Essay from Affiliation of Christian Geologists

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Interesting essary from the Affiliation of Christian Geologists:

(emphasis mine)

The misinformation of science (and the science of misinformation) is most widespread in denominational publications and at the grammar and high school level. Part of the problem is that many Christians at this level do not know where to turn for information. Too often the most accessible sources of information are pseudo-scientists--people without the proper science background but who are eager to pontificate just what many Christians want to hear about creation, the flood, atheism, and even the relationship between science and society's social ills.

Gee, who could he possibly be referring to?

Full text at: http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/wiens1.html

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Oh heck, any Satan-influenced-God-Hating-Athiest could CLAIM to be a christian geologist!

 

[RufusAtticus]

True dat.

 

[WinAce]

I resent that. I'm a Santa-influenced-Dog-Eating-Atheist.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

How come Nick never gives me a "Nice link LFOD" like he does with every one of Gunny's posts?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Nice Link, LiveFreeOrDie!

 

[Didaskomenos]

I agree with the author of that essay. Why can't a non-YEC view ever be published in popular grass-roots Christian literature? It's so infuriating.

Also, I am extrapolating based on the tone of his essay that the Affiliation of Christian Geologists in general has problems with a young earth view. Interesting.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
How come Nick never gives me a "Nice link LFOD" like he does with every one of Gunny's posts?

You have to put up a link to a nice article first. In the meantime, how about this?

Nice job of typing in a link, LFOD!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


You have to put up a link to a nice article first. In the meantime, how about this?

Nice job of typing in a link, LFOD!

Considering the source, I'll take what I can get. Thanks!

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
How come Nick never gives me a "Nice link LFOD" like he does with every one of Gunny's posts?

This is from Petreley's own list of "Rules" for his forums at Petreley.org:

Rule #1: No argulinking.

If you have a point, make it. If you want to supplement the point with a link to supporting evidence or information, then surround that URL with details as to why you believe the article you're pointing to supports or refutes your opinions. Admit (at least to yourself) that anyone can point to an article that supports any opinion. Explain why you believe your link contains valid information (see appeal to authority for ways NOT to do this).

I will delete all posts that I see that read like this:

---------
You're wrong. This proves it: http://www.varlinux.org
---------

If you can't take the time or trouble to explain why you think the person is wrong, some brief description of what the article at the URL contains, and why you believe it is valid information, then you're just wasting everyone's time. ANYONE can point to a URL that supports their opinion. Grow up, apply the effort, or get out.

Oh the irony. I wish gunny was here to read what Nick REALLY thinks about his "argulinking."

But hey, the rules don't apply to Creationists, so it's all good.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Hilarious - I love it.

And lest we forget, petreley banned all the non-argulinking "evilutionists" from his DB and replaced the names beside what posts he didn't delete with the handle, "Anonymous Coward."

He's a class act that petreley, and a great exponent of the love and compassion that is Christianity.

 

[Morat]

  He's brought up the Chinese thing again. And i'm going to keep pounding him with the "Western Expert in Ancient Chinese etymology says you're full of it, Nicky" thing. I'd imagine it's because he's been cornered in a couple of other threads, and at least with Chinese his humiliation is only seen by a few. (Too obscure).

 

 

[seebs]

I'm still sincerely hoping to see his explanation for why he wants to see provably non-polyploid transitional sequences. He has said that he's not "throwing out" sequences which exhibit polyploidy, but he continues to insist that only non-polyploid sequences are acceptable answers to his challenge - and still hasn't shown why.

I'm actually fairly depressed over his handling of the whole etymology thing; it's becoming more and more clear that it's all about being right, and that God himself could say "no, that's not how the language formed", and Nick would just keep arguing.

 

[Morat]

  You ever encountered a perpetual motion proponent? There's something about them. Most people are flexible. They can adjust to new knowledge, they can chunk out old if it's shown to be unreliable.

   But the perpetual motion people are, for the most part, different. At some point in their lives, a little switch in their brain flipped. They knew the Truth. Their knowledge froze. They understood physics, they knew Perpetual motion was possible, and they started working. If a physcist says otherwise (or anyone), then they simply don't understand physics. "Error" is no longer a possibility. Ever. They cannot be wrong. Ergo, those who say otherwise are wrong, conspiring, lying, etc.

   They often have simple (and basic) misunderstandings of physics. Simple things, like a confusion about how vectors work, or what 'work' is. But they can never fix it, because any attempts to explain how it does work bounce off their utter and immovable certainity.

   In short, they become crackpots.

   Take this 8 thing. I didn't particularly care. If it meant 8 people on a boat, so? Flood legends are common all over the world, and there was quite a bit of time for Gilgamesh to travel that way. Geology ranks over cultural fables anyways, and geology is quite firm on the answer.

   But, it was getting thrown back and forth so I started looking. I wanted to see what was right. So I do what anyone without much of a stake would do. I go find a bloody expert, and I look it up. Turns out the AiG guy was wrong. Not a big surprise, because AiG doesn't exactly bat a thousand.

   The odd question is: Why does Nick defend it? It's not his claim. He doesn't speak Chinese. Sure, if it's true it supports his rather minority worldview, but if it's false it's no more damning than modern biology and geology (far less, in fact).

   So I'm guessing Nick's sorta stuck in crackpottery, but a little different than the perpetual motion people. I think Nick is incapable of admitting personal fallibility. He can't be wrong, he can't be fooled. Which means he's often stuck defending ridiculous notions to people who quite easily tear his position to shreds. And he ends up looking worse then if he'd just say "Oops. Looks like I was wrong this time".

   To top it off, his posts are often arrogant and insulting (pop psychology, anyone) and it makes people far more likely to hop on, then let it slide.