Answers in Genesis Corrupts Kentucky’s Government

| 89 Comments

If Answers in Genesis’s creation anti-museum didn’t have enough of lie already, it is beginning to corrupt Kentucky’s government. The tax-funded Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau is promoting the anti-museum as a “‘walk through history”” that “counters evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture”. This inflammatory lie has rightly upset several organizations, who are fighting to improve the quality of science education in Kentucky. We expect Answers in Genesis to lie, but we hope that government wouldn’t join them in it. So far the visitors bureau has refused to change their website despite having is inflammatory lies pointed out to them. Perhaps some more public pressure can change that.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has the full story.

89 Comments

Oh, well, the ACLU’s been bored lately, anyway …

Kudos to scientist Dan Phelps for pursuing this. He tried to get the Convention Bureau to see the error of its ways on more than one occasion, and finally went to the press. The reporter deserves credit also for researching the story. We need more people like Dan on the local level who are willing to take an active role in monitoring and responding to things like this. Go thou forth and do likewise!

We expect Answers in Genesis to lie, but we hope that government wouldn’t join them in it.

Sorry, I just can’t help being amused by the implicit naivety of this statement, probably unintentional. Sure, that can be hoped for, but I would expect both the governments of Southern states and the current federal administration to support with this sort of thing. It’s what they believe in themselves, and they assuredly don’t view the previous statement as being a lie, or even incorrect.

The very fact that so many ordinary Americans have visited the museum shows that the opinion polls are correct. Nearly 50% of citizens in the US actually believe this nonsense. It’s probably the same here in Northern Ireland unfortunately. The first minister of the new assembly is a YEC (his church actively promotes it).

I am at a loss as to how scientists can convince Christians that they have nothing to fear from science and everything to fear if this were to happen:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/aft[…].aspx?id=207

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 9, column 9, byte 775 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

AiG would label my beloved Old Earth colleagues like Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and William Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view

Yowza, I would agree with AiG on something! I would label Gonzalez, Behe and Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view because they contribute the the impression that lying and Christianity are inseparable.

For what it’s worth Reed, even though I believe there is a good chance the Earth is Young, I’m not especially enamored with the way AiG does business.

I hope the YECs prevail

Salvador: I am constantly amazed that well educated people like yourself cannot accept the antiquity of the Earth/Universe.

For me, the nail in the coffin for YECism is the astronomy question and the vast distances from the Earth of astronomical objects. To claim that a light year is only a measure of distance and not time (Jason Lisle) is simply false and I feel that on this point AiG is misleading Christians (if not telling lies).

Another YEC astronomy claim is the old one on comets breaking up to quickly for the solar system to be old. Why they still persist with this one is beyond me, since several hundred Kuiper belt objects (the reservoir for short period comets) have been discovered thus far.

As a Christian, I am 100% convinced that the YEC’s will eventually fail. What worries me, is that the church, and particularly the evangelical wing, will be dragged down along with it.

YECism will seriously damage Christianity in the long run.

I don’t know Wamba - while I find ID difficult to reconcile with mainstream Christian theology, I strongly disagree with the assertion that Gonzales, Behe & Dembski should be seen as “part of an attack against the Christian world view because [they] believe the universe is old.” On this one point, I don’t disagree with Sal Cordova - like just about everything else, AiG gets it wrong.

The critics have allowed themselves to be decoyed by the ID movement and allow an immensely larger movement to advance almost un-noticed.

Definitely agree with you on that one Salvador. Scientists will ignore the YEC’s at their peril. As one leading politician from these shores once remarked:

“They haven’t gone away you know”

The critics have allowed themselves to be decoyed by the ID movement and allow an immensely larger movement to advance almost un-noticed.

I don’t know who would be doing the ignoring; in most public talks I have given about “intelligent design” I have clearly noted that actual IDC advocates are a numerically insignificant minority, dependent entirely upon YEC believers to accomplish their political agenda.

I’m not sure in what sense there has been an “advance” of YEC, though, since the relevant court cases still say that YEC preaching isn’t constitutional for public schools.

I sent the following e-mail to the clowns that run NKYCVB:

Your promotion of the comical Answers in Genesis Creation “Museum” is a bad joke that further, and unfairly, stigmatizes Kentucky as the land of the toothless back-woods ignorant hillbilliy. What a shame.

Peter Henderson Wrote:

As a Christian, I am 100% convinced that the YEC’s will eventually fail.

If you mean the “direct approach of promoting YEC” will fail, it will eventually go the way of flat-earthism. But the belief will be held by ~50% as long as it is America’s favorite fairy tale. I see no sign anywhere that that will change. But note that fairy tales in general are rarely treated as anything but fact, even by groups that know they aren’t. The classic example is how TV treats the man in the red suit. Could this be the approach that KY’s govt. is taking??

Either way, to accommodate those whose faith is weak enough to require evidence, however cherry-picked, there will be a pseudoscientific YEC to replace the direct approach. The “postmodern synthesis” of YEC and ID that people like Salvador promote seems to have the most promise at the moment. Not as science, of course.

Just sent this email to them:

Dear sirs,

I would like to complain in the strongest terms possible about the description you give of the Answers In Genesis Creation Museum on your website, the relecant page being located here:

http://www.staynky.com/things/museu[…]creation.php

“this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture.”

I am horrified that a government funded group would use taxpayer money to spread their own interpretation of religion across a site that is intended to be an informative description of the attractions and amenities of Northern Kentucky. It is not the place of your organization to support or reject any religious stance or religious group, regardless of the opinions of the staff of your organization about a scientific concept. A concept which is, incidentally, entirely in harmony with the holding of religious faith.

I am a frequent visitor to Kentucky, and I would hate to think that the taxes I pay on hotel acommodation are being used to further such ignorance and push a religious agenda. By all means, advertise the museum. It is a tourist attraction in Kentucky. However, it is the place of the museum to explain its religious agenda, not of public servants funded by the taxpayer.

I am as horrified by this as I would be if your description of the Hebrew Union College Skirball Museum described them as “christ-killers”, an accusation I am sure you would never level, but one which is every bit as religiously motivated - and every bit as wrong - as your accusation that natural history turns “countless minds against Christ and Scripture”.

I urge you to change the information you present on your page to something more balanced and less motivated by the personal religious views of your staff.

Yours faithfully

Ian Rennie

Its ironic that the covention & visitors bureau also promotes the Cincinnati Natural History Museum. Strangely, that link doesn’t mention the museum’s mission of “turning minds against Christ and Scripture.” Fortunately, the creationist republican, indicted criminal who is currently serving as Kentucky’s governor, Ernie Fletcher, will be turned out of office this november (he’s trailing by 20 points in the polls). Maybe the next administration will correct this idiocy.

