Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 01-15-2003, 01:21 AM

With heavy heart, AiG must give strong �thumbs down� to beautifully-presented new creationist book.

Quote:

Despite its good intentions, it seemed to be focusing heavily on material that was incorrect, outdated by many decades, speculative, poorly documented, and usually not peer-reviewed by the creationist scientific journals. And it was precisely because the book was so well presented that we feared greatly for the many Christians who would be misled into thinking that at least most of its evidences and arguments would be sound.

Hmm, Peterson must have used AiG's archive.

Quote:

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. It is especially hard, because the book is doubtless well-meant, and its motives good Christian ones. Readers of this review who have read the book will no doubt make their own judgment. But if the book doesn�t convince creationists such as us, then readers should realize that evolutionists are even less likely to be swayed. At least readers will then be prepared when their evolutionist acquaintances gleefully commence their �demolition derby� on its contents.

Sounds like AiG is upset that he didn't go through them. Because as we all know every creationist who "does their own thing" takes money away from Ken Ham's Porsche fund.

Duvenoy · 01-15-2003, 04:28 AM

I wonder what precisely, an AiG peer review is?

Wish I could spell. It's a lot easier than editing.

doov

tgamble · 01-15-2003, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Despite its good intentions, it seemed to be focusing heavily on material that was incorrect, outdated by many decades, speculative, poorly documented.....

So what's their problem?! That's the standard MO of the creationist cult!

Creationist scientific journals? Biggest oxymoron ever!

WinAce · 01-15-2003, 05:00 AM

Quote:

The bottom line is that there is no mandate for dogmatically basing virtually an entire creation apologetic on such controversial speculations as if they were �facts�.

Quote:

And if the view turns out to be unequivocally wrong (as observed data might conceivably show one day), taking such a stand would then cause collateral damage to creation for no good reason.

Quote:

This sort of thing destroys the credibility of creationism to the scientifically educated.

Quote:

When one attacks an idea, one must be careful to have a good basic understanding of it.

Quote:

it is asked, �Where�s the big �hole� in the middle of the universe?� Anyone with even a basic understanding of the issues should understand why we cringe.

Quote:

but to imply that evolutionists believe that a complete �roll of the dice� caused all the finely-tuned adaptations of today seriously misrepresents their position, and so it does us no good.

Quote:

The first paragraph on the next page is also responding to (another) evolutionist statement, which is again seriously misrepresented.

Quote:

A book with such a superb illustrative appearance makes itself a major target for astute teachers to demonstrate that creationists are either totally ignorant of evolutionary biology, or dishonestly and willfully misrepresent it.

Quote:

The entire book majors on using techniques such as rhetorical questions to get you to draw conclusions, not just a conclusion about the authority of the Bible, as such, but majoring on the various speculative ideas it favors.

My ancient war deity, this is funnier than their review of Hovind!

butswana · 01-15-2003, 05:28 AM

That's pretty funny. If this joker understands the "evolutionst" position like he claims to, he would never have written this silly review. Pot meet kettle, indeed.

LiveFreeOrDie · 01-15-2003, 06:19 AM

Nice analysis, WinAce. These creationists must have such a high level of cognitive dissonance, I'm surprised their brains don't explode.

happyboy · 01-15-2003, 06:31 AM

nah. the almighty power of JAY-SUS keeps their brains nice and gooey inside their thick, thick skulls. praise jesus!

happyboy

MrDarwin · 01-15-2003, 08:08 AM

Egads, some of the creationists seem to be thinking critically! It's good to see that they're taking to heart at least some of the scientific critiques of creationist ideas. We'll make "evolutionists" of them yet!

Grumpy · 01-15-2003, 01:49 PM

AiG is the Ken Ham group, right? Or did they get a new head honcho recently, one bent on preserving the integrity of Creation Science by pooh-poohing their sloppier and more "dogmatic" colleagues?

Without surfing the AiG site myself, can somebody tell me what's left, after they've dismissed the discredited and outdated arguments used by "lesser" creationists? I mean, if moon dust doesn't cut it, just what "evidences" are AiG relying on?

tgamble · 01-15-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy
AiG is the Ken Ham group, right? Or did they get a new head honcho recently, one bent on preserving the integrity of Creation Science by pooh-poohing their sloppier and more "dogmatic" colleagues?

Without surfing the AiG site myself, can somebody tell me what's left, after they've dismissed the discredited and outdated arguments used by "lesser" creationists? I mean, if moon dust doesn't cut it, just what "evidences" are AiG relying on?

Let's see,

No new information.

No transitional fossils.

Violates thermodynamics.

probability.

No transitional fossils.

population growth, magetic field and various other YE arguments. Including not enough helium in the atmosphere. how the human population proves a young earth is beyond me. At best, it would show the age of the human species. But since when are cretinists rational.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils.

No new information.

No new information.

No transitional fossils.

No new information.

No transitional fossils.

No new information.

No transitional fossils.

No new information.

No transitional fossils.

No new information.

Did I mention the no new transitional fossils argument?

That, a few young earth arguments, babbling about how complex life is and such is what they mostly seem to use. And most important of all.

EVOLUTION CONTRADICTS GOD'S HOLY WORD AND IS A LIE FROM SATAN!

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

01-15-2003, 04:28 AM	#2
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	I wonder what precisely, an AiG peer review is? Wish I could spell. It's a lot easier than editing. doov

01-15-2003, 05:28 AM	#5
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	That's pretty funny. If this joker understands the "evolutionst" position like he claims to, he would never have written this silly review. Pot meet kettle, indeed.

01-15-2003, 06:19 AM	#6
LiveFreeOrDie Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA Posts: 77	Nice analysis, WinAce. These creationists must have such a high level of cognitive dissonance, I'm surprised their brains don't explode.

01-15-2003, 06:31 AM	#7
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	nah. the almighty power of JAY-SUS keeps their brains nice and gooey inside their thick, thick skulls. praise jesus! happyboy

01-15-2003, 08:08 AM	#8
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Egads, some of the creationists seem to be thinking critically! It's good to see that they're taking to heart at least some of the scientific critiques of creationist ideas. We'll make "evolutionists" of them yet!

01-15-2003, 01:49 PM	#9
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	AiG is the Ken Ham group, right? Or did they get a new head honcho recently, one bent on preserving the integrity of Creation Science by pooh-poohing their sloppier and more "dogmatic" colleagues? Without surfing the AiG site myself, can somebody tell me what's left, after they've dismissed the discredited and outdated arguments used by "lesser" creationists? I mean, if moon dust doesn't cut it, just what "evidences" are AiG relying on?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.