Conspiracy Theory???????

[David Gould]

TALKING POINTS:


If you play the Eagles song "Hotal California" backwards you'll hear, "Yes, Satan! He organized his own religion." Darwin and LaVey agree! The eagles themselves had strong ties with the church of Satan.

And thats the memo.

I have also heard that there are complete and utter idiots posting on Christian Forums.

Oh, man, I nearly spilt my coke! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Do people really believe this sort of nonsense? FEZZILLA must be a troll, surely.

 

[Cantuar]

Well, this thread started out interesting, but somewhere or other it took a turn into the Twilight Zone. Let's hope Fezzilla's a troll; the alternative is pretty dismal.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Well, this thread started out interesting, but somewhere or other it took a turn into the Twilight Zone. Let's hope Fezzilla's a troll; the alternative is pretty dismal.

I know what you mean...and from the caliber of his arguments, I'd say fezzilla is pretty young (saying he is 'master of evolution', telling us that his arguments are 'impossible to refute', and setting a 5-minute time interval to debunk his contrived 'burnt dino bones' theory). One gets the impression of the futility of arguing with some kind of intransigent teenager.

However, if you take a step back and look at it (however mind-numbing that may seem at the moment), I think Fezzilla really believes that evolutionists, cosmologists, etc are actually part of a (satanic) conspiracy (like the OP indicates).

Ironically, with all his contrived science, spouting of creationist propaganda, and damning accusations, fezzilla is reflecting elements in the Church who conspire to debunk anyone or anything that doesn't agree with their agenda. Perhaps there really is a kind of conspiracy here, with Fezzilla an unwitting proponent of it.

On the other hand, we shouldn't blow it out of proportion. I think in his heart he believes he is doing what is right in standing against what he percieves as false science and an assault on his beliefs being broadcast on the discovery channel. I think he has learned to compartmentalize it as 'evil'...and he simply wants us to agree with him (for our sake).

Maybe there is some hope, however. Perhaps in the context of these arguments he will see that the only reason science has been characterized as anti-Christian, is that some Christians are determined to define it that way.

 

[Jet Black]

I do have an axiom that will be hard if not impossible for theistic evolutionsit to come back at.
If you love the lord and trust the lord then you should also trust Him at his word.

that's not an axiom.

 

[MartinM]

would this be the same Humphery who thought up Polonium halos? The same Humphery that admitted under oath that he faked data?

No, you're thinking of Gentry. Humphreys is the nut who thinks he understands GR.

 

[Arikay]

ah, ok. After awhile their names start to blend together.

No, you're thinking of Gentry. Humphreys is the nut who thinks he understands GR.

 

[Vance]

Did Gentry fake his data? Where can I get the information on this?

 

[Arikay]

I guess its not really faking data, but close.

"In 10 minutes of cross-examination Ennis showed that the principal motive for Gentry's work was his literal reading of the Bible -- in particular, Genesis. Ennis also established that Gentry had shown poor judgment in using a certain technique in looking for primordial superheavy elements.


Q. You referred to the grant rejection letter of 11 July 1977. Isn't it fair to say that one reason the request was turned down was because the panel felt you were to be faulted for using a technique that was known to give false results?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was not the only time you had to retract results, was it?

A. No.

Q. Did you not invent new alpha activity to explain unusual results and later admit you erred in doing so?

A. Yes.


Ennis closed his cross-examination by asking Gentry if other people working in the field thought that conventional explanations would be found for the anomalous results he had. Gentry said "yes"."

http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/robert_l_hall/ISB1F01/ScienceInCreationScience.html​

I recomend reading through the link.

I believe the entire court transcript can be found online as well.
It makes you wonder why some creationist groups are still using Polonium halos as evidence, I guess they just "forgot" about the trial

Did Gentry fake his data? Where can I get the information on this?

 

[JGMEERT]

Did Gentry fake his data? Where can I get the information on this?

JM:Here ya go:

10 minutes of cross-examination Ennis showed that the principal motive for Gentry's work was his literal reading of the Bible -- in particular, Genesis. Ennis also established that Gentry had shown poor judgment in using a certain technique in looking for primordial superheavy elements.

Q. You referred to the grant rejection letter of 11 July 1977. Isn't it fair to say that one reason the request was turned down was because the panel felt you were to be faulted for using a technique that was known to give false results?

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. Yes. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Q. And this was not the only time you had to retract results, was it? [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. No. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Q. Did you not invent new alpha activity to explain unusual results and later admit you erred in doing so? [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. Yes. [/font]

​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ennis closed his cross-examination by asking Gentry if other people working in the field thought that conventional explanations would be found for the anomalous results he had. Gentry said "yes".

[/font]

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Drotar]

Couple things to ponder:

Accepting the Bible as true (from a Christian POV), how old was Adam one day after he was created by God? How old did he appear one day after being created by God?

Could an earth, shown to be billions of years old by science been created as such?

Did God follow a pattern in creating: mature man | mature earth | mature creation.

In his knowledge, perhaps the Earth needed to be as old as it is now, when it was created to support us and our history that we have had (Industry, civilization, etc...), and that creating the earth "old" from day one was a part of God's design form the beginning.

The Omphalos argument.

 

[USincognito]

This thread was enough to finally get me to register here. After I plodded though the pages of Fez's non-replies, I felt compelled to.

 

[Sphere]

This thread was enough to finally get me to register here. After I plodded though the pages of Fez's non-replies, I felt compelled to.