My email to the yahoos:

To quote you: this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture..

How dare you!

You’re implying that by accepting modern science and going to “evolutionary natural history museums,” my mind has been “turned against Christ and Scripture”!

This is patently offensive to all those committed Christians who aren’t afraid of modern science–including Popes, current and recent.

Don’t look for me to be spending any tourist dollars in Northern Kentucky, where apparently a branch of state government has become a mouthpiece for a particular brand of fundamentalist religion. I also intend to let all my fellow frequently-traveling retiree friends know about this offensive stance, and publish it as widely as I can on the Web.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 17, column 141, byte 1217 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

I can see the new billboards for Northern Kentucky.

Entering Northern Kentucky, set your watch back 200 years.

Remind me again, why would anyone want to visit this area? You can buy moonshine anywhere these days.

Seems Sal has been devolving ever since.

Just whipped off my own e-mail to the NKCVB. Probably won’t do any good but at least their inbox tray will demonstrate to them that some people actually care about this kind of idiocy being funded by tax dollars. I hope all others will do the same. Keep it civil but please send it!

85% YEC

85% big tenter.

I share your concerns. YEC should try to decouple the hypothesis as some sort of litmus test for Christianity. AiG’s influence on the matter is divisive, and just plain wrong. If they want to argue the world is 10,000 years old, they better put up some believable evidence and help with the science. Their evangelism on an unproven theory is pre-mature.

Their museum didn’t have any real artifacts for their case, just sculptures and movies and statues. Not much of science museum. Count me in as one YEC who wouldn’t feel bad if the museum falters.

Hi Salvador. I feel the same way about AiG. My main problem with them is the fact that they are so dogmatic on the issue and do not accept that many Christians (like myself) are not enthusiastic about young Earth creationism. I cannot take YEC speakers seriously now, no matter how good their teachings are on other aspects of the bible.

The church that I belong to :

http://www.acpc.co.uk/

has a YEC minister and assistant. At no stage has he ever recognised or acknowledged that there are different views on the subject and yet, the church as a whole (the Presbyterian church in Ireland) is not young Earth creationist. I’ve been told on three occasions now that “as long as you believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, how and when he did it is for you to decide”. I would assume from this statement that a Christian could believe anything from Flat Earth-ism, through to theistic evolution (my own view) and it wouldn’t affect their salvation. Yet, Answers in Genesis certainly does not accept this view. I find it strange then, that AiG is speaking at the Belfast City Mission, the church’s outreach arm, in October, as well as in a number of other congregations. Abbots Cross PC has had both Dr. David Menton and Roger Oakland as speakers over the last few years.

I’ve also heard Josh McDowell speak at the Crescent church in Belfast (another one that’s gone down the YEC line) a number of years ago and he really was excellent. He’s also spoken at the Presbyterian church’s general assembly recently. It came as a big disappointment to me that he now appears to be YEC (his son has visited the creation museum over the last couple of months) so he seems to be firmly in the Ken Ham camp.

However, the creation section in his book “Evidence that demands a verdict”, was supposedly ghost written by Glenn Morton. Glenn Morton’s testimony of how he came out of YECism has given me a lot of encouragement (I’ve never been a YEC by the way), and I just wish his articles would receive more publicity, especially within the church.

I would assume Salvador, that although you are 85% YEC, you do accept other Christian’s viewpoints, in a way that is less dogmatic than AiG’s ?

On the astronomy question, I’ve successfully completed a number of Open University courses on the subject and nowhere are YEC views mentioned. The Kuiper belt is still accepted as the reservoir for short period comets, and the Oort cloud the reservoir for long period ones. Danny Falkner’s musings have not found their way into any astronomy textbooks, as far as I know.

The Big Bang is currently the favoured model as to how it all began and no evidence currently exists to show that the speed of light was faster in the past. Studies on the cosmic microwave background radiation has not led cosmologists to come to the conclusion that the Universe is a mere 6,000 years old.

As an employee of state government (not Kentucky), I can say that the issue is a little more complicated than it might appear.

Apparently (from the Enquirer article) their general policy is to list local attractions, and to let the attractions themselves provide descriptions. If their policy is anything like ours, they don’t stick their noses into the text unless it’s inappropriate for minors or describes or condones illegal activity.

In this case, it’s likely that singling the “museum” out for censorship, without establishing that it violates an existing policy, would probably be grounds for an anti-discrimination lawsuit. (Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say for sure.)

Often there is some sort of indemnification statement somewhere that makes it clear that the content of these pages is provided from external sources and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the State or its agencies. I couldn’t immediately find one on the site (http://www.staynky.com/), but it sounds like they could use one.

Reaction to Dr. Phelps from AiG today:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/a[…]adline-news/

The Enquirer article states:

“The museum has numerous other scientific critics.”

However, they don’t mention that AiG/Creation Museum has five PhD scientists on staff and is associated with many other PhD scientists across the USA and around the world. Of course, these same critics of the Creation Museum were also claiming that not many people would come to the Museum—they scoffed at the idea there was overwhelming support in the culture for this Museum. Well, 170,000 visitors in just three months shows how wrong they were. So now, they attempt to discredit and attack the local tourist bureau for promoting the Creation Museum as a tourist attraction, which according to the bureau’s own formulas, may have brought over $6 million into the economy of Northern Kentucky!

Isn’t it interesting how these ardent evolutionists, with close ties to an organization headed by an atheist, are so worried about ONE Creation Museum—when the majority of natural history museums across the nation present evolution as fact, and the majority of students in the culture go to public schools where evolution/naturalism is presented as fact? If the evidence that man evolved by natural processes (and thus life is ultimately meaningless and purposeless) is so OBVIOUS, why would they be worried about just ONE Creation Museum. They are worried because they know the more people flock to this facility, the more they learn information that has by and large been censored from the culture. The more they realize molecules to man evolution/naturalism is not fact, and real observational scientific evidence does confirm the Bible’s account of history—and if that history is true (which it is), then the gospel based in that history is true. This also means marriage (founded in Genesis) is one man for one woman—life does have purpose and meaning—and all of us need to bow to our Creator and obey His rules!

They are worried because they know the more people flock to this facility, the more they learn information that has by and large been censored from the culture.

Are AiG actually claiming that scientists are covering up the facts ? I wonder what their evidence for this is !

They are worried because they know the more people flock to this facility, the more they learn information that has by and large been censored from the culture.

So true, so true…so let’s also bring them “information” about how segregation was a good thing, and how noble the Nazis were, and the joys of child pornography. I mean, why would people be so afraid of ONE museum, when everything else out there is against it?

If YEC is true, it has a long way to go in terms of research.

