GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[TheReasoner]

you are the one using a strawman fallacy- attacking a source without attacking the information in the link, because your too lazy. There could be legitimate information in the excerpt from answers in genesis. So strawman yourself.

There COULD be, much as you COULD find a unifying theory in a Donald Duck cartoon from 1967, but the chances are vanishingly small. As far as credibility in AiG claims there usually is none. I have gone through a fair number of AiG claims over the years and to be honest I cannot recall ONE that had substance and survived scrutiny. It's how I abandoned creationism; I weighed, measured and found it wanting. Severely, at that.

Therefore, and because of the aforementioned reasons, AiG is not a source I believe. At all. If you want to convince anyone you need a better source.

Just as a case in point: Why would you believe a source wherein several of the top guns have false degrees?

Grady: If you want to be believed, do not use AiG. You might as well be citing conservapedia, flat earth association or Donald Duck: Those sources can and usually will get you an F on any paper. And for good reason, reasons which do not include a bias against AiG for religious or ideological reasons. It's just not a believable source.

 

[createdtoworship]

There COULD be, much as you COULD find a unifying theory in a Donald Duck cartoon from 1967, but the chances are vanishingly small. As far as credibility in AiG claims there usually is none. I have gone through a fair number of AiG claims over the years and to be honest I cannot recall ONE that had substance and survived scrutiny. It's how I abandoned creationism; I weighed, measured and found it wanting. Severely, at that.

Therefore, and because of the aforementioned reasons, AiG is not a source I believe. At all. If you want to convince anyone you need a better source.

Just as a case in point: Why would you believe a source wherein several of the top guns have false degrees?

Grady: If you want to be believed, do not use AiG. You might as well be citing conservapedia, flat earth association or Donald Duck: Those sources can and usually will get you an F on any paper. And for good reason, reasons which do not include a bias against AiG for religious or ideological reasons. It's just not a believable source.

Amuse me and dissect the original post then. If you feel they are in error. Otherwise it's just a strawman.

 

[TheReasoner]

Amuse me and dissect the original post then. If you feel they are in error. Otherwise it's just a strawman.

That is pitiful, Grady. I will not dignify AiG with my time again. I've spent far too much time on that foolish site. What you are asking me is to consider the words of KNOWN fraudulent pseudo-academics and analyze their words as if they were genuine scientists. Why would you do that? Would you dignify a racist site whose writers are known frauds known to spread untrue racist propaganda with an analysis of their claims concerning a person of color? I should hope not. Likewise, as AiG is a propaganda site known for spreading outright lies and hiring people with fraudulent degrees it should not be dignified with an analysis.

If you notice I have not said anything about tiktaalik being this or that. I HAVE said the source you used is not credible. Provide another source, and I'll consider that. AiG I will not consider or dignify with an analysis.

I would HOPE you wouldn't bother taking a known fraud on his word. So why do you expect me to, and call it a 'straw man argument' to criticize the source for it's known shortcomings? As I said, I have not said either way about tiktaalik. And won't. I don't know enough about it. But I DO know enough about AiG to dismiss that site as worthless.

 

[mzungu]

That is pitiful, Grady. I will not dignify AiG with my time again. I've spent far too much time on that foolish site. What you are asking me is to consider the words of KNOWN fraudulent pseudo-academics and analyze their words as if they were genuine scientists. Why would you do that? Would you dignify a racist site whose writers are known frauds known to spread untrue racist propaganda with an analysis of their claims concerning a person of color? I should hope not. Likewise, as AiG is a propaganda site known for spreading outright lies and hiring people with fraudulent degrees it should not be dignified with an analysis.

If you notice I have not said anything about tiktaalik being this or that. I HAVE said the source you used is not credible. Provide another source, and I'll consider that. AiG I will not consider or dignify with an analysis.

I would HOPE you wouldn't bother taking a known fraud on his word. So why do you expect me to, and call it a 'straw man argument' to criticize the source for it's known shortcomings? As I said, I have not said either way about tiktaalik. And won't. I don't know enough about it. But I DO know enough about AiG to dismiss that nonsense

AIG is notorious for publishing FAKE science by Fake Scientists holding Fake diplomas. These people purposely deceive their followers (bearing false witness) for the sake of making MONEY!
They worship only one God and that is MONEY!

