theyeti

How so? The most popular creationist "model" claims that all things were created in 6 days about 6000 years ago. In fact, this is AiG's model, and it's the AiG people that you're supposed to be defending, remember? The evidence is not at all consistent with this model -- quite the opposite in fact. One could, of course, come up with a model that isn't so easily contradicted, but I have yet to see one. Maybe you could enlighten us? I don't know how one would make one that wasn't "just so" rather than predictive of the evidence the way evolution is.

As long as one can test it, yes it's okay. Abiogenesis theories are testable; we don't accept any of them on faith. In fact, we accept nothing in science on faith, except basal epistamological considerations (e.g, reality is not an illusion). God's existance, on the other hand, is accepted entirely on faith. Are you saying that you don't have faith?

It's time for you to put up or shut up. You have done nothing but lob ridicule and have avioded the scientific issues. Once again, this thread was started for you to defend AiG's best argument. You have not done so. The fact that you choose to bandy about insults instead is downright pathetic, randman.

It doesn't automatically rule it out, it just needs evidence. There is no evidence.

Now who's using circular reasoning? You start with the assumption that God exists, and then you make up some lame ad hoc excuse for not detecting him. If he can't be detected, he may as well not exist; at the very least, it cannot be said scientifically that he is a causal agent for anything.

You haven't even tried to defend them. If you can't, that's okay; no one can be an expert on everything. But you should retract your earlier claim rather than continuing with your arrogance. You are being treated exactly as you're treating us. You have effectively called us all liars and idiots, desipte the obvious fact that you don't understand the scietific issues and have done little more than result to the argument via quote mining, which has got to be the worst way to argue. Unfortunately, rudeness seems to be very common among creationists. However, those that come here and are polite are treated with respect; those who act like jerks get treated accordingly.

If you want to be treated with respect, then you need to admit that you were wrong in a more mature fashion.

You have not backed up that claim; you assert it constantly but you have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. "Evolutionists", which means the vast majority of all scientists, are quite convinced that evolution is correct because of the overwhelming evidence. Unfortunately, there are religiously motivated creationists and it is they who push propaganda on the public. These people do no research, they only try to tear down the hard work of others, and they're not beyond lying in order to do it. They are not interested in science one bit; they simply want to "disprove" evilution so that they can go home satisfied the the Bible is true word for word. Their articles and websites are not directed at the academic community where they would receive proper peer review, instead they're directed at the lay public -- children especially. And you accuse us of propaganda? Please.

theyeti

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

randman

This quote right here shows your ignorance and rudeness. I won't bother, most likely, with the rest of your post.

"How so? The most popular creationist "model" claims that all things were created in 6 days about 6000 years ago. In fact, this is AiG's model, and it's the AiG people that you're supposed to be defending, remember?"

I plainly said I wasn't a Young Earth Creationist, and did not know enough about their models to defend them, and have repeatedly said this over and over again.
You deaf, blind, or dumb?
Also, Hugh Ross and others attest to the fact that OEC and ID are probably more popular then the versions of creationism you mentioned.
I made the comment that in attacking one weaker article on creationism, some of you were avoiding their best arguments. I wasn't even referring only to AIG. I have read enough to see a straw-man argument, and I have amply provided links to articles and arguments that seemed to me to be more wieghty.
Nevertheless, ya'll have told me to put or shut up, etc,..ALL THE WHILE MOST HAVE STEADFASTLY DENIED AND IGNORED THE REALITY OF EVOLUTIONIST MISCONCEPTIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE FOSSIL RECORD.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

theyeti

And yet you keep linking to articles on AiG and trueorigins, both YEC sites! Can you not even understand your own contradictions here?

BTW, I do not see how that question of mine was rude or ignorant. I did notice that you didn't answer it though.

Quote:

You deaf, blind, or dumb?

Now there's a rude and ignorant question!

Quote:

Also, Hugh Ross and others attest to the fact that OEC and ID are probably more popular then the versions of creationism you mentioned.

Wrong! YEC is far more popular. Good grief man, you don't even understand creationism! In fact, YECs, including the people at AiG and trueorigins, hate Hugh Ross with a passion. Most YECs tacitly accept ID because they know that politically it's their only chance of forcing their veiws into public schools, but they are very adamant about the age of the Earth issue. In order to keep thier coalition together, the IDists like Philip Johnson simply don't talk about the age of the Earth. And this is supposed to be an academic movement?

So what's their best argument? Can you defend it? If not, then admit that you were wrong and drop the issue.

You're just repeating yourself here. All assertion, no evidence. The only argument you've presented consists of quote mining old sources, which is a highly fallacious way to argue. Why don't you make an argument that actually address the evidence in the fossil record? Several here have shown you fossil evidence, yet you ignore them. You are the worst kind of troll.

theyeti

Queen of Swords

Is this what your holy book tells you to do?

Keep being rude : you discredit christianity better than I ever could.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Jerry Smith

So... who is he?
I haven't been able to find out.

fleetmouse

Is this the guy?

<a href="http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/" target="_blank">http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/</a>

I haven't read his work but judging by the titles he's no creationist.

L

Kosh

Second! All in favor?

phlebas

So let it be written. So let it be done

randman, it would save me a lot of time if you would just start posting in there.

randman

"Are you a christian? If so, have you read the part about "turning the other cheek"?"

Have you read the part, "Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits."

Vorkosigan

Still waiting......when are we going to see an article from you?

You can stop all these threads, anytime, simply by putting up a single article, pointing to it as the best evidence, and defending it from Patrick's critique. Simple.

But you won't.....