YEC Nobel Prize Winner
Jason Gastrich
Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
evolutionists first, then to all others.
Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
prize.
Thanks for your time.
Jason
--
Young Earth Creation Science
http://yecs.org
This site is on track to become the biggest archive of links to YEC articles
on the web!
Eric Gill
news:xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
> influenced you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would
> you say is the most intelligent and honest
There are a small number of candidates for this one. AiG sometimes has the
honesty to debunk some of the worst YEC shysters.
> and has taught you some
> important things about science and young earth creation?
There are no candidates for this one unless you are looking for "someone
who provided a good example of what science is not," and the closely-
related "Why Creation Science is not science."
> This
> question is directed to evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me
> that he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements
> because this is a sincere question.
Will a sincere answer be acknowledged even if it wasn't what you were
looking for?
> And the "Nobel Prize Winner"
> subject was just for effect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that any
> particular YECist should get the prize.
No YECist should be considered for any sort of scientific prize for YEC
work until they actually do some science in support of it.
Brian Westley
>Hi,
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>evolutionists first, then to all others.
>Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
>he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
>sincere question.
Unnngh.....
.....eeeuuunnnggghhh..
Oh, screw you, YOU posted to alt.atheism.
Isn't your question like asking "which box of dirt is the smartest"?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Ernest Major
<newsg...@jcsm.org> writes
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>science and young earth creation?
Regrettably, your second question is not your first question "in other
words". Please restate your query in a manner so that we know what you
are trying to ask.
--
alias Ernest Major
David
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most?
So far a big NONE. What did you expect?
Of course influence is a loaded word. The whole creationist movement
has made me see that religion is a very dangerous political view.
I thought N. Ireland was a historical anomaly. Now I realize that the
hatred among Christians is very prevalent. It's a very scary
proposition to see the president of the US pushing through a religious
agenda.
So yes, they influenced me to see past the false witnessing.
> In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation?
I'm struggling with the words 'intelligent and honest'. The bar is on
the floor and no one is leaping over it.
> And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect. I'm not necessarily
> suggesting that any particular YECist should get the prize.
Of course you're not, even you wouldn't waste your time with that kind
of argument. Your thread title sums up everything that you stand for.
False Advertising.
You excel at FALSE advertising, also called propaganda.
David
Fred Stone
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
None of them. There is no such thing as an intelligent *and* honest YEC.
It is *necessary* to be a liar to be a YEC.
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
David
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation?
So far a big NONE. What did you expect?
Of course influence is a loaded word. The whole creationist movement
has made me see that religion is a very dangerous political view.
I thought N Ireland was a historical anomaly. Now I relaise that the
hatred amoung Christians is very prevalent. It's a very scary
proposition to see the president of the US puching through a religious
agenda.
Dana Tweedy
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced
you
> the most?
Duaine Gish. He taught me that YEC proponents are dishonest, and cannot be
trusted. He was my first exposure to "Creation Science", and has left a bad
taste in my mouth (figuratively) ever since.
> In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation?
Which unwashed privy on a July afternoon smells best? Seriously.
Intelligence, honesty, and teaching have as much in common with YEC as a
porta potty has with pleasant odors.
> This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo."
Ken Ham is as dishonest as the others. He has nothing to offer anyone who
is interested in real scientific thought.
> Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question.
I gave you a sincere answer above. Creationism is inherently unscientific,
and anyone who claims to be a "creation scientist" is dishonest.
> And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
Do you know why no YEC should get the prize?
DJT
Maverick
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
> influenced you the most?
Many of them, but not in a positive way. And they have certainly not
provided any valuable insights regarding science.
> In other words, which YEC man or woman would
> you say is the most intelligent and honest and has taught you some
> important things about science and young earth creation?
Taught me anything about science? Not a single one of them. Young earth
creation? All of them. But the problem is they actually confuse myth with
real science, and so they actually try to make YEC look like science.
> This
> question is directed to evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me
> that he is a bozo."
Oh, and btw... Hovind taught me that he is a bozo.
> Please refrain from back-handed statements
> because this is a sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner"
> subject was just for effect.
It couldn't have been for anything else, so...
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any
> particular YECist should get the prize.
Of course a YECist could get the prize - should they do some real science.
Andrew Arensburger
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
I vote for Rubystars. See her POTM at
http://tinyurl.com/2sgkq
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Push the button, Frank.
Troy Truchon
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced
> you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the
> most intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is
> a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for
> effect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should
> get the prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
The only thing that the creationist movement has taught me is that there are
actually people who believe that evidence is not required when making a
claim. Seriousely how can you ask which YEC should win the noble prize,
thats ruffly equivelent to asking which plumber deserves the stanley cup.
--
Usenet, an online role playing game
that gives lives to those who don't have them.
-Troy Leveille-dit-Truchon, Marquis de la Californie
Matt Penfold
looked at the evidence for evolution and realised just how compelling it is.
Matt
David Jensen
<xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com>:
>Hi,
>
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
>Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
>he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
>sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
>I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
>prize.
>
>Thanks for your time.
I've known many people who happened to accept YEC as religious doctrine
who are good people and worthy of admiration. I admire them because they
embody the teachings of Jesus, not because they happen to belong to a
church body that endorses YEC. None would have argued that science
supports YEC, they were honest enough to admit that they did not know
the science and were not going to put themselves into the position of
lying from ignorance.
I also admire the geologists of two centuries ago who were creationists.
They expected the evidence to confirm their interpretation of the Bible.
When it did not, they were honest about it and accepted that they were
mistaken in using the Bible in that way.
David Jensen
in <glwZb.12483$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
What's funny is that I may be the only person who has answered in a
positive manner (by answering differently than expected), but Dr?
Gastrich will never know, since he stopped reading my posts.
Ernest Major
<da...@dajensen-family.com> writes
>
>I also admire the geologists of two centuries ago who were creationists.
>They expected the evidence to confirm their interpretation of the Bible.
>When it did not, they were honest about it and accepted that they were
>mistaken in using the Bible in that way.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Cyde Weys
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
None. They are liars, all.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
David Jensen
in <S0mIbHA7...@meden.demon.co.uk>:
I don't think the concept of Old Earth or Young Earth had gelled back
then. Even a century later, Kelvin could argue, prior to the discovery
or radio decay, with some seriousness that the earth couldn't be as old
as the model was showing because the model didn't explain why the earth
was as warm as it was.
R.Schenck
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent
well, hovind claims to have like what, a 160 iq.
>and honest
oh well i think hovind is lying when he says that so that settles
that.
> and has taught you some important things about
>science
i suppose you could say they have the effect of whittling the stick or
sharpening the blade or something like that. But, really, they are
only good for that for like, high school kids or something. Their
arguements are, at their best, mildly, and i mean mildly clever. But,
sometimes its difficult to distinguish between clever and wildly
stupid.
> and young earth creation?
oh well the ones that i've learned the most from about yecism. hmm,
well they almost all say that its a science, and it isn't, so they've
all been wrong about that fact about yecism. The only thing they're
really been able to demonstrate about yecism is that it an
amalgamation of criticism, almost all invalid criticism of evolution.
Most of them have been able to demonstrate that, in order to be a
yecist, you -must- be ignorant of what science is, ignorant of what
real religion is, and those two things are usually the result of poor
education, which, ultimately, is either because of ineffectial
teachers or because the individual refuses to apply the method and
understand the material themselves.
> This question is directed to
>evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
>Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
>he is a bozo."
he really is a joke tho. silly accent doesn't help much either.
>Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
>sincere question.
its a worthwhile question. i held back from jumping at the obvious
answer and thought to myself, which creationists could i even begin to
say this about? i figured that, there must at least be one that i
could honestly say had taught me something, in a positive sense, about
science (as opposed to what science is not and that sort of thing).
But i really couldn't say. One might think that AIG is to be
commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
themselves. And to pretend that they are somehow 'protecting
creationist integrity' by listing the worst of the arguments that
other people have instisted for a long time are completely and totally
wrong is more than a little ludicrous.
> And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
>I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
>prize.
>
who would -you- give the award to for greatest accomplishments in the
quack (damned ducks) field of "creation science" (don't forget to use
the quotation marks tho)
>Thanks for your time.
no problem doode.
>
>Jason
Steve Knight
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most?
The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hendergraft. He makes me laugh so hard I
nearly piss myself. Especially when his god made his wife have a
miscarriage so they could named the blob, baptized it and have a
funeral.
Hovind is a very close second. He has the best antics.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Ken Shaw
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
There no present YEC's that I respect or admire. I feel a great deal of
hope that some will see the truth and abandon this misguided beliefs.
