Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of John MacKay's Views
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 77 (406377)
06-19-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
06-19-2007 4:25 PM


Ways And Means
How can we present the challenge to the official creationist movement?
We could nail it to the door of a Creation Museum, but that's so sixteenth century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2007 4:25 PM Straggler has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 62 of 77 (406380)
06-19-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
06-19-2007 4:25 PM


Re: Showmanship
Here's one online (via email) debate between Phillip Johnson and Philip Kitcher. I shall leave it to the reader to determine who won.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2007 4:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2007 6:31 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 06-19-2007 11:33 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 76 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-20-2007 12:10 AM subbie has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 77 (406381)
06-19-2007 4:40 PM


Mackay's questionable past
John Mackay has cropped up in connection with the ongoing dispute between Ken Ham's AiG and the former Australian branch of that organisation (renamed CMI). Back in 1987, it appears that Mackay made lurid and unevidenced accusations against a widow named Margaret Buchanan who at that time was working as Ken Ham's personal secretary. Mrs Buchanan has since married Carl Wieland the head of CMI. Mackay was forced to resign and was even excommunicated by a Baptist church over this issue.
These claims and supporting documentation may be found at the CMI website Re: John Mackay.
Edited by PaulK, : Correct a few typos

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2007 4:56 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 71 by Omnivorous, posted 06-19-2007 10:06 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 77 (406383)
06-19-2007 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
06-19-2007 4:40 PM


We want him to debate us here. This is not going to help.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2007 4:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2007 5:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 65 of 77 (406385)
06-19-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2007 4:56 PM


I don't think that there's any real chance of him showing up. Big-name creationists have got extremely wary of showing up in online forums, especially ones which don't have a sympathetic management. The last example I know of in an even slightly open forum is Jonathan Sarfati's appearance on Theology Web - and even then he had the forum moderators protecting his anonymity (or attempting to) by banning any reference to his true identity.
And for all you know he might be more likely to show up to refute CMI's accusations than if we simply kept at him. Not that there's much chance either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2007 4:56 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 66 of 77 (406387)
06-19-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
06-19-2007 4:25 PM


Re: Showmanship
I think it would be cool if we could organize a standing challange to any "published" creationist to come to an organized online debate.
It would be similar to the Hovind $10000 (or whatever) challange to "prove" evolution in that it would have the effect of seeming like a permanent pillar of failure. And if a creationist actually accepts the challange, all the better!
A few things would have to be well defined.
1. What it means to be an acceptable opponent. I might use the concept of "published" as in "has written something significant about creationism". Not in the sense of peer-review.
2. Define the venue, the access and limitations therof.
3. Define who on the "evo" side would be in the debate. As a commmunity we would need to find someone qualified outside of pick someone from out own ranks who probably is not just an educated layman like myself. {ABE}This sounded confusing. I mean that I am a bad choice. Someone like Mod or cavediver, or Equinox (glancing on the online list){/ABE}
4. Define the rules and expectations of the debate
5. Advertise on peer spaces on the web such as TO, AIC, etc.
6. Directly contact the major creationist organizations. An internet version of nailing the challange to the door of the creation museum
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2007 4:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2007 6:51 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 67 of 77 (406393)
06-19-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
06-19-2007 4:36 PM


Online Debate
Thanks for the link.
I actually think the "neo-creo" put the case they were trying to make surprisingly well in this example!! True they avoided the detailed issues and completely conceded ground on a true literal biblical interpretation..... but still.
However the devil is in the detail and this was much more of a "state of the debate" with a related overview of the scientific issues sort of discussion.
It would be great to see a detailed scientific discussion of specific evidence as per the Dr Adequate post within this thread or numerous recent examples of RAZ on the age of the Earth.
Is there a creation scientist who will oblige?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 06-19-2007 4:36 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 06-19-2007 6:50 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 77 (406394)
06-19-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Straggler
06-19-2007 6:31 PM


