand on his philosophical bent. ICR and AIG have made it quite clear that the data are irrelevant. And I've shown that Dawkins, Lewontin, Todd and chemical evolutionists PRESUPPOSE materialism.

Socrates:


Given that I am the current "Poster of the Month" and have been picked for the Dean's List a number of times and given a fair number of "pearls", a lot of people disagree with you. And it seems that they respect the fact that I challenge non-christians rather than let them walk all over us as Christendom has largely done for the last 100+ years.

JM: LOL! Given that the site and the posters are overwhelmingly 'homers', it's no surprise that you would be 'poster of the month' or collector of pearls. This was in response to your crass claim that people might lose respect for me. Rather, few people would lose any respect; rather, they are already too bigoted to respect anyone who challenges their dogmatic materialism.

JM:The real question is how many people who disagree with you offered you pearls or nomination as 'poster of the month'? If you garner the same award on a site created by evolutionists, I'd say you'd have a point otherwise it is meaningless.Rubbish -- a couple of atheists are leading the current poll!

Socrates:


Humph - you brought up the biblical faith of creationists, so I brought up the materialistic faith of evolutionists. You slurred creationist integrity and competence, so I replied in kind. As usual, there is one rule for creationists and another for their attackers.

JM: Not really. I am interested solely in the data.Then why did you bring up the alleged fideism of creationists? You quickly forget that you're the one who brings up peripheral issues first.

JM: The data are quite clear and easy to understand. I agree, and I understand them the opposite way to you!

JM: Many Christian scientists, of all denominations, have reached similar conclusions regarding the old age of the earth and the lack of evidence for a global flood. Given that atheists are a clear minority in the global population, your assertion that evolutionism is purely materialistic is without substance.Not at all, since sadly a lot of professing Christians think almost identically to materialists for all practical purposes.

[Joe Meert]

JM whinged:I never claimed to be on GE Meert. But now I hear that you used to have an email called gemeert, so it's understandable that the author assumed that the GE were initials. But it's now gone so why harp on about it so much? It belies your professed concern for the dataApparently, it escapes both you and Sarfati that one should always double check facts before publishing them. It's standard journalistic practice, but I will accept your answer that AIG does not follow this practice. IN fact, I realized this once Sarfati published his article without contacting me. Maybe he realised what a vexatious anti-biblical timewaster you are? And why should he when you apparently had stated that you were an atheist?

JM: Who told you that? The point remains, Sarfati did not check facts. Poor scholarship and even worse journalism.


Get some treatment for your paranoia :poke: You are happy to dish out nastiness but can't take the slightest retaliation in return, which is typical of misotheistic evolutionists.

JM: Will you now present evidence that I have paranoia? Please, provide the diagnosis, the doctor and the date. Otherwise, this is purely an ad-hom.


JM: There is a difference that you have not noticed. Dawkin's has to stand on data, he cannot stand on his philosophical bent. ICR and AIG have made it quite clear that the data are irrelevant. And I've shown that Dawkins, Lewontin, Todd and chemical evolutionists PRESUPPOSE materialism.

JM: You've claimed it. So? Who cares if they claim next tuesdayism? Not me, I want data something you seem to sorely lack.



JM: LOL! Given that the site and the posters are overwhelmingly 'homers', it's no surprise that you would be 'poster of the month' or collector of pearls. This was in response to your crass claim that people might lose respect for me. Rather, few people would lose any respect; rather, they are already too bigoted to respect anyone who challenges their dogmatic materialism.

JM: You make no point other than like minded people support you. I can go into Michigan stadium and yell 'go blue' and 100,000 plus people will cheer louldy in support. Does that mean that UM is the best team in the land? Apparently, this is your logic but I am not so naive.


JM:The real question is how many people who disagree with you offered you pearls or nomination as 'poster of the month'? If you garner the same award on a site created by evolutionists, I'd say you'd have a point otherwise it is meaningless.Rubbish -- a couple of atheists are leading the current poll!

JM: LOL, if you think that www. theologyweb.com is the sole authority on the strength of one's logic then how can I possibly argue otherwise?



JM: Not really. I am interested solely in the data.Then why did you bring up the alleged fideism of creationists?

JM: Because those are the data!


JM: Many Christian scientists, of all denominations, have reached similar conclusions regarding the old age of the earth and the lack of evidence for a global flood. Given that atheists are a clear minority in the global population, your assertion that evolutionism is purely materialistic is without substance.Not at all, since sadly a lot of professing Christians think almost identically to materialists for all practical purposes.


JM: So you diagree with them, have you any data?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[DivineOb]

Today @ 05:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102833#post102833)
Socrates:

JM whinged:I never claimed to be on GE Meert. But now I hear that you used to have an email called gemeert, so it's understandable that the author assumed that the GE were initials.

If this is really the method used by Sarfati then I'm forced to view just about everything he says with suspicion... What shoddy, shallow investigation!

[Minnesota]

From Socrates,

In response to my query:
"And you expect us to care what a "philosophy and government concentrator," who is senior in college, says about evolution, because???????"


Socs says:

Nice little abusive ad hominem from Minnie, who can't deal with the actual arguments from a hostile witness (as far as creationists are concerned).

Well, Okay. Who are you going to quote next? Mortimer Snerd or Charley McCarthy? If a philosophy and government concentrator is the best you can come up with, I suggest you find another barrel bottom to scrape.

God, I just love this!!:bunny:

[Marc Schindler]

Socrates:

after Scientific American refused to hire Forrest Mims despite admitting that his work was "first rate".


Well, gosh, Soc, my brother's work as a cabinetmaker is first-rate, too, but he would be the first to admit that Sciam wouldn't hire him.

I.E., could you be a bit more specific about why they would hire Mims, and what exactly Sciam found "first rate" about his work?

I'm surprised no one's razzed you about the fact that "scientific creationist" is considered by many to be an oxymoron. So, in that light, and just as a joke!, I'll nominate two of my favourite creationists:

(I think the issue is passé enough that this can be taken in the humourous spirit intended)

[Sher]

Since the originator of this topic doesn't appear to care that this has rabbit-trailed, I wanted to ask for an answer/resolution to this point ... one that was very obvious to even me: {underlining emphasis mine}


Yesterday @ 11:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102217#post102217)
Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins:How did you know when that article was &quot;published&quot;?It's obvious from the filename :dufus: That is, if you follow AiG's lead article postings, the filenames tend to end with the month and day of publication, and it's in the 2002 directory, so it's reasonable to assume that it was published around 30 October 2002.


Yesterday @ 02:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102378#post102378)
Jimmy Higgins:

Crayfish tail inspires Mars robot design (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/yabby.asp)

The World's Tiniest Motor (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/207.asp)
Stem Cells and Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/stem_cells.asp)
How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp)
I don't see dates in there. You know, when you tell one lie, it just snowballs into one very large one.


Yesterday @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102667#post102667)
Socrates:

Where is the &quot;lie&quot;?? I said TEND to have dates. And obviously the one where Meert is concerned DID have a date incorporated in the filename, so I could tell roughly when it was posted.


Yesterday @ 10:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102725#post102725)
Jimmy Higgins:

You know what I mean, you slipped. We all make mistakes.
But we weren't talking about those. Your knowledge of AIG's web format is impressive. :hrm:
When appropriately flanked, it is always customary for that who is being beaten to drum up irrelevancy to draw attention away from the point made. Sorry Socrates, you slipped.


Yesterday @ 10:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102728#post102728)
Socrates:

What slip? None has been demonstrated, especially as I said that AiG articles TEND to have dates in the filename, and the one about Meert did.


Now, as someone who has run a website before, and therefore had to create individual filenames, this was blatantly obvious to me.

However, even if it wasn't obvious to Jimmy H. ... perhaps he never ran a website or never chronologically organized files on his hard drive ... the point is that Socrates pointed out the way the filenames TEND to be organized/named in his very first reply to Jimmy, as listed above ...