Welcome aboard

 

[Sphere]

Not true. I read everything..

No you don't. Anyone with any logical reasoning can see that you have little understanding of the topics you're trying to cover. You have no evidence to support any claims. Before you go off in a fruitless attempt to try to disprove evolution, at least get your facts separated from the information you no doubt got from a Hovind site. Please, for the sake of everyone here, stop spreading your nonsense.

 

[toff]

As an atheist, I must say that Fezzik and people like him are great. I wish there were more of them. They make people believe that christians are all nutcases who have no contact with the real world (which is plainly false, as many christians in this thread have demonstrated. Thankfully, nutcases like Fezzik are more newsworthy and visible than rational, reasonable christians who are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with reality). And the more people who think this, the less will be prone to believe in christianity.

So thanks, Fezzik...keep up the good work!

 

[Christian Soldier]

Why is it that most of the creation scientists seem to be engineers and medical doctors with no training and/or education in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology. That is they are laymen.

Laymen?!

Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California-Berkeley
Dr. Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology, Harvard University
Dr. David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience, Case Western Reserve University
Dr. Todd Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of Virginia
Dr. Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Microbiology, Texas A&M
Dr. David Menton, Ph.D., Cell Biology, Brown University
Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology, University of Iowa
Dr. Carl Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology, Indiana University
Dr. Ian Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Monash University (Australia)
Dr. Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal & Molecular Genetics, Federal Institute of Technology (Switzerland)
Dr. Lyubka Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology, Medical Academy (Bulgaria)
Dr. Walter Veith, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Cape Town (South Africa)
Dr. John Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of Minnesota
Dr. Sharon Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina
Dr. John Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Iowa
Dr. Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, Purdue University
Dr. Gregory Brewer, Ph.D. Biology, University of California-San Diego
Dr. Roger Sanders, Ph.D. Botany, University of Texas
Dr. Arthur Jones, Ph.D. Biology, University of Birmingham (England)
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami
Dr. Glen Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry, University of Missouri
Dr. Richard Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology, Rice University
Dr. George Howe, Ph.D. Botany, Ohio State University
Dr. David Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy, University of Iowa
Dr. Jonathan Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame
Dr. Richard Oliver, Ph.D. Biology, University of California-Irvine
Dr. Donald Hamann, Ph.D. Agricultural Science, Virginia Tech
Dr. Joseph Henson, Ph.D. Entomology, Clemson University
Dr. Jean Morton, Ph.D. Cellular Studies, George Washington University
Dr. Ray Bohlin, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, University of Texas
Dr. John Marcus, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of Michigan
Dr. Ariel Roth, Ph.D. Biology, University of Michigan
Dr. George Javor, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Columbia University
Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D. Plant Physiology, University of Sydney (Australia)
Dr. Wayne Frair, Ph.D. Biochemical Taxonomy, Rutgers University
Dr. John Silvius, Ph.D. Plant Physiology, University of West Virginia
Dr. Geoff Downes, Ph.D. Tree Physiology, University of Melbourne (Australia)
Dr. D.B. Gower, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of London

Source: Institute for Creation Research

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Do you really want me to post the over 400,000 biologists in North America who believe in evolutionary theory.

Creationists are a very small minority in academic science.

In fact so small that most academics have never heard of them.

You will also find that most of these people left the discipline and are unpublished in the field.

 

[fungle]

Is that the total?

 

[Cantuar]

I wonder how many of those creation scientists had rejected evolution BEFORE becoming fundamentalist Christians.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

"Do the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) out there really believe that the scientific community is conspiring to promote an old earth model so as to undermine scripture?"

lol oh yeah, look out, their coming for us!.... ROFL


"Do YEC's believe that real science is being done in the creationist realm and that mainstream science is deliberately ignoring and/or sabotaging it so it doesn't get journal approval by the peer review process?"


I beleive that some real science is done in the creationist realm yes. I do think "mainstream science" may be ignoring certian things. not sabotaging.

I think the people who reveiw it write it off as unscientific since it relates to creation.



"Isn't this hard to believe in light of the competitive nature of science and the recognition one gets if you refute existing theory and provide a new and better theory."

nope I don't think science is like that, it seems that they just change the theory to include something new even if there is no other evidence for it, only so that it can explain the problems the creationists bring up.

"How do YEC's respond to the accusation that the only 'science' you see from the creationist organisations is considered by mainstream scientists (of which I am one) as either laughable or even fraudulent?"

I believe that since, Evolution seems to have a monopoly on "mainstream" science, and since its the only one publicly taught, then everything else would seem silly. But other than that I beleive its a bunch of bull oney.

"Why is it that most of the creation scientists seem to be engineers and medical doctors with no training and/or education in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology."

that's not true I know of a lot of creationists with more than one phd in astronomy, and I know of many with such in physics and biology as well. not sure about geology though but i could look.


" That is they are laymen. As a physicist the physics arguments I see often seem to lack even an understanding of high school level physics which makes it kind of hard to take the same person seriously when they start discussing more advanced topics."

It seems to me not that they lack understanding, but they speak in terms that high school level would understand.



"For example vapour canopy arguments seem to have forgotten 10th grade science."


whys that?

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

wow nice job christian soldier.

"

Do you really want me to post the over 400,000 biologists in North America who believe in evolutionary theory.

no thanks. obviously there are more christian scientists than that. those are just a few examples.