I do not read creationist literature so I am not aware of any PRATT list.
You
really need to get up to speed on the whole CREVO debate. There I don't believe this is a
single "PRATT LIST", per se, it's more a meme to cover the fact that all creationists dip into the same pool of disproven concepts and their general lack of reading or understanding of their own stance let alone the science surrounding them means that for every new Creationist poster who pops his or her head up they will invariably rely on something that has already been refuted 'a thousand times' elsewhere.
Someone mentioned AIG. Ken Hamm is a good brother in the Lord,
Yes, I am sure of that. I have no real knowledge of Ken Ham's activities. Or what he is like personally, so I cannot speak to that.
Some appear to disagree with that, but that's an issue for Creationists:
Ham's beliefs and tactics have also been criticized by other Christians and creationists.
Answers in Creation, an
Old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.
[30] Astronomer
Hugh Ross, a
progressive creationist, has publicly debated Ham on the
age of the Earth and the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible,
[31] as well as other Answers In Genesis staff.
[32]
(
SOURCE)
So that is for them to work amongst themselves.
he has a tremendous ministry to Christians teaches them a little bit about
creationism, but there is a difference between ministering to the body
and being in the trenches debating and "identifying" the real areas of
disagreement between the two different systems of intepreting
evidence.
I personally find the "Creation Museum" to be a scar on Kentucky, but I haven't been there. You see, I did one of my graduate degrees at a university in the state of Kentucky. So I feel the Creation Museum makes the efforts of good and honest scientists in Kentucky have a harder time being taken seriously outside of Kentucky where people will have heard more about the "Creation Museum" thant they will the actual
real science going on at the numerous universities in Kentucky.
But again, that's just my "opinion".
Furthermore, sometimes knowing the larger picture instead of the
narrow way to truth can actually confuse you,
That is ridiculous. No offense, but what you appear to be effectively saying is "Don't think about the details just ignore them and focus on whatever you want for simplicity's sake". That is a dangerous approach sometimes.
I'm a scientist, even if I were unemployed tomorrow, which is a possibility in this economy, I would still see the world as a scientist. When I "simplify" a system I am doing
in full cognizance that I am sacrificing a better, more thorough understanding of the system.
When I design a statistical experiment I realize that if I focus only on "main effects" I might lose "crossed interaction" and "higher order effects" and my model may be intrinsically weaker.
It is not a virtue to "ignore the details". It is, at best, an "expediency".
especially if the
larger picture is filled with invalid assumptions based on inductions
that lead to error.
I've yet to meet a creationist who can directly deal with these "invalid assumptions". I've seen plenty of them trot out PRATTS and it's pretty easy to find the error in their analysis.
That's why it is important for Creationists to
care about science. A creationist can't just leverage a high school physics class to critique science at a much higher level. That's where those nasty "details" come into play.
But "details" are precisely the kind of thing Creationists seem uniquely incapable of dealing with. I personally think most Creationists don't have the mental discipline to stick with a topic long enough to actually
learn it, let alone apply a critical analysis to it. But again, my opinion.
I am guilty, perhaps, of always jumping to the end of threads
We all do that. I've done it. But don't "defend" the stance once an error has been made.
and
not reading the beginning of them because they are often over a
year and outdated.
Again, not my problem until you suggest I am somehow not debating AV in a "proper" fashion. There is history and unless you know that history you will not make an appropriate comment.
I also don't usually read the rules, but just
assume that the forum rules are the same as other forums I have
occasionally visited. Believe me, the rules here are far different
than the old Christianity forum rules on AOL back in the mid 90's.
Although other forums were censored we would request that only
vulgarity was censored and that all atheists and unbelievers were
welcome so we could speak with them and evangelize.
I too adhere to that, usually when I wish to make a vulgarity I couch in a bit more intellectual stance. Perhaps pointing out to some poster that when Balaam's ass spoke it at least had a point. But I am used to the old "censorship" rules so I know not to try to put the words down that would get censored.
The problem was that most Christians learned that they were
not equipped and ready to defend the faith, and the number of
Christians who would be effective in evangelism actually left
and the Christian was often out numbered 10 to 1 and it became
less of a forum for Christianity, and more of a forum for unbelievers
Isn't that a problem for the "faith"? That is a problem for me. You see, I used to be a christian and I loved the fact that the Medieval Catholic Church actually
fostered a scholastic and logic-based approach to defending the faith. I used to love the "ontological argument". But sadly today Fundamentalists seem more in love with their ignorance than anything else. It shows in the quality of
defensors fides we see today.
IMHO, the fundamentalist faith is dying from within because it is becoming more inwardly focused and appears to despise the brain and intellect. It is as if the intellect has offended them and they must cut it off rather than be lead to error.
to vent their frustrations about Christians and Christian theology
Interestingly enough I see most atheists have a stronger grasp on a broader swath of Christian thought, philosophy and history than any 3 or 4 Fundamentalists.
But ironically the fundamentalists know their own unique sect's theology very well, they just assume all the other approaches to theology developed over the millenia are "meaningless" so they can safely ignore it.
And they never bother to 'question' why they have their theology. It just came to their sect one day from on high apparently.
rather than a place for Christians to share with each other.
Always with the "sharing". Too bad we don't see AV "sharing". We see AV thrusting his "opinions" on us as if they are "answers" and then his blind "talk to the hand" when people respond to his opinions.
Is that what Christians call "sharing" these days?
So, although, other apologists and myself would request no censorship
so we could actually defend the faith, the road to disorder and being
over run was paved with good intentions. So although a Jewish
person could debate Christianity in the Christianity section, the
Christian could not dare post in the Judaism Forum in 1995 or 1996
or they would be seen as a Christian proselytizer. (I'm straying)
Indeed.
Back to the point of this thread. I never intended on accusing
you, I was just explaining that there is a side in which you can
operate and answer with scientific criticism
And again, I will ask that you note my many many posts which contain a ton of scientific information and references. I am a published scientist, so I know how that game works. I just gave up on AV when he established the rules of his particular game (ie "ministry"). He has implicitly asked to be treated in this manner and while I am more than capable of addressing the points
scientifically, I see no reason to expend the effort on AV anymore.
, and not strictly
biblical faith that is pure fidism. I know many who defend the
Genesis account as being consistent with current data and
they do it with scientific argument and not exegetically.
~Michael
Well, you will note that when you
do start reading more in the area of the CREVO debate you'll see PRATTS aplenty. Spend more time here and avoid the AV-tinged threads and you'll see plenty of information presented.
I'm an earth scientist by degree. That means I've actually
seen rocks up close and personal. I've seen no reason to assume that Literal Genesis is an even marginally reasonable approach to the earth's early history. I'm familiar with how geology is done (BS, MS and PhD) and I've seen no reason to believe a literal "Noachian Flood" is in evidence.
If you have a particular question on geology, please ask it. I've grown tired lately of refuting the PRATTs as do most scientists, but I will come back around to as we all do. It is part of scientific training to face the ignorance and approach it head on as we have the strength.
I highly recommend doing some small amount of homework on the general Creation-Evolution debate. It's been ongoing for a long time. There's a lot out there.
But it will require more than just a "Detail-Averse" approach. Remember the devil doesn't live in the details, the
TRUTH does.
