A Little Trip To The Private World Of ICR
SJAB1958
ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
on the link called 'Impact'.
This takes you to a page with a whole load of articles on it under the
following statement:
"It is often heard in classes or in the media, that there is no
evidence for creation and that evolution is the obvious choice of the
intellectual. These articles were written to help show the strength of
the creation model while revealing the weakness of the model of
evolution. (These articles are from ICR's monthly Acts & Facts News
Booklet.)"
Next click on any article title, and when the page opens up, click on
the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
there.
I wont tell you right now what it says (and it says it at the end of
every article) I want you to find out for yourselves.
I would love to know however if anyone can prove the veracity of the
statement you will find there.
Gregory A Greenman
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com>
declared...
Here's what I see at the bottom of each page:
The Bible is Scientifically Accurate. Get the Evidence @ icr.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
1806 Royal Lane * Dallas, Texas 75229 * (800) 337-0375 *
www.icr.org
I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
I was surprised to see that their address is in Dallas. I'll have
to drive by their offices sometime to see what they look like.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
"The Bible is Scientifically Accurate"... I assume this is the
statement in question!
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002004.php
According to the HHS, the term "scientifically accurate" is undefined.
As a government agency overseen by the GAO, when it determines that a
term is undefined, it is undefined until Congress or the courts choose
to define it. Until then, it's usage is literally "up for grabs" and
anyone can use it in any context, they choose (since it has no
meaning). For instance, "My left toe is scientifically accurate" is an
absolutely meaningless and true statement, whether it's a normal left
toe or mutant left toe or dismembered left toe. The actual reality of
my left toe carries no significance to the term, "scientifically
accurate". In the same exact way, "The Bible" is not actually modified
by the term, "scientifically accurate", because the term has no
defined meaning.
JTG 6/5/07
JTEM
> According to the HHS, the term "scientifically accurate"
> is undefined.
Health & Human Services? I would think that you'd have
to be wrong, that it would "legally" or "officially"
mean the exact same thing as "Accurate."
That is, unless some cronie at a fortune at stake...
SJAB1958
> In article <1181070024.124005.295670
> greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"The Bible is Scientifically Accurate." is exactly what I meant for
people to see.
SJAB1958
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do not know this HHS of which you speak but I am afraid I have to
disagree with you on your statement that 'the term "scientifically
accurate" is undefined'.
Scientifically means "with respect to science".
Accurate means "characterised by perfect conformity to fact or truth".
So the phrase 'scientifically accurate' means "characterised by
perfect conformity to fact or truth with respect to science".
Therefore to the statement "The Bible is Scientifically Accurate"
means "the Bible perfectly conforms to fact or truth with respect to
science".
In other words the phrase in question is not undefined nor is the
meaning 'up for grabs' as you suggest.
Gregory A Greenman
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com>
declared...
> On 5 Jun, 20:27, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > In article <1181070024.124005.295670
> > @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com>
> > declared...
> >
> > > Here's a little gem for you to consider, if you find your way to the
> > > ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
> > > on the link called 'Impact'.
> >
> > > the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
> > > then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
> > > there.
> >
> > > statement you will find there.
> >
> > Here's what I see at the bottom of each page:
> >
> > The Bible is Scientifically Accurate. Get the Evidence @ icr.org
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1806 Royal Lane * Dallas, Texas 75229 * (800) 337-0375 *www.icr.org
> >
> > I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
> >
>
> people to see.
Well obviously the claim is false, so none of us can prove its
veracity. But, I'm not sure why this claim is so surprising. It's
the premise behind their entire site. We already knew that.
--
Greg
----
Rolf
"SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181070024.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I don't know what I did wrong; I didn't see the statement. But I found this:
" A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by Duane Gish
and just have to say Wow! I really am sorry for the poor souls who buy this
crap.
SJAB1958
> "SJAB1958" <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well just to let you know what it says at the end of every 'Impact'
article (printable version) - "The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate" -
a rather odd thing to declare isnt it?
