Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 01:38 PM

This thread begs another question. Do all those creationists who want to "teach the controvercy" want to teach this controvecy?

I can just see it now...

Dad: Son, how was bible study?
Son: Okay, I got to punch Jimmy in the face.
Dad: What did he do to defame God?
Son: He told me that he is a Hamist, so I used my Hovidist fist to teach him God's true love.
Dad: Did you make sure to kick him when he was down?
Son: Three times: one for the Father, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Ghost.
Dad: That's my boy.
Son: I love you, Dad.
Dad: I love you, Son.
Mom: Will someone else please cook tonight?
Dad & Son: Do what yer told, woman!

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

bocajeff · 10-11-2002, 02:03 PM

That article read like two children arguing over the air speed of Santa Claus's sleigh.

Autonemesis · 10-11-2002, 02:12 PM

I read a similar article once called "Maintaining Hooker Virginity."

AiG still seems to think that peer-review is primarily a public relations activity.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

Valentine Pontifex · 10-11-2002, 03:01 PM

Seeing an article which Sarfati is a coauthor of saying that one should not quote out-of-context is funny.

For those who want some easy links to both AiG articles and to Hovind's actual article that AiG was unwilling to link to (for shame) see the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/" target="_blank">T.O. page on Hovind</a>.

theyeti · 10-11-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Dad: Did you make sure to kick him when he was down?
Son: Three times: one for the Father, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Ghost.
Dad: That's my boy.

Hilarious!

Of course, Philip Johson's "teach the controversy" BS is the perfect example of his dishonest rhetoric. What he wants taught is his controversy, the one he cooked up. He wants to pretend like there's no Young Earth / Old Earth rift, and that the whole evo/cre controversy should be understood through his terms, in which he has to defend nothing because he claims nothing.

theyeti

Grumpy · 10-11-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:
I read a similar article once called "Maintaining Hooker Virginity."

"That would be up the butt, Bob."

Sorry. Was this a serious discussion?

tgamble · 10-11-2002, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:

All this raises a legitimate question, however, namely that if everything is tentative, and all of us are fallible, should one simply accept that �anything goes� in terms of theories and explanations? We think not; we think that Christians should be very much concerned about whether Biblical creation is being defended using arguments that are, for instance, factually incorrect, logically invalid, based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. These sorts of things, often propagated by individuals who have very little scientific training, actually end up harming the cause of Biblical creation (and hence, by extension, the Bible itself). They can provide a potent justification/excuse for people to �write off� creation

To bad these idiots don't follow their own advice. AIG uses arguments that are factually incorrect (no transitional fossils, thermodynamics etc.), logically invalid (evolution is responsible for immoral behavour blah blahb blah,) based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. (Radiometric dating, geologic column, mutations and information. The list is endless.

Of course, such arguments are all creationists have. If creationists argued useing factual information and were honest, they wouldn't be creationists!

tgamble · 10-11-2002, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Solum:
Definitely an interesting article:

<a href="http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp" target="_blank">Maintaining Creationist Integrity</a>

AS if they had any. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

WinAce · 10-11-2002, 05:57 PM

Quote:

When an attempted critique of this article appeared on Kent Hovind’s Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.

Valentine Pontifex · 10-11-2002, 06:56 PM

Quote:

As far as Web sites are concerned, AiG policy has always been that our site is a destination site not a linking site. Therefore we don't generally link to other creation organizations per se, but will sometimes link to individual articles on other sites on merit.

Of course this is unethical. If one wants to criticize an article, one should cite that article. There should never be any exceptions. In this case that would mean linking to it.

The real reasons for saying this is, of course, that they are afraid to let their readers see any other view point. After all they don't dare link to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">The Talk.Origins Archive</a>. They might loose some of their sheep if they did. Of course Hovind is also a de facto competitor for the donation dollars of the creationist sheep and hence they don't want a link to him either.

Those who care about the truth and who care about truely being a useful to those trying to make up their own minds will make an effort to link to what they are criticizing.

10-11-2002, 01:38 PM	#11
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	This thread begs another question. Do all those creationists who want to "teach the controvercy" want to teach this controvecy? I can just see it now... Dad: Son, how was bible study? Son: Okay, I got to punch Jimmy in the face. Dad: What did he do to defame God? Son: He told me that he is a Hamist, so I used my Hovidist fist to teach him God's true love. Dad: Did you make sure to kick him when he was down? Son: Three times: one for the Father, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Ghost. Dad: That's my boy. Son: I love you, Dad. Dad: I love you, Son. Mom: Will someone else please cook tonight? Dad & Son: Do what yer told, woman! [ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

10-11-2002, 02:12 PM	#13
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	I read a similar article once called "Maintaining Hooker Virginity." AiG still seems to think that peer-review is primarily a public relations activity. [ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2002, 02:03 PM	#12
bocajeff Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: HelL.A. Posts: 1,157	That article read like two children arguing over the air speed of Santa Claus's sleigh.

10-11-2002, 03:01 PM	#14
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	Seeing an article which Sarfati is a coauthor of saying that one should not quote out-of-context is funny. For those who want some easy links to both AiG articles and to Hovind's actual article that AiG was unwilling to link to (for shame) see the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/" target="_blank">T.O. page on Hovind</a>.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.