Which is exactly what Dr. Kurt Wise admitted in his excellent YEC book Faith, Form, and Time.

At the same time, however, such books demonstrate that YEC’s are much much stronger than evolutionists (including theistic evolutinists) when it comes to addressing creation topics or certain evolutionist objections (such as the “deceiver argument”)from a Biblical standpoint.

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

But Peter’s prediction of YEC failing, is just so much incorrect, no-good, Sky-Is-Falling rhetoric.

Peter Henderson:

If you mean the “direct approach of promoting YEC” will fail, it will eventually go the way of flat-earthism. But the belief will be held by ~50% as long as it is America’s favorite fairy tale.

Going to be a long time before that happens. 20% of the US population still believes that the sun goes around the earth. It’s been 400 years since Copernicus for Galileo’s sake.

Half the population have IQs of less than 100, the median. People believe all sorts of weird stuff, lepruchuans, UFOs, elves, fairies, bigfoot, the grassy knoll and on and on.

The best we can hope for is to keep science in the science classes and religion in the churches. The attack on science is silly and stupid. Science is the reason why the 21st century doesn’t look a lot like the 16th century.

Anyone can go back to the Dark Ages any time, free country. All they have to do is to throw out all modern technology and medicine, turn off the electricity and toss the computers. Then develop an interest in nonmachine subsistence agriculture and hunting and gathering. Few people do so.

They would rather drive down the freeways in their microprocessor engine controlled SUVs, take the kids to the doctor when they are sick, watch TV, and babble on the internet from their home PCs about how evil science is. Hypocrits!

There are many people who would love to see the USA deep six science and head on back to third world status. The Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Asians, all our economic competitors would cheer wildly. The Moslem terrorists would thank Allah and go find someone else to attack.

Sal “Wormtongue” Cordova blithers on:

For what it’s worth Reed, even though I believe there is a good chance the Earth is Young, I’m not especially enamored with the way AiG does business.

How is the way AiG does business worse than the way YOU do business? Glass houses and all that…

AiG would label my beloved Old Earth colleagues like Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and William Dembski as part of an attack against the Christian world view because these scientists believe the universe is old. I don’t approve of that one bit.

I can’t speak for AiG, but WE label those con-men “an attack against the Christian world view” because they lie, misuse the Bible, ignore the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ, and make Christianity look like the stoopidest religion on Earth. Oh, and then there’s that pesky fact that many Christians accept evolution and reject ALL forms of creationism.

I hope the YECs prevail, but I can’t say I’m enamored with AiG leading the charge. They are doing a lot of evangelism, but their science leaves a lot to be desired.

And your “science” is better…how? Pretending to support a cause while trying to distance yourself from its tactics only shows your cowardice.

Eugenie Scott recognizes that AiG/ICR etc. represents a far larger movement than ID (perhaps by 50 to 100 fold in terms of money by my guess).

Ed Brayton has just done yet another thorough job of exposing your shameless lies and misrepresentations of what Scott and others actually said. So unless you can provide a direct quote from Scott, your credibility on this matter is ZERO.

I was an Old Earth Darwinist, then became an Old Earth Creationist, then became 85% YEC. I gave YEC no chance until a 2002 report in Nature (along with Paul Davies website) suggested the speed of light was much faster (perhaps “infinite”) in the past.

How does a variable speed-of-light prove a literal interpretation of Genesis?

AiG and ICR shut down the exploration of VSL cosmology…

I notice you don’t even try to explain WHY they would shut down research that – according to you, at least – could have strengthened their case. Maybe they shut it down because it was going nowhere. Ever think of that?

There are still major problems with a Variable Light Speed cosmology, but maybe someday the problems will be fixed.

In other words, you have nothing, and you’re desperately clinging to some vague notion hoping it will be fleshed out sometime in the future. But in the meantime, you have no case.

If YEC is true, it has a long way to go in terms of research.

So why should we take YEC at all seriously? I could just as easily say the same for flat-Earth-ism.

The YECs have to stop running their organizations like churches…

Why should they stop running their organizations like churches, when, beneath all the pretense, that’s all they really ever were?

…and reorganize along the lines of the Discovery Institute, as a secular institution that does not discriminate based on religious belief…

Has the Discovery Institute done any actual research? Have they produced any peer-reviewed papers disproving evolution and/or supporting (or even describing) any sort of “ID theory?”

You still haven’t apologized for trying to compare my arguments to the (alleged) surgical mutilation of innocent children. Why is that, Sal? Is your Creator still too tired from his six-day rush-job to give you the strength to act like a real Christian man?

At the same time, however, such books demonstrate that YEC’s are much much stronger than evolutionists (including theistic evolutinists) when it comes to addressing creation topics or certain evolutionist objections (such as the “deceiver argument”)from a Biblical standpoint.

That’s because YECs have nothing but a literal interpretation of the Bible to back up their “case.” That is, in fact, all they do; and that’s why they’re wrong.

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

Can we take that as an admission that your “Long Overdue Paradigm Shift” is nowhere near close to happening? I mean, you’ve had OVER A HUNDRED YEARS now, and you’re still demanding more effort (and not describing what, exactly, has to be done).

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

Might be a paradigm shift all right. Right now there is a backlash against fundie cult theocracy.

1. Theocracies don’t work. Our present theocratic president has one of the lowest approval ratings in history after 7 years in power. People are sick of the corruption, wingnut ideology, and human child sacrifices.

2. You see it in the rise of militant atheists and atheism. No one cares what other people believe. They care a lot when the cultists started forcing their religious beliefs on other people.

3. Iraq has shown what religious extremists with automatic weapons, IEDs, and god on their side can do. The lesson isn’t lost on anyone. We like going to the mall without worrying about getting killed in the crossfire from two groups having a theological dispute.

It wouldn’t surprise me if ultimately the fundie cultists do a huge amount of damage to Xianity in the US. The lies, hatred, bigotry, threats of murder, and the odd killing by Xian terrorists here and there don’t impress a lot of people.

dhogaza:

dhogaza Wrote:

That quote from Lubos is hilarious given his lame efforts to discredit climate science.

Yes, citing Lubos Motl is akin to citing creationists, both examples of large scale denialism. And he is at least as much a curmudgeon as Disney.

But physics is his specialty, and even though he is vehement against any non-string options it is a valid and expert criticism. (It was his vested interest that necessitated my deliberations before the quote.)

David Stanton Wrote:

Nigel,

Nice post. Do you happen to have any references for the Chinese records you mention? How far back do they go? Are they accepted by the scientific community as authentic? Sounds really interesting to me. Perhaps another example of cultural bias.

David, thank you.