My brother is my favorite former YEC. The best one you can read about is
Charles C. here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct03.html
Ken
Chris Thompson
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
> influenced you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would
> you say is the most intelligent and honest and has taught you some
> important things about science and young earth creation? This
> question is directed to evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me
> that he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements
> because this is a sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner"
> subject was just for effect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that any
> particular YECist should get the prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
ISTM that Louis Agassiz is the last YEC who had even a shred of scientific
integrity. Of course, it seems that even he had to resolutely ignore data.
Certainly no living YEC has any excuse. Science from a YEC? Please be
reassured that this is not sarcasm, irony, or any other debating tactic or
trick. But you have more chance of pulling a pearl from a pile of pig shit
than of getting science from a YEC.
Chris
Woden
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
> influenced you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would
> you say is the most intelligent and honest and has taught you some
> important things about science and young earth creation? This
> question is directed to evolutionists first, then to all others.
NONE.
I've yet to read anything intelligent from any and most have also
demonstrated their dishonesty.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me
> that he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements
> because this is a sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner"
> subject was just for effect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that any
> particular YECist should get the prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Tom McDonald
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
On the off chance Jason reads this...
A local Lutheran pastor (Wisconsin Synod, I think; like the
Missouri Synod, only conservative). He had the grace to remain
engaged with me with patience, courage and tolerance. We talked
on and off for two or three years, including some interesting
'Letters to the Editor' in the local paper.
He was firmly convinced of YEC, and the inerrancy of the Bible.
He was protective of some of his church members, concerned that
they might not be able to hear frank discussions about evolution,
etc., without threatening their salvation. He and I disagreed
about this, but he was honest about his views on this, and the
conversations about this were frank as well as mutually respectful.
He invited me to a presentation at local middle school (they'd
rented a room there for the occasion) on YEC stuff. A traveling
Hovind-like fellow (don't recall his name) gave a long talk on
YEC views about dinosaurs, the problem of evolution for
Christians, yada yada.
He and I discussed this in great detail. After talking about
what science does do (test hypotheses that are at least
theoretically falsifiable) and doesn't do (prove things true), he
admitted that his YEC views were not scientific because he could
not conceive of anything that could falsify it for him, even in
principle. We discussed the role of science classes in public
schools, and he agreed that creationism shouldn't be taught in
public school science classes.
He taught me respect, if not for YEC and creationism as science,
then for those who hold such views and who are truly open to a
dialog with those of other views on the matter.
His example gives me hope that we can find a way to live in a
free and secular society with respect and tolerance for each
other (if not always for our views!); and that there are ways to
honestly deepen our understanding of each other in Christian
brotherhood.
Having had such an experience (and I've had many similar
experiences), it is saddening to me that it is so hard to achieve
this on the newsgroups.
However, I've never seen a creationist with scientific integrity
when talking about creationism.
Tom McDonald
Severian
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
>Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
>he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
>sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
>I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
>prize.
Jason Gastrich taught me that he is a bozo. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
While I think it may be remotely possible that a YEC could be both
intelligent and honest, it is logically impossible for any of them to
teach anyone anything about science.
--
Sev
Mark VandeWettering
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.
Not in a positive way of course.
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo."
Oh well, never mind then.
> Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a sincere
> question.
THe answer was equally sincere.
> And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
It's certainly possible for a YEC to win the Nobel Prize. They are
awarded for non-scientific disciplines.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
Mark
>
> Jason
Richard S. Crawford
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
Oh. I just figured you were joking.
--
Slainte,
Richard S. Crawford
AIM: Buffalo2K / Y!: rscrawford / ICQ: 11640404
http://www.mossroot.com http://www.stonegoose.com
"It is only with our heart that we can see clearly. What is essential is
invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exupery
Raymond E. Griffith
newsg...@jcsm.org wrote on 2/20/04 5:25 PM:
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
Without a doubt the most influential YEC in my life would have to be Henry
Morris. I still have his books. But "influential" and "honest" do not
necessarily go together.
I grew up under the YEC influence. He was the leader of the movement, and in
my fundamentalist background I accepted what he wrote unquestioningly. When
I went to a Christian college, his books were in the bookstore, and one
course required one of his books -- "Scientific Creationism", IIRC. I
appreciated his commentary on Genesis. You could say that I "thought the
world of him."
Morris and those with him were continually re-interpreting the Scripture,
adding to it, trying to make the Scriptures sound modern and scientific --
and I admit that he made an impressive attempt. He did such a slick job that
when you read the Bible you would insert his interpretations right in there,
never thinking that you were adding to the sacred text. He would take quotes
from science journals -- out of context of course, but I didn't know that --
and weave them into his tale of catastrophism and young earth creationism.
He used scientific terminology, cutting it down and making scientists look
like fools as he demonstrated the impossibility of evolution.
Which is why actually learning some science turned out to be such a shock.
I went to teach mathematics at a community college. One of the deans was a
biological chemist, and a devout Christian. At one point, I made a
disparaging remark about evolution and he looked at me rather strangely.
Then he told me that I needed to do some more study -- beginning with the
definitions. He was kind, showed quality Christian character -- and he
taught evolution in the classroom.
So I studied, and I went back to talk with him. I compared Morris with the
biology, physics, geology texts -- and found that Morris was significantly
wrong on the definitions and the basics time and time again. If he was so
wrong on even the definitions, what else was he wrong about?
So I did more study. Essentially, it was Morris and his errors that
convinced me that creationism was *wrong*. Morris was so wrong about science
that he had to deny the clear evidence of the creation itself! Morris did
more than that. He convinced me that one could not maintain a literalist
viewpoint of Scripture without having to add to it, ignore parts of it,
explain away plain statements or make them mean what they don't mean and
depreciate the role of the writers and make them mere automata of the Author
-- when the Scripture itself makes clear their active role in the formation
of Scripture. He forced the Scripture out of its grammatical and historical
context to become a statement of science.
In the end, I found that losing faith in Creationism did not mean losing
faith in Christ, abandoning my faith, the Bible, or justifying sin. What it
did mean is that I could know that God revealed Himself to men as they were
able to understand, that God gave them what they could handle. And His
revelation was never about revealing the world, but Himself and His
character. God wanted men to know Him. The unfolding of the world He left to
mankind. I still seek to know and do His will. I pray. I study the
Scriptures. I tell others of Christ's salvation. I seek God's blessing in my
life, and He has blessed!
Going back and re-reading Morris' books, I now am able to point out the
scientific and factual errors found in them. When I was ignorant of science,
it was easy to believe what Morris said. And that is what Morris relied on.
I have no doubt that Dr. Henry M. Morris knew where he was misquoting
others, where he was twisting the science, where he was lying outright, and
where he was adding to and distorting the Scripture in order to support his
interpretation of it. He is, after all, a "Doctor", and should know science
well. Why then should he have been so wrong? What else could it be but
deliberate?
So I nominate Dr. Morris as the most influential YEC in my life. I just wish
that things had been different. Instead of seeing him as a great Christian,
I now see him as a fraud, a liar and a pretender. And it hurts.
It is a good thing that you are not suggesting that any particular YECist
should get the Nobel Prize. None of them have done any real science of note
that I am aware of.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Greg G
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most?
A friend named Dwayne. I have become more knowledgeable about
evolution and science in general by correcting his "facts".
> In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation?
That's a completely different question. When he first began
challenging me on evolution, he argued against natural selection,
mutation, and that there was no speciation. Now, he admits that there
is speciation which implies that natural selection and mutation are
also valid. He once argued that deeper rocks tested older because
argon seeped up from the center of the earth and created a gradient of
accumulation. Two weeks later he was arguing that some places had
older-testing rocks above younger-testing rock, which contradicted the
former argument. By then, I had found T.O. and had read better
explanations for those arguments.
So, even though his premises and arguments (received as revealed
truth) have changed, yet his conclusion of creationism remains the
same. This is a lack of intellectual integrity.
> This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
Mother Teresa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. Was she a
creationist?
If a creationist found actual evidence that supported creationism,
he/she should receive serious consideration for a Nobel Prize.
However, most know that there is no chance to find any unambiguous
evidence and don't waste effort searching for it. Even ID has avoided
research whenever possible.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
--
Greg G.
Tour Guide: We are now passing the largest house of prostitution in
America.
Old man: Why?
Daniel Harper
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced
> you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the
> most intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation?
Depends on whether or not you're considering historical scientists, or
simply modern "scientific creationists". Newton and Galileo, as far as I
know, would be considered YECs by today's standards, although they almost
certainly would not be YECs if they were alive today and had modern
evidence to examine. Louis Agassiz was one of the great founders of
modern science, and the last of the truly scientific YECs.
