Mad Kally

Says the bible and my very own fundie psycho mom. (she knows everything) She was a baptist before she turned into a Charismatic/Pentecostal. You know damn good and well you are not to be unequally yoked together with nonbelievers.. What would happen if something you read here caused you to think?

Oh the horror! You are on the highway to hell, young lady.

scigirl

Tricia,

I think you have to realize that scientists don't worry so much about "good" or "bad" authors - they worry about science.
Good data (I.E. was it reliably obtained, and can it be reproduced?) is more important than whether the authors sound smart on the internet. It takes a bit of searching, and education, to be able to distinguish a legitimite experiment from a quack one. In addition, there are some labs I respect as doing good science, but I don't necessarily think that every one of their papers is correct. You really have to put the names, the titles, and the fluff aside, and study each piece of scientific data on its face value.

IMHO, all of the "creation science" data i've seen has consisted of the following:

A creationist who takes the data from legitimate research scientist and re-analyzes it, often poorly or even dishonestly. They rarely do their own research, so their ability to tell nice stories on the internet and make pretty web sites, IMHO, is completely irrelevant (As would be any scientist who did not do his/her own research).

Now Tricia, don't you think it's ironic that these so-called "scientists" even use the data at all, when they reject the scientists' fundamental claims? For instance, if I didn't believe 80% of what some guy named Joe said, would I put him on the witness stand in court to prove a point? No, I would throw out all of his statements. I don't understand why places like AiG even use scientific data from people who are allegedly misguided about all of their premises.

Just my 2 cents.

scigirl

faded_Glory

Hi Tricia,

I have been lurking so far, but let me point you to an ex-creationist author who I can quite well tolerate:

<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm" target="_blank">Glenn Morton. </a>

Glenn is working in my own field, Exploration Geophysics, and has dropped his YEC views when he became exposed to the wealth of geophysical and geological data showing, without any doubt, that the Earth is very old and that the YEC arguments are bogus.

Glenn has the scientific integrity and the strength of mind and character to change his fundamental conceptions when exposed to undeniable evidence. It is probably a shame that so many YEC's never get exposure to this kind of evidence.

You're one of the lucky ones - you've got this website, us, and all our references.

Use it.

fG

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

faded_Glory

Let me quote one passage from Glenn's site:

"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."


Please note that Glenn is still a Christian - he is just no longer a YEC, and more power to him.

fG

hezekiah jones

It's not a matter of liking him, it's a matter of taking him seriously. I'd probably like him if he was a standup comedian, which he sort of is. As scigirl pointed out, Morris and the rest don't even do science. They do politics, and they can't even get that right (which is quite an accomplishment).

Hmm. Isaac Newton, I suppose. And maybe William Dembski, but only because I'm not quite sure what his argument is, although from what I can see, it appears to be deeply flawed. For one thing, I don't think the components of his "explanatory filter" are mutually exclusive, as he claims.

The people that you might recognize as "creationist authors" are mostly very bitter, disillusioned people and are a total waste of time, except for unintentional comedy.

You can read whatever you want. Just know that these so-called "creationist authors" are appallingly dishonest. Every single one of them. And I don't think dishonesty is a particularly good quality for either a Christian or anyone else.

Congratulations on your scholarship and your computer. I sincerely hope you put both to good use.

Tricia

Thank you, I plan to.

I don't think I've told you guys yet, but I'm not so sure I'm a YEC anymore. I think the only reason I was is because that's the way I was raised. I'm kinda in the middle right now, what with my church and family being YECs and one of my good friends being an OEC.

so..... I'll read that link on Glenn Morton and get back to ya.

~Tricia

Mad Kally

Tricia,
I forgot to say hi in my other posts. It's good to see you again.

Nurse Kally

Tricia

~Tricia

Daggah

Given that creationism is fundamentally based on intellectual dishonesty, no.

hezekiah jones

Pay particular attention to the reactions of Morton's "colleagues." Nice guys, eh?

And speaking of dishonesty:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/" target="_blank">Source</a>.

And you wonder why we don't trust these characters?