The records are referenced in Measuring Eternity by Martin Gorst. I’m not sure if they have been scrutinised by the scientific community, but they should be considered with at least as much validity as the records from Babylon that Ussher did use (unless doubt is independently thrown on their authenticity).

Peter Henderson Wrote:

I think I have every right to be worried Nigel. It would seem that the YEC’s are gaining the upper hand within Christianity and no-one seems to be able or willing to stop them.

Thanks for your response, Peter.

What I meant was in reply to Salvador’s expression of concern that the ultimate failure of YEC will drag down the rest of Christianity. Personally, I think that the failure of YEC will strengthen Christianity, so I do not see any need to worry about the impact that YEC’s failure will have on the rest of Christianity.

Having said that, I share your concern about the potential for YEC to gain a foothold in the UK. In a country that is supposed to have nationwide standards of education, it is worrying to find people spurning the science in favour of easy answers that are demonstrably false. I have relatives who are YECs, and their choice simply baffles me.

FL Wrote:

At the same time, however, such books demonstrate that YEC’s are much much stronger than evolutionists (including theistic evolutinists) when it comes to addressing creation topics or certain evolutionist objections (such as the “deceiver argument”)from a Biblical standpoint.

I don’t think any “evolutionist” (I prefer the term “scientist”, or “rational person” myself) would argue against YEC on biblical grounds. After all, there are theologians doing just that.

You mention the “deceiver” argument as if it were plucked from the Bible by scientists. This is not so. It is a direct response to so many YEC arguments, and goes along these lines: Scientist: If the world was created recently, why does all the evidence suggest it is old? YEC: God made the Earth look old. Scientist: What, just to deceive us? Why?

There’s more than YEC’s have to do, there’s more that AIG has to do, there’s more that all non-Darwinists have to do to acheive Long Overdue Paradigm Shift.

I’m a non-Darwinist. I firmly believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is outdated and, in some areas, wrong. However, this is because I find modern evolutionary theory to be a more accurate explanation of the evidence that we find in the world around us.

The YECs and AiG “have” to do one of two things: Either (a) accept that the scientific consensus is the best description of reality that we have, or (b) make a genuine effort to understand what it is they are criticising, and then criticise it honestly and openly.

We see neither of these things in the YEC literature.

But Peter’s prediction of YEC failing, is just so much incorrect, no-good, Sky-Is-Falling rhetoric.

Come on, FL, back that up with some evidence!

Or was it just rhetoric?

Salvador T. Cordova Wrote:

I agree that ID proponents (not IDC’s, scince some of the top ID thinkers are not creationists), are a very small minority.

IDC is a correct term, Salvador. This is because the fact of creation is inherent in the concept of design. How can something be designed and yet not created, if it exists?

Our little band of rebels are very appreciative of the international attention the critcs have showered upon the miniscule ID movement. Michael Shermer told me the ID movement has gotten more press than the YECs ever have…

That may be so, but does it really mean anything?

But what the ID proponents lack in terms of money, they more than make up in terms of intellectual talent.

Not really, since they seem mostly to be recycling arguments that have been made (and refuted) before. The only new aspect that the leading ID advocates add is some new terminology. But, to take Bill Dembski as an example, this new terminology exists only to disguise the emptiness of the core arguments.

The YECs aren’t there, and until they stop running their organization like churches instead of secular institutions like the Discovery Institute, they won’t be competitive in the market place of ideas, they’ll be viewed as self-blinded dogmatists bent on believing what they want to believe rather than having a reverence for facts….

Well, actually, I consider YECs and IDists both in that light. Neither group actually pays attention to facts that contradict their stated position. Neither group demonstrates intellectual honesty when criticising mainstream science. Neither group accepts that, for their ideas to be accepted, they must present a better explanation of what we find than the current scientific theories. Both groups seem to misrepresent the science deliberately in order to argue against it. Thus, neither group (on average) takes the trouble to understand the science before attacking it.

For YEC to move forward, they need to organize secular think tanks, like a counter part to the Discovery Institute, and then the issue will move forward.

For YECs to move forward, they need to accept that their world-view is contradicted by reality. To move forward, they need to accept that reality is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Ironically, the one quasi-secular think tank in YEC, the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has already made it’s mark on the ID debate when the Baraminology Study Group invited Richard Sternberg (an Old-Earth process structuralist) and Stephen Meyer (an old earth ID proponent) to participate. The BSG is even more miniscule than the DI, and look at the influence they had simply by opening the doors to those who disagreed and to those who weren’t YECs.

They could have had an even bigger impact if they had opened their eyes to the real world, and discarded their YEC ideals.

If AiG is positioning themselves as some sort of infallible guide to truth, this is not good for YEC or for Christianity. They’re setting themselves up to be the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s of the origins debate (sorry if I offended any Jim and Tammy Faye fans out there).

AiG need to accept that the scientists really do know what they’re talking about. It is hard to make a career in science. It takes years of study to even get started, it takes dedication and (often) a bit of luck. Most tenured scientists have been studying their chosen field for over 20 years. This confers a depth of understanding that simply cannot be fast-tracked or acquired by shortcuts. These folks understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of their respective fields of expertise; and, for the vast bulk of what we call science, there is a consensus of opinion among these experts. This means a lot more than a small group of bystanders sniping from a position of ignorance.

There is a lot about origins we don’t know.

But there are several things we do know. We know that the Earth is old (4.3 billion years, or thereabouts). This is a fact. We know that the universe is older (13.7 billion years or thereabouts). This also is a fact. We know that life on Earth has changed dramatically over time. This also is a fact. We know also that explanations exist that connect all of the known evidence together in a parsiomonious fashion. These explanations (ouir scientific theories) are the best descriptions we have for why and how the world we see is the way it is.

So don’t try to dismiss a huge body of knowledge by just saying “there is much we don’t know”. While this is technically true, it presents a false view of the state of our knowledge.

It’s entirely possible the universe is a lot younger and was specially created.

No. The universe is almost certainly as old as we think it is, based on the current evidence. It would take an extraordinary discovery to force us to re-examine this position now it has been reasonably firmly established. As for special creation of the universe: well, this is technically possible, because the Big Bang sets a time limit beyond which we cannot see or theorise.

We could probably put some good arguments to suggest the universe is a lot younger than 13.7 billion years.

Actually, I don’t think you could. Within about 15%, that figure is firmly established. You would need to address all of the evidence on which this figure is based, and that would constitute an awful lot of work. Then you would need to come up with credible reasons for discarding or discounting all of the evidence. Then you would need to replace what you have just demolished with a better theory. I think such an undertaking would be extraordinary indeed. Moreover, I think it would be doomed to failure, because you are starting from a desired conclusion, not following the evidence.

They Earth maybe 65 million years, but 10,000 is still very premature.