In terms of modern young-earthers, there are many who have "left the
fold", so to speak, due to the strength of the evidence. Anyone who can
break free of such dogma has my respect; Charles Casey and Rubystars have
been mentioned; they both frequent this group from time to time. (I'm
worried about Charles Casey; has anyone heard from him since he stopped
posting here? I know he has medical issues to deal with, and I'd hate to
think he has returned to the hospital and is in pain currently.) Glenn
Morton comes around here as well, and is an excellent example of a
former young-earther (even a prominent scientist within their ranks) who,
because of his honesty with regard to the evidence he saw as a geologist,
was forced to accept evolutionary biology.
In terms of _current_ young-earthers, I am of the understanding that Kurt
Wise and Robert Gentry are _relatively_ honest with regards to evidence. I
obviously have not corresponded with either, so I can't vouch for them
personally, but they tend to have a modicum of respect from me. Bible Bob
has his faults, in my not so humble opinion, but among the current
creationists on talk.origins he is the one I have the greatest amont of
hope for.
They, as well as all the YECs that I know from real life who are
nonetheless honest and decent people, have influenced me to attempt to be
more decent and reasonable with the people I encounter on these groups.
They encourage me to follow the teachings of Christ whenever I am at an
impasse with a dishonest anti-evolutionist and to turn the other cheek. I
may not follow this teaching at all times, but it is hope for the
integrity of my opponents that has been taught to me best by those who
maintain some honesty within the YEC movement.
David Jensen has a remarkable response along these lines in this thread.
He believes you have him killfiled; if so I'd highly recommend you seek
out that message.
Message-id: <g68d301h3amann3g3...@4ax.com>
<snip rest>
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Billy Goat
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
That's like asking Christians who their favorite Satanist is.
--Billy
Rodjk
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> > the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> > intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> > science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> > evolutionists first, then to all others.
> >
>
> It is *necessary* to be a liar to be a YEC.
I have to disagree with this. If you are refering to a "Professional"
YECist, then yes. But I know many YECs who are both intelligent and
honest, but just severly mislead. The people they allow to inform them
are dishonest, but they are not. They truly believe that YEC is good
science and they cannot understand why schools don't teach it. It is
rather sad, but those people really exist.
Rodjk #613
>
> > Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> > he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> > sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> > I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> > prize.
> >
Cheezits
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
> influenced you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would
> you say is the most intelligent and honest and has taught you some
> important things about science and young earth creation?
The only creationists whose ideas I have been exposed to directly are the
ones that post to talk.origins. What I have learned from them is that YEC
doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on (which doesn't stop some of them
being downright smug in their ignorance). I knew that before, of course.
But I keep thinking that just once one of them has to post *something* that
could be a real challenge to evolution, or better yet, show support for
YEC. But it never happens. A few show signs of having done a little
homework, but too many of them are, pardon the expression, blithering
idiots. Maybe smart YECs have the sense to avoid this newsgroup. <smirk>
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
David Jensen
<dbe402.040220...@posting.google.com>:
>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<103d3pp...@news.supernews.com>...
>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>> > the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>> > intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>> > science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>> > evolutionists first, then to all others.
>> >
>>
>> None of them. There is no such thing as an intelligent *and* honest YEC.
>> It is *necessary* to be a liar to be a YEC.
>
>I have to disagree with this. If you are refering to a "Professional"
>YECist, then yes. But I know many YECs who are both intelligent and
>honest, but just severly mislead. The people they allow to inform them
>are dishonest, but they are not. They truly believe that YEC is good
>science and they cannot understand why schools don't teach it. It is
>rather sad, but those people really exist.
Yes, YEC through ignorance is a common problem, and it seldom interferes
in the behavior of those who are so afflicted, but it's also a problem
for which they are, in part, responsible. It takes an amazing amount of
hubris to ask scientists why they don't accept your ignorant view of how
the world came about without asking them what the evidence shows.
Seppo Pietikainen
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
Not a single one.
Seppo P.
Andrew Arensburger
> Of course Ruby is a YEC no longer. She failed the tests to be a YEC as she
> looked at the evidence for evolution and realised just how compelling it is.
Well, Jason _did_ say "honest", didn't he?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Tagline may be too intense for some viewers.
Jim Helfer
[snip]
>
Just what is it about this guy and the fondness for inapropriate use of
titles?
Jim H
Ernest Major
<da...@dajensen-family.com> writes
>In alt.talk.creationism, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote
>in <S0mIbHA7...@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>In article <g68d301h3amann3g3...@4ax.com>, David Jensen
>><da...@dajensen-family.com> writes
>>>
>>>They expected the evidence to confirm their interpretation of the Bible.
>>>When it did not, they were honest about it and accepted that they were
>>>mistaken in using the Bible in that way.
>>>
>
>I don't think the concept of Old Earth or Young Earth had gelled back
>then. Even a century later, Kelvin could argue, prior to the discovery
>or radio decay, with some seriousness that the earth couldn't be as old
>as the model was showing because the model didn't explain why the earth
>was as warm as it was.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Andrew Arensburger
> One might think that AIG is to be
> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
> themselves.
In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
arguments have been refuted time and time again.
AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
whether it can be used to sway an audience.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Help me, quick! Someone must have turned reality back on.
Richard Smol
says...
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
None whatsoever. They are all scientifically impaired.
RS
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Richard Forrest
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
The name that springs to my mind is William Buckland. Though not a YEC
in the sense that it is used today (i.e. a scientifically illiterate
dogmatist) he believed in the Bible as the word of God and that his
investigations into geology would show that the Bible was true.
As his own researches, and those of others at the time made it
absolutely clear that the Biblical account of creation was not
supported by the evidence of the natural world his faith was placed
under increasing strain. By some accounts the absolute contradictions
between the Biblical account and the real evidence drove him to
insanity.
RF
Snowbird
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
I don't know any YEC who is intelligent and honest. None of them has
taught me anything other than the fact that they are quite the opposite.
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo."
We'll it's clear that he's an accomplished liar.
> Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question.
Back-handed statements can also be sincere.
> And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
I'm glad. You see, *pretending* to be something that you are not
is a bad habit of yours. Now you're trying to muscle in on a very
highly distinguished scientific accolade. No YEC deserves such a
title.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
None should get it. In fact, I propose we create another 'prize' and it
should be named the 'Jason Gastrich award for the most deception, sophistry
and denial by a YEC', there are hundreds of candidates.
> Thanks for your time.
No problem. I'm sorry that you are wasting yours.
-
Wayne
Snowbird
> In alt.talk.creationism, "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in
> <xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com>:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>>science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>>evolutionists first, then to all others.
>>
>>Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
>>he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
>>sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
>>I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
>>prize.
>>
>>Thanks for your time.
>
>
> I've known many people who happened to accept YEC as religious doctrine
> who are good people and worthy of admiration. I admire them because they
> embody the teachings of Jesus, not because they happen to belong to a
> church body that endorses YEC. None would have argued that science
> supports YEC, they were honest enough to admit that they did not know
> the science and were not going to put themselves into the position of
> lying from ignorance.
>
> I also admire the geologists of two centuries ago who were creationists.
> They expected the evidence to confirm their interpretation of the Bible.
> When it did not, they were honest about it and accepted that they were
> mistaken in using the Bible in that way.
I never thought of it from that point of view. I was more thinking of
existing YECs who maintain their position *despite* the evidence to the
contrary.
Of course, the most deserving ex-creationist is/was Charles Darwin. He
certainly deserves a posthumous Nobel Prize. He taught us all that
creationism is nonsense.
-
Wayne
Mike Dworetsky
nominate this fine contribution?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BC5C4725.44B5A1%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
Snowbird
> In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>One might think that AIG is to be
>>commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>themselves.
>
>
> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
Good ovservation. They seem to have 'outlawed' arguments which can
be quickly rebutted and are preferring arguments which require a
larger amount of time and effort to disprove.
-
Wayne
Rodjk
The people I am thinking of are my neighbors. They are YEC's and they
think they are getting good science info. My wife has pretty much
forbid me from discussing it with them, in the name of good relations.
I like them very much, they are really nice people, but seriously
misinformed, and very trusting of their preacher.
The point is, they THINK they are getting good science info. They seem
to think that much of science is an atheistic conspiracy to fight
their type of christianity.
Rodjk #613
John McKendry
closest to capturing what the newsgroup is all about".
John
David Jensen
Sure he was, but that was nearly a century after all scientific
justification for young earth creationism had been completely destroyed.
I didn't intend to imply that Kelvin was a YEC.
David Jensen
Yes, that is very frustrating, not only because many YECs are otherwise
fine people, but also because they cannot see that their choices show a
terrible bias in their approach to learning and a lack of respect for
the scientific method and the subsequent discoveries that have made
their life as it is today. It's not easy to say to someone that their
preacher has been telling them falsehoods, even about peripheral issues,
since that brings up the question of whether the preacher is lying about
the central issues of their faith.