Re: Online Debate
I guess it must be back to Mackay. It is not clear to me that Johnson understands that without the synthetic view of Kant all comes back to "appearence" anyway. Dawkins can not be made to say what Phil wants him to be saying
quote:
Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker by acknowledging that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Francis Crick, also a fervent Darwinist and atheist, says in his memoirs that "(b)iologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Dawkins and Crick, like other scientific materialists, do not give serious consideration to the possibility that organisms look designed because there really is a designer.
here, I think. Phil Johnson tried to say this to Will Provine as well. I told Ken Ham on the radio that I felt Phil got lost in the bug library at Cornell. Trying to link Crick and Dakwins here fails for me.
Kitcher's next response is precisely what WIll retorted to Phil a decade ago. I dont see this debate having made any progress today, so back to the main topic again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2007 6:31 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 77 (406395)
06-19-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Jazzns
06-19-2007 5:30 PM


Re: Showmanship
Exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.
If it could be widely publicised via creationist sites then it could really kick off.
Without wanting to place the burden of responsibility on any particular potentially unwilling participant - I think that there are a number of candidates amongst the existing EvC ranks who could do the job more than adequately.
In the unlikely event that a creationist "expert" comes forward we could have EvC debate candidtaes put themselves forward and then an "election" of some sort..........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Jazzns, posted 06-19-2007 5:30 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 70 of 77 (406416)
06-19-2007 9:34 PM


CMI-AIG-CSF
In case readers of EvC attribute some sort of standing to characters and orgs mentioned in this thread, let me state that, as a reasonably avid scanner of local newspapers, I have come across zero, nada, zip, whatever, mention of these 'authorities'which are supposedly based in Brisbane. We see no news concerning Creation Ministries International (Aust.), formerly Answers in Genesis (Aust.), formerly Creation Science Foundation, Ken Ham, John Mackay nor Margaret Buchanan. They are not consulted for rebuttals to newsworthy items, nor are upcoming events relating to their organisations mentioned. Yet, wacko groups like the Vietnamese Catholic church flogging 'weeping' Madonnas for sale, or similar scandals get full coverage.If you never visited EvC, or hunted the `net for far-out Christian beliefs, you wouldn`t know of their existence. Even the acrimonious split betwwen AIG (Aust.) and AIG (USA) is unknown in local news. Make of it what you will, but consider the named as little ducks in a big pond.

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by subbie, posted 06-19-2007 10:12 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 71 of 77 (406419)
06-19-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
06-19-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Mackay's questionable past
I know this is tempest-in-a-teapot serious, but...
PaulK writes:
maid lurid
I knew Maid Lurid.
Maid Lurid was a friend of mine.
Maid Lurid was capable of anything.
My next cat will be Maid Lurid.
Thank you all terribly much.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2007 4:40 PM PaulK has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 72 of 77 (406421)
06-19-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Nighttrain
06-19-2007 9:34 PM


Re: CMI-AIG-CSF
Make of it what you will, but consider the named as little ducks in a big pond.
On behalf of Daffy, Donald, Howard, etc., I formally protest your comparison of those bird brains to the noble mallard.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Nighttrain, posted 06-19-2007 9:34 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Nighttrain, posted 06-19-2007 10:40 PM subbie has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 73 of 77 (406425)
06-19-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by subbie
06-19-2007 10:12 PM


Re: CMI-AIG-CSF
Rightly so, Sub.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by subbie, posted 06-19-2007 10:12 PM subbie has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 74 of 77 (406429)
06-19-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
06-19-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Showmanship
subbie writes:
Here's one online (via email) debate between Phillip Johnson and Philip Kitcher. I shall leave it to the reader to determine who won.
I find that debate completely useless in this issue. Why? Because if you're already on the side of science you will think Kitcher won and if you're already on the side of religion you will agree that Johnson won. Why? Because neither guy presented anything new, neither actually pointed out any specific, and neither had any clear advantage over the other.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 06-19-2007 4:36 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2007 11:39 PM Taz has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 77 (406430)
06-19-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Taz
06-19-2007 11:33 PM


That Was Odd, Yes ...
Did they have some sort of pre-agreed rule against citing anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 06-19-2007 11:33 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taz, posted 06-20-2007 4:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024