... and yet Jimmy never retracted his character accusation of Socrates ... and in fact, only "softened" it by saying Soc "slipped".

I think that Jimmy should look at the facts ... and retract the accusation of Socrates lying (and "slipping" for that matter) ... in face of the evidence presented above and as follows:

1) Socrates said, as shown above, that the filenames TEND to "end with the month and day of publication" ... and something that TENDS to follow a rule ... doesn't mean that it ALWAYS follows a rule ... so Jimmy H's counter-examples are useless.

2) The filename in question, one found easily by a search on AIG looking for Meert's name, is http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp

This file name is broken down into: DOMAIN: www.answersingenesis.org: self-explanatory DIRECTORY: docs2002: which means that all the documents/articles in that directory should have been originally published in 2002 FILENAME: 1030meert.asp: which means that the article was originally published *** in 10 = October, 30 = the 30th, meert = that the article has something to do with "Meert".
Now, different countries go by different dating methods ... 30/10/02 for example ... but since there are only 10 months in a year, it is obvious to the reader that the month as to be represented by the 10 and the day by the 30.

Therefore, the conclusion that the article was published on October 30, 2002 is obvious ... or should be to Jimmy now with this lengthy explanation.

If we are to give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt for lacking foreknowledge of filename dating ... the first post where Soc explained the method should have satisfied Jimmy's concerns ... and the following one that readdressed the issue should have cleared up any lingering confusion.

So, the only conclusion to reach is that this was gratuitous slander ... and note that any continuance of Jimmy's failure to retract his statements and apologize ... shows that it was also intentionally so.

=============
*** originally published ... I want to point out that this is only an assumption on my part ... but one based on experience and common knowledge of how filenames are named chronologically ... when one uploads a file, that is when it is first named and organized ... therefore, it is safe to assume that the filename would reflect the original publication date in the directory for the year it was published

[Socrates]

Socrates:


after Scientific American refused to hire Forrest Mims despite admitting that his work was "first rate".

Schindler:Well, gosh, Soc, my brother's work as a cabinetmaker is first-rate, too, but he would be the first to admit that Sciam wouldn't hire him.

I.E., could you be a bit more specific about why they would hire Mims, and what exactly Sciam found "first rate" about his work?Obviously :dufus: from the context, it was something that would fit the criteria of what Sciam would hire someone for. In this case, it was for writing the "Amateur Scientist" column. The then Sciam editor said that Mims' submitted columns were "first rate" and "fabulous", but when they found out that Mims was a creationist they refused to hire him. I explained this in my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=47829#post47829 and there is an interesting sequel as AiG points out at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp

BTW, I posted the same joke in the Politics forum where it belongs, but not with the good cartoon. :lol:

[Woman]

Sherbear,

Gotta agree with you on that one. The ol' Soc is vexatious in the extreme, hard-headed and exasperating!! (no, that's not the part I'm agreeing with, I KNOW you didn't say that...heh heh)

BUT, although he is prone to angle his arguments in the manner of everyone who debates, I have the utmost respect for his integrity.

Plus, he tolerates my annoying questions.

Now, if we could only get Holding to be as "sweet" as Soc - what an improvement THAT would be!

:teeth:

[Minnesota]

Moderator Sherbear
Since the originator of this topic doesn't appear to care that this has rabbit-trailed, I wanted to ask for an answer/resolution to this point . . . .

As the originator of this topic, I WOULD care that this has rabbit-trailed; HOWEVER, in as much as few have attempted an answer, there isn't much point in insisting that people stay on topic.

I've not seen any answer that supports the claim that such an animal as a true creationists scientist really exists--"creationists scientist" being on par with "atomic scientist," "biomedical scientist," "oceanographic scientist," or any other academic scientist who is degreed in the stated field, which, for the examples given, would be, nuclear physics, biomedicine, and oceanography.

[QED]

Well, gosh, Soc, my brother's work as a cabinetmaker is first-rate, too, but he would be the first to admit that Sciam wouldn't hire him.

Mims did do som excellent work in his field. I think the issue is that Sciam is worried about its reputation. Would you buy a "science" magazine that was staffed with creationists? What about UFOlogists? SciAm does have a reputation to protect, after all.

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103138#post103138)
QED:



Mims did do som excellent work in his field. I think the issue is that Sciam is worried about its reputation. Would you buy a &quot;science&quot; magazine that was staffed with creationists? What about UFOlogists? SciAm does have a reputation to protect, after all.

I would be willing to risk a small sum on the premise that being a "UFOlogist" would have been ignored or rationalized on the grounds that it had nothing to do with the assignments, and therefore would not be grounds for dismissal, for "we believe in freedom of thought".

But a dreaded "creationist" is quite a different matter.

[QED]

If the interest is protecting their reputation, then they wouldn't hire a UFOlogist either. I wouldn't buy their magazine in either case.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 10:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103150#post103150)
Socratism:



I would be willing to risk a small sum on the premise that being a &quot;UFOlogist&quot; would have been ignored or rationalized on the grounds that it had nothing to do with the assignments, and therefore would not be grounds for dismissal, for &quot;we believe in freedom of thought&quot;.

But a dreaded &quot;creationist&quot; is quite a different matter.


JM: I would bet you would be wrong. Pseudoscience has no place in SciAm except perhaps for an expose on pseudoscience. Creationism, ufology, esp all belong in the same pseudoscience heap.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Marc Schindler]

In fact, the fellow who writes SciAm's "Skeptics" column is a leader in the skeptics' organization called SCIOPS (hope I have that right).

[Marc Schindler]

QED:

Mims did do som excellent work in his field.


And that field is/was?

[QED]

Science and engineering reporting, with a focus on electrical systems and amateur invention. In addition, he did some invention himself.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102217#post102217)
Socrates:

But it's typical of a self-confessed village atheist like Higgins not to bother to read!

But it's typical of Socrates to let rhetoric get in the way of facts. Please, Socrates, show us where Higgins confessed to being a "village atheist." Failure to do so is admission of you're incapable of representing other posters accurately.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103166#post103166)
Joe Meert:

I would bet you would be wrong. Pseudoscience has no place in SciAm ...

Then it should ban evolution :poke:. But their anti-creationist tirade got a real pasting by AiG www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp :bonk:, and all Sciam could do was try to bully AiG into removing it. Of course AiG told them to take a flying.

But the point was, Mims was not hired solely because he denied the establishment religious paradigm of materialism, even though his columns would not even touch on creation/evolution. Yet Meert has the hypocrisy to whinge about creationists using pseudonyms largely to avoid such bigoted discrimination.

[QED]

Yet Meert has the hypocrisy to whinge about creationists using pseudonyms largely to avoid such bigoted discrimination.

Would a proponent of "psychic surgery" find a home on the board of a medical magazine?

Do you think a "psychic surgeon" should use pseudonyms so that prospective employers at medical magazines would not practice "bigoted discrimination" against him/her? Do you think that is honest?

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103690#post103690)

In reply to
Socrates:

But it's typical of a self-confessed village atheist like Higgins not to bother to read!

RufusAtticus: rambles:

But it's typical of Socrates to let rhetoric get in the way of facts. Please, Socrates, show us where Higgins confessed to being a &quot;village atheist.&quot; Failure to do so is admission of you're incapable of representing other posters accurately.

OK, Higgins said 'But this only comes from a "Village Atheist"' at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=102012#post102012 And it's pretty obvious because of the crass things he comes up with, e.g. "Hitler was a Christian" and "The Bible says negroes are inferior", then LYING about having claimed these and accusing me of lying for pointing out that he did www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90633#post90633

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103723#post103723)
Socrates:
OK, Higgins said 'But this only comes from a &quot;Village Atheist&quot;' at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=102012#post102012 Yeah, I'm a village atheist, a misotheist, and probably even an irate adolescent bastard.