This is AIG science methodology:
​

monty python-witch scene - YouTube​

 

[createdtoworship]

That is pitiful, Grady. I will not dignify AiG with my time again. I've spent far too much time on that foolish site. What you are asking me is to consider the words of KNOWN fraudulent pseudo-academics and analyze their words as if they were genuine scientists. Why would you do that? Would you dignify a racist site whose writers are known frauds known to spread untrue racist propaganda with an analysis of their claims concerning a person of color? I should hope not. Likewise, as AiG is a propaganda site known for spreading outright lies and hiring people with fraudulent degrees it should not be dignified with an analysis.

If you notice I have not said anything about tiktaalik being this or that. I HAVE said the source you used is not credible. Provide another source, and I'll consider that. AiG I will not consider or dignify with an analysis.

I would HOPE you wouldn't bother taking a known fraud on his word. So why do you expect me to, and call it a 'straw man argument' to criticize the source for it's known shortcomings? As I said, I have not said either way about tiktaalik. And won't. I don't know enough about it. But I DO know enough about AiG to dismiss that site as worthless.

what is all this mention of fake diplomas, does anyone have any facts in this forum?

 

[SkyWriting]

What is all this mention of fake diplomas, does anyone have any facts in this forum?

Mostly just opinions. Fact checking or linking to supportive content is not required in these forums. I'm not sure about the formal forums. I know one Creationist had a degree from a college that was very hard to find any details on. And I'm pretty good at finding stuff.

 

[SkyWriting]

There COULD be, much as you COULD find a unifying theory in a Donald Duck cartoon from 1967, but the chances are vanishingly small. As far as credibility in AiG claims there usually is none. I have gone through a fair number of AiG claims over the years and to be honest I cannot recall ONE that had substance and survived scrutiny. It's how I abandoned creationism; I weighed, measured and found it wanting. Severely, at that.

That's a shame. I looked closely at the Creation story and concluded that there were no indications that the earth would be "young" after a Creation event. For example, "The Garden". It seems there was "soil" there.
Odd. Becasue "soil" is not a 60 second process. So scientifically speaking, the earth would not be "young". I agree that YE Creationists will have a hard time proving a young Earth with Scientific methods. Considering Science has no business guessing the age of things anyway.

 

[SkyWriting]

Gentlemen. The problem with a literal interpretation of the bible is that one finds conflicting messages. Whereas if one reads the Bible as a spiritual guide then no conflicts arise. Genesis 1 and 2 are an example of why one should not take the Bible literally. The Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists tend to read and interpret the bible literally and this causes rifts between the various Christians because by reading the bible literally then one EXCLUDES the spiritual nature of the message. I am sure that Jesus did not mean it literally when he said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". If we read this literally then we conclude the following:
- Rich men do not go to heaven.
- A camel can pass through the eye of a needle if a rich man goes to heaven.
Now if we read the same as a spiritual guide then the following message comes across:
Money and riches do not buy you a place in heaven nor do they make you a better person for it is the soul that matters and not material wealth.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

Your "Spiritual Guide" covers a good point. But not what Jesus was referring to:

It is easier for (1) to happen, than (2).
(1) is mighty unlikely.
(2) is even harder.

(3) Fortunately for us....Mark 9:23 "'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[createdtoworship]

Mostly just opinions. Fact checking or linking to supportive content is not required in these forums. I'm not sure about the formal forums. I know one Creationist had a degree from a college that was very hard to find any details on. And I'm pretty good at finding stuff.

well I know that ken ham was a school teacher before going into teaching full time.

 

[mzungu]

Perhaps we all may learn some history before continuing debating. This is a BBC documentary and well worth watching. Enjoy: A History of Christianity | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[Nostromo]

Mostly just opinions. Fact checking or linking to supportive content is not required in these forums. I'm not sure about the formal forums. I know one Creationist had a degree from a college that was very hard to find any details on. And I'm pretty good at finding stuff.

Could you find out for me which qualifications Carl Baugh has?

 

[mzungu]

Could you find out for me which qualifications Carl Baugh has?

