Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Solum · 10-11-2002, 10:22 AM

Definitely an interesting article:

<a href="http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp" target="_blank">Maintaining Creationist Integrity</a>

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Quote:

We would therefore suggest that one of the greatest strengths of any creationist organization or individual would be a willingness to keep up with new information, and to discard or modify one�s favorite arguments in the interests of the highest standards of integrity and accuracy.

All this raises a legitimate question, however, namely that if everything is tentative, and all of us are fallible, should one simply accept that �anything goes� in terms of theories and explanations? We think not; we think that Christians should be very much concerned about whether Biblical creation is being defended using arguments that are, for instance, factually incorrect, logically invalid, based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. These sorts of things, often propagated by individuals who have very little scientific training, actually end up harming the cause of Biblical creation (and hence, by extension, the Bible itself). They can provide a potent justification/excuse for people to �write off� creation

Hmmm, I wonder how long it will take AiG to get bitten in the ass on this one. They talk the talk. Can they walk the walk? I wonder how many errors AiG makes in this article alone. (Anybody want to find some?)

Now about those Chinese characters. . . .

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 11:07 AM

LOL. AiG calls him "Mr Hovind." Atleast they got something right.

pz · 10-11-2002, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Solum:
<strong>Definitely an interesting article:
<a href="http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp" target="_blank">Maintaining Creationist Integrity</a></strong>

"Interesting" in the sense of seeing a pair of fools batter their ignorance against one another.

theyeti · 10-11-2002, 11:16 AM

Aw shucks. I was hoping they'd blast him for his tax evasion and other numerous run-ins with the law. Very disappointing.

theyeti

Dr.GH · 10-11-2002, 12:20 PM

That was most amusing. Thanks for the link.

Mageth · 10-11-2002, 12:35 PM

Actually, theyeti, the article does say:

We also have difficulty with the idea of promoting sites which have various overtly �flaky� ideas, not just in creation issues, but also linking creation issues with other �fringe� thinking (such as arguments against paying income tax, various cancer cures, etc.) which regardless of their merits or otherwise, have nothing to do with the creation issue.

Not exactly a blast, but at least a gentle slap.

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 12:46 PM

Is it me or should AiG title that message, "Mr. Kettle, thou art black?"

Bubba · 10-11-2002, 12:46 PM

"...bitten on the ass by what they've written..."

Couldn't have said it better myself Rufus.

I find a real parallel between AIG and Phil Johnson in that they are very skilled at using rhetoric to make themselves look ethical and thoughtful...but then have no real honest content in what they have to say.

Bubba

Mageth · 10-11-2002, 01:15 PM

I found this statement about mammoths rather, um, interesting:

Of course AiG points out that this adaptation has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution but has to do with natural selection for already-existing genes, via removing creatures lacking them.

This seems to indicate that, before there were woolly mammoths, there were woolly mammoths and things-that-were-like-woolly-mammoths-but-not-woolly mammoths (elephants, I assume). The cold killed off the latter. But how did the former survive before the conditions that were favorable to them arose?

10-11-2002, 10:22 AM	#1
John Solum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 139	AiG on Hovind Definitely an interesting article: <a href="http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp" target="_blank">Maintaining Creationist Integrity</a>

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

10-11-2002, 11:07 AM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	LOL. AiG calls him "Mr Hovind." Atleast they got something right.

10-11-2002, 11:16 AM	#5
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Aw shucks. I was hoping they'd blast him for his tax evasion and other numerous run-ins with the law. Very disappointing. theyeti

10-11-2002, 12:20 PM	#6
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	That was most amusing. Thanks for the link.

10-11-2002, 12:35 PM	#7
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Actually, theyeti, the article does say: We also have difficulty with the idea of promoting sites which have various overtly �flaky� ideas, not just in creation issues, but also linking creation issues with other �fringe� thinking (such as arguments against paying income tax, various cancer cures, etc.) which regardless of their merits or otherwise, have nothing to do with the creation issue. Not exactly a blast, but at least a gentle slap.

10-11-2002, 12:46 PM	#8
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Is it me or should AiG title that message, "Mr. Kettle, thou art black?"

10-11-2002, 12:46 PM	#9
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	"...bitten on the ass by what they've written..." Couldn't have said it better myself Rufus. I find a real parallel between AIG and Phil Johnson in that they are very skilled at using rhetoric to make themselves look ethical and thoughtful...but then have no real honest content in what they have to say. Bubba

10-11-2002, 01:15 PM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I found this statement about mammoths rather, um, interesting: Of course AiG points out that this adaptation has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution but has to do with natural selection for already-existing genes, via removing creatures lacking them. This seems to indicate that, before there were woolly mammoths, there were woolly mammoths and things-that-were-like-woolly-mammoths-but-not-woolly mammoths (elephants, I assume). The cold killed off the latter. But how did the former survive before the conditions that were favorable to them arose?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.