And it's pretty obvious because of the crass things he comes up with, e.g. &quot;Hitler was a Christian&quot; and &quot;The Bible says negroes are inferior&quot;, then LYING about having claimed these and accusing me of lying for pointing out that he did www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90633#post90633 Are you so incapable of answering the issues I've brought up in the science field that you need to continually bring up irrelevant stuff dealing with your inability to understand the english language?

The fact remains that you can't answer the lamination material issue. You can't answer the C-14/C-12 issue. You can't answer any real geology issue that AIG hasn't touched. You can't do so and you resort to a typical creationist tactics called "Changing the subject".

[QED]

Today @ 02:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103733#post103733)
Jimmy Higgins:
You can't do so and you resort to a typical creationist tactics called &quot;Changing the subject&quot;.

Speaking of which...

Socrates:
Would a proponent of "psychic surgery" find a home on the board of a medical magazine?

Do you think a "psychic surgeon" should use pseudonyms so that prospective employers at medical magazines would not practice "bigoted discrimination" against him/her? Do you think that is honest?

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Maybe he realised what a vexatious anti-biblical timewaster you are? And why should he when you apparently had stated that you were an atheist?

JM: Who told you that?My sources are for me to know and not for you to find out :whack:. I notice that you can't refute them :poke: And why is it so wrong for Sarfati not to consult Meert about an article --- who would want to gamble that the evolutionary bigots consulted creationists before their diatribes, e.g. Scientific American (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp)

JM: You make no point other than like minded people support you. I can go into Michigan stadium and yell 'go blue' and 100,000 plus people will cheer louldy in support. Does that mean that UM is the best team in the land? Apparently, this is your logic but I am not so naive.How pathetic. Meert claimed that people might lose respect for me, and I gave a number of examples showing that many people do respect me. Meert then replied, in effect, that this was because they are biased towards "my" side", and I refuted that by showing that atheists are leading this month's poll. In fact, one of the leading atheists was nominated by an outspoken YEC Trinitarian. So any idea that I got this award just because of the bias here just doesn't stand up.



Meert: Not really. I am interested solely in the data.
Socrates: Then why did you bring up the alleged fideism of creationists?

JM: Because those are the data!Right then, by the same token, so is the fanatical misotheism of leading evolutionists such as Dawkins and Coyne, and the slightly lower-key atheism or agnosticism of Gould and Sagan -- oops, they are no longer atheists because they know the truth now, too late :lol:

Inappropriately gave the impression of being happy that some died unsaved.



Meert: Many Christian scientists, of all denominations, have reached similar conclusions regarding the old age of the earth and the lack of evidence for a global flood. Given that atheists are a clear minority in the global population, your assertion that evolutionism is purely materialistic is without substance.
Socrates:Not at all, since sadly a lot of professing Christians think almost identically to materialists for all practical purposes.

JM: So you diagree with them, have you any data? Of course. As creationists often point out, we have exactly the SAME data, We just interpret them under different paradigms. But creationists at least recognize the role of paradigms, unlike evolutionary propagandists.

Alas, many of the so-called Christian evolutionists are doctrinally suspect in other areas as well as creation. That's the problem with allowing their thoughts to become captive to the vain philosophy of methodological naturalism even when theorizing about Earth history, as Colossians 2:8 warns against:


See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

[QED]

Of course. As creationists often point out, we have exactly the SAME data, We just interpret them under different paradigms.

You mean you ignore them unless they can be massaged to be consistent with your foregone conclusion.


But creationists at least recognize the role of paradigms, unlike evolutionary propagandists.

Bwah hah hah! Creationists borrowed the idea of paradigms to justify their anti-scientific data-picking practices -- from evolutionist philosophers of science! Like Kerkut!


Alas, many of the so-called Christian evolutionists are doctrinally suspect in other areas as well as creation.

And alas, many of the so-called Christian YECers are so blinded by the sin of PRIDE that they cannot countenance an honest difference of opinion over hermeneutical methods and results.


That's the problem with allowing their thoughts to become captive to the vain philosophy of methodological naturalism

And you call yourself a chemist. You are no scientist if you do not employ the methods of science, including postulating only testable hypotheses. If you think that the method of science is "vain" then turn off your computer and go sleep in the grass somewhere.


even when theorizing about Earth history, as Colossians 2:8 warns against:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


Why didn't you edit Colossians 2:8 to mention something about earth history, so it would stand a chance of supporting your vain philosophy?

ALSO:

Would a proponent of "psychic surgery" find a home on the board of a medical magazine?

Do you think a "psychic surgeon" should use pseudonyms so that prospective employers at medical magazines would not practice "bigoted discrimination" against him/her? Do you think that is honest?

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103736#post103736)
QED:

Would a proponent of &quot;psychic surgery&quot; find a home on the board of a medical magazine?

Do you think a &quot;psychic surgeon&quot; should use pseudonyms so that prospective employers at medical magazines would not practice &quot;bigoted discrimination&quot; against him/her? Do you think that is honest? More question-begging, a typical misotheistic practice.

However, since belief in creation does not affect the ability to practise real operational science such as Mims would write about with great expertise, they should not be discriminated against. In fact, creationists founded most of the branches of modern science, and Scientific American itself.

Also, the Bible is the perfect Antidote to superstition (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1335.asp) as an article in a skeptic journal grudgingl admitted.

So yes, pseudonyms are perfectly ethical as long as the anti-creationist bigotry exists. See Pseudonyms: A Long, Honorable Tradition (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_01.asp) If QED and Meert don't like it, all they need to do is stop the viewpoint discrimination!

[QED]

Today @ 02:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103750#post103750)
Socrates:

More question-begging, a typical misotheistic practice.

More question-dodging, a typical misotheistic practice.



However, since belief in creation does not affect the ability to practise real operational science such as Mims would write about with great expertise, they should not be discriminated against.

Skipping the question-begging ("what is 'real operational science', and what grounds do you have for excluding geology and much of biology, but including journalism about electrical systems?).... Belief in the efficacy of "psychic surgery" also does not interfere with a persons ability to practice good medicine, so there is no difference here.



In fact, creationists founded most of the branches of modern science, and Scientific American itself.

Your umbrella just get expanded? Now anyone (not just pseudoscientists like Morris, the ICR, Hovind and AiG) can be a creationist so long as they believe in Creation? B.S. Show me the pseudoscientific meanderings of the founders of modern science, or the founder of SciAm, or quit equivocating


Also, the Bible is the perfect Antidote to superstition (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1335.asp) as an article in a skeptic journal grudgingl admitted.

Whether or not the Bible is an antidote to superstition has not been questioned here. Thank you for the red herring.


So yes, pseudonyms are perfectly ethical as long as the anti-creationist bigotry exists. See Pseudonyms: A Long, Honorable Tradition (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_01.asp) If QED and Meert don't like it, all they need to do is stop the viewpoint discrimination!

Let's see - question-dogging, false analogy, equivocation, red-herring.... CONCLUSION...

Why don't you try it again and just use reasoning instead?

[Sher]

Today @ 09:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103127#post103127)
Minnesota:

Moderator Sherbear This may not be obvious to you since you are newer, but I wanted to point out that I am not a Mod in this area ... please see my sig for any questions ...

Regarding how I addressed Jimmy here ... I am speaking from one person to another for what I saw went beyond satire to character assassination (and Woman agreed with me in a following post) ... just as I do in the Religion 101 area ... where I am also not a Mod.

And Jimmy, I believe, would also support how I said in another thread we were both in that something that JasonG said wasn't right either. It is one thing to assault an argument ... another to assult the person's integrity without proof. Jimmy was wrong here ... and I think I have shown this sufficiently.

As for the rest that is on topic ... I am not a scientist ... nor do I play one on TV :teeth:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103750#post103750)
Socrates:
In fact, creationists founded most of the branches of modern science, and Scientific American itself.So what? Over a hundred years ago, Democrats were fighting for the right in Congress to keep slavery legal. Things and people change over time.

