|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9143 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Just like I know that not all atheists here consider him a Christian either. I am quite sure that most, if not all, of us atheists consider him a Christian as he identifies himself as a Christian. Why would we consider someone that believes in a god a atheist? Your arguments are ludicrous.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9143 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Are all of these not christians too?
The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy— An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
Their cries that Libby did not "understand" creationism are hollow. Deep down, the real mistake that Libby made was exposing herself to an environment that challenged her beliefs. I have had my beliefs strongly challenged at college now for a full year. Before that, I had my beliefs challenged for roughly 3 years on the internet on forums like this. I still believe the bible is absolutely true. I have changed my interpretation to fit evidence that is impossible to get around however. Here is what still stands after all that challenging: 1. God created a diversity of life; not darwinian evolution. 2. God created all the original life forms in 2 days. 3. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billion years. 4. There was a global flood/cataclysm that covered all dry land and extinguished all lung breathing life. That being said, I do believe in a sort of evolution that is much faster than darwinian but by a different mechanism. I do not believe the geological record was laid down by the global flood. I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. Libby was taught a form of creationism that is easily shot down by criticism. No wonder she stopped believing. AIG is actually doing christianity a disservice I believe by holding to a list of claims that the bible doesn't actually teach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I have changed my interpretation to fit evidence that is impossible to get around however. I give you credit for having done this. There are some who would cling to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary no matter what. That you allowed evidence to change your beliefs is a sign of maturity and intelligence. I would like you to at least consider the possibility that the remaining beliefs you listed are also at odds with all available scientific evidence. Since you have apparently already experienced the phenomenon of having a belief proven wrong, this possibility isn't foreign to you. The fact that it has happened once must make you realize that it might happen again. What is it that distinguishes what you have already rejected from the remaining beliefs that you hold on to? You don't go into any detail about the changes that you made and I'm curious about how that process occurred and the reasoning that took you through the process.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
Dating by radiometric means has never been totally convincing to me. The geological timing of the flood is one of the things that got changed quite a bit for me. I kept pushing it back further and further because the evidence showed the impossibility of it for the specified time periods. One example was dinosaurs and their nests and their eggs all fossilized in one spot. Common sense told me that a world wide flood could not possibly sweep them up and redeposit them in that neat an order. Igneous dikes that cut through layers of sedimentary strata, sedimentary strata that was tilted and then had other sedimentary strata layered on top of it, convinced me that one year long global flood could not possibly have caused such all of those formations in the span of one year. There are many problems with it , but one of them is that an igneous intrusion would not go partially through layers of soggy wet mud and then suddenly stop and then form a horizontal sill. It would burst all the way to the top and form a flood basalt. (not flood as in water). It is obvious that there is evolution going on in the fossil record and evolution going on today. I could accept that and accept the genesis story, but it would require not accepting a darwinian explanation for it. That is still where I stand today. Regardless of what you have seen in the past six months of me, my creationist stance has gone through a myriad of changes over the past 4 years. I cannot think of every instance right now but every night I spent in the sleeper of my truck before I went back to college, was spent pondering these things in my head, arguing over them like I do here, and researching creationist material and researching sites like talk origins and just plain old wikipedia and branching off from there. It all paid off academically though, 28 credit hours into college and all solid A's and 2 A minuses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Dating by radiometric means has never been totally convincing to me. A little skepticism is good, and skepticism is one of the foundations of the scientific method. When a scientists says something, a bunch of other scientists are sure to check it out and see if it is accurate. Graduate students know their career is all but made made if they successfully challenge some time-honored principle.
The geological timing of the flood is one of the things that got changed quite a bit for me. I kept pushing it back further and further because the evidence showed the impossibility of it for the specified time periods. One example was dinosaurs and their nests and their eggs all fossilized in one spot. Common sense told me that a world wide flood could not possibly sweep them up and redeposit them in that neat an order. Igneous dikes that cut through layers of sedimentary strata, sedimentary strata that was tilted and then had other sedimentary strata layered on top of it, convinced me that one year long global flood could not possibly have caused such all of those formations in the span of one year. There are many problems with it , but one of them is that an igneous intrusion would not go partially through layers of soggy wet mud and then suddenly stop and then form a horizontal sill. It would burst all the way to the top and form a flood basalt. (not flood as in water). It is obvious that there is evolution going on in the fossil record and evolution going on today. I could accept that and accept the genesis story, but it would require not accepting a darwinian explanation for it. That is still where I stand today. Keep learning. And as Heinlein noted, "I never learned from a man who agreed with me."
Regardless of what you have seen in the past six months of me, my creationist stance has gone through a myriad of changes over the past 4 years. I cannot think of every instance right now but every night I spent in the sleeper of my truck before I went back to college, was spent pondering these things in my head, arguing over them like I do here, and researching creationist material and researching sites like talk origins and just plain old wikipedia and branching off from there. It all paid off academically though, 28 credit hours into college and all solid A's and 2 A minuses. Excellent! Congratulations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi marc. I see that instead of answering my post, you decided to go off on a rant.
