ATTENTION YECs: Why do you think scripture is incompatible with mainstream science?

[bulldog86]

Didn't your English teacher ever tell you to use single quotes within double quotes? Besides, I wasn't picking on the guy's punctuation, grammar, spelling. I was taking him to task for his gross twisting of what I said.

Yep, please see my previous post:

"Look, I'm not one to be anal about grammar. Mine is certainly no better than yours (you actually have fine grammar). However, when you ignore someone's argument and just attack their grammar... I feel the need to step in."

I find it interesting that unqualified Evolutionists always know what thousands of scientists with PhDs believe. You also know that "appeal to authority" is listed as a logical error in every book on logic. In this case it matters because the Big Bang and Evolution are the State's religion. Few of those PhDs were educated in academically open schools and few of them can openly object and hope to keep their jobs. Never mistake the fruits of fascism for the inherent strength of a belief.

To quote Harvey Danger, "Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's coming to get me..."

The driving force behind those who deny that the Genesis 1 days are 24-hour are the same ones trying to force the Bible to fit with Atheist doctrine. Besides, the subject of my sentence was the order of creation. Did you think it easier to attack the parenthetical remark? Were you trying to find a strawman?

Actually, I don't particularly have a belief either way (macro-evolution verses YEC)... Every couple hundred years, the things that the world was so sure of becoming obliterated into obscure, ridiculous theories that students now laugh at. You might say, "We know more now than we ever have in the past!" True as that is, the same statement was true in each of those cases before. I'm not saying that this will happen with macro-evolution, but it very well might, and I personally don't think it matters either way.

Maybe you should be telling this to Wblastyn.

Good catch, thx. That was directed at wblastyn.

 

[wblastyn]

Wblastyn, is English not your first language? Owhay boutaay iglatinpay? Or, maybe you're just suffering from a terminal case of disingenuousness (a pervasive condition of Evolutionists)?

I asked, "Why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it." You reply, "We just don't want to lie..."

Your response shows a complete lack of understanding of my simple statement. I asked about censorship. I did not ask why Evolutionists (ignoring for the moment that they're total liars) don't want to lie.

You have annoyed me enough. Who do you think you are coming on here and talking to people they way you do? You have absolutely no respect for anyone, you show no love of Jesus at all and here you are telling us how we are so unChristian. Hypocritical much?

I have reported you because I'm not putting up with you any longer, and neither should anyone else here.

Interestingly, I did do better in French than in English at school.

 

[bulldog86]

I was taking him to task for his gross twisting of what I said.

Are you kidding? You should be "taken to task" for your terrible question phrasing. In the court of law, you're question would have been thrown out for either (a) lack of foundation or, more likely, (b) assuming facts not in evidence.

why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism that they must censor it or otherwise play absurd word games?

The question is repulsive because it is an attempt to trap him in his words... You assume that evolutionists ARE threatened and DO censor it and DO play "absurd word games." Assuming facts not in evidence. It's like the annoying thing my brother used to do to me.

Brother: "Are you still an idiot?"
Me: "No."
Brother: "So you admit that you once WERE an idiot! HA!"

The next time I would try saying, "I never was an idiot!" and he'd say, "It's a yes or no question!!"

When wblastyn tried to answer YOUR word game by saying, basically, We AREN'T threatened, we DON'T play word games, and we DON'T censor Creationism... You acted like my brother did when we were little kids and said, "It's a yes or no question, stupid."

Nice try, but we all see through your deception. As a brother in Christ, I feel compelled to remonstrate and rebuke you for your deceit and hypocrisy... honestly, all you're doing is making people really ****ed. If you make someone bitter at Christianity because of your rudeness... then God Almighty will have a word or two with you when you stand before Him.

I generally don't get too ****ed, especially online... but ... It sickens me to see someone who claims to be a follower of Christ acting so un-Christ-like...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You have annoyed me enough. Who do you think you are coming on here and talking to people they way you do? You have absolutely no respect for anyone, you show no love of Jesus at all and here you are telling us how we are so unChristian. Hypocritical much?

I have reported you because I'm not putting up with you any longer, and neither should anyone else here.

Interestingly, I did do better in French than in English at school.

I reported this individual this morning as well. Never done it before, but, honestly....

 

[lucaspa]

Your response shows a complete lack of understanding of my simple statement. I asked about censorship. I did not ask why Evolutionists (ignoring for the moment that they're total liars) don't want to lie.

Nice try, but it won't work.

The two issues are tied together.

1. When you say censorship, you are saying that scientists are suppressing creationism and won't allow it was valid. The unspoken premise is that creationism is valid.

2. Weblastyn went directly to the unspoken premise. Creationism is not valid. The data has shown it to be wrong.

Your statement was built on a false premise, which makes the statement untrue. Creationism is not valid; it is a lie. You cannot censor a lie. Therefore, evolutionists are not censoring creationism.

QED

 

[bulldog86]

You cannot censor a lie. QED

A "lie?" Come on... You can believe it's false, but a lie? As if Creationists are out to deceive you.... please.