[QED]

Today @ 03:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103759#post103759)
Jimmy Higgins:

So what? Over a hundred years ago, Democrats were fighting for the right in Congress to keep slavery legal. Things and people change over time.

More importantly, ideas change over time. Not one of the so-called creationists that Socrates refers to was a head-in-the-sand evidence-ignoring, non-researching, pseudoscientist. His use of the term creationist to refer to them is an insult. Modern theistic evolutionists believe in Creation, but they are no more creationists than was Newton.

[QED]

Post 78 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103749#post103749)

Post 80 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103757#post103757)

Quiet in here.

[Duvenoy]

Also, the Bible is the perfect Antidote to superstition as an article in a skeptic journal grudgingl admitted.

Well, that was an interesting, little rant in Creation Mag.

Which skeptic journal grudging admitted that the Bible is an antidote for superstition? It looks to me like it's simply replacing some superstitions with others.

doov

[QED]

Today @ 03:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103776#post103776)
Duvenoy:



Well, that was an interesting, little rant in Creation Mag.

Which skeptic journal grudging admitted that the Bible is an antidote for superstition? It looks to me like it's simply replacing some superstitions with others.

doov

Doesn't matter. It was a red herring anyway. Maybe it was a correct red-herring, or maybe it was one of the usual YEC distortion red-herrings. Who cares?

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 03:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103780#post103780)
QED:



Doesn't matter. It was a red herring anyway. Maybe it was a correct red-herring, or maybe it was one of the usual YEC distortion red-herrings. Who cares?

Yeah, I understand. But inquiring minds want to know. And also would hope to discourage dead herringism.

doov

[RufusAtticus]

Okay I see JH has no problems with the villiage atheist moniker. It's good to see that Socrates can occationally support his comments.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


However, since belief in creation does not affect the ability to practise real operational science such as Mims would write about with great expertise, they should not be discriminated against.

QED quibbles:Skipping the question-begging ("what is 'real operational science', Already amply explained, and I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who wants to be willingly ignorant of real science.

QED:and and what grounds do you have for excluding geology and much of biology, but including journalism about electrical systems?).I don't exclude real biology and geology, but only materialistic paradigms about the HISTORY of life and Earth.

Socrates:


In fact, creationists founded most of the branches of modern science, and Scientific American itself.

QED:Your umbrella just get expanded? Now anyone (not just pseudoscientists like Morris, the ICR, Hovind and AiG)Not that you're in any position to judge.

QED:Show me the pseudoscientific meanderings of the founders of modern science, or the founder of SciAm, or quit equivocatingWhat pseudoscientific meanderings? But as for real science, it has already been amply demonstrated It has already been amply demonstrated that overt Biblical creationist belief provided the foundation for both modern science and Sciam. Its founding editor would never get a job with it now precisely because of his overt creationist belief.

Socrates:


Also, the Bible is the perfect Antidote to superstition as an article in a skeptic journal grudgingl admitted.

QED:Whether or not the Bible is an antidote to superstition has not been questioned here. Thank you for the red herring.The Bible has been attacked elsewhere on this thread, and QED is well known as a Bible-hating bigot. And one of your fellow misotheists didn't even bother to read the article which provided the source.

Socrates:


So yes, pseudonyms are perfectly ethical as long as the anti-creationist bigotry exists. See Pseudonyms: A Long, Honorable Tradition If QED and Meert don't like it, all they need to do is stop the viewpoint discrimination!

QED:Let's see - question-dogging, false analogy, equivocation, red-herring.... CONCLUSION...And your refutation is, WHAT? You're the ones who whinge about using pseudonyms (although using one yourself :poke:), but also support the very discrimination which makes them necessary. It's interesting that QED once swore black and blue that there was no anti-creationist censorship, and TheFiveSolas disproved him. But now QED actually justifies anti-creationist discrimination, and squeals if some creationists take countermeasures.

But as I've often pointed out, the atheistic/evolutionary belief system can provide no basis for refraining from dishonesty or hypocrisy, so my fellow Biblical Christians should not be surprised by examples of those moral failings from the likes of Meert and QED.

[Joe_Sixpack]

Moderators,

The hypocrisy you show by censoring others frequently and ignoring the obvious insults and overt rudeness thrown by Socrates is appalling. Here is a perfect example:

"QED is well known as a Bible-hating bigot."

Dee Dee, didn't you have a specific problem with this particular term?

Remember the character of your friends speaks volumes about you. Just because someone is a (in)famous creationist (though I shouldn't give him a big head, its not like the vast majority of the scientific world has any clue what he or is organization is) does not mean that you should give him a free-ride. Some people are just plain bad people; just because they agree with you on a particular interpretation of Scripture does not mean you should tolerate their lack of character.


Please respect any comments/warnings by the Moderators. Any grievances with their action should be addressed to the Forum Administrators in Private Message, Email or in the Dean’s Office. If you feel you must repetitively complain, whine, or otherwise bellyache, please take it to the Janitor's Closet.

And no I did not have a blanket problem with the word "bigot." Here is what I precisely said: Everyone is well aware that certain people think other people bigots. That fact is well established. I am decarling a moratorium on the use of the word "bigot" here for two weeks. Enough. For the record I am very tired of the hypocrisy here that some people report certain posts containing certain words only when they are used by persons who disagree with them, but do not equally object when the same terms are used by those who agree with them. No use of "bigot" for two weeks. Then after that try to use it much more sparingly as its overuse is became unnecessarily disruptive. Thank you.

That was a month ago. Now those of you who are so offended with your tender skins over bigot, feel free to go over to Infidels and cuss up a storm about it. Thank you.

[Dilton]

There´s no point in complaining Joe_sixpack. They will throw you to the Janitor´s closet to rot, I´ve experienced similar situation here on Tweb, and the logo is: we discuss theology, seriously. ha ha.

Ditto to what I said to Joe Sixpack above. And actually the Closet can be quite a happening place to be. B-Dakotta is thoroughly enjoying his rant thread. When is the sceptical crowd going to complain about this particular rules violation? Oh okay, I get it.

[Joe_Sixpack]

Dilton,

I realize that, but I feel duty bound to point out blatant hypocrisy when I see it. My feelings for hypocrites is akin to Dante's, who described a special place in Hell for the hypocrites to rot beneath golden cloaks lined with lead for eternity.

I see that respect for the rules only applies to one's adversaries. I get it.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102761#post102761)

In reply to Socrates' quote from Halvorson (post #43):


Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded 20th century scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that evidence for the Big Bang was ignored for decades because it “smacks of divine intervention.” For fear of theological implications, there were “a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.”


Woman replied:

Soc,

Surely you are not defending this position though. The &quot;current&quot; fundamentalist thinking will NOT allow for a Big Bang.

You are certainly correct, but I did have a disclaimer on the front:


Obviously the author is far from sympathetic towards creation, but he certainly has the impression that the evolutionary establishment is dogmatic and even censorial.

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103891#post103891)
Joe_Sixpack:

Dilton,

I realize that, but I feel duty bound to point out blatant hypocrisy when I see it. My feelings for hypocrites is akin to Dante's, who described a special place in Hell for the hypocrites to rot beneath golden cloaks lined with lead for eternity.

On what basis? If we are just rearranged pond scum as you believe, then your feelings of revulsion for hypocrisy have no objective moral basis. Rather, they are instead simply neural impulses that conferred survival on your alleged ape-like ancestors. Benjamin expressed this excellently at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103685#post103685 :thumb:

Edited as it contained a quote of a previousy edited post that was now address by a Moderator.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102961#post102961)
Woman:

Sherbear,

Gotta agree with you on that one. The ol' Soc is vexatious in the extreme, hard-headed and exasperating!! (no, that's not the part I'm agreeing with, I KNOW you didn't say that...heh heh)

BUT, although he is prone to angle his arguments in the manner of everyone who debates, I have the utmost respect for his integrity.

Plus, he tolerates my annoying questions.