What? Why is anything less than 4 billion years credible in the slightest degree? Lord Kelvin thought the Earth was several tens of millions of years old. He was shown to be wrong. What was wrong back in the late nineteenth century is still wrong now.

AiG has shut down the debate on Variable Light Speed cosmology which would actually solve the problem of distant starlight and radio-metric dating.

Or, you could try something novel: accept the evidence for what it is: a piece of reality. Distant starlight and radiometric dating (which, incidentally, both contradict your “65 million years” figure for the age of the Earth) are only a problem if you approach the evidence with preconceptions. Discard those, and the “problem” disappears.

To learn more, see: www.YoungCosmos.com

Not today. I would be too embarassed if my boss found out that I had visited a website with that URL while at work.

So, if you all complain about the AiG ad, I’m not going to protest. YEC needs to be decoupled from it’s religious premises to advance, much like the ID movement is decoupled from religious premises.

Well, the only “evidence” you can find to support a young Earth is based on interpretations of the Bible and hideous distortions of the actual science. You claim that YEC has problems to overcome in terms of dealing with the evidence for an old Earth and an old universe, but these are only problems if you approach them with the preconception of a young Earth. Thus, YEC is religion. Plain and simple. It is an idea derived from a literalist interpretation of scripture, and has no scientific validity whatever.

ID has not succeeded in decoupling itself from its religious roots. Partly, this is because the ID arguments are recycled creationist arguments, and partly this is because the ID proponents, in order to secure support, have proclaimed ID to be the best chance of success in a crusade against “materialsim” (whatever that actually means).

That add by AiG acutally weakens the case for believing YEC.

Not really, I’m afraid. There is no scientific case for accepting YEC. It is purely a religious proposition. As such, it is already extremely weak, by virtue of being in direct contradiction with reality.

In science, reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. No consensus is achieved without testing against reality. And reality says that YEC is wrong.

Salvador T. Cordova Wrote:

I agree that ID proponents (not IDC’s, scince some of the top ID thinkers are not creationists), are a very small minority.

IDC is a correct term, Salvador. This is because the fact of creation is inherent in the concept of design. How can something be designed and yet not created, if it exists?

Our little band of rebels are very appreciative of the international attention the critcs have showered upon the miniscule ID movement. Michael Shermer told me the ID movement has gotten more press than the YECs ever have…

That may be so, but does it really mean anything?

But what the ID proponents lack in terms of money, they more than make up in terms of intellectual talent.

Not really, since they seem mostly to be recycling arguments that have been made (and refuted) before. The only new aspect that the leading ID advocates add is some new terminology. But, to take Bill Dembski as an example, this new terminology exists only to disguise the emptiness of the core arguments.

The YECs aren’t there, and until they stop running their organization like churches instead of secular institutions like the Discovery Institute, they won’t be competitive in the market place of ideas, they’ll be viewed as self-blinded dogmatists bent on believing what they want to believe rather than having a reverence for facts….

Well, actually, I consider YECs and IDists both in that light. Neither group actually pays attention to facts that contradict their stated position. Neither group demonstrates intellectual honesty when criticising mainstream science. Neither group accepts that, for their ideas to be accepted, they must present a better explanation of what we find than the current scientific theories. Both groups seem to misrepresent the science deliberately in order to argue against it. Thus, neither group (on average) takes the trouble to understand the science before attacking it.

For YEC to move forward, they need to organize secular think tanks, like a counter part to the Discovery Institute, and then the issue will move forward.

For YECs to move forward, they need to accept that their world-view is contradicted by reality. To move forward, they need to accept that reality is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Ironically, the one quasi-secular think tank in YEC, the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has already made it’s mark on the ID debate when the Baraminology Study Group invited Richard Sternberg (an Old-Earth process structuralist) and Stephen Meyer (an old earth ID proponent) to participate. The BSG is even more miniscule than the DI, and look at the influence they had simply by opening the doors to those who disagreed and to those who weren’t YECs.

They could have had an even bigger impact if they had opened their eyes to the real world, and discarded their YEC ideals.

If AiG is positioning themselves as some sort of infallible guide to truth, this is not good for YEC or for Christianity. They’re setting themselves up to be the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s of the origins debate (sorry if I offended any Jim and Tammy Faye fans out there).

AiG need to accept that the scientists really do know what they’re talking about. It is hard to make a career in science. It takes years of study to even get started, it takes dedication and (often) a bit of luck. Most tenured scientists have been studying their chosen field for over 20 years. This confers a depth of understanding that simply cannot be fast-tracked or acquired by shortcuts. These folks understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of their respective fields of expertise; and, for the vast bulk of what we call science, there is a consensus of opinion among these experts. This means a lot more than a small group of bystanders sniping from a position of ignorance.

There is a lot about origins we don’t know.

But there are several things we do know. We know that the Earth is old (4.3 billion years, or thereabouts). This is a fact. We know that the universe is older (13.7 billion years or thereabouts). This also is a fact. We know that life on Earth has changed dramatically over time. This also is a fact. We know also that explanations exist that connect all of the known evidence together in a parsiomonious fashion. These explanations (ouir scientific theories) are the best descriptions we have for why and how the world we see is the way it is.

So don’t try to dismiss a huge body of knowledge by just saying “there is much we don’t know”. While this is technically true, it presents a false view of the state of our knowledge.

It’s entirely possible the universe is a lot younger and was specially created.

No. The universe is almost certainly as old as we think it is, based on the current evidence. It would take an extraordinary discovery to force us to re-examine this position now it has been reasonably firmly established. As for special creation of the universe: well, this is technically possible, because the Big Bang sets a time limit beyond which we cannot see or theorise.

We could probably put some good arguments to suggest the universe is a lot younger than 13.7 billion years.

Actually, I don’t think you could. Within about 15%, that figure is firmly established. You would need to address all of the evidence on which this figure is based, and that would constitute an awful lot of work. Then you would need to come up with credible reasons for discarding or discounting all of the evidence. Then you would need to replace what you have just demolished with a better theory. I think such an undertaking would be extraordinary indeed. Moreover, I think it would be doomed to failure, because you are starting from a desired conclusion, not following the evidence.

They Earth maybe 65 million years, but 10,000 is still very premature.

What? Why is anything less than 4 billion years credible in the slightest degree? Lord Kelvin thought the Earth was several tens of millions of years old. He was shown to be wrong. What was wrong back in the late nineteenth century is still wrong now.

AiG has shut down the debate on Variable Light Speed cosmology which would actually solve the problem of distant starlight and radio-metric dating.

Or, you could try something novel: accept the evidence for what it is: a piece of reality. Distant starlight and radiometric dating (which, incidentally, both contradict your “65 million years” figure for the age of the Earth) are only a problem if you approach the evidence with preconceptions. Discard those, and the “problem” disappears.