And you ABSOLUTELY can censor something that is false and still be wrong. I may happen to, say, think that the beliefs purported by many atheists are totally false, but is it thus fair for me to keep them from speaking? The beauty of our country is that everyone has the right to their opinion, everyone has the right to speak their opinion (so long as that opinion does not involve hurting others) EVEN IF IT'S WRONG. It is totally against our nations very principles to allow something to be censored because it is false, or, rather, believed to be false.....

 

[Vance]

I really don't see the censorship point at all. Anyone is allowed to say anything they want whenever they want. Who and how is Creationism being censored?

There is a HUGE difference between censorship and *requiring* equal presentation. If that was the case, then we would have to provide equal opportunity of presentation for every theory or concept that anyone can come up with, no matter how absurd. If I believed that the moon was made of green cheese, I would expect in this county to be allowed to talk about it all I want. On every street corner, publishing my own books or pamphlets, creating a web site, going on a speaking tour, etc, etc, etc. Complete freedom of speech.

But, I would NOT expect to be published in a scientific journal unless I met it's basic requirements for scientific research, soundness of arguments, peer review, etc, etc, etc. This is a very different proposition.

 

[wblastyn]

A "lie?" Come on... You can believe it's false, but a lie? As if Creationists are out to deceive you.... please.

Creationist organisations use lies to deceive people into believing creationism is valid.

 

[wblastyn]

I really don't see the censorship point at all. Anyone is allowed to say anything they want whenever they want. Who and how is Creationism being censored?

There is a HUGE difference between censorship and *requiring* equal presentation. If that was the case, then we would have to provide equal opportunity of presentation for every theory or concept that anyone can come up with, no matter how absurd. If I believed that the moon was made of green cheese, I would expect in this county to be allowed to talk about it all I want. On every street corner, publishing my own books or pamphlets, creating a web site, going on a speaking tour, etc, etc, etc. Complete freedom of speech.

But, I would NOT expect to be published in a scientific journal unless I met it's basic requirements for scientific research, soundness of arguments, peer review, etc, etc, etc. This is a very different proposition.

Yes, he probably means creationism isn't taught in class rooms, etc. But they aren't trying to cover up creationism, they don't teach it because it is not true. That was my point from before, where I apparantly couldn't read properly.

 

[bulldog86]

Creationist organisations use lies to deceive people into believing creationism is valid.

I'm sure some do. But so do evolutionist organizations... However, I dobut that it's a widespread problem...

You can tell me with authority that Creationism absolutely is not true?

As a matter of fact, that statement is impossible to make accurately for two reasons... (a) There are no eye-witness accounts to contradict or uphold Creationism. Neither Creationism nor evolution can ever become TRUE SCIENTIFIC FACT (and yes, I do understand what a Scientific theory is and I do not use "theory" in a negative sense). (b) If God wished, He COULD have made the earth to seem billions of years old. I happen to think that He WOULDN'T do that, but, as God, He could have. Thus, you cannot say with absolute certainty that He DIDN'T.

 

[troodon]

I'm sure some do. But so do evolutionist organizations...

Firstly, what's an example of an 'evolutionist organization'? Like the Nobel society or something? Secondly, what lies have they knowingly spread (so mistakes like Archaeoraptor do not count)?

 

[bulldog86]

Firstly, what's an example of an 'evolutionist organization'? Like the Nobel society or something? Secondly, what lies have they knowingly spread (so mistakes like Archaeoraptor do not count)?

As the initial assumption was made in accusation of Creationism, I'd say that I should be asking him that.

But anyway, I would say that it is more individual evolutionists than evolutionists in a group. I have personally encountered a few times of purposeful lies being spread by said evolutionists. I can remember an instance at another R/P board where an evolutionist spread some sort of lie about the Bible (saying it said something it did not in the least).... He was totally refuted... then three days later, in another thread, he said the same thing.... This happens on a fairly regular basis... I could probably find you the specific link to the thread(s) if you'd really like it.

Now, my question is, what creationist organizations have knowingly spread lies? Thx.

 

[troodon]

As the initial assumption was made in accusation of Creationism, I'd say that I should be asking him that.

What? Lies from Creationist organizations? Most I would consider to be more of a deliberate misconception than a lie but that's just as bad. Then again there are a few bold-faced lies as well.

But anyway, I would say that it is more individual evolutionists than evolutionists in a group. I have personally encountered a few times of purposeful lies being spread by said evolutionists. I can remember an instance at another R/P board where an evolutionist spread some sort of lie about the Bible (saying it said something it did not in the least).... He was totally refuted... then three days later, in another thread, he said the same thing.... This happens on a fairly regular basis... I could probably find you the specific link to the thread(s) if you'd really like it.

Two things about this. Firstly, that was obviously not a scientific claim. Creationist organizations make the mistake of either reusing thoroughly refuted arguments and call them valid or (most notably with radiometric dating) disprove things about evolution/old earth which were never claimed. Secondly, this was (I assume) more of a situation of an Atheist making up problems with the Bible than an evolutionist falsifying YEC, correct? Just because someone who lies happens to acknowledge evolution doesn't mean they are lying about evolution/creation.