Now, if we could only get Holding to be as &quot;sweet&quot; as Soc - what an improvement THAT would be!

:teeth:

:hrm: Thanx :cheers: , I think :shocked:

[QED]

Today @ 05:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103850#post103850)
Socrates:

Socrates:



QED quibbles:Skipping the question-begging (&quot;what is 'real operational science', Already amply explained, and I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who wants to be willingly ignorant of real science.

You owe me a new irony meter.


QED:and and what grounds do you have for excluding geology and much of biology, but including journalism about electrical systems?).I don't exclude real biology and geology, but only materialistic paradigms about the HISTORY of life and Earth.

How feeble.



QED:Your umbrella just get expanded? Now anyone (not just pseudoscientists like Morris, the ICR, Hovind and AiG)Not that you're in any position to judge.

QED:Show me the pseudoscientific meanderings of the founders of modern science, or the founder of SciAm, or quit equivocatingWhat pseudoscientific meanderings? But as for real science, it has already been amply demonstrated It has already been amply demonstrated that overt Biblical creationist belief provided the foundation for both modern science and Sciam. Its founding editor would never get a job with it now precisely because of his overt creationist belief.

Please quit equivocating over the term "creationist". Can you prove the founding editor of SciAm was a pseudo-scientist? Can you prove that he advocated approaching scientific questions with his conclusion already prepared, searching only for evidence that could be used to support it? Can you prove he desparately tried to define out of existence any science that disagreed with his personal religious or philosophical views? These are the identifying marks of a "creationist". The literal interpretation of Genesis is a secondary consideration. You don't honestly think SciAm's current editorial board honestly cares about how its Christian writers interpret the Bible, do you?


QED:Whether or not the Bible is an antidote to superstition has not been questioned here. Thank you for the red herring.The Bible has been attacked elsewhere on this thread, and QED is well known as a Bible-hating bigot. And one of your fellow misotheists didn't even bother to read the article which provided the source.

Hard to follow who you are talking to here. QED is not a Bible-hating bigot, therefore it cannot be "known" by you. I conclude you are a "known liar." None of this has any bearing on the topic at hand. A red herring is a red herring.


QED:Let's see - question-dogging, false analogy, equivocation, red-herring.... CONCLUSION...And your refutation is, WHAT?

My refutation consisted several individual points showing that your fallacious reply failed to answer the question at any point.


You're the ones who whinge about using pseudonyms (although using one yourself :poke:), but also support the very discrimination which makes them necessary.

When have I complained about the use of a pseudonym? You are begging the question again, now. Mine was simple. Is it discriminatory to exclude an advocate of pseudoscience from writing for a magazine of science.

My position (if you wanted to know, you could have asked) is that it is proper for magazines devoted to a particular discipline to leave enemies of that discipline off the payroll (at least as writers or editors). Yes, it is a form of discrimination - but not the sort that is immoral or illegal.

And, my position about pseudonyms (if you wanted to know, you could have asked) is that it is proper for people to adopt pseudonyms to protect their anynomity. There are ethical questions about doing this to hide a view that a prospective employer would justifiably wish to avoid in a journalistic environment, but I don't quite know the answers. That's part of why I was asking you what you thought. There are ethical questions about using a pseudonym to self-reference in an argument from authority. Apart from that pseudonyms are quite appropriate, and I plan to use more than one in my career - for personal reasons. At this point, I plan to be up front with prospective employers about any views that I hold that could damage their repuatation, should they hire me to write views under their publication's name.


It's interesting that QED once swore black and blue that there was no anti-creationist censorship, and TheFiveSolas disproved him.

Let's not equivocate over "cencorship" vs "discrimination." They are separate things - particularly in cases where the discrimination is justified. You don't hear me whining about "censorship" at AiG, even though they refuse to hire atheists, agnostics, moslems, liberal Christians, etc., etc...


But now QED actually justifies anti-creationist discrimination, and squeals if some creationists take countermeasures.

I also justified anti-science discrimination in the above paragraph. And you would squeal if a mole from mainstream science wormed their way onto the writing staff at AiG.


But as I've often pointed out, the atheistic/evolutionary belief system can provide no basis for refraining from dishonesty or hypocrisy, so my fellow Biblical Christians should not be surprised by examples of those moral failings from the likes of Meert and QED.

And as I've pointed out, some YECers are too blinded by the sin of PRIDE to adhere to the morals they feel are founded on Biblical principles (a point that they further use to boost their feelings of pride), and moral failings such as deliberate lies and distortion from the likes of Socrates are to be expected.

Now, all of your vain meanderings aside: do you feel it would be honest for a "psychic surgeon" to hide behind a pseudonym to acquire a job at a magazine devoted to the medical trade? Why or why not? You can actually answer that question, and let us carry the debate on from there. Your answer is not automatically taken as a retreat from your position that it is a-ok for pseudoscientists to do so.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 11:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103822#post103822)
RufusAtticus:

Okay I see JH has no problems with the villiage atheist moniker. It's good to see that Socrates can occationally support his comments. In fact, its my new Title. :teeth:

[Minnesota]

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else here get the impression that Socrates and Socratism don't really care about the validity, truth, or rationality of what they say, or give a wit for honest dialog, but are simply playing a game of "Goad the Evolutionists--No Rules Necessary"?

I've tried to make sense of their methods and approaches to these discussions, hoping to find some evidence that expressed a genuine appreciation (not agreement) for the views of others, but have come up empty. Maybe someone else has a better insight into this.

Anyone?

[QED]

I get that impression from Socrates. I get the impression that Socrates doesn't even care about YEC - at least not as much as he does about his own terribly inflated ego. If it came down to a choice between the two, I'm sure Soc would take the ego over the YEC position. Fortunately for him, YECism is itself an excercise in arrogance, so he is quite suited to it.

I don't get that impressoin from Socratism. From Socratism, I see a willingness for open dialog as long as none of his pet notions about evolution are stepped upon. When he discovers (for instance) that there is an analytical foundation to molecular phylogenetics, or it is pointed out to him that the theory of evolution is a predictive science (including the common descent to which he objects), or that his interpretation straightforward as it seems - does still constitute human reasoning, then it seems a wall goes up, and he retreats to baseless assertions that are too general for a concise rebuttal. Even then he is generally civil and more or less respectful in phrasing whatever reply he does make.

[Marc Schindler]

and all Sciam could do was try to bully AiG into removing it. Of course AiG told them to take a flying.

Maybe I read it too quickly, but I didn't see any reference to AiG in Sciam's piece. Can you help me out?

By the way, I see AiG is still making the same mistake the CRI did 30 years ago when I was a creationist, and claims that evolution claims to explain how life first evolved. It doesn't. Darwin's book isn't called "the Evolution of Species" for nothing. It explains how species came about, not life itself. There are a number of scientific speculations about the origins of life, such as the panspermia theory, but none of them are as far along in terms of being able to model a physical phenomenon as evolution.

[WinAce]

Today @ 10:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104228#post104228)
Jimmy Higgins:

In fact, its my new Title. :teeth:

I coopted one of Socrates' funnier insults for my own title. The one thing his rants are good for is comedic fodder.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


and all Sciam could do was try to bully AiG into removing it. Of course AiG told them to take a flying.

Schindler:Maybe I read it too quickly, but I didn't see any reference to AiG in Sciam's piece. Can you help me out?Of course. I was referring to what happened after AiG published their rebuttal, as explained at www.answersingenesis.org/news/0711sciam.asp By the way, I see AiG is still making the same mistake the CRI did 30 years ago when I was a creationist, and claims that evolution claims to explain how life first evolved. It doesn't. It does, according to the General Theory of Evolution according to the neurobiologist Gerald Kerkut of Southhampton University and paleontologist Roberto Fondi of the University of Siena. Modern theories of abiogenesis are often called "chemical evolution".Darwin's book isn't called "the Evolution of Species" for nothing.:dufus: it's ORIGIN not "Evolution" ... It explains how species came about, not life itself. Actually, even many evolutionists agree that he didn't even explain what the title said. There are a number of scientific speculations about the origins of life, such as the panspermia theory, but none of them are as far along in terms of being able to model a physical phenomenon as evolution. I actually agree here, and I think QED is slightly more open about this, but of course the more fanatical materialists would not like the idea that there is ANYTHING materialism can't explain.