To learn more, see: www.YoungCosmos.com

Not today. I would be too embarassed if my boss found out that I had visited a website with that URL while at work.

So, if you all complain about the AiG ad, I’m not going to protest. YEC needs to be decoupled from it’s religious premises to advance, much like the ID movement is decoupled from religious premises.

Well, the only “evidence” you can find to support a young Earth is based on interpretations of the Bible and hideous distortions of the actual science. You claim that YEC has problems to overcome in terms of dealing with the evidence for an old Earth and an old universe, but these are only problems if you approach them with the preconception of a young Earth. Thus, YEC is religion. Plain and simple. It is an idea derived from a literalist interpretation of scripture, and has no scientific validity whatever.

ID has not succeeded in decoupling itself from its religious roots. Partly, this is because the ID arguments are recycled creationist arguments, and partly this is because the ID proponents, in order to secure support, have proclaimed ID to be the best chance of success in a crusade against “materialsim” (whatever that actually means).

That add by AiG acutally weakens the case for believing YEC.

Not really, I’m afraid. There is no scientific case for accepting YEC. It is purely a religious proposition. As such, it is already extremely weak, by virtue of being in direct contradiction with reality.

In science, reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. No consensus is achieved without testing against reality. And reality says that YEC is wrong.

Oops, sorry, I seem to have double-posted that one. The browser window just seized up.

If a mod happens by, please could you delete the surplus post?

Thanks.

It is hard to make a career in science.

I often wonder what the AiG speakers with Phds are being payed Nigel. I did read somewhere (it may have been Jim Lippard’s blog) that Snelling was receiving quite a handsome salary from the ICR before joining AiG. It would be interesting to know what AiG offered him.

Last I heard, Ken Ham was on as much as a top hospital consultant (private work included) in this country, so it pays to be a young Earth creationist it would seem.

We know that the Earth is old (4.3 billion years, or thereabouts).

I think the last quoted figure for the age of the Earth is around 4.55 billion years Plus or minus about 5% This figure is obtained from dating meteorites. Lunar samples have been dated to around 4.4 billion years. The oldest terrestrial rocks are around 3.8 billion years and are found in northern Canada and Greenland.

YEC’s do not accept radiometric dating though, claiming the methods are based on fallible assumptions. There’s a very good article on the talkorigins website by G. Brent Dalrymple refuting this and examining various YEC claims on the age of the Earth (not enough salt in the oceans, decay of Earth’s magnetic field etc.)

The very fact that the rocky planetary bodies (Mercury, Mars, The moon, and some of the outer satellites orbiting Jupiter and Saturn etc.) are so heavily covered in impact craters does mean that they are ancient surfaces. I have yet to read an adequate explanation for either Lunar or terrestrial impact craters from the YEC’s (surely this alone should should convince Salvador the Earth is a bit more than 6-10,000 years old ?

Peter Henderson Wrote:

I often wonder what the AiG speakers with Phds are being payed Nigel. I did read somewhere (it may have been Jim Lippard’s blog) that Snelling was receiving quite a handsome salary from the ICR before joining AiG. It would be interesting to know what AiG offered him.

Last I heard, Ken Ham was on as much as a top hospital consultant (private work included) in this country, so it pays to be a young Earth creationist it would seem.

Looks like I chose the wrong line of work if I wanted to live the life of Riley …

… I think the last quoted figure for the age of the Earth is around 4.55 billion years Plus or minus about 5% This figure is obtained from dating meteorites. Lunar samples have been dated to around 4.4 billion years. The oldest terrestrial rocks are around 3.8 billion years and are found in northern Canada and Greenland.

Fair enough. I was posting that from memory.

YEC’s do not accept radiometric dating though, claiming the methods are based on fallible assumptions. There’s a very good article on the talkorigins website by G. Brent Dalrymple refuting this and examining various YEC claims on the age of the Earth (not enough salt in the oceans, decay of Earth’s magnetic field etc.)

That was actually one of my sources. I have found TalkOrigins to be very useful in providing essays that summarise whole fields of evidence, and links to the primary literature.

The very fact that the rocky planetary bodies (Mercury, Mars, The moon, and some of the outer satellites orbiting Jupiter and Saturn etc.) are so heavily covered in impact craters does mean that they are ancient surfaces. I have yet to read an adequate explanation for either Lunar or terrestrial impact craters from the YEC’s (surely this alone should should convince Salvador the Earth is a bit more than 6-10,000 years old ?

I’m not aware of the YECs addressing the cratering of rocky bodies. Also, while AiG insist the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, I think Salvador holds it to be slightly older. In an above post he guesstimates it to be 65,000,000 years old.

Curiously, this is a long way from the 15% OEC he claims to be (my deduction as the converse of his claim that he is 85% YEC): 15% of 4 billion is 600,000,000. I therefore conclude that Salvador is closer to being 1.5% OEC and therefore 98.5% YEC. :)

65,000,000 years? Why on Earth would somebody pick an arbitrary number somewhere between reality and YEC, one not particularly close to either of them, and then claim it means something? (Yeah, I know, there’s no real answer to that question.)

osted by Salvador T. Cordova on August 27, 2007 2:17 PM (e)

In the case of this standard candle, an increase in the speed of light actually makes the object further away.

“No it does not because speed of light decay creates apparent slow motion effects, which negates the calculations Green suggested as such. That’s probably why such arguments got pulled from Talk Origins because it was demonstratably false.”

There is no speed of light decay Sal. That is simply an assertion. The Andromeda Galaxy is blueshifted. What now, Sal? Andromeda has speed of light growth?

There is an additional problem for the “changing speed of light” nonsense which no-one has mentioned so far…..SN 1987a:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/anci……

“As I pointed out, that analysis was badly flawed. If the speed of light were much faster, then then large distances like 150,000 light years would be traversed in less than 10,000 AND the slow motion effect would prevent the interpretation of “higher speed implies, farther distance”.

And you have no clue. If the speed measured by spectral shifts is the Hubble flow (which it most certainly is for any object more distant than 50Mpsc) and that means red shift, then the greater the red shift the greater the distance. That is Hubble’s relation.

“I and others pointed out problems for YEC that are legitimate, but that analysis by Greene is not legitimate. If AiG bougth the argument, then all the more reason to discredit AiG’s “science”.

Even the best critic of CDK cosmology, Dr. G.P. Jellison and Dr. WT Birdgman acknowledges that this analysis by critics of CDK is flawed. To their credit, they offer sound arguments against YEC, not flawed ones such as Greene’s.”