The laughable claim that evolution and atheism don’t have a thing to do with each other is probably the most prominent philosophical claim in all of science that really gets the attention of the vast majority of people who have little or no interest in the creation-evolution controversy. It begs the question — if the scientific community lies about this, what else do they lie about? You certainly are begging the question. You have no evidence that science and atheism are synonymous, indeed, the evidence you cite disproves it. The reader should note here that it is not merely evolution that marc9000 wants to destroy, it is all of science and the very scientific method that supports it.
As William Dembski concisely puts it; I hadn't seen that Dembski quote before. He appears to have completely lost his marbles. Dembski claims proof of an intelligent designer who claims is the Christian god. He then accuses others of "projecting" religion onto his work. What an astonishing arse.
The science that was in Darwin’s Black Box clashed with that atheist theology, The science in "Black Box" clashed with reality.
The only thing that the intellectual elite could do was make rules for something to become science, and try to keep those rules just out of the reach of intelligent design. You think that the philosophy of science was created in response to Behe? That is hilarious!
As Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, puts it; Yes, let's hear from Dr Patterson;
quote: If Answers in Genesis were to close tomorrow, If the Discovery Institute were to close tomorrow, if there would never be another court case involving intelligent design, if intelligent design were to completely cease to exist tomorrow, the one thing it has accomplished will stand for generations, that is, making clear, and inspiring questions, about the fact that many of the intellectual elites in today’s atheist scientific community don’t actually have the intellectual justification to do many of the jobs they attempt to dowith tax money. Yes that's right. If AiG and the ID con closed down tomorrow all it would leave would be a legacy of impotent anti-scientific whining. The fact remains that for as long as they promulgate untruths, AiG will be regarded as indoctrinators.
They’re in control today, but will they be tomorrow? Yes. Definitely yes. Creationists have been sounding the death knell of evolution since before the publication of "Origin of Species". They were wrong then and you're still wrong now. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined:
|
quote: Why choose? Why not just state that Ken Ham is a seriously deluded con-man, running a huge scam op More often than not it is an amazement that our cretin friends are even the same species. Dr Purdue seemed like a particularly nasty type - pretty much like Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter movies. Smiling with utter disdain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Dating by radiometric means has never been totally convincing to me. It's so much a matter of whether you find it convincing, but one of whether or not you have a better explanation for the results that radiometry regularly obtains. Can you think of a scenario that accounts for the many correlations between radiometric dating and other dating methods? Does your explanation account for the data better than the current understanding? If not, then logically, you should prefer the explanation that radiometry is accurate.
The geological timing of the flood is one of the things that got changed quite a bit for me. I kept pushing it back further and further because the evidence showed the impossibility of it for the specified time periods. One example was dinosaurs and their nests and their eggs all fossilized in one spot. Well if I understand correctly, that pushes the flood back to at least the late Triassic. That's an awfully long stretch of geological time to go without finding any human fossils, whatever time-scale we assume. If the flood is pre-Jurassic, how do you account for this lack of human remains?
Igneous dikes that cut through layers of sedimentary strata, sedimentary strata that was tilted and then had other sedimentary strata layered on top of it, convinced me that one year long global flood could not possibly have caused such all of those formations in the span of one year. Okay, so you're convinced that the flood was not responsible for all geological strata. Do you think that any geology can be linked to the flood?
It is obvious that there is evolution going on in the fossil record and evolution going on today. I could accept that and accept the genesis story, but it would require not accepting a darwinian explanation for it. A slightly more accurate way of phrasing this would be to say that you could accept Darwin if it were not for the fact that it would require not accepting Genesis. That's the real bone of contention, no?
That is still where I stand today. Regardless of what you have seen in the past six months of me, my creationist stance has gone through a myriad of changes over the past 4 years. I cannot think of every instance right now but every night I spent in the sleeper of my truck before I went back to college, was spent pondering these things in my head, arguing over them like I do here, and researching creationist material and researching sites like talk origins and just plain old wikipedia and branching off from there. It all paid off academically though, 28 credit hours into college and all solid A's and 2 A minuses. I'm glad you're doing well. I also applaud your efforts to apply critical thinking to these issues. I think you still have a long way to go, but at least you're not swallowing the errors that people like Ken Ham treat as Gospel. It is worth noting that Ham would not approve of your actions; questioning the Bible, attending a secular geology class... these things are anathema to Ham and his ilk. They would prefer that you isolated yourself from any criticism of creationism and kept yourself blinkered like a good little drone. You're not doing that, you're exposing yourself to the other side of the argument. Keep it up! Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
foreveryoung writes:
A changing "absolute" is a good start.