[Socrates]

QED quarrels (post #96):When have I complained about the use of a pseudonym? You are begging the question again, now. Mine was simple. Is it discriminatory to exclude an advocate of pseudoscience from writing for a magazine of science. YOU are begging the question -- who was talking about pseudo-science? I was talking about creation, the view held by the founders of modern science and SciAm itself.My position (if you wanted to know, you could have asked) is that it is proper for magazines devoted to a particular discipline to leave enemies of that discipline off the payroll (at least as writers or editors). Yes, it is a form of discrimination - but not the sort that is immoral or illegal.Indeed it is not. But of course creation is NOT the enemy of science since it provided the foundation for it! And disbelief in evolution from goo to you via the zoo would NOT harm Mims' proven ability to write Amateur Science columns. So to answer, under this current climate of anti-biblical bigotry, it is NOT wrong for creationists to write under pseudonyms as a counter-measure against bigotry. In fact, had Mims written creationist work under a pseudonym, then there would have been no danger to SciAm's reputation, such as it is.

And if having a priori conclusions disqualifies one from being a true scientist, then what about atheists like Dawkins and Lewontin, where no amount of evidence will shift them from their own materialistic faith?

[QED]

Today @ 02:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105140#post105140)
Socrates:

Socrates:

It does, according to the General Theory of Evolution according to the neurobiologist Gerald Kerkut of Southhampton University and paleontologist Roberto Fondi of the University of Siena.

It doesn't according to the real body of research collectively known as "the theory of evolution". It doesn't according to basically everyone besides Kerkut (who proposes a General Theory of evolution which would be novel in that included abiogenesis). It most certainly did not according to Darwin.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105154#post105154)
Socrates:
I was talking about creation, the view held by the founders of modern science and SciAm itself.Did these scientists ever reject evolution?

[TheFiveSolas]

Minnesota:
Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else here get the impression that Socrates and Socratism don't really care about the validity, truth, or rationality...


Is validity, truth, or rationality a material/physical thing? If not, how can you account for them in a matter/energy only universe?

[WinAce]

Well, technically it is a material thing. There are material-based representations of material reality that closely match it, and ones that barely have any similarities. Creationism falls into the second group.

[TheFiveSolas]

Winace,

Are you asserting that the laws of logic are material? If so, could you please list the physical components of one such law?

[Dee Dee Warren]

In fact, one of the leading atheists was nominated by an outspoken YEC Trinitarian. So any idea that I got this award just because of the bias here just doesn't stand up.


:rofl: That would be me. Don't you know that this is just a sick case of reverse psychology? We plot these things in secret Mod meetings. Powell is in on it. He is really on of us.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105342#post105342)
Dee Dee Warren:

:rofl: That would be me. Don't you know that this is just a sick case of reverse psychology? We plot these things in secret Mod meetings. Powell is in on it. He is really one of us.

/ot Whisper: You weren't supposed to tell ... :poke:

/ot :rofl: Too funny ...

[GrayPilgrim]

/ot DDW we may have to leave you out of our next meeting if you keep on spilling hte beens!
/ot What size concrete shoes do yo wear?

[Minnesota]

Today @ 05:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105229#post105229)
TheFiveSolas:



Is validity, truth, or rationality a material/physical thing? If not, how can you account for them in a matter/energy only universe?

Not at all sure what you mean by "account for them." If you mean: if our universe is composed only of matter and energy then explain the existence of thoughts. Well, I can't. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to concoct some kind of other-worldly force as an explanation, and claim it as true. Maybe the universe is NOT entirely one of matter and energy, but until someone can successfully demonstrate this third state, it is foolish to go any further than claim it as a possibility

As to: "Is validity, truth, or rationality a material/physical thing?"

Not in the strictest sense; however, the objects to which validity, truth and rationality are applied have a material nature.

[biter]

Today @ 02:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105158#post105158)
QED:



It doesn't according to the real body of research collectively known as &quot;the theory of evolution&quot;. It doesn't according to basically everyone besides Kerkut (who proposes a General Theory of evolution which would be novel in that included abiogenesis). It most certainly did not according to Darwin.

It pays also to keep inmaind that, contrary to the credentials foisted upon him by certain participants, Kerkut is not an evolutionary biologist. As I have presented form his own website, he is a neurophysicist. Evolution is stated to be one of his "interested." And, of course, his oft quoted book came out in 1960.

[QED]

Actually, the "credentials" foisted on him are "evolutionist". Best of my knowledge, you don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to accept or even propound evolution. The loyal opposition does reveal a certain amount of ignorance here, though, since they seem to believe that just any old "evolutionist" is competent and capable of defining what evolution should consist of. They seem unable to comprehend that "evolutionism" is not the name of a discipline, but a loose description of anyone who promotes or accepts mainstream science.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


I was talking about creation, the view held by the founders of modern science and SciAm itself.

Higgins:Did these scientists ever reject evolution?Of course, at least implicitly, since they saw the hand of God in creation so strongly. And Darwin was far from the first evolutionist -- his own grandfather was one, as were some of the ancient Greek philosophers, so it's likely that the rejection was explicit as well.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105600#post105600)
QED:

Actually, the &quot;credentials&quot; foisted on him are &quot;evolutionist&quot;.

Oh no, he only lectured on it and wrote a book on it!


Best of my knowledge, you don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to accept or even propound evolution. The loyal opposition does reveal a certain amount of ignorance here, though, since they seem to believe that just any old &quot;evolutionist&quot; is competent and capable of defining what evolution should consist of.

Of course, because Kerkut and Fondi were fairly reflecting what the debate is all about.


They seem unable to comprehend that &quot;evolutionism&quot; is not the name of a discipline, but a loose description of anyone who promotes or accepts mainstream science.

I accept mainstream science (e.g. physics, chemistry, natural selection, genetics, etc.) and I'm not an evolutionist. Oh but wait, I am (and so are AiG and ICR) according to QED and Rufus, which makes me wonder why we're having this argument!:poke:

[QED]

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105617#post105617)
Socrates:



Oh no, he only lectured on it and wrote a book on it!

Duh, that's why he is an evolutionist. What planet are you from?


Of course, because Kerkut and Fondi were fairly reflecting what the debate is all about.

What kind of shell game is this? I thought they were talking about evolution, not about a debate?!?


I accept mainstream science (e.g. physics, chemistry, natural selection, genetics, etc.)

In some trivial way, you do seem to accept some methods and some findings of these disciplines.


and I'm not an evolutionist.

Meaning that you reject at least some findings of mainstream science. In addition (though you could fail to be an evolutionist without going so far), you reject at least some of the methods of mainstream science.


Oh but wait, I am (and so are AiG and ICR) according to QED and Rufus, which makes me wonder why we're having this argument!:poke:

You do claim to accept certain facts from the evolutionary edifice, yes. I guess denial isn't an "all-or-nothing" endeavor.

[QED]

Yesterday @ 02:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105154#post105154)
Socrates:

QED quarrels (post #96):When have I complained about the use of a pseudonym? You are begging the question again, now. Mine was simple. Is it discriminatory to exclude an advocate of pseudoscience from writing for a magazine of science. YOU are begging the question -- who was talking about pseudo-science? I was talking about creation, the view held by the founders of modern science and SciAm itself.

No, we were talking about creationism, the modern view that mainstream science is not trustworthy on points where it contradicts certain interpretations of scripture.

Now if you would like to argue that creationism is not pseudoscience, we have all the time in the world to discuss that. Yet, there is no reason for you to continue to dodge the very direct question: would it be proper for an advocate of "psychic surgery" to use a pseudonym in order to avoid "discrimination" from prospective employers in the field of medical journalism?



