Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2017 1:41 PM
408 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK, scoff, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 400 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 804,977 Year: 9,583/21,208 Month: 2,670/2,674 Week: 94/961 Day: 94/98 Hour: 3/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5749
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 46 of 58 (664036)
05-28-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:00 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5749
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 47 of 58 (664038)
05-28-2012 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:23 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:23 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 48 of 58 (664040)
05-28-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
05-25-2012 5:40 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 5:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 05-28-2012 10:09 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 05-29-2012 12:37 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 49 of 58 (664089)
05-28-2012 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 7:40 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 7:40 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 11:01 PM subbie has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


(3)
Message 50 of 58 (664099)
05-28-2012 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by subbie
05-28-2012 10:09 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 05-28-2012 10:09 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 05-28-2012 11:28 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2012 10:42 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 2:59 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 05-29-2012 5:35 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5642
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 51 of 58 (664100)
05-28-2012 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 11:01 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 11:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 52 of 58 (664114)
05-29-2012 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:19 PM


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:
The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson


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 do…………with 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:19 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(2)
Message 53 of 58 (664126)
05-29-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
05-25-2012 4:01 PM


quote:
I can never make up my mind on whether Ken Ham is seriously deluded, or whether he is a con-man, running a huge scam operation.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 4:01 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 54 of 58 (664139)
05-29-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 11:01 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 11:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12901
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 55 of 58 (664154)
05-29-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 7:40 PM


foreveryoung writes:

I still believe the bible is absolutely true. I have changed my interpretation to fit evidence that is impossible to get around however.


A changing "absolute" is a good start.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 7:40 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6039
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 56 of 58 (664163)
05-29-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


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:
As I read her plea to parents and the instruction of their children, I couldn’t help but think of my daughter Elizabeth. However, for me Libby’s words had the opposite effect of what she desired. I realized that I can expose Elizabeth to all the creation and biblical apologetics in the world, but if she doesn’t actually understand it then it is useless. She needs more than simply exposure to these things.

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:
In the end, I didn’t “give up.” Rather, I realized I had been wrong. There’s a big difference there. And once I saw that creationism didn’t actually hold water, and that evolution was supported by the evidence, I had the intellectual honesty to change my mind. Why? Because that’s what you do when you realize you were wrong.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6039
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 57 of 58 (664164)
05-29-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 11:01 PM


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:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 11:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 58 of 58 (664182)
05-29-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 11:01 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 11:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017