I still believe the bible is absolutely true. I have changed my interpretation to fit evidence that is impossible to get around however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
That's not what they said. Just a different kind of education, one that realizes that science is just another imperfect human endeavor, that it's not the only source of knowledge. That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts. It is religious indoctrination, plain and simple. Here is what Dr. Purdom said:
quote: Sitting down and teach creation and biblical apologetics to your kids is religious indoctrination, plain and simple. What is Dr. Purdom's reaction to apologetics completely failing when it is exposed to evidence? Teach it harder. Oh, and make sure your kids do not go to a university where they teach evolution. Why? Because creationism can not withstand exposure to evidence. As to the connection between atheism and science, the only reason you are saying that is because the evidence contradicts your beliefs. Sorry, but reality is reality. What this thread is about is the reaction of creationists to this fact, that creationism completely fails when exposed to evidence. That is what is most fascinating to me.
There’s really nothing new about it. To maintain one’s position, to double down is no different than what evolutionists did when Darwin’s Black Box came out, is it? Yes, it is different. DBB did not falsify evolution. All it did was illustrate Behe's incredulity. If you want to start a thread on IC systems I would be happy to discuss it with you.
Is it different from the move made as evolution is protected from the criticism that ID makes of evolution? Have creationists tried to use the court system to protect something from criticism? ID supporters are welcome to do research and present that research at scientific conferences, but they never really seem willing to do so. Instead, they make spurious and non-scientific arguments to school boards and internet forums. They don't do science. What they are not allowed to do is push religious indoctrination in public science classrooms. You have heard of that court ruling that came out of Dover, PA, haven't you? You are aware of the Lemon Test?
They’re trying to get atheism out of the classroom — the kind that converted Libby. It wasn't atheism that converted her. It was the evidence. Here are Libby's own words:
quote: Atheism isn't a threat to creationism. Reality is. That's why AiG is telling parents not to let their kids go to schools where they teach the evidence. Telling creationist there is no God is not a serious threat to creationism. Showing them that creationists like Ken Ham have been lying to them about the facts of reality, and having Ken Ham tell them that if Genesis is not literally true then there is no God? That does seem to be a threat to creationism.
Is he a phony, Is Libby a phony? Who knows? I am taking everyone at their word. Frankly, Ham and Purdom would have been better off saying nothing. What they have said reveals more about creationism than they might like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dating by radiometric means has never been totally convincing to me. The geological timing of the flood is one of the things that got changed quite a bit for me. I kept pushing it back further and further because the evidence showed the impossibility of it for the specified time periods. One example was dinosaurs and their nests and their eggs all fossilized in one spot. Common sense told me that a world wide flood could not possibly sweep them up and redeposit them in that neat an order. Igneous dikes that cut through layers of sedimentary strata, sedimentary strata that was tilted and then had other sedimentary strata layered on top of it, convinced me that one year long global flood could not possibly have caused such all of those formations in the span of one year. There are many problems with it , but one of them is that an igneous intrusion would not go partially through layers of soggy wet mud and then suddenly stop and then form a horizontal sill. It would burst all the way to the top and form a flood basalt. (not flood as in water). It is obvious that there is evolution going on in the fossil record and evolution going on today. I could accept that and accept the genesis story, but it would require not accepting a darwinian explanation for it. That is still where I stand today. Regardless of what you have seen in the past six months of me, my creationist stance has gone through a myriad of changes over the past 4 years. I cannot think of every instance right now but every night I spent in the sleeper of my truck before I went back to college, was spent pondering these things in my head, arguing over them like I do here, and researching creationist material and researching sites like talk origins and just plain old wikipedia and branching off from there. It all paid off academically though, 28 credit hours into college and all solid A's and 2 A minuses. Glenn Morton has a wonderful essay. He was, at one time, a contributer to ICR and was a creationist. Then he started working in geology and had to deal with reality. He quickly found that creationism was just wrong, exactly what Libby found. Even more, he talked to some of his acquaintances from ICR who had also gone into geology. Here is what happened:
quote: Just like Libby found, creationism crumples when it hits up against reality. People who base their faith on creationism have serious issues. This isn't because of atheism. It is because of reality, and being told that if creationism is not true then neither is the Bible. What is AiG's response to this? Teach it harder, and please, oh please, do not look at the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The geological timing of the flood is one of the things that got changed quite a bit for me. I kept pushing it back further and further because the evidence showed the impossibility of it for the specified time periods. And what would be your response if the evidence showed the impossibility of it having happened at all?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlexCaledin Member (Idle past 435 days) Posts: 64 From: Samara, Russia Joined: |
and what would be your responce if the evidence showed that you must crash your head against the nearest wall? (LOL)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and what would be your responce if the evidence showed that you must crash your head against the nearest wall? (LOL) Does that happen often to you? Of course this question has no logical similarity to the one you were asked other than vague word order. But then, it appears that logic is not your strong suit. Nor science, nor natural history ... for starters. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024