My position (if you wanted to know, you could have asked) is that it is proper for magazines devoted to a particular discipline to leave enemies of that discipline off the payroll (at least as writers or editors). Yes, it is a form of discrimination - but not the sort that is immoral or illegal.Indeed it is not. But of course creation is NOT the enemy of science since it provided the foundation for it!

Bull malarkey. Brush up on your history of science it was insistence on observation as the deciding criteria that is the foundation for science. And yes, creationists are enemies of it, even though some seek to bring it down from the inside.



And disbelief in evolution from goo to you via the zoo would NOT harm Mims' proven ability to write Amateur Science columns.

Neither would disbelief in a round earth. Belief in psychic surgery would not harm a person's ability to write in some capacity for a medical magazine. Magazines dedicated to a discipline have a reputation to protect. They hire staff who flout the discipline, and they lose their reputation. It is the same kind of "discrimination" that they use when choosing writers who use decent grammar over those who write like kindergartners.


So to answer, under this current climate of anti-biblical bigotry, it is NOT wrong for creationists to write under pseudonyms as a counter-measure against bigotry.[/qutoe]

Now you are begging the question. We aren't talking about bigotry, we are talking about editorial discrimination designed to protect the mission of the periodical.


[quote]In fact, had Mims written creationist work under a pseudonym, then there would have been no danger to SciAm's reputation, such as it is.

Ooohhh, you are brushing dangerously close to answering the freaking question! You better tuck tail and run.... But if you are set to continue down this path toward biting the bullet and answering the question, then I have another question:

As long as Mims did not plan to reveal his creationist identity under the name he used for SciAm, would his proposition be honest? Would you, as the editor of a magazine of medical science, knowingly hire a "psychic surgeon" if they promised to keep their pseudoscientific leanings a secret from your readership?


And if having a priori conclusions disqualifies one from being a true scientist, then what about atheists like Dawkins and Lewontin, where no amount of evidence will shift them from their own materialistic faith?

Having a priori conclusions does not disqualify one from being a true scientist. Mims can believe a priori that the earth is 6,000 years old, or whatever belief he chooses - so long as he is understands

1) that his belief is a priori, and is of a philosophical or religious nature, and
2) that whatever answer is found through the methods of observation is the scientific answer - whether he still wishes to choose the non-scientific answer or not.

Lewontin and Dawkins are likewise entitled to philosophical views. I do not think that science ever disputes those philosophical views, but if it did then they would have to be similarly willing to recognize that the answer from observation was the scientific answer, and they still held their own opinion only as a matter of faith.

[Mandalorious]

“05-22-2003 @ 02:41 AM post located here
Socrates:

Socrates:



JM:
Who told you that?

My sources are for me to know and not for you to find out :whack:.

I notice that you can't refute them :poke: And why is it so wrong for Sarfati not to consult Meert about an article --- who would want to gamble that the evolutionary bigots consulted creationists before their diatribes, e.g. Scientific American”

And who would want to gamble that the creationist bigot who wrote that article for AIG consulted any scientists before spewing forth a bunch of baloney? See A Point by Point Refutation of Jonathan Sarfati

“
JM:
You make no point other than like minded people support you. I can go
into Michigan stadium and yell 'go blue' and 100,000 plus people will
cheer louldy in support. Does that mean that UM is the best team in the
land? Apparently, this is your logic but I am not so naive.
How pathetic. Meert claimed that people might lose respect for me, and I
gave a number of examples showing that many people do respect me. Meert
then replied, in effect, that this was because they are biased towards
"my" side", and I refuted that by showing that atheists are leading this
month's poll. In fact, one of the leading atheists was nominated by an
outspoken YEC Trinitarian. So any idea that I got this award just because
of the bias here just doesn't stand up.


Socrates: Then why did you bring up the alleged fideism of creationists? ”



“
JM:
Because those are the data!
Right then, by the same token, so is the fanatical misotheism of leading
evolutionists such as Dawkins and Coyne, and the slightly lower-key
atheism or agnosticism of Gould and Sagan -- oops, they are no longer
atheists because they know the truth now, too late :lol:
”

So, you believe that they are now burning in hell and you're LAUGHING at that
idea? You’re lucky this is a moderated forum. No words short of profanity can
describe that statement… No wonder that when christians ruled, people got burned
at the stake! And you call those who disagree with you the bigots??! You're the
one who's laughing at the idea of them burning forever.

I've yet to see any of those "bigots" say that they like to see people like you
suffer, yet you laugh at the thought of them burning eternally?! And you
"whinge" about them being bigots? What a hypocrite!

It's ironic that you call people like Hitler evil (which he obviously was!) but
then you enjoy the thought that those who disagree with you are burning FOREVER!
At least Hitler didn't burn people alive, much less forever! What does that say
about people like you who seem to get off on that idea, eh? You are worse! On
the bright side, that pretty much shoots down your phoney claim about "agape"
love. There's no way that you can call enjoyment at other's suffering ANY kind
of love! Not that anyone was stupid enough to have fallen for that lie in the
first place...

Addendum I: people don't understand why I've called his claim of "agape" love a
lie. Simple. The agape love described by Glenn Miller does not describe the
constant insults given out by Socrates; Miller is himself polite, Socrates
isn't. **As I've said before, just pretend that Socrates is saying these kind of
things about YOU!*** Would you then still sit back and call what he says "agape
love"?! If he is a believer in a literal burning hell, then that's where Gould
et al are now (remember the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus?)
that would completely shoot down any claims of "love"! Come to think of it, if
even there is no "literal" fire, there, it was STILL described as the worst
thing that could happen to a person, so Socrates' :lol: smiley when he's
describing Gould et al being "separated" from God is still indicative of NOT
love, but vindictivness.

HOW can one possibly call this kind of behavior "love"? Even the "tough love"
described by Glenn Miller?

Addendum II: the mods have told me that not everyone actually believes in a
burning hell of some sort...If Socrates does not, then that would be a great
relief, and I would then gratefully apologize for that statement I made,
otherwise it would still stand.

Fortunately, since the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales we can at least know
that Sagan and Gould are NOT actually suffering the fate that Socrates so
gleefully imagines!

It’s this kind of swill that helped put me off religion. What good is all this
talk of “compassion”, “morality”, and “the evils of evolution” when it’s the
christians are the ones acting so callously?

“
Socrates:Not at all, since sadly a lot of professing Christians think
almost identically to materialists for all practical purposes. ”

It beats having them think like you.

“
JM:
So you diagree with them, have you any data?
Of course. As creationists often point out, we have exactly the SAME data,
We just interpret them under different paradigms. But creationists at
least recognize the role of paradigms, unlike evolutionary propagandists.

Alas, many of the so-called Christian evolutionists are doctrinally
suspect in other areas as well as creation. That's the problem with
allowing their thoughts to become captive to the vain philosophy of
methodological naturalism even when theorizing about Earth history, as
Colossians 2:8 warns against:

”

And your previous statement above shows the problem with people worshipping a
barbaric, vicious "god", whose "holy book" demonizes those who don't believe:
Socrates is so filled with hatred to atheists that he laughs at the idea of his
"enemies" burning in hell!


With people like that on your side, is it any wonder that the opposing side is
"fanatical"?

PS: before someone give me that cock-and-bull story about "What he said is not
'hate' ", I'd like to ask: if using a :lol: smiley to describe your emotions
when you think of people burning forever isn't hate, I defy you to tell me what
is!

Disruptively off topic in this period of heavy moderation and too strong in tone though it is understood that Mandalorious feels he was provoked and simply wanted to refute the idea of a literal Hell, thus, however, I invite Mandalorious to bring up this topic in an appropriate area of the forum, and if he would like his post text sent to him for him to do so, contact me and I will do so.

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 07:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120044#post120044)
Mandalorious:

No words short of profanity can describe that statement? No wonder that when christians ruled, people got burned at the stake!