Much like the spouse who is the only one in town who is unaware that the
other spouse is blatantly unfaithful, so are these people unaware that
their beliefs cannot bear legitimate scrutiny. Yes, it's denial, but
it's so essential to their personal being that they cannot even consider
the idea that they are in denial let alone the idea that their preacher
is ill informed or, even, dishonest. As someone who grew up in the
milieu, I have to agree that the problem is unlikely to be solved by
direct confrontation. The seed of curiosity must be planted so it can
break the bonds of administered truths.
MagentaStudios
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
>Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
>he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
>sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
>I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
>prize.
None.
That is a sincere answer to a sincere question.
The question is based on the assumption that YEC is a scientific
position, and that it has any merit at all.
There might be YEC people who are nice, polite, honest, fun, and have
various skills in other areas of life, but if YEC is a conclusion that
they draw, then the scientific process was not involved.
/*'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'*\
|* Unique, Artistic T-Shirts, Caps, Mugs, and More! *|
|* * Mystical * Political * Funny * Sexy * Artsy * *|
|* MagentaStudios | http://www.magentastudios.com/ *|
\*'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'*/
R.Schenck
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> One might think that AIG is to be
>> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>> themselves.
>
> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>arguments have been refuted time and time again.
> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>whether it can be used to sway an audience.
yes yer right, i had read that list a while ago and forgot about that.
it also shows why they don't press hovind on not using those
arguements. they and he had a little hashing out of not using them,
but, since they don't really care if the arguments are right or wrong,
they dont bother pushing it.
they want to protect creationist integrity by preventing creationists
from using arguements that people don't beleive, not be getting
creationists, themselves included, to have any integrity.
R.Schenck
<jmck...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Nominated for talk.origins Post of the Month, for "the article... that come
>closest to capturing what the newsgroup is all about".
>
i/m not really you can say the group is about anything. this is
intersting, as it shows a yecist can process information, or that
someone who is a yecist can honestly examine the information and
conclude that they dont want to be a yecist anymore, but are still
pious and devout.
put as far as what teh newsgroup is about? this isn;t an evangelical
forum, trying to get creationists to become evolutionists. Its a
netural forum where the range of opinions can be discussed. This of
course makes it all the more ridiculous that people troll the group
everyonce in a while. But, irregardless, its an exellent post, i just
dont know if the category should even exist.
>John
>
>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:19:33 -0500, Raymond E. Griffith wrote:
>
Harlequin
testimonials and put this one in it?
John McKendry <jmck...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.02.21.12...@comcast.net:
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
I am Mike and I approve this message.
John Burton
Seconded. Better yet, how about post of the year?
John
Dan Ensign
Along those same lines, Adam Sedgwick comes to mind. He said, "In
retreating where we have advanced too far, there is neither compromise
of dignity nor loss of strength," when all those 19th century
creationist geologists learned that they had been wrong about the
Noachian flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
Too bad there are no creationists left like this.
--
Dan Ensign
Frank J
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
First let me say that, in general, I have more of a problem with most
IDers than with creationists, whether YEC, OEC or other. That's
despite the fact that I agree more with the official ID model
(old-earth +common descent) than with any scripture-based creationist
model. I object more to the ID strategy of rarely discussing, let
alone supporting one's own model, and relying almost exclusively on
strawman arguments and other semantic tricks. YECs and OECs make more
testable statements, and at least attempt, albeit poorly, to defend
their hypotheses.
Unfortunately, many YECs are borrowing much of the ID strategy lately,
which leads me to suspect that they might not believe their own
position either. That makes it harder than ever to choose, but I'll
try:
I'd like to say the AIG people, as another poster said, but I suspect
that they too are being strategic, judging by their polite tone toward
ID. I could cheat and mention YECs of 200+ years ago, who had no
evidence to ignore or misrepresent, but that's not what you want.
Duane Gish, at least debated OEC. But with his biochemistry
background, he should know better than repeat many of his refuted
claims against "Darwinism." So, although I have not read much of his
own words, I'd have to go with Henry Morris, based his conversation
with Kenneth Miller that the latter recounted in "Finding Darwin's
God." Morris impressed Miller about the "sincerity of his
convictions." According to Miller, Morris acknowledged that the data
were not favoring his position, but said that science must keep trying
until it does.
Try getting an IDer to say something like that.
R.Schenck
wrote:
>Maybe we need to start a folder in the Archive for quality
>testimonials and put this one in it?
now that sounds like an intersting option.
the only problem i see with it is that its not very objective, but
then again, who says it has to be. the quality of the testamonials
will stand on their own. of course it anything like that will trend
towards the '20 mary's agree' bit, but it is refreshing to see this
sort of thing.
>John McKendry <jmck...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:pan.2004.02.21.12...@comcast.net:
>
>> Nominated for talk.origins Post of the Month, for "the article... that
>> come closest to capturing what the newsgroup is all about".
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:19:33 -0500, Raymond E. Griffith wrote:
>>
>>> in article xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com, Jason Gastrich
>>> at newsg...@jcsm.org wrote on 2/20/04 5:25 PM:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
>>>> influenced you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman
>>>> would you say is the most intelligent and honest and has taught you
>>>> some important things about science and young earth creation? This
>>>> question is directed to evolutionists first, then to all others.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught
>>>> me that he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements
>>>> because this is a sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner"
>>>> subject was just for effect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that any
>>>> particular YECist should get the prize.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>
Mike Painter
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced
you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the
most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is
a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for
effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
Clearly it was karl who posted on T.O. for awhile. A typical YEC with
limited knowledge who believed anything that did not agree with evolution.
He was not unusual in any particular way so it might have been any other of
them.
He made me examine my beliefs and realize that I was and had been an atheist
for along time.
The ranting of such people and especially people like you Jason, probably
does more to convince people of just how silly religion is than anything the
atheist community could do.
David Wise
> Maybe we need to start a folder in the Archive for quality
> testimonials and put this one in it?
I'm not sure whether I have a vote in the matter, but I heartily second the motion!
David Wise
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:27:40 +0000 (UTC), John McKendry
> <jmck...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Nominated for talk.origins Post of the Month, for "the article... that come
> >closest to capturing what the newsgroup is all about".
> >
>
> i/m not really you can say the group is about anything. this is
> intersting, as it shows a yecist can process information, or that
> someone who is a yecist can honestly examine the information and
> conclude that they dont want to be a yecist anymore, but are still
> pious and devout.
I have long argued that we'll see two different kinds of YECists: the
ones who know "creation science" to be a crock that runneth over yet
continue to use it anyway and the ones who actually believe that it is
the truth. The former will be the dishonest ones who will deny the
evidence and will resort to any dishonest trick they can to avoid
having to try to support their "creation science" claims. The latter
will be the ones who will more honestly look at the evidence, try to
support the claims they repeat, and finally arrive at point
purportedly described by WC Fields as grabbing the bull by the tail
and facing the situation.
However, I work with two YECists who are of a third kind. They
believe in a young earth for purely religious reasons as a matter of
faith, they do realize that the evidence indicates otherwise, and they
reject "creation science", knowing it to be an overflowing crock. And
they also do not buy a lot of the nonsense that comes out of the
fundamentalist sector, such as that doctrine of throwing the Bible
away if it turns out to have even a single error in it. When I asked
one of them where that doctrine was stated in the Bible, he simply
said that it isn't. And when I've asked online creationists and
fundamentalists that question, they have all gone to great lengths to
avoid answering the question -- when tells me that they know that
doctrine is not biblical, but they have to deny the truth even to
themselves.
Daniel Harper
> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9496B422F9022u...@68.12.19.6>...
>> Maybe we need to start a folder in the Archive for quality testimonials
>> and put this one in it?
>
> I'm not sure whether I have a vote in the matter, but I heartily second
> the motion!
>
>
Doesn't Glenn Morton already have a similar archive of testimonials?
As far as putting them on the T.O. Archive, I'm a bit ambivalent. While a
quality recounting of a former creationist's journey into the light can be
an interesting read (i.e. Rubystars and Charles C.), a Big List of People
Who Left Creationism (with commentary) just seems like a lot of wasted
effort. Since creationist websites maintain similar "conversion stories",
in the end it just starts to look like a "turf war" between the Church and
the Secular World, which just plays into the hands of religious
anti-evolutionists.
