FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Reload this Page talk.origins FAQ
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM
Search

 
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-25-2002, 08:38 AM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 139
Post talk.origins FAQ
It looks like I'm the latest author of a talk.origins archive FAQ.

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

John Solum is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 09:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 666
Thumbs up
Interesting article, sir. Nice work!
Darwin's Finch is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 09:38 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Posts: 966
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by John Solum:
<strong>It looks like I'm the latest author of a talk.origins archive FAQ.
</strong>
Pfft! That's not such an acheivement; you just have to know what you're talking about and communicate it in an effective way.

Now writing for a creationist journal, that's rough. You still have to put your ideas across in an effective way, but they have to come whole cloth out of your ass!

Amateur...

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>
Theophage is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 08:09 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 178
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by John Solum:
<strong>It looks like I'm the latest author of a talk.origins archive FAQ.

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

</strong>
John, are you being fair to ICR? You make it sound like ICR presents this book as the latest and greatest in creation science. I would think it is more of a history book now. Did they actually tell you it was up-to-date? Did they make corrections or revisions in the 1995 reprint? I can't find it, but I recall that Snelling is doing a revision. I have not heard of it being finished yet. It looks as though it may have been the most definitive work in 1961. That is old. You may be beating a dead horse. Although most major creationists would give props to H Morris, I don't think they would say that The Geneis Flood is their manual of some sort. Just some thoughts.

xr
P.S. If you want to keep up-to-date with ICR, go to their homepage at <a href="http://www.icr.org" target="_blank">www.icr.org</a> and click on newsletters. Subscribe to Acts & Facts online for free.
ex-robot is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 08:11 AM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 178
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by ex-robot:
<strong>

John, are you being fair to ICR? You make it sound like ICR presents this book as the latest and greatest in creation science. I would think it is more of a history book now. Did they actually tell you it was up-to-date? Did they make corrections or revisions in the 1995 reprint? I can't find it, but I recall that Snelling is doing a revision. I have not heard of it being finished yet. It looks as though it may have been the most definitive work in 1961. That is old. You may be beating a dead horse. Although most major creationists would give props to H Morris, I don't think they would say that The Geneis Flood is their manual of some sort. Just some thoughts.

xr
P.S. If you want to keep up-to-date with ICR, go to their homepage at <a href="http://www.icr.org" target="_blank">www.icr.org</a> and click on newsletters. Subscribe to Acts & Facts online for free.</strong>
P.S. Besides all this, it looks like some good info on the lewis overthrust for anybody interested. Good job.
ex-robot is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 08:34 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Posts: 966
Post
From the FAQ:

Quote:
he Young Earth Creationist (YEC) material in this paper is taken largely from John Whitcomb and Henry Morris' book The Genesis Flood (abbreviated as TGF), first published in 1961 (although the edition I used was published in 1995). This book is described by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) book store as "the most definitive treatment of the Biblical and scientific evidences of the global flood in the days of Noah." This is significant because it indicates that the ICR still considers the material discussed in TGF to be accurate.
In other words, the FAQ illustrates that even though the original claim was made in 1961, the ICR supported that claim despite obvious evidence against it all the way to 1995; 34 years of complete and utter bullshit.

If the ICR no longer considers Morris' claim to be accurate, well bully for them. The FAQ still shows that the ICR will retain easily refuted claims for years even in the face of damning evidence against,and it is a tribute to their worthless levels of scholarship.

But somehow, I find it hard to believe that the ICR really has changed it's tune on the subject. Care to demonstrate that they have?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Theophage is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 08:37 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Question
Quote:
Originally posted by ex-robot:
Although most major creationists would give props to H Morris ...
A serious question: What criteria delineates a "major" creationist from a "minor" creationist?
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 10:55 AM   #8
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 178
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Theophage:
<strong>From the FAQ:



In other words, the FAQ illustrates that even though the original claim was made in 1961, the ICR supported that claim despite obvious evidence against it all the way to 1995; 34 years of complete and utter bullshit.

If the ICR no longer considers Morris' claim to be accurate, well bully for them. The FAQ still shows that the ICR will retain easily refuted claims for years even in the face of damning evidence against,and it is a tribute to their worthless levels of scholarship.

But somehow, I find it hard to believe that the ICR really has changed it's tune on the subject. Care to demonstrate that they have?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark</strong>
No, I don't care to do that. You can contact them yourselves.

xr
ex-robot is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 11:39 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Posts: 966
Post
Originally posted by ex-robot:

No, I don't care to do that. You can contact them yourselves.

Translation: "If I don't present the answer myself, I can still deny that the ICR supports Morris' quotes in the FAQ."

I think we all know what the real answer is, but I sent a comment to the ICR just now, so hopefully we will get the official answer...
Theophage is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 11:42 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Posts: 966
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<strong>

A serious question: What criteria delineates a "major" creationist from a "minor" creationist?</strong>
How widely read his tripe is, of course :^)
Theophage is offline  
 
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.