Dear M.

Tell me, when atheists ruled in the Soviet Union and other parts of the world, what were the casualties then? This is as unfair as your gross oversimplification. The fact that you remain unspecific is an even worse logical error. But the real issue is that you are taking on a self-righteous attitude that condemns Christians, period, without looking at the benefits that Christians have provided to our world. Do you know of an atheist foundation that founded a hospital, or built a school for underprivileged people? If there is one, I'll gladly salute their sacrifice, but from what I have seen, such has not been the case.

Little wonder why Socrates doesn't take you seriously.

regards,

Richard.

[Sher]

“Today @ 05:17 AM post located here
Mandalorious:

You're the one who's laughing at the idea of them burning forever. ”



Er ... Mandalorious ... do you think that everyone believes that (a) people go
directly to hell when they die? and (b) that hell contains literal buring fire?

Some believe that hell is a separation from God ... the worst kind of hell that
anyone could imagine ... knowing that God is real, seeing His disappointment
face to face, bowing and kneeling before Him ... and not being able to stay in
His presence.

I won't answer for anyone else ... but your post is extremely harsh for someone
who didn't even start out by asking what the person you were addressing
believed.


Moderator Notice: Being heavily into this particular topic, Mandalorious
... I won't personally edit your post ... but I will ask as a Moderator
that you either back up the claim of lying with evidence or retract the
assertion. If you will not do either, I will ask another Mod/Admin to
step in and edit it for you

Referring to subsequently edited post.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mandalorius... Sher brought your last post to my attention. It is WAY WAY over the line. Please edit it before I do it for you. If you feel it was provoked by a "like" post by Socrates bring that to my attention, and I will deal with that if necessary.

[Mandalorious]

“Today @ 01:59 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

”


Sigh. Simple. The man had a :lol: smiley where he was describing that Gould,
Sagan et al. are now in hell.

As for hell being a place of fire, etc. That's what the bible teaches, if you
remember the RichMan/Lazarus parable. Sure, not everyone believes that hell is
"literal fire", but to do so they have to go against the bible's teachings on
it.

Remember the verses in Revalation where it describes what happens to the beast,
the false prophet, and those who accept the mark?

If Socrates had in any of his posts, ever said anything that implied that he did
NOT believe in the bible literally, I wouldn't have jumped on him like
this...however he's made it clear that he supports the literal bible. If he did
NOT believe in a fiery hell, he/she'd be the very first YEC I've ever met who
did NOT believe in that! It would go against the grain for him to do so. He also
is very supportive of AIG, who also makes it clear that the bible is to be taken
literally in regard to that kind of stuff.

Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to find out that Socrates did NOT
believe in a "lake of fire" or "burning hell". But how, then, do you explain the
beggars' Lazarus story, then?"

Referring to subsequently edited post with invitation to take topic up in appropriate area of the forum.

[kiwimac]

Actually Dee Dee

I agree with Mandalorious. Socrates smiley was inappropriate. It is one thing to believe that people will suffer for eternity, it is a fish of quite a different smell to GLOAT over that.

Kiwimac

[SLPx]

05-23-2003 @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105617#post105617)
Socrates:
Actually, the "credentials" foisted on him are "evolutionist".

Oh no, he only lectured on it and wrote a book on it!

Writing a book on something does not lmake one an expert on it, especially if we consider the author's true expertise (not to mention when it was written).

Sarfati, for example, wrote a book about evolution. True, it was filled with errors and wild extrapolations, but that does not make him an evolutionist!

One of the pitfalls in relying upon simplistic "logic" to try to make points...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mandalorious, that was not the point of my warning. For the record I believe in a literal Hell. I do not gloat over it. I will review the post you brought to my attention and your post, and will edit where I feel appropriate and give my rationale for same. It would help though if you would give me the link. Your tone was inappropriate Mandalorious, instead of going off like that, you should have reported the offending post which I have not yet reviewed to make a judgment call on that. Remember this area is in heavy moderation....

I further ask that any discussion of my Notices or my decisions be taken to the appropriate areas, PM, email, the Dean's Office, or the Janitor's Closet and not be posted in the thread.

[SLPx]

Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120084#post120084)
Richard Romano:



Dear M.

Tell me, when atheists ruled in the Soviet Union and other parts of the world, what were the casualties then? This is as unfair as your gross oversimplification. The fact that you remain unspecific is an even worse logical error. But the real issue is that you are taking on a self-righteous attitude that condemns Christians, period, without looking at the benefits that Christians have provided to our world. Do you know of an atheist foundation that founded a hospital, or built a school for underprivileged people? If there is one, I'll gladly salute their sacrifice, but from what I have seen, such has not been the case.

Little wonder why Socrates doesn't take you seriously.

regards,

Richard.

Socrates does not take anyone that does not think and act the same way he does seriously because to do so would cause him to admit the frailty of his position.

When "atheists ruled" the Soviet Union, the acts they committed were in the name of a political system, not their supposed lack of spiritual belief.

One can say that such a lack of belief allowed them to kill millions without guilt.

I wonder then what the justification is for the brutality inflicted on civilians and such in the name of Christ over the centuries, during the Crusades, for example?


:huh:

[SLPx]

Today @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120097#post120097)
Sher:



Er ... Mandalorious ... do you think that everyone believes that (a) people go directly to hell when they die? and (b) that hell contains literal buring fire?

Some believe that hell is a separation from God ... the worst kind of hell that anyone could imagine ... knowing that God is real, seeing His disappointment face to face, bowing and kneeling before Him ... and not being able to stay in His presence.

I won't answer for anyone else ... but your post is extremely harsh for someone who didn't even start out by asking what the person you were addressing believed.



Socrates called me a "fanatical atheist."

Please instruct him to provide evidence for this or threaten to edit his post.

Thanks.

[Dee Dee Warren]

SLPx, please do not instruct a Moderator in the course of the thread but take it to the appropriate areas. Did you report that post of Soc's? No. That should be your first step, and then a Moderator will review it as appropriate.

[Dee Dee Warren]

In briefly reviwing this thread, I see the tone from multiple parties has gone downhill. If it continues, the thread will be closed.

[SLPx]

Today @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120275#post120275)
Dee Dee Warren:



It has been my experience that reporting Socrates' posts is a waste of time and an exercise in futility.


Forgive my frustration.

Please do not debate with a Moderator's comments in the thread. If you are offended by that post, report it. If not, then you have forfeited your kvetch rights.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Closed pending Moderator review.

[Sher]

I concur Dee Dee

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay here is my ruling on this thread:

Off-topic points: If anyone wants to debate the Crusades, or the atheistic Soviet Union, or how Hell is reconciled with a loving God, please start a thread in an appropriate area in this forum. Those are not even remotely Biology subjects, and I find them to be unduly disruptive as they occurred here, provoked or not.

Severe disrespect or inappropriate comments – I find Soc’s use of the smiley to refer to Sagan and Gould’s apparent final state to be inappropriate. I do not believe (because I know him) that he meant it as it is being taken here (i.e. gloating over someone’s damnation) but I see how it could easily be taken that way. However, I find the mockery (in a Biology) thread of the beliefs of countless Christians on Hell to be inappropriate as well here. Again though I do not believe Mandalorious meant anything malicious, he is simply stating his view, thus an appropriate thread can be (and has been before) started on this subject in a different area. The objectionable comments have been edited.

Over-use of certain adjectives – Though not edited, the use of “bigot” is once again heading towards disruptive over-use and now the use of “fanatical” is headed that way. I think that the way these terms are used here that could be applied to almost everyone, and thus, useless. Also, despite whatever truth or justification there may be, the use of “misotheist” is always becoming overdone and disruptive.

Now I do not know whether it is a full moon or whatever that caused this sudden surge in spunkiness… but let’s get a grip okay?

[Mandalorious]

See

for my reply (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5689) to

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120084#post120084)