I'm in favor of putting a few "conversion stories" onto the Archive, but
only when they make points or tell stories that are in some way
interesting in and of themselves, or that illustrate the differences
between science and pseudoscience. Putting together a set of stories like
that only makes us look like we're a bunch of pinko hippy nontheist
baby-killers who want to steal people away from their religion. When in
fact that's only Lenny. <grin>
<snip excellent post>
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
R.Schenck
wrote:
i've noticed some of them use this strange idea. ken ham in
particular can often be heard saying something like 'if the bible is
wrong about creation, then its wrong about morality and everything
else'. I really have to wonder, if one could prove to one of these
types of creationists, that there was a flaw in this, i mean actually
get them to accept that there is this flaw, would they actually go to
this lenght? i think not. and if they did, they would probably come
back to it. sortof like the menonites, who supposedly allow children,
when they come of age, to go out into the world to see how it is.
Supposedly they go on a real bender, but then comeback to the faith
they were indoctrinated in, not being able to deal with the world or
whatever.
Jason Gastrich
> In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> One might think that AIG is to be
>> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>> themselves.
>
> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
intervention is statistically impossible?
"Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement. It
is a faith-based statement. It is saying that they don't know what
happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
happen.
The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
random chance.
The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
power!
So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
JG
Seppo Pietikainen
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One might think that AIG is to be
>>>commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>>however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>>themselves.
>>
>>In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>>creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>>them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>>don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>>arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>>AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>>whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
>
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
No, Jason, I *didn't* know this. Wouldn't you mind trotting out some
scientific evidence for your statistics?
>
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement. It
> is a faith-based statement. It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
10^-50 == 0? Looks like you're into some really weird maths!
>
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
> random chance.
>
Trot out evidence for this.
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
And cells are formed by random chance?
>
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
>
> JG
>
Your point is that you're a pig-ignorant twit who worships a medieval bishop
and a piece of paper written by equally ignorant goatherders.
Seppo P.
Adam H.
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>> In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> One might think that AIG is to be
>>> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>> themselves.
>>
>> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
>It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
>stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
>know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
>intervention is statistically impossible?
Incorrect.
>
>"Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement. It
>is a faith-based statement. It is saying that they don't know what
>happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
>Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
>something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
>happen.
>
>The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
>random chance.
The chemical reactions that form proteins don't proceed by random
chance. Your statement is nonsensical. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro for an
introduction to statistics and how not to misuse them.
>
>The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
>power!
See above.
>
>So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
>faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
>that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
>your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
>
>JG
Your point should be to educate yourself about the topic you are
writing about.
---
"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
Albert Einstein
Phillip Brown
Those numbers might be impressive if the outcomes they are testing were the
only possible outcome. What are the chances of *any* successful outcome?
At the roulette wheel, only one number comes up for any given spin. Thats
1 in 37. But the chances of winning on red or black are almost 1 in 2. It
just depends on what is considered a success. So the chances of any one
outcome may appear to be astronomical, but that's only if you assume it is
the only possible winning bet.
>
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem
you.
hey, if you've got the guilts about something, that your problem. Just
don't project it on to the rest of us, OK?
>
> JG
phillip brown
Snowbird
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One might think that AIG is to be
>>>commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>>however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>>themselves.
>>
>>In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>>creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>>them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>>don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>>arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>>AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>>whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
>
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits.
Clearly you don't know evolution.
> Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
Statistics prove nothing. Also, it's impossible to calculate such probabilities
because we simply don't know enough yet. Finally, abiogenesis is not evolution.
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement.
Give the universe enough time and it will cool down. How is that not
scientific?
> It
> is a faith-based statement.
You say that as if it was a slur.
> It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
I don't know which scientist said that. Perhaps you would care to enlighten
us?
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
Err, wrong again. There is no 'law of probability' which governs the universe.
Probabilities only mask our ignorance and is not an accurate measurement of
whether or not something will happen.
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
> random chance.
It's a good job that evolution is not random chance then. Do you actually
know the first thing about evolution or do you just keep buying into what
you are told by lying creationists?
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
Evolution is not random chance. Arguing as if it is only shows that you
are completely ignorant.
> So, what's my point?
That you are ignorant.
> My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
Tell me, why is 'faith' in evolution (none needed BTW) wrong but 'faith' in
'God' ok? If they were both faith positions (they are not) then why favour
one over the other? Surely in that situation they would both have the same
chance of being right.
Just to clarify so that I am not quoted out of context by dishonest
creationists, evolution does not require faith and is backed up by
cold hard scientific evidence.
-
Wayne
Littleboy
newsg...@jcsm.org says...
Ooh, everyone, come quick. Look, the "Dr." has new cue cards.
Richard Forrest
> The ranting of such people and especially people like you Jason, probably
> does more to convince people of just how silly religion is than anything the
> atheist community could do.
So here's a hypothesis:
Creationists are in fact a secret aethist conspiracy, funded by the
UN. They are trying to destroy all religions by presenting it in such
a poor light that all reasonable and rational people are turned away
by their obvious dishonesty and ignorance.
They have focussed on Christianity as the religion in the world with
the greatest number of adherents as their first target, but are now
shifting their goals to include Islam as well.
This hypothesis explains a lot of things: their blind insistence that
they are right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary; their
flagrant and dishonest misuse of academic qualifications to enhance
their authority; the ease with which their selected quotations are
shown to misrepresent the intended meaning of the author - I could go
on and on.
It seems to me that they underestimated the gullibility of some
people. So now they have become desperate. They are promoting ID - a
theory so undermined by its internal contradictions that it is plainly
ridiculous - in public schools in the US to demonstrate a widespread
and utter ignorance of science (and I don't limit the term
'widespread' to the US). In doing so they are trying to create a
backlash, and focus the efforts of policy-makers on developing decent
science programmes in schools.
I think that my hypothesis explains the antic of the creationists on
this forum far better than any other I have read. I cannot imagine
that anyone would be stupid enough to be swayed by the force of their
arguments.
RF
Gregory A Greenman
>
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
Choose one:
1. Life forms cannot arise, unless a god creates them.
2. God was not created.
(Or, is god not alive?)
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG.
Actually, AiG provides the dirt, we just point out where the smudges are.
> You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits.
It's true, that the theory of evolution stands or fails on it's own merits.
It's stood for over 140 years of intense criticism, and shows no signs of
weakening.
> Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
Jason, even if the above were true, (which is isn't), it has nothing to do
with the merits of the theory of evolution. If you are going to try to cast
doubt on evolutionary theory, it would be much more effective to criticize
something that applies to the theory, not to a different concept entirely.
Evolution deals with how life has changed over generations. How life began
in the first place is a separate field of study.
snipping false probability claims.
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of
your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview,
Science is not a worldview, Jason. It's a tool for examining the natural
world. It doesn't deal with the supernatural, because it has no means of
studying what may or may not exist beyond the natural. Science isn't meant
to be a point of view, it's a tool, and a very successful one. It's useful
because it supplies objective answers to specific questions. It can't, and
doesn't attempt to, answer every question that faces humankind.
> you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent
from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
Science doesn't promise redemption, or salvation. I really doubt anyone
here is looking to science to provide them with redemption. People who
support the scientific theory of evolution, either aren't looking for
redemption in a religious belief, or have found their own idea of redemption
in a religious position that does not conflict with objective reality.
You, Jason have chosen a belief that is in conflict with observed reality.
That is your right. You do not have the right, however to insist that
reality be changed to fit your beliefs.
DJT
>
> JG
>
386sx
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the
> 40,000th power!
You forgot to mention the chances of a single human being forming by random
chance. I think you're in some kind of "pop into existence from nothing"
mode or something. You think everything popped into existence from nothing,
fully formed and functional, and then go on to say that the odds for that
happening are so small that they must have been designed and created by
something else. The problem with that is: nobody disagrees with you about
it, so big deal. (Cue Jeopardy music...)
--
"Ever know a stranger named Lester J. Farthingham the Third?"
-- Lester J. Farthingham
Gregory A Greenman
eric...@my-deja.com said...
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> > the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> > intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> > science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> > evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
At least there are some Satanists running around. JG's asking
us to choose a favorite honest YECer.
Greg
http://www.spencersoft.com/schoolprayer/
----------------------------------------
mel turner
newsg...@jcsm.org [Jason Gastrich] wrote...
>>> One might think that AIG is to be
>>> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>> themselves.
>>
>> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
>It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
>stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits.
How so? It seems to stand on its own merits very well indeed. It's
observed to occur; if the theory of evolution really "fails", then
reality has got some 'splainin' to do.
Don't you
>know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
>intervention is statistically impossible?
No, we know no such thing, and neither do you or anyone else.
There are no such mathematical calculations of statistics of any
relevance to anything. For any such calculations to even be possible,
we'd first have to have a very well-understood, very complete, step
by step model for abiogenesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr98.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
>"Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement.
And who ever makes that statement? Whoever he is, are you sure he
isn't made of straw?