SJAB1958
> In article <1181102743.995611.323190
> @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com>
> declared...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jun, 20:27, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > > In article <1181070024.124005.295670
> > > @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com>
> > > declared...
>
> > > > Here's a little gem for you to consider, if you find your way to the
> > > > ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
> > > > on the link called 'Impact'.
>
> > > > Next click on any article title, and when the page opens up, click on
> > > > the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
> > > > then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
> > > > there.
>
> > > > I would love to know however if anyone can prove the veracity of the
> > > > statement you will find there.
>
> > > Here's what I see at the bottom of each page:
>
> > > The Bible is Scientifically Accurate. Get the Evidence @ icr.org
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 1806 Royal Lane * Dallas, Texas 75229 * (800) 337-0375 *www.icr.org
>
> > > I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
>
> > "The Bible is Scientifically Accurate." is exactly what I meant for
> > people to see.
>
> Well obviously the claim is false, so none of us can prove its
> veracity. But, I'm not sure why this claim is so surprising. It's
> the premise behind their entire site. We already knew that.
>
see if they can explain it and why they believe this to be so.
Friar Broccoli
.
> "The Bible is Scientifically Accurate." is exactly what I meant for
> people to see
Ah, you have fallen into a trap of self-desception!!
You are not reading this phrase LITERALLY, as is
obviously intended.
It does NOT say:
"The CONTENT of the Bible is Scientifically Accurate."
SJAB1958
But I am reading it literally, my little ordained vegetable, after all
by referring to the Bible the statement is explicitly referring to the
content of the Bible.
Geoff
>>> "The Bible is Scientifically Accurate." is exactly what I meant for
>>> people to see.
>>
>> Well obviously the claim is false, so none of us can prove its
>> veracity. But, I'm not sure why this claim is so surprising. It's
>> the premise behind their entire site. We already knew that.
>>
> Well I am hoping to hear from someone that supports this position and
> see if they can explain it and why they believe this to be so.
Here are a few sites:
http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/bibleac.html
http://100777.com/node/534
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0027_Scientific.html
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
The basic recipe is to pick some biblical text, alter the translation if
necessary, then twist and mangle that square peg until you can jam it in the
scientific hole.
For example:
Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be
numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured." The Bible claimed that
there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the
stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of
stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are
billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.
...........................
OK...who says "host of heaven" means stars. Regardless, while we can't get a
precise count of stars (what can we get a really precise count of), we can
get an estimate and it is way more than billions. Current estimates are that
there are about 10^24 stars...or a billion billions. Similarly, we can
estimate the grains of sand on Earth.
..............................
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the
empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing." The Bible claimed that the
earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a
large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.
..........................
So what about that "stretches out the north over the empty place"? And if
Earth "hangs on nothing", that's not the same as orbiting around the Sun.
...........................
Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in
the blood." The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up
until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the
practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your
blood, you will lose your life.
...........................
Oh right...try and convince me that any reasonably intelligent person didn't
know this. How the heck did they slaughter animals? How many warriors bled
to death in battle. I suppose no one noticed this until the 19th century.
...........................
Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send
lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?" The Bible here
is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent,
and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move
at the speed of light?
...........................
Wow, mental contortions! Mindbending rationalization.
Ken Denny
[snip]
The one titled "Evidence for a Young World" by D. Russell Humphreys,
Ph.D. has some pretty amusing stuff.
First:
"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic
center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the
outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our
galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a
featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet
our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old.
Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have
known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to
explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The
same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."
I believe this is the same guy who wrote a book where he tried to
explain how we can see light from galaxies millions of light years
away when the universe is only 6,000 years old. In it he uses a gross
distortion of Einstein's relativity theory to explain that while the
earth is < 10,000 years old, those other galaxies actually are
billions of years old due to some kind of perverse time dilation. Oh
well, self contradiction doesn't seem to be a problem for
creationists.
Going on:
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own
experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25
years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab
Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a
million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could
observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova
remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth
of supernovas."
One supernova every 25 years? I'm 57 and there hasn't been a supernova
in the Milky Way in my lifetime. When was the last one? According to
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/more/mw_sn.html it was over 300
years ago.