Excerpt from talkorigins:

Texas "man track" enthusiast Carl E. Baugh claims to have "degrees in theology" as well as advanced degrees in science. Baugh's "man track" claims have been evaluated and refuted on the basis of the physical evidence alone[1,2], but an examination of his claimed credentials is warranted as well, since by claiming them, Baugh has linked their validity to his scientific credibility and integrity. The issue not is whether Baugh should have a particular degree, but whether the claimed degrees are legitimate and have been represented accurately.
Although questions have been raised before about Baugh's science degrees[3] (and will be expanded upon here), even Baugh's claimed theology degrees appear somewhat overstated. The theology degree most frequently claimed by Baugh is a "Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the California Graduate School of Theology."[4] Baugh described this as an "earned degree" (implying normal course work and graduation); however, attempts to verify the degree from CGST have been unsuccessful,[5] and a former close associate of Baugh's stated that the degree was "not real, but honorary."[6] In any case, the school is not accredited by any national or regional accrediting agency,[7] and evidently has little standing in the academic community (it is not even listed in standard college and graduate school directories).[8]

 

[AV1611VET]

Texas "man track" enthusiast Carl E. Baugh claims to have "degrees in theology" as well as advanced degrees in science.

It's always a matter of degrees, isn't it?

Jesus attended no college, was a carpenter, and had fishermen and a tax collector for followers; yet He turned the world upside down.

 

[mzungu]

It's always a matter of degrees, isn't it?

Jesus attended no college, was a carpenter, and had fishermen and a tax collector for followers; yet He turned the world upside down.

Not wishing to compare Jesus to him but Hitler was just a corporal and a failed artist! What did Mao have? Rocket scientists? What did Attila have?

Leaders do not need a degree in science in order to lead.

What is your point?

AIG have repeatedly spread misinformation and lies. They have preached as fact things that science outright has refuted. Anyone can preach religion but unless one is educated in science then one cannot teach it!

 

[Nostromo]

It's always a matter of degrees, isn't it?

Jesus attended no college, was a carpenter, and had fishermen and a tax collector for followers; yet He turned the world upside down.

... and what? He wasn't "qualified" in some way to do so?

 

[createdtoworship]

John Morris the father of creationism has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech (1969), a M.S., University of Oklahoma (1977), and a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering.

Michael Behe (author of irreducible complexity) graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City. he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

Jason Lisle: An astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” Among other things, he discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.



here is a video on the Big Bang model of the universe (Biblical Creationism) by Jason Lisle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFUetIecQ0

 

[Jazer]

Not wishing to compare Jesus to him but Hitler was just a corporal and a failed artist! What did Mao have? Rocket scientists? What did Attila have?

They had the ability to kill a lot of people. There seems to be no end for the carnage atheists leave behind. Then they blame God for allowing them to do it and for not stoping them from their destruction.

 

[mzungu]

They had the ability to kill a lot of people. There seems to be no end for the carnage atheists leave behind. Then they blame God for allowing them to do it and for not stoping them from their destruction.

YES DEAR,
SOME TEA PERHAPS?

​

 

[Split Rock]

John Morris the father of creationism has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech (1969), a M.S., University of Oklahoma (1977), and a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering.

Too bad none of his degrees were in geology, though. Strange then that he wrote books like "The Genesis Flood," which claimed to refute most of modern geology. Even stranger that he authored this book with John C. Whitcomb.. a theologian will no science degrees whatsoever.

 

[TheReasoner]

It's always a matter of degrees, isn't it?

Jesus attended no college, was a carpenter, and had fishermen and a tax collector for followers; yet He turned the world upside down.

True. But not in terms of science, AV. But there are things you cannot do without proper knowledge - and hence without a proper education. A master's degree takes five years - typically. A phd takes a few more, depending on how you get it.

You cannot - without proper knowledge - do what these creationists try to do. It's pretty much analogous to a guy trying to build a car engine to compete with Lamborghini's - without even basic math or chemistry knowledge. It will not work. How can you guys not get that? You need to know what you're talking about, so how come you think that someone without a single year of relevant studies - not an ounce of relevant knowledge - can compete and even topple/crush the work and knowledge of many thousands of people who have each spent decades studying and working in the relevant fields? How can you be SO arrogant?