It
>is a faith-based statement. It is saying that they don't know what
>happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
And who said that?
>Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
>something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
>happen.
No scientists affirm any such thing.
Nor, for that matter, is there any such calculation possible for the
relative probability of abiogenesis.
>The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
>random chance.
Wrong. Complete nonsense.
Show your calculations, if you really have any. Do you mean to assert
that some _particular_ target protein was the only possible "right"
one?
Anyway, who ever said that abiogenesis would have required the
formation of _any_ single protein by "random chance"?
>The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
>power!
You made that number up, didn't you? Not that it matters, since nobody
but your imaginary stramineous opponent will have claimed that
abiogenesis must have involved any single cell arising de novo "by
random chance".
>So, what's my point?
Dunno. Were you supposed to have one?
My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
>faith to put it into your godless worldview,
Accepting the fact of biological evolution [or of purely natural
abiogenesis, for that matter] isn't necessarily any "godless worldview".
Plenty of devout Christians and other theists seem to be
"evolutionists". Who are you to say otherwise?
you should consider putting
>that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
>your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
And that all hinges on accepting your claims about evolution how?
cheers
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Don't you know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis
> happening with no divine intervention is statistically impossible?
Prove it.
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific
> statement. It is a faith-based statement.
[etc.]
Here's a faith-based statement with no evidence to back it up: give
creationists enough time and they'll come up with a scientific argument
worth listening to.
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur
> by random chance.
Prove it.
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the
> 40,000th power!
Prove it.
> So, what's my point?
I really don't care, since you obviously have no problem pontificating
about things you don't know anything about. Did you learn anything from
the responses you got to your survey?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
David Jensen
<kJZZb.3642$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com>:
>Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>> In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> One might think that AIG is to be
>>> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>> themselves.
>>
>> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
>It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
>stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
>know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
>intervention is statistically impossible?
No, it is not. That is a bit of wishful thinking from folks who are
ignorant of how probabilities work.
>"Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement.
It depends on the context.
>It is a faith-based statement.
Not necessarily.
>It is saying that they don't know what
>happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
>Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
>something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
>happen.
No, they do not. The assertion is silly.
>The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
>random chance.
Yet no one in science claims that it happened by random chance. Are you
familiar with chemistry?
>The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
>power!
Once again, what does this have to do with the natural processes that
have caused life to exist and continue to change over time?
>So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
>faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
>that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
>your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
The theory of evolution is not godless. It is scientific. Science does
not tell us about gods. Why do certain religious folks presume to tell
us about the science they are ignorant of?
Richard Forrest
>
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits.
I've been studying geology, palaeontology and biology for around 40
years and haven't come across any such internal failure.
It seems that you have a greater knowledge of the subject that I do,
so please enlighten me.
> Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
>
I don't think you're expressing yourself very clearly here, Jason. Are
you saying that it has a low probabilty?
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement. It
> is a faith-based statement. It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
Yes, you are! I'm glad we're clear on that.
You are refer to scientists affirming that "law of probability states
if the chances of something happening are over 10 to the 50th power,
then it will "never" happen. No scientist has ever affirmed that as
far as I can find out. There is no such 'Law of Probability' outside
the creationist 'literature'.
You are saying "improbable equals impossible", which is something no
scientist (I should qualify that as 'no honest scientist') would say.
It's a contradiction in terms.
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
>
Even if this were true (which it isn't), so what?
As the formation of a single cell by chance in this way would disprove
the existence of God, you statement can be taken to mean that the
chance of God's existence is 1 minus 10 to the 40,000.
Would you accept that? If not, your argument based on chance has no
merit.
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
>
Haven't you realised yet, Jason, that this sort of preaching does not
work on the people who come to talk origins? It is offensive to people
who believe in God and see no contradiction between that belief and
the findings of science. To atheists it is completely irrelevant.
This is not an audience you can sway by appealing to emotion and fear
of the unknown. To have any chance of success you need to present
well-informed and well-reasoned arguments, something which you have
conspicuously failed to do. Your contributions to this site have
probably done more to drive people away from your religious view than
attract people to it. Ignorance, arrogance and a lack of abilty to
formulate any new contribution to the dialogue are not very inspiring.
RF
Ferrous Patella
(in message <kJZZb.3642$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com>):
[...]
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
>
Cite?
In the meantime, shuffle a deck of cards. Turn the cards over one at a time.
The chances of those cards appearing in the order that that did is greater
that 10 the the 50th power. Yet you just said that would "never" happen.
--
Ferrous Patella
"...one nation, indivisable...."
Frank J
While most people would say that your hypothesis is dead wrong, I'll
just say that I think it's "close, but no cigar."
Here's my hypothesis, which is probably also "close, but no cigar":
Professional anti-evolutionists (PAEs) are motivated more by politics
than religion. They don't underestimate anyone's gullibility. They
know that science-literate types will rebut their arguments, but they
also know that even scientists can get trapped into arguing against
design instead of addressing the fallacies of the anti-evolution
arguments. PAEs are skilled in semantics, selective quoting, and other
bait-and-switch tactics, so that they have an endless supply of
rehearsed rebuttals. While none of this impresses the science-literate
minority - and PAEs don't expect it to - it impresses the
science-illiterate masses, whose gullibility can't be underestimated.
With regard to religion, I don't think that convincing people that
evolution is "a theory in crisis" helps or hurts much, as I see the
two effects largely canceling each other out. But pseudoscience and
superstition sell more than ever, and there's no better way to
manipulate the masses than with "snake oil." I don't think that IDers
main motivation is financial - but if I may reverse an old cliche,
power is money.
While I often say that it is impossible to know what individuals
actually believe, I think that Ronald Bailey made a good case:
catshark
[snip blather]
>So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
>faith to put it into your godless worldview,
How is studying God's creation "godless"?
>you should consider putting
>that faith into your Creator
You are the one that is saying God is a liar when he made the universe.
>and His message to you; which is to repent from
>your sins
Like you repented from propagating lies?
>and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
Then why do you only have faith in a book?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
- Robert T. Pennock -
Andrew Arensburger
>> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits.
It does? Do you have any arguments against evolution that
haven't already been debunked a thousand times over, ones that would
carry weight in the mind of someone well-versed in the field?
> Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
No, I don't know this. Could you please show your math?
For what it's worth, I will accept odds of one in a billion (a
mere 10^-9, compared to the the 10^-50 that you mention below) as
making your point, but only if you take all of the relevant parameters
into account: you'll need to consider the number of independent
"trials" occurring on the primeval Earth, the length of time the
abiogenesis "experiment" took place, and so forth. In addition, you
need to consider all of the planets where abiogenesis _might_ have
taken place.
Secondly, think about what you're refuting: even if you
disprove mechanism A, that says nothing about theories that don't
depend on mechanism A. Thus, if you prove that no protein can ever
form by chance, you'll only eliminate those theories of abiogenesis
that depend on proteins forming by chance.
As you've already been told, evolution and abiogenesis are two
separate notions. Abiogenesis concerns the origin of life; evolution
concerns what happens to living beings once they exist.
So arguing against evolution by attacking abiogenesis is
equivalent to saying, "No one knows how the earth was formed;
therefore meteorology is a crock."
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement. It
> is a faith-based statement.
Tell that to the insurance companies that couldn't afford to
pay up after hurricane Andrew.
> It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
I'll accept that, but only if the math is done correctly. In
particular, the calculation has to take into account the number of
tries.
As an analogy: the odds of pulling the lever on a slot machine
and winning the jackpot may be one in a million; but when you consider
an entire casino's worth of slot machines operating for years, it
would be surprising in the extreme if none of them ever hit the
jackpot.
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
> random chance.
Please show your math, and make sure that you are correctly
accounting for the number of tries. That is, are you calculating the
odds for a single slot machine, or for an entire casino over a period
of years?
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
Again, please show your math. Also, please show where
scientists claim that cells formed by "random chance."
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
Gee, where to begin? For one thing, evolution is not a
worldview but, depending on context, either a description of the
history of life on this planet, or an explanation for that history.
Secondly, theories of evolution are "godless" in exactly the
same sense as meteorology, geology, and physics are: they don't deny
God, they merely say nothing on the subject.
Thirdly, what does the origin of species have to do with the
need for salvation? It seems to me that one picks up where the other
leaves off.
Fourthly, your viewpoint appears to me to be rather bad
theology. Aside from making God a liar by faking all of the evidence
that points to an ancient universe and the evolution of species
(though I don't expect you to accept this, because you're obviously
not familiar with this evidence), it also accuses God of shoddy
workmanship.