How stupid do you have to be to believe this stuff?
Friar Broccoli
>> .
You are creating an outrageous straw man!! You cannot ADD new
words and meaning and then claim your reading is a literal one.
You even have the shameless impudence to state that the phrase
"explicitly" refers to the CONTENT, when neither that word, nor
any synonym for that word appears in the phrase.
Next you'll be claiming that this perfectly innocent phrase
explicitly affirms that the WHOLE Bible is Scientifically
Accurate, or that "content" refers to meaning rather than
substance. Go ahead deny it !!
Do evolutionists have no shame?
Finally, if you don't back off on your backhanded insults
of the Great Broccoli, you're going to spend a LONG time
experiencing the real meaning of frier.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
SJAB1958
Sorry to disappoint you my little toasted brassica variant, it is
those that believe in the six day creation and the global flood who
make this claim about the scientific accuracy of the Bible, therefore
when such a person declares the Bible is scientifically accurate they
are referring to the content of the Bible.
>
> Next you'll be claiming that this perfectly innocent phrase
> explicitly affirms that the WHOLE Bible is Scientifically
> Accurate, or that "content" refers to meaning rather than
> substance. Go ahead deny it !!
As I am not a Prince of Egypt I do not experience any form of denial.
>
> Do evolutionists have no shame?
Of course we don't, after all we are just clever little apes who run
around naked.
>
> Finally, if you don't back off on your backhanded insults
> of the Great Broccoli, you're going to spend a LONG time
> experiencing the real meaning of frier.
Not insults my little lightly battered green floret, they are
compliments.
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------- Hide quoted text -
SJAB1958
> years ago.
>
> How stupid do you have to be to believe this stuff?
I love spreading the word to others about the stuff these people
publish on their website.
It makes you wonder if they 'know' this to be true, how come they only
publish in the public domain to those who are already converted to
their way of thinking?
And how come not one supporter of this movement, concept, whatever has
come forward to defend it?
Dogma Discharge
"SJAB1958" <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> And how come not one supporter of this movement, concept, whatever has
> come forward to defend it?
>
Not that it's any of my business but are'nt you taking this whole
creationist thing a little too personally ? Relax, here, have a puff of
this! :)
tex...@gmail.com
Would you two please continue your
love making elsewhere? Thank you.
Regards,
Karel
SJAB1958
> "SJAB1958" <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
pufffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ...... that's better
I wasnt taking it personally, but it puzzles me that when someone
challenges their viewpoint so directly not a single one can come
forward and defend it.
However I do note that whenever any creationut challenges the theory
of evolution they get swamped with responses and havent got the
ability to hold up under such an attack.
BTW what was that I just had a puffffffffffffffffffffffffffff of, its
made me go rather wooooosy, I hope it wasnt slab ... burble wurble ...
oh dear .. it was slaburble whooo ... <collapsed>
VoiceOfReason
But the Bible *is* scientifically accurate............... except when
it's not.
:-)
VoiceOfReason
When I was 17, I bought one of Gish's books at a convenience store,
just for curiosity's sake. It was probably around $2 or so. After a
chapter or two, it went into the trash. Even at 17, I clearly saw it
was garbage.
Should've demanded my $2 back...
JTEM
> Therefore to the statement "The Bible is Scientifically Accurate"
> means "the Bible perfectly conforms to fact or truth with respect to
> science".
>
> In other words the phrase in question is not undefined nor is the
> meaning 'up for grabs' as you suggest.- Hide quoted text -
In the above context at least, it is clearly defined as "Bullshit."
Greg G.
That's right! We have a winner. It was slaburble whooo. Now give him
the antidote.
Geoff
That *was* the antidote.
SJAB1958
>
> - Show quoted text -
:P
John Wilkins
My gods, man, what have you done? Quick, give him some slab immediately!
He's Unstoned! He's seeing reality as it is! I only hope not too much
damage has been done...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
SJAB1958
Wow, look at all da purty kullers wunning up n dawn da sky
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."- Hide quoted text -