There is little problem here. As most YEC crackpots don’t understand, that you can’t change SOL and not cause other things to change like the fine structure constant. We can meausre such changes now, and have determined that during the course of Earth history there hae not been any measurable change in such constants. Of course one could argue that stars and supernova are lying to us.

Its of little relevance if the speed of light was much greater during the earliest nanoseconds after BB. Interesting, but of no relevance to the age of the earth.

“Do you believe the Big Bang is true?”

Truth is for drunks, mathematicians, expanding earthers and creationists like Sal who don’t know any better.

Science deals with testable theories and evidence, Sal, not truth. SO know, I don’t believe in BB. This is not a faith issue. I provisionally accept BB as the the theory that best explains the available data.

I also maintain that the available data resoundly falsifies any notion of an Earth less than billions of years old. It doesn’t require any faith on my part to accept BB. It does however require not only faith but an actual aversion to reality to accept that the age of the Earth can be measured in thousands of years.

YEC is in the same category of flat earthers and the hollow earthers, however much that pains you.

Stuart

I’m not aware of the YECs addressing the cratering of rocky bodies.

As far as I can tell Nigel there have been no articles on impact craters from AiG. The subject raises lots of questions for YECs. Are terrestrial impact sites post or pre-flood ? Surely such catastrophic events would be recorded in the bible if it is the true history of the world ? An impact event such the Reis crater in Germany (estimated to be 15 million years old) would have serious implications for the population not only in that area, but across the globe. Yet, no mention of this anywhere in the bible

Crater density can also be used as a chronometer and it is possible to estimate the age of a heavily cratered planetary body using this method. But then again, they’ll probably say that God created the moon with the craters already there !

YEC is in the same category of flat earthers and the hollow earthers, however much that pains you.

I’ve read somewhere Stuart, that Henry Morris once claimed that oil engineers drilled so deep they could hear the screams of Hell. They hastily covered the hole up because they were so scared. It would seem that some YEC’s are hollow Earthers as well !

Nobody will likely see this, but the original link is no longer working.

If you start at staynky.com’s home page and work down to http://www.staynky.com/attractions.aspx#museums, you’ll see that the blurb now reads:

A walk through history via the pages of the Bible – exploring how scripture provides an eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

So, it looks like someone was responsive…

That was actually one of my sources. I have found TalkOrigins to be very useful in providing essays that summarise whole fields of evidence, and links to the primary literature.

I wish the guys who run the site would start updating again, especially the feedback section. As I have said before, its a very useful resource.

Peter Henderson:

I am at a loss as to how scientists can convince Christians that they have nothing to fear from science and everything to fear if this were to happen:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/aft[…].aspx?id=207

Absurdity in this statement! Christians don’t fear science. In fact we don’t fear evolution. The problem with most folks on the other side of creation is that you can’t decipher the simple vocabularic difference in Science (Facts conceived by observational studies) verse Evolution (A man conceived theory using science to support its validity). Thus, you perceive that science and evolution are the same and believe evolution is not only the cause of creation but fact. Problem: Evolution ‘science’ much like Christian ‘science’ both have discrepencies and contrasts from one study to the next.

To answer the question of another post, science will never take the place of God’s Word in the heart a Christian. Several reasons will explain but I will only go into two. First of all, the study of science is a man conceived and fallible process. The margin of errors alone found in most research and laboratory work would never stand a chance if evolution were to be put before a court of law and tried based off of the evidence there in. I know this because my father happens to be the head chemist of a very large international company in China. He and many others (including creation scientists who are well educated and equally scholared in their fields as evo scientists) agree that while science and the conclusions are more than not too close for dispute, he also says it’s those fundamental concepts of which theories are produced that when can’t be completly determined, must be thrown out and re-analyzed.

Secondly, and most importantly, the prophecy in the Bible over 2,000 years ago warned Christians that in this day there would be naysayers, God haters, intelligent folks who seek after their own lusts would turn against God, say there was no God and put their belief in science and worldy things. While there are over 1,000 prophecies in God’s Word that has come true, this, as it pertains to your evolutionary theory that there is no God, is the key component of our faith standing firm against your use of ‘science’. We have an option to either believe a divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent and infinite God, or the finite mind of an evolutionary who’s first motive is to abolish the authority a creator God might have over his life, and secondly assumes that if you continue to tack on another million years, it is easier to prove, well no, its harder to disprove which might be why the years of evolution has increased over the past several decades.

I’d rather believe on an infinite creator, even science agrees we as humans havent yet tapped into the full potential of the human brain… Why would we evolve into something so complex and vast that we ourselves can’t even make use of it? Hmmm…

Seek ye the Kingdom of God, for Christ is waiting for you. He died on the cross for your sins, regardless whether or not you accept him on this side of eternity or the other, he still suffered for your salvation.

Keep this in mind, if the Christians are right (which I believe we are) there will ONLY be Christians in Hell. Once you crossover without Christ as your propitiation, you will finally put away the fallible mindset of fleshly humans and accept the infallible Word of God and its truths… You will have become a Christian because you would have found out that God was right. Problem is, you will have been too late.

God Bless those seeking and in Christ Jesus, Gary

Gary said

The problem with most folks on the other side of creation is that you can’t decipher the simple vocabularic difference in Science (Facts conceived by observational studies) verse Evolution (A man conceived theory using science to support its validity).

A fact conceived by a study? Facts are not conceived, but they may be perceived. If you consider evolutionary biology not to be a science, you are at odds with over 99.9% of the world’s scientists.

Evolution “science” much like Christian “science” both have discrepencies and contrasts from one study to the next.

Please give an example of a clear discrepancy from evolutionary science, And please don’t just recite one of the frequently-refuted creationist claims, but a real discrepancy.

the study of science is a man conceived and fallible process.

So is religion. That is why there are so many different gods kicking around. On the other hand, most scientists agree on most things within their areas of expertise.

The margin of errors alone found in most research and laboratory work would never stand a chance if evolution were to be put before a court of law and tried based off of the evidence there in.

You could not possibly justify this statement. You obviously have absolutely no conception of the significance levels attained when comparing phylogenies obtained by different methods. By the way, it is ‘based on’, not ‘based off of’.

In this context, you might also like to consider the importance of Bayes’ Theorem when combining evidence from different studies.

He and many others […] agree that while science and the conclusions are more than not too close for dispute, he also says it’s those fundamental concepts of which theories are produced that when can’t be completely determined, must be thrown out and re-analyzed.

I have no idea what this means.

. . your evolutionary theory that there is no God

The theory of evolution says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the presence or absence of gods or a god. Any reference to a god is purely in your imagination.

even science agrees we as humans havent yet tapped into the full potential of the human brain… Why would we evolve into something so complex and vast that we ourselves can’t even make use of it?