As far as I can tell, in your worldview, God says, "I failed
to foresee that two naive people might misuse a terribly dangerous
fruit that I put within easy reach, and so all of you are flawed; you
need to come to me for salvation." How is this better than "The
natural processes that I put in place, and which formed your bodies
and minds have done some amazing things, but there are certain flaws
that they can't correct; you need to come to me for salvation"?
From where I'm sitting, Genesis 2 is best read as an allegory
or as a fable: the moral is that there can be no sin without knowledge
of right and wrong. You don't punish a baby for screaming in the
middle of the night, because it doesn't know that it's wrong, or even
what "wrong" means. But if I, an adult, were to start yelling under
you windows at midnight, you'd call the police, because I'm supposed
to know better.
You'll notice, for instance, that Adam and Eve used to walk
around naked, and God didn't have a problem with that. It was only
after they found out what right and wrong are that it became an issue.
At any rate, it would appear that you don't know what
evolution is, nor why scientists accept it. I can only suggest that
you read up on it, and recommend Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" and
"Climbing Mount Improbable", among many books for the lay reader. You
may not agree with him, but you'd at least know what "the other side"
says, and might argue more effectively against them.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
A single fact can ruin a good argument.
David
blah, blah, blah,
In the same way you have no idea what Misslers argument for Pi and
biblical inerrency is, you have no idea what Fred Hoyles argument for
is about.
What is even more laughable is both arguments are based on false
premise.
So you are doubly wrong, both times.
How does it feel to be SO dumb?
David
Mark Isaak
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
>the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
>intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
>science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
>evolutionists first, then to all others.
Glenn Morton. He influenced me by looking honestly at the evidence,
writing about it, facing the wrath of other YECs for doing so,
ultimately rejecting YEC, and writing about that too. He gained my
respect with his honesty and courage, and he has given me some insight
into the creationist mindset.
Among current YECs, the only one I can think of who approaches
intelligence and honesty is Kurt Wise, but he has not influenced me.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>I've used up my POTM allowance this month, would anyone else like to
>nominate this fine contribution?
I would, but alas I face the same dilemma.
Raymond E. Griffith
newsg...@jcsm.org wrote on 2/22/04 3:23 AM:
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>> In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> One might think that AIG is to be
>>> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
>>> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
>>> themselves.
>>
>> In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
>> creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
>> them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
>> don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
>> arguments have been refuted time and time again.
>> AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
>> whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
Jason, it doesn't matter how much dirt you try to throw on evolutionary
theory. You will still be stuck with the fact that Creationism fails on its
own merits. Its adherents (you included, I'm sorry to say), use lies and
deceits, misdirections and misapplications of science and the Scripture to
make your point.
Your misuse of statistics and probability theory is completely evident. How
much mathematics have you taken, "Dr." Gastrich?
>
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement.
It sure isn't. And scientists do not make such a statement.
> It
> is a faith-based statement.
Only by the Creationist. It is a Creationist slander attempting to twist
what evolutionary theory has to say. It is also a conflating of two areas of
science. Abiogenesis is life from nonlife. Evolution deals with the changes
of life itself from generation to generation.
You know that they are two different things. Yet you and those like you
persistently misuse the definitions. Why? I can only think of one or two
real reasons.
The first is that you are so ignorant of science, but so certain that you
know [what you really do not know] and arrogant in your opinions that you
cannot even see, hear, or understand the corrections. This is akin to
spiritual blindness. And the Lord said that if the blind lead the blind,
both shall fall into the ditch.
The second reason is more likely, I am afraid, but has even worse
implications. You know you are wrong to lie about science, since lying is a
sin. Yet you have no evidence for your position, and the real evidence of
science weighs heavy upon you as you see members of your congregations
slipping away, taking other than a literal interpretation of the Scriptures,
and seeing that your application of the gospel is often selfish and
impoverished.
What can you do? You must create an enemy! You never tell your people that
it would be wise to understand God's world. It is the tower of Babel all
over again! If the people are allowed to continue to know and understand the
world, there will be nothing they cannot do. No, instead of that you must
buttress your theology against such an understanding. God must be unknowable
and His works inscrutable by all except people such as yourself. So you
build houses of straw and stubble on the foundation of Christ, and tell lies
about your enemies. You confuse the definitions in order to frustrate
communication and build a language barrier.
Is it to keep from losing your influence, your reputation, your
congregation, your power base and your potential revenues? Or perhaps your
goal is (like some others) the preservation of a moral or political order.
There are some who assert that even if evolution is true in fact, it should
be abandoned as being harmful to morals.
In either case, the goal is not truth, nor is it the salvation of the lost.
I know scientists who have come to saving faith in Christ, even while they
retained their scientific roots. They did not have to renounce evolution in
order to trust Jesus as their Savior.
You see, I am genuinely concerned that people are not getting saved because
God's people are willing to lie. That is troublesome.
So what is it? Ignorance or lying? What reason do you have for not telling
the truth about what science says? "Spin doctoring" is lying, by the way.
> It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
>
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
> random chance.
Funny that. Proteins are constructed by rules of chemistry, not by random
chance. And if you knew any mathematics at all, you would know that your
number is bogus.
I am a mathematician (my specialty was statistics). I analyzed several cases
where statistics was used by creationists, and in the few times they
outlines the assumptions used their assumptions and numbers were faulty. But
most of the time (as with you), numbers were simply thrown around as if to
be taken without question.
Would you be willing to outline for me the assumptions on which these
statistics are based?
>
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
>
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
>
> JG
>
Jesus Christ is the Savior. I believe that. He is my Savior. But that does
not mean that your worldview is correct, or that it is permissible to
misconstrue, distort, or lie about the facts. If your faith allows you to
lie in His name, I have to wonder about your faith.
Raymond E. Griffith
Eric Gill
<snip flat-out lies about what science claims>
> So, what's my point?
You've fallen flat on your ass trying to argue against science, and are now
going to do something stupid and appeal to rational nonbelievers with
irrationality.
> My point is that when you are mustering up all
> of your faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should
> consider putting that faith into your Creator and His message to you;
> which is to repent from your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only
> your Creator can redeem you.
I told you before, Not-Going-To-Be-A-Doctor Jason, you *suck* as an
Evangelist. Go back to The Choir before you drive more people farther away
from your religion.
Earle Jones
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:
[...]
> Jesus Christ is the Savior. I believe that. He is my Savior. But that does
> not mean that your worldview is correct, or that it is permissible to
> misconstrue, distort, or lie about the facts. If your faith allows you to
> lie in His name, I have to wonder about your faith.
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
*
Just for the record, Jesus Christ is not my Savior.
earle
*
Lieutenant Kizhe Katson
> In talk.origins Jason Gastrich <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> > Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> > the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> > intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> > science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> > evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2sgkq
Yep, her and Glenn Morton and a handful of other folks who've shown up
on t.o from time to time. Of course, the main thing they've got in
common is that they *aren't* YECs anymore. I have respect for those
who have seen through the tissue of lies they've been force-fed.
Historically, Thomas Burnet looks like an interesting dude (see
Gould's _Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle_). His _Sacred Theory of the
Earth_ anticipated a lot of the ideas we here today from the ICR et
al. Unlike them, Burnet seems like an honest cholar doing the best he
could with what he had available. Unfortunately, modern YECs won't
acknowledge that we've found out a good deal about the universe since
his day.
-- Kizhe
John Drayton
<snip>
> It doesn't matter how much dirt you try and throw on AIG. You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits. Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
>
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement. It
> is a faith-based statement. It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
>
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
> random chance.
>
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
>
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you; which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
>
> JG
And who will redeem Jason from propagating false claims?
The real point is that once again you have swallowed and
regurgitated an "argument" which is easily demonstrated to
be incorrect, and has been shown to be incorrect quite some
time ago.
You've just assumed it to be true because it came from a
creationist source.
That you haven't even bothered to find out if the argument
has been refuted shows the shoddiness of your research and
scholarship.
This is why people keep referring to you as a "liar": you
keep propogating falsehoods. That you don't know that the
argument has been shown to be monumentally false is a pretty
poor excuse. Surely you have *some* responsibility to do
some minimal check on the truth of these claims.
It just seems that you don't really *care* if it's true or
false.
--
John Drayton
Jason Gastrich
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:25:20 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
> <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
>> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has
>> influenced you the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman
>> would you say is the most intelligent and honest and has taught you
>> some important things about science and young earth creation? This
>> question is directed to evolutionists first, then to all others.
>>
>> me that he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements
>> because this is a sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner"
>> subject was just for effect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that any
>> particular YECist should get the prize.
>
> None.
>
> That is a sincere answer to a sincere question.
> The question is based on the assumption that YEC is a scientific
> position, and that it has any merit at all.
>
> There might be YEC people who are nice, polite, honest, fun, and have
> various skills in other areas of life, but if YEC is a conclusion that
> they draw, then the scientific process was not involved.
