Nialler

Manhattan,

Yes, I suppose that you spotted the European spelling there! Well done!. I'm tempted to say that my home city - Dublin - is evident on my postings, but I realise that there are several Dublins worldwide, including a few in the US.

donotworry, this most definitely is *not* a religious topic. I should know - I opened the topic, and in case you haven't noticed, I opened the topic on a forum in the secular web. Yes, I would expect even the most obtuse ass to recognise that this was not a religious issue. Remember that the original topic was the constraints being placed on the baptistboard's evolution "debate" - constraints which appear to me to be designed to hamper any discussion of the issues they profess to debate.

I asked you a question: to tell me what I have done that should cause me to repent. You haven't answered. You introduced the concept of "sin" - a concept which is not in the philosophy to which I adhere.

I repeat the challenge to you. In the meantime, I will tell you that I have never broken a law, I pay my bills and taxes, I give money and time to charitable causes, and generally conduct myself in a manner which does not hurt others. Where did I ever say that I was perfect? I am prey to the weaknesses that are part of the human lot. If I have hurt someone or offended - even inadvertently - I deal with it and move on.

Nope, there's nothing that I feel I need to repent.

However, you obviously have a greater insight into me. Please, I repeat, let me know what it is that I should repent. I repeat, also, my insistence that you restrict yourself to non-religious issues.

ex-robot

This has nothing to do with their claiming that the ICR specific tenets of biblical creationism are scientific. I searched and found that article, and it still doesn't say they claim that their TBS are scientific. This would be a lot easier if you would just admit that you think this because it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
<strong> You have shown zero evidence. Their denial would have nothing to do with fraud. Who gives a flying flip about the totality of their material. We are talking about the alleged claim of ICR stating their TBC are scientific. If you would please provide an ounce of evidence and stop just spouting rhetoric, it would be appreciated.
<strong> No thanks. I don't want to be in your club if that means being so dogmatic.

xr

hezekiah jones

Dear ex-robot:

From ICR Impact No. 85:

These are Henry Morris' own words. Do you understand them? The two concepts are "supplementary," and their separate semantical existence is compelled by nothing more than a legal requirement, a fact that I have pointed out three times now. Please note that The Hydrologist himself confirms this. To wit, even The Hydrologist realizes that his pseudo-scientific gibberish is entirely inappropriate to the public school curricula. Hence the transparency of this particular semantic artifice.

Once again, these are The Hydrologist's own words. Do you understand them? Let me repeat: "It is appropriate and very important to demonstrate that Biblical creationism and scientific creationism are fully compatible, two sides of the same coin, as it were. The creation revelation in Scripture is thus supported by all true facts of nature."

Two sides of the same coin, ex-robot. One side for public schools, the other for christian schools. That is the only difference. One is not any more or less "scientific" than the other. Getting it now?

* "Scientific Biblical creationism: full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model."

Now for the kicker:

You are claiming that the ICR would not support the suggestion that its "Tenets of Biblical Creationism" are scientific. Everything that The Hydrologist says above utterly invalidates your assertion.

Obviously the ICR's "Tenets of Biblical Creationism" are completely unsupported by scientific observation. So are its "Tenets of Scientific Creationism," for that matter. We all know that. Indeed, the ICR is not a scientific organization at all! It is, according to its own masthead, "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry." However, your opinion is quite plainly not shared by The Hydrologist.

I don't see where this leaves your assertion, aside from insisting that The Hydrologist does not speak for the ICR.

&lt;code&gt;

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Imhotehp

No they don't. Creationists engauge in the practice of pseudoscience - Using scientific teminology to justify a blatanly unscientififc idea.