There is a widely believed anecdote that people only make use of 10%, 20%, 50% … you choose a percentage, of their brain power. AFAIK that’s all it is, anecdote. Do you have anything to support your claim? And yes, when I read your comment I wondered exactly the same thing.

To equate atheists with god-haters merely shows your ignorance of atheism. Most, if not all, probably hate your god to a lesser extent than you hate Freja. What they do hate is the manner in which people like yourself express confident opinions in areas about which you clearly know nothing.

There are other problems I have with your comment, but that will do for now.

After reading through these comments, I find it sad that we put so much emphasis on our own intellect and understanding. Everyone truly has become their own god. Evolution vs. Creationism simply comes down to this:

“If you acknowledged that everything was created by a Creator, then logically you’d be indebted to the Creator for creating you, but if everything was left to chance as with Evolution, then their is no Creator and you’re not indebted to anyone but yourself and your own world view.”

Somebody wrote:

“The margin of errors alone found in most research and laboratory work would never stand a chance if evolution were to be put before a court of law and tried based off of the evidence there in.”

Of yea, the old “It’s all a conspiracy and all you evil scientists are in on it” routine. Well, just exactly who do you think does the statistical analysis in order to determine the significance of the laboratory results? Exactly who do you think it is they are trying to convince? If any scientists publishes anything anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature, it is subjected to intense scrutiny by reviewers and after it is published, anyone can criticize it. If there is no statistical support for the conclusions they will never be published and even if they are the paper will most likely have to be retracted. How many papers have you written rebuttal articles against? How many papers have you proven were statistically inadequate? If they are all so flawed and you can prove it, you should have no trouble convincing anyone who knows anything about statistics. Either that or you are just makng stuff up about things you know nothing about.

Now creationists on the other hand generally don’t go through any review process. They can publish anything they want no matter how flawed. Of course they then get taken down by real scientists who point out the flaws for who wish all to see. Just check out the thread on Unacknowledged Errors to see how shoddy the “scholarship” of creationists can be.

As for standing up in a court of law, the record so far is evolution 12 and creationism 1 (depending on exactly what you count, with the one win for creationism coming in 1925). Courts do not decide what is scientifically valid. And even if they somehow did, they would still depend on expert witnesses, i.e. scientists. An appeal to a court to decide an issue of science is simply ludicrous. That is the strategy used by creationists who know they don’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

If what AIG says is a lie, why are you so afraid of it? You have hundreds of other museums promoting your view. I finally have one that supports mine.

If what AIG says is a lie, why are you so afraid of it?

Because lies, and liars, can do a lot of harm when left to their own devices.

If your spouse cheated on you, then lied about it, and then said “If what I say is a lie, why are you so afraid of it?” what would be your response?

You have hundreds of other museums promoting your view. I finally have one that supports mine.

So now you admit that creationism is a “view,” not a fact?

Stuart Weinstein:

There is little problem here. As most YEC crackpots don’t understand, that you can’t change SOL and not cause other things to change like the fine structure constant.

Have you noticed that you’re still coming from a naturalistic worldview? If there is an all-powerful God, then He doesn;t have to follow the laws of physics, which He laid down in the first place.

Have you noticed that you’re still coming from a naturalistic worldview? If there is an all-powerful God, then He doesn;t have to follow the laws of physics, which He laid down in the first place.

But we do have to follow them, and we have to understand the world through them.

I wonder if any of you can ever get it through the thick soup in your heads that we’re not presuming to understand God and the mysteries of the universe, we’re simply performing science with our limited capacities. It is you who claim to know what is unknowable, while we sensibly note that such unknowables remain beyond our grasp (hint, we’re not denying that God could exist or operate outside of our laws, we’re only denying that this has been discovered to be the case through science).

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson:

But we do have to follow them, and we have to understand the world through them.

I did not say that We do not have to follow the laws of science, bot that a truly all-powerful God does not have to follow them.

we’re not denying that God could exist or operate outside of our laws, we’re only denying that this has been discovered to be the case through science.

Do you expect to discover the attributes of God trough science alone?

I only expect you to keep trolling, m-m-me.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.…..Blah, blah.

About the best evidence for a young earth would be the radioisotope polonium-214 shown by physisist Robert Gentry. Does anyone think that would support a young earth?

Why shouldn’t Taxpayers money be used to promote and alternative theory. After all they promote the tenets of fundamental scientism which are accepted fact by many scientist. They are unprovable assumptions of educated guesswork and extrapolations but they are believed as articles of FAITH none the less.

Oh, lor’, now we’ve gone beyond Darwinism - now we’re being accused of “scientism”. And what would that be, Raymond, old chap?

Going on the Latin root, it sounds like the doctrine that knowledge is a good idea. This is obviously unprovable, because the world is full of people who prosper while remaining happily ignorant. Ignorance is so much more convenient, after all. It allows one so much more freedom of action. One can, for example, drive by ancient comment threads on science blogs and babble nonsense without the slightest embarrassment. Not knowing what a fool one sounds is so much better, don’t you agree?

When the Roman CC treats you as dark age minded cave dwellers without mental merit That’s about as dumb as it gets (as a Doorknob, as Dog S..t etc …)

Many in the U.S simply feel we need to keep their foolish ideas as far away from our Govt/Laws as possible & Just sort of Ignore them as many are “ Beyond Hope “

But in the USA our dumb ed down “for Profit” media will continue codling these folks until half of our damn population are dim witted asshats! Goo Gaa Gaa idt ok boo be baby boo evewee we one entitled to own opinion (& facts ?)you do ndt need dat sily willie sciwence. - This is what you get when you allow a nations news media to be run like a “Business” & not a necessary key fixture of The US Democracy ( as it has always been !) Sensationalist Garbage News & tabloid poo that happily plays along to Idiot movements such as this are easy to tone down but it costs a little money !

= You Take the Profit motive Out 100% OUT Just like we did for 100’s of yrs with a few key subsidized & partnered media outlets operated as Loss Leaders ie: With their only Goal being to provide the public with .…. THE TRUTH. END OF STORY. You could create a sort of ‘Real Seal’ for Real News Content & if necessary you have to let the cry babies at FOX & related political party owned Media eat crap & just cry ! Sacrifice a few so called liberal news outlets as well to make Fox & ruperthead Cry Less (doubtful but hey)

But this is something so important, that if ignored It will Grow like black mold until we are a nation of zombie idiots drooling on ourselves while Europe & other free nations watch half scared s.itless & half Laughing their asses off.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on August 26, 2007 1:08 PM.

Lord of the Drinks: The Fellowship of the Rental Car was the previous entry in this blog.

Expelled: No Intelligence Evident is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter