Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 02-13-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoAtheist
It's interesting to note that every one of the arguments that they list on this page were actually USED by AIG up until a year or two ago.

This is a FALSE statement. There is no truth to it whatsoever. Indeed the Lunar Dust argument was disowned by AiG a decade ago.

I think you are confusing AiG with other creationist sites.

SanDiegoAtheist · 02-13-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
This is a FALSE statement. There is no truth to it whatsoever. Indeed the Lunar Dust argument was disowned by AiG a decade ago.

I think you are confusing AiG with other creationist sites.

Quite possibly VP - I don't actually keep track of every argument. For making a broad and quite possibly wrong generalization I'll apologize.

Since I don't know about the lunar dust argument in particular, I'll take your word for it on that one.

However, a number of the other arguments on the AIG Do Not Use page, including the SLOT argument, were used by AIG until relatively recently (I believe at one point a year or so ago someone posted two links - one to the DO NOT USE, and another directly linking to an older (but not deleted) page which used SLOT).

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

RBH · 02-13-2003, 08:21 PM

SLOT arguments haven't gone away. See Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

RBH

Dr.GH · 02-13-2003, 09:32 PM

AiG seems to be in the process of positioning themselves as the arbitrators of YECdom.

Taking a position that the most easily refuted arguments for their version of Biblical literalism are flawed, they proport that they, and they alone hold the keys to the TRUTH, and thrust ahead the light of the righteous. When this is pointed out, they can simply claim that as the are REALLY REALLY REALLY scientists, they are acting as responsible "peer" reviewers of YEChood.

Ah hA. Here is another link that I think supports the argument above: the AiG imagins that they will be the judges of "good" creationism >>

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

pz · 02-14-2003, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.GH
Ah hA. Here is another link that I think supports the argument above: the AiG imagins that they will be the judges of "good" creationism >>

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

Yikes. I felt awful reading that. It was like watching two cripples fight, ala Timmy and Jimmy on South Park.

RufusAtticus · 02-14-2003, 07:33 AM

AiG is about making money. There is a reason why the link to their store is the second one in their nav bar. This is the same reason they refuse to link to other sites and when they do they warn the user that they are leaving AiG space.

Just look at their review of the book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. It is nothing but a power trip as is clearly indicated by the statement "It is a hard thing to have to point out this tragic consequence of people �doing their own thing� in creation ministry without any sort of concession to the normal processes of peer review." Remember that in AiG-speak "peer review" refers to their TJ magazine.

Edit to add:

OMG look what AiG has owned up to in the above article:

Quote:

But first, it is necessary to give a brief background as to what normally happens in AiG when authors send us manuscripts to check. A few years back, we were having so many manuscripts sent to us from all over the world that we could not possibly help them all with our limited number of staff. Also, we noticed that, after one of our staff scientists had spent many hours on a review, often an intending author would not necessarily accept constructive criticism anyway, meaning that the ministry�s time (paid for by our supporters) was being wasted.

So we instituted a new policy, namely that we would send everyone who asked us to check their work a form letter. This letter explained our overload, and said that we would only check manuscripts on a commercial basis, i.e. at an hourly rate. We made it clear that this was not an attempt to generate revenue, and that we would rather not have this additional load on the ministry. Rather, it was an attempt to �stem the tide� without totally �locking up� our scientists� services to others. But if an author wanted to go ahead, then if we felt the book was something we would want to publish, we would refund any such payment anyway. This policy had the intended effect, in drying up the requests considerably.

I did not know that peer review involved and hourly rate.

KC · 02-14-2003, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
Yikes. I felt awful reading that. It was like watching two cripples fight, ala Timmy and Jimmy on South Park.

This is the reason the ID movement so desperately avoids discussing the identity or nature of the designer(s). There are few things more vicious than Christians fighting over doctrine.

KC

sourdough · 02-15-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Now, if we could just figure out how to get them to shoot themselves in the head...

tell them that God wants them to?

S2Focus · 02-15-2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoAtheist

....

However, a number of the other arguments on the AIG Do Not Use page, including the SLOT argument, were used by AIG until relatively recently (I believe at one point a year or so ago someone posted two links - one to the DO NOT USE, and another directly linking to an older (but not deleted) page which used SLOT).

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

The web-site http://web.archive.org is the internet's official "wayback machine"; it allows you to dig up web-site snapshots dating back to 1996 or so. It might be worthwhile to mine that site to find out when the AIG really abandoned the anti-evolution arguments that they now counsel their fellow creationists to disown.

02-13-2003, 08:21 PM	#13
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	SLOT SLOT arguments haven't gone away. See Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. RBH

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

02-13-2003, 09:32 PM	#14
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	AiG seems to be in the process of positioning themselves as the arbitrators of YECdom. Taking a position that the most easily refuted arguments for their version of Biblical literalism are flawed, they proport that they, and they alone hold the keys to the TRUTH, and thrust ahead the light of the righteous. When this is pointed out, they can simply claim that as the are REALLY REALLY REALLY scientists, they are acting as responsible "peer" reviewers of YEChood. Ah hA. Here is another link that I think supports the argument above: the AiG imagins that they will be the judges of "good" creationism >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.