It's too bad that the scientific process isn't involved when an evolutionist
says that non-life suddenly became life on its own or that man and a banana
had a common ancestor. Oh well.
Jason
mel turner
[Jason Gastrich] wrote...
>MagentaStudios wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:25:20 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
>> <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
[snip]
>> There might be YEC people who are nice, polite, honest, fun, and have
>> various skills in other areas of life, but if YEC is a conclusion that
>> they draw, then the scientific process was not involved.
>
>It's too bad that the scientific process isn't involved when an evolutionist
>says that non-life suddenly became life on its own
When does any evolutionist ever say any such thing? The "suddenly"
part in particular. If we drop the "suddenly", then you'll have to
explain why such a suggestion [or abiogenesis research in general] is
at all contradicted by "the scientific process". Proposing a
hypothesis is certainly a part of the scientific process; arguably,
that's all your "evolutionist's" assertion is. Now, can he find
supporting evidence?
>or that man and a banana had a common ancestor.
What's so unscientific about that? There's plenty of very strong
scientific evidence that humans and bananas [i.e., all metazoan
animals and all green plants, or if you prefer, all eukaryotes]
did indeed share a common ancestor. What's your problem with that?
Don't you like bananas? [Would you prefer a mango? We'd still have
the same last common ancestor.] Can you show how there is anything
wrong with the science that indicates our common ancestry?
>Oh well.
Oh, well indeed
cheers
David
> It's too bad that the scientific process isn't involved when an evolutionist
> says <snip> that man and a banana had a common ancestor. Oh well.
>
> Jason
Clearly you have a lot to learn and some how I doubt you have the
inclination.
Did you know that most bacteria are more distantly related to each other
than humans are to banana's?
Don't let the fact that plant anatomy is so different to human anatomy
fool you into ignorant conclusions about evolutionary relationships.
David
Richard Forrest
> It's too bad that the scientific process isn't involved when an evolutionist
> says that non-life suddenly became life on its own or that man and a banana
> had a common ancestor. Oh well.
>
> Jason
Jason, you have no excuse for this.
Surely you know by now that there is no such thing as an
'evolutionist'?
You also know that evolution does not address the problem of
biogenesis.
You also know that the intermediate steps between a man and a banana
are available for study in the natural world today.
Look at the reaction you generate on this forum, and ask yourself the
question 'Why am I here?'. Surely you can see that you nobody can be
persuaded to adopt your viewpoint by a display of ignorance?
RF
Cheezits
>> There might be YEC people who are nice, polite, honest, fun, and have
>> various skills in other areas of life, but if YEC is a conclusion
>> that they draw, then the scientific process was not involved.
>
> It's too bad that the scientific process isn't involved when an
> evolutionist says that non-life suddenly became life on its own or
> that man and a banana had a common ancestor. Oh well.
It's too bad you keep showing us that you don't have or even want a clue
about how the scientific process works, or what ideas scientists have about
how life formed, or how they concluded that all life known forms have a
common ancestor. I suppose you think they read it in some Holy Text and
just believed it, right?
What do you expect to accomplish by posting on talk.origins? Martyr
points?
AC
But the process is Jason. Theories are formulated and tested. Do you have
a specific critique of a specific experiment, or are you just blowing smoke?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Lab Rat
I'd much rather be related to a banana than to you...
Please explain your statement with regards to how you define "the
scientific process".
And _hello_, wasn't an act of special creation life coming from
non-life? Please explain how this happened according to your
scientific process.
If your answer is "Goddidit",then please explain HOW God did it,
according to your scientific principles.
Thanks.
I'll be waiting right here for your answer.
ratty
R.Schenck
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> > In talk.origins R.Schenck <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> One might think that AIG is to be
> >> commended for pointing out invalid pro-creationist arguments,
> >> however, they sort of grudginly do it, and they didn't figure it out
> >> themselves.
> >
> > In addition, if you read their page about arguments that
> > creationists shouldn't use, you'll notice that the reason they list
> > them is not that those arguments are false; rather, it's because they
> > don't work anymore. Too many people have figured out that these
> > arguments have been refuted time and time again.
> > AiG doesn't care whether an argument is true; they only care
> > whether it can be used to sway an audience.
>
no, it doesn't matter does it.
> You'll still be
> stuck with the theory of evolution that fails on its own merits.
except that the theory of evolution does not fail on its own or any
other merits. AIG has listed some arguements that it, for whatever
the reason, recommends creationists not use. Perhaps this is a good
example of how 'creation science' works, by fiat. By dogma. Not by
research and reason.
> Don't you
> know that the mathematical chances of abiogenesis happening with no divine
> intervention is statistically impossible?
>
and what exactly are the statstical chances of something happening
with divine intervention? You now suggest that we can quantify a
miraculous event?!
> "Give it enough time and it will happen" is not a scientific statement.
on its own, perhaps not.
>It
> is a faith-based statement.
that would depend on the rational for making the statment. If i give
a pot of water on a lit stove enough time it will boil, whether I have
faith in it or not. Interestingly, it will boil even if i am pious
and devout and have great faith that it will not, even if i beseech
the lord to make the water not boil
'a watched pot always boils'
-a particularly curious android.
> It is saying that they don't know what
> happened, but if we give it enough time, then something will happen.
no, not really. It is saying that life does exist, and there are
experiments that seem to show that organic precursors form naturally.
> Scientists affirm that the law of probability states if the chances of
> something happening are over 10 to the 50th power, then it will "never"
> happen.
then take a specific modern abiogenesis hypothesis and work out the
probabilites and see what you get. of course if one just says 'the
probability of random atoms forming into a cell is astronomical' then
we would be wasting our time looking at a random collection of atoms.
We'd be better served by looking at specific systems, and that is what
the abiogenesis experiments too. The probability of each and every
molecule in a huge volume of gas arriving at their current position
with their current engergy is also astronomical, and yet, quite
obviously it does in fact happen. Are you suggesting god in invovled
with each molecule in say a child's balloon?
>
> The chances are 10 to the 191st power that a single protein can occur by
> random chance.
>
and that is probably a good reason to not expect a protein to
spontaneously jump out of muck.
> The chances of a single cell forming by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th
> power!
and thats probably why it doesn't happen very much.
>
> So, what's my point? My point is that when you are mustering up all of your
> faith to put it into your godless worldview, you should consider putting
> that faith into your Creator and His message to you;
why? we're talking about science. and infact we're talking about
AIG's inability to scientifically resolve questions and arguements,
hence their reliance on actual science to decide whihc of thier own
arguments are too bunk for even them to use.
> which is to repent from
> your sins and trust Him for salvation. Only your Creator can redeem you.
thats nice.
and what does this have to do with learning about the scientific
processes at work in the world?
Lieutenant Kizhe Katson
You can go on spewing BS like that all you want, Gasbag, but it won't
make it come true. You wouldn't recognize science if it ran over you
on the highway. You and your YEC heroes are trying to re-write
everything that's happened in the natural sciences for the past 200
years -- and you're no where near up to the job.
-- Kizhé
Todd Greene
<xSvZb.10543$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> Hi,
>
> Who among the YEC adherents and proponents would you say has influenced you
> the most? In other words, which YEC man or woman would you say is the most
> intelligent and honest and has taught you some important things about
> science and young earth creation? This question is directed to
> evolutionists first, then to all others.
>
> Note: I'm not looking for sarcastic comments like: "Ken Ham taught me that
> he is a bozo." Please refrain from back-handed statements because this is a
> sincere question. And the "Nobel Prize Winner" subject was just for effect.
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that any particular YECist should get the
> prize.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jason
Hi, Jason.
I nominate Glenn Morton.
Regards,
Todd Greene
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages
MagentaStudios
It didn't. It became life based on stimuli.
That's based on the scientific process.
Anyway, that's abiogenesis, not evolution.
Evolution, on Earth at least, is not dependant on abiogenesis.
> or that man and a banana had a common ancestor. Oh well.
Well, at least you still don't think that men evolved FROM bananas.
That's a minor improvement.
That was such a hoot- you constantly saying how you understand evolution, when
you don't have a *clue* what it is, and you feel the intense desire to debunk
something you don't understand in the least!
And BTW, yes, ALL life came from a common ancestor, not just those two species.
The same is true in Creationism, BTW. You believe they all came from God, and
that god created them from clay and breath.
That's a common ancestor.
Makes one wonder what you are trying to argue against.
/*'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'*\
|* Unique, Artistic T-Shirts, Caps, Mugs, and More! *|
|* * Mystical * Political * Funny * Sexy * Artsy * *|
|* MagentaStudios | http://www.magentastudios.com/ *|
\*'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'*/