Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
20 online now:
dwise1, Theodoric (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the "answersingenesis" site reliable?
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 8 (29338)
01-17-2003 6:13 AM


your thoughts...

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 01-17-2003 8:01 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2003 11:41 PM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (29357)
01-17-2003 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iconoclast2440
01-17-2003 6:13 AM


Hmm... 'reliable'. It depends on what you mean by reliable. It's certainly reliable for presenting false or misleading information for those wishing to reinforce their creationist beliefs.
e.g. The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old.
So if the Bible says so, lets make up the facts.
Of course, all this is backed up by 'reliable' references to other creationist literature, or misquotes from elsewhere.

[edit] Just found this at the 'back' of the site:
As Answers in Genesis is a faith-funded ministry, our staff may not have the option of devoting much time to answering scientific questions that fall outside of our area of specialty.

Well, there you go. Their speciality isn't science, yet they claim to provide 'answers' to all your questions about the origin of Earth and mankind. Does that explain how reliable they are?

[This message has been edited by David unfamous, 01-17-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-17-2003 6:13 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (29444)
01-17-2003 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iconoclast2440
01-17-2003 6:13 AM


Answers in Genesis isn't reliable as an organization. I would, however, consider the submitted literature in the AIG archives such as Baumgardner & Vardiman et al. As long as I can confirm their research.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-17-2003 6:13 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 01-17-2003 11:54 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 01-17-2003 11:55 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 4 of 8 (29445)
01-17-2003 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
01-17-2003 11:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Answers in Genesis isn't reliable as an organization. I would, however, consider the submitted literature in the AIG archives such as Baumgardner & Vardiman et al. As long as I can confirm their research.

Are we to understand that you have done this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2003 11:41 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 01-18-2003 12:08 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 8 (29446)
01-17-2003 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
01-17-2003 11:41 PM


Why do you say they are not re-liable? I have talked with Ken Ham on the phone both in public (on air) and in private.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2003 11:41 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 01-18-2003 12:11 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 8 (29448)
01-18-2003 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
01-17-2003 11:54 PM


"Are we to understand that you have done this?"
--I dunno, how often is it that a creationist paper is even my supporting resource?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 01-17-2003 11:54 PM edge has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 8 (29449)
01-18-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brad McFall
01-17-2003 11:55 PM


"Why do you say they are not re-liable? I have talked with Ken Ham on the phone both in public (on air) and in private. "
--I'm sure Ken Ham and the rest of the AIG gang are really nice fellows, but as I have often illustrated, they (as well as many other YECist org's) still can't get past their biased methodology to scientific inquiry(eg. the tenents of the ICR). But I do respect the works of individuals who happen to submit work to the AIG, after all, where else is it going to go?

BTW - Its nice to exchange an idea or two with you Brad

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-18-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 01-17-2003 11:55 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 01-18-2003 12:23 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 8 (29451)
01-18-2003 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TrueCreation
01-18-2003 12:11 AM


Ok, Ill go back and read your posts a little more closely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 01-18-2003 12:11 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019