Now, my question is, what creationist organizations have knowingly spread lies? Thx.

Examples of the types I mentioned above.

"reusing thoroughly refuted arguments and call them valid":

Duane Gish and bullfrog proteins

Duane Gish and the Bombardier Beetle
Quoted so you don't have to read all of it
"To test Gish's claim, in 1978 William M. Thwaites and Frank T. Awbrey, of San Diego State University, mixed the two chemicals together in a classroom (Weber 1981a). There was no explosion. The mixture simply turned brown. When confronted with these results, Gish claimed that his error was a result of a mistranslation by another creationist (Kofahl 1981) of an article in German by Hermann Schildknecht (1968). Gish admitted that the two chemicals, when combined, do not spontaneously explode, and that no information on inhibitors or anti-inhibitors was provided by Schildknecht.....Gish continued to use his original Bombardier beetle story for several years in subsequent debates and lectures (Weber 1981a, see also Debates-Patterson 1980) and the children's book in which he told his Bombardier beetle tale, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, was reprinted without correction in 1980. Despite this obvious contrary evidence, in his new book, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (1993), Gish claims that he did not repeat the error in his debates and lectures and that his children's book was corrected at the very next reprinting."

[sidenote: I've owned Dinosaurs:Those Terrible Lizards for as long as I can remember and I never read it as a child (and subsequently never knew that it espoused creationism) because it looked so outdated ]

Hovind's use of arguments even AiG says have been falsified

Next:

"(most notably with radiometric dating) disprove things about evolution/old earth which were never claimed.":

AiG using Carbon Dating outside of its capabilities

and, very recently posted on the 'Non-Christians allowed' science forum:

They claim to have disproven the theory that Edmontosaurus was a "pre-bird" when, to the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed an Ornithischian origin of birds since the 1930's.

Good enough for now?

 

[wblastyn]

Oh and anyone who uses the "Darwin said the eye could not have evolved" arguement too.

 

[bulldog86]

Oh and anyone who uses the "Darwin said the eye could not have evolved" arguement too.

Actually, that wouldn't necessarily be a purposeful lie. That could VERY well be a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge, because Darwin DID say something very similar to that... except that it is taken WAY out of context...

Troodon, the evolutionists mentioned often did use other lies about Scripture to try to say that the Biblical position on Creationism is invalid. Not a scientific claim, but one used to affect the scientific position of YEC's... And if I have time today, I'll take a look at your info...

 

[wblastyn]

Actually, that wouldn't necessarily be a purposeful lie. That could VERY well be a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge, because Darwin DID say something very similar to that... except that it is taken WAY out of context...

Yes, he's taken out of context, so creationists have Darwin say something that he did not actually say - they are lying.

 

[bulldog86]

Yes, he's taken out of context, so creationists have Darwin say something that he did not actually say - they are lying.

The people who originally perpetuated that claim WERE lying. However, some people just take what they were shown at face value and repeat it... Being deliberately deceived is not the same as being deliberately deceptive...

 

[wblastyn]

The people who originally perpetuated that claim WERE lying. However, some people just take what they were shown at face value and repeat it... Being deliberately deceived is not the same as being deliberately deceptive...

Yes, most creationists are just bing deceived (which they wouldn't be if they bothered checking sources, etc), but the creationist organisations are lying to them by using these out of context quotes.

 

[bulldog86]

Yes, most creationists are just bing deceived (which they wouldn't be if they bothered checking sources, etc), but the creationist organisations are lying to them by using these out of context quotes.

Some probably do... but that's just a huge generalization. AiG, afterall, says that the Darwin argument shouldn't be used in their list of arguments not to use... I think people are mistaking bad science for lies...

 

[lucaspa]

Some probably do... but that's just a huge generalization. AiG, afterall, says that the Darwin argument shouldn't be used in their list of arguments not to use... I think people are mistaking bad science for lies...

Usually there is an effort to separate bad science from lies. There comes a gray area when the bad science is pointed out to the professional creationists -- several times -- and they continue to use the same science anyway. Is that still bad science or is it lying? After all, the individual has been exposed to the truth. If he then keeps using misinformation after he has the correct information, what is it?

I'm reminded of one of the few Rush Limbaugh shows I've heard. It was right after the oil tanker went down off Spain. Several ecologists were claiming that there could be large environmental damage. Limbauh was trying to say the claims were nonsense. He used the Titanic as an example of a ship going down in deep water and no ecological damage coming from the oil on board. Several people e-mailed him to tell him the Titanic used coal, not oil. Limbaugh acknowledge but immediately said "it's the same thing." Now, had Limbaugh crossed the line to lying instead of just bad science?

AiG is the only creationist organization that has ever acknowledged that some creationist arguments are wrong. That is refreshing but it is too little. AiG still has a lot of whoppers of both bad science and lies on its website.