Sci-ence (si `ens) n. 1 Knowledge as of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and analysis.
Source: Websters Student Dictionary

Above is a definiton of what science is, and why creationism falls short of that definition. Creationism is not observed. The accounts written in genesis were recorded centuries after the fact, and include descriptions of the resulting universe that could only be described as cartoony and juvenile(flat earths? geo-centric star systems? the impenetrable sky barrier?) and ignores parts of the data(Black holes, galaxies, super- and hypernovae and the rest of our solar system among other phenomena)

I think the Creationist argument goes as follows

Premise 1 Something cannot come from nothing.
premise 2 All things have a beginning or first cause.
Inference 1 Therefore the universe did not come from nothing.
Inference 2 Therefore the universe has a cause
Inference 3 Therefore that cause is god.

Conclusion 1 The universe has a cause and that cause is the christian god.

Premises one and two are both false. Vacuous fluctuations are uncaused, yet they are an observed phenomenon. Inference three entails three leaps in logic from the universe has a cause, to 1)that cause is sentient 2)that cause is a god 3)that cause is my god. These things serve only to invalidate the creationist argument.

To call creationism a "science" is to commit blatant fraud. "creation science" is nothing more than a politicaly motivated effort to sneak christian doctrine into the public school system on the coattails of science.

ex-robot

Huh? You just shot yourself in the foot. This shows that he doesn't think the tenets of biblical creationism are "scientific". What is up with "The Hydrologist"? Are you "The Student"? I obviously understand his words.
You are obviously not getting it. Once again Morris says biblical creationism should only be taught in Church and Christian colleges. It is not scientific in his own mind and shouldn't be taught in public schools.
How so? "He" obviously feels that no scientific data when checked invalidates biblical creationism. This is a far cry from saying the tenets of biblical creationism are scientific. He clearly does not feel this way, or he would advocate public school biology students hearing about adam and eve, talking snakes, etc. Do you get it?
Que` importa? (who cares)
</strong>
What does Christ-Focused have to do with it being a scientific organization? Should all research agencies try and find out if any of their scientists are "christ-focused" and have them fired? Many would argue that Newton was "christ-focused". So what in regards to being scientific????
"The Student" has no case. Please respond when you do.

xr

hezekiah jones

Okaaay.

Riiight.

Agreed.

hezekiah jones

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/reversing.html" target="_blank">Reversing Science, by Frank R. Zindler</a>

Funny how obvious it is to Zindler as well.

ex-robot

You obviously have plenty of time on your hands to continually preach to yourself about unrelated topics like scientific creationsim instead of showing how ICR or a hydrologist think the TBC are scientific. I could care less right now about your side issues, and I am sure most people on this board would say "no duh, sherlock". I hope you convinced yourself now.

xr

theyeti

Ex-robot, I think what hezekiahjones is trying to say is that THE WHOLE POINT of YEC is that science is identical to Biblical creationism. Just because they try to distinguish between the two doesn't change that. Furthermore, I think it's obvous that their distinguishing them is purely for the purpose of trying to circumvent the 1st Amendment by declaring the Bible to be "science" and thus an appropriate topic for public school kids. It's hard to imagine otherwise -- like I said, the stated purpose of YEC is to uphold Biblical literalism. Could you at least come to some sort of compromise here?

theyeti

scigirl

Good points, the yeti.

I would also like to point out that people who work for ICR are required to sign a statement of faith before they start their research.

Here's a nice analogy that Dr. Scigirl thought of this week in seattle waiting to interview at UW. . .

Let's say a pharmaceutical company wants to develop a drug for diabetes. They hire researchers, but before any studies are done, the researchers are required to sign the following statement:
Hmm. . .who would trust this pharmaceutical company?

Lest you think I am being silly, here's some stuff strait from <a href="http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.html" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.html</a>

Ex-robot--

I am a graduate student in biology. I never had to sign a statement of faith before starting my research. In fact, our lab is actually proving some old research wrong (well not completely wrong, but we are illustrating another side of the story about neutrophils).

Signing any statement of belief before you carry out your studies (irrespective of what those beliefs are) is an anathma to scientific discovery. Period.

Just like some pharmaceutical companies who falsify results for their own purposes, The ICR is a disgrace to the scientific community.

scigirl