Why did BibleGod invent earthquakes, child birth pain, parasites and carnivores?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on March 9, 2010 at 4:38pm

Lee
I meant I didn't think carm was a YEC site, but AiG is.

Can both be correct - or is this not important?
Correct about the mustard seed? Yes, each and both are reasonable explanations.

You asked for evidence. I gave it.
You gave someone's assertions
They back it with argument, just as their opponents do. Both sides present the evidence and show how it matches their theory. I think the creationist case is at least as plausible (scientifically) as the evolutionist one.

I do not care what the source is... but AiG has been shown to be anti-science.

I shall stick with the science thanks :-)
Now that is your opinion of AiG, not shared by their scientists or by on-lookers like me. Whatever, you asked for evidence and I gave it you. The source does not matter.

Permalink Reply by Lee on March 10, 2010 at 10:26am

How, when and where have AIG been shown to be "anti-science" and what does it mean to be "anti-science"?

They do claim that the Earth is less than around 10,000 years old

That is against science... such claims then made by AiG are anti-science.

Permalink Reply by Lee on March 10, 2010 at 10:31am

hi Ian

not shared by their scientists>

Oh dear...

OK then, from the top of my head, what are 'their scientists' saying would falsify the global flood claims made in the bible?

What are ‘their scientists' saying would falsify their claims the Earth is around 10,000 years old?

What are 'their scientists’ saying that is scientific?

Actual, what are ‘their scientists’ saying science is?

Take care

Lee

Permalink Reply by Lee on March 10, 2010 at 10:34am

Hi Mr McS

I missed this question of yours

what does it mean to be "anti-science"?

The rejection of the scientific method would be a start.

The cherry picking of science as and when they feel the need.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 10, 2010 at 12:24pm

They do claim that the Earth is less than around 10,000 years old

And?...

That is against science...

Against "science" or against a particular scientific theory and a particular philosophy of reality? What exactly do you mean by "science"?

The rejection of the scientific method would be a start.

Well they don't reject the scientific method.

The cherry picking of science as and when they feel the need.

What is this "science" and how are they cherry picking it? It seems that you equate "science" with particular conclusions drawn from scientific observation.

such claims then made by AiG are anti-science.

This just doesn't follow. They are anti-particular conclusions, not anti-science itself.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 10, 2010 at 2:06pm

Just a few examples.

Examples of what? That people disagree with their conclusions and that they disagree with theirs?

This in no way validates the claim that they reject the scientific method. Come on Jim.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 10, 2010 at 3:22pm

No. That YEC science is simply wrong.

Whether their science is wrong or not wasn't under discussion. What was under discussion was whether they were "anti-science" or "reject the scientific method" The "examples" you provided did not indicate that they were either, but in fact they would imply the opposite.

AiG has repeatedly shown not to be science.

AiG is an organisation, not a science.

None of their material is peer reviewed

Not true. They have a peer reviewed scientific journal.

and for this reason none of it appears in any science textbook

They publish their own science textbooks if I recall :)

in any accredited school, college, or university anywhere.

So what? Who said they're trying to get published in schools?

That is not an opinion but a fact McStizzle.

Erm...I didn't make this comment so I don't know why you're addressing me :)

That said, you are distorting the facts.

Permalink Reply by Michael on March 10, 2010 at 7:48pm

AIG has a pick and reject approach to empirical science. If it has no immediate relevance to the vast age of the universe they accept it , if not they reject it.

Thus they will accept most physics and chemistry but reject all forms of geology and cosmology because they are historical sciences.

Hence Jim is right

Further their arguments are always flawed, palin wrong and often dishonest.

No intellignet person could find a good word to say for aIG

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 12, 2010 at 2:33pm

@ Jim

The examples I showed were wrong methods, misleading claims, and faulty science. If that isn't anti science I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what anti-science is then. Scientists can use wrong methods, and make misleading claims all the time. This does not make them "anti-science" if anything it makes them incompetant (assuming this can actually be proven to be the case). "Faulty science"? Not sure what that's meant to be :p

AiG reject the diagram below:
If they reject this then they reject science.

So they reject systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation because they reject one interpretation of scientific observation and experimentation? No I don't think so. By this same logic, you are anti-science and the links you provided are anti-science because they reject an interpretation of scientific observation and experimentation.

This doesn't follow.

Neither the ARJ or the Journal of Creation are peer reviewed with the wider scientific community.

Peer review:

The evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in the same occupation, profession or industry.

Doesn't make them not peer reviewed.

Peer revieweng" with other YECs does not mean either ARJ or the creation reasearch journal is peer reviewed.

If they meet the above criteria, it does.

You may as well say that astrology has a peer reviewed journal:

If it meets the above criteria, I'm afraid it does.

They do not have any science textbooks as far as I am aware.

Then you are unaware:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Gods-Design-for...

that their claims aren't peer reviewed is the reason why they are not in any science textbook anywhere in any accredited school, college, or univesity.

More so that it's not peer-reviewed by particular people. Either way, getting their textbooks into schools, colleges and universities is not their aim.

No one did. I'm just explaining whty the claims that you believe as fact are not found in any science textbooks.

That none of it is peer-reviewed? Well I've already shown you to be wrong about that.

You made the statement that Lee's comment that AiG are anti science was an opinion.

I did not. It was Ian Major:

Reply by Ian Major on March 9, 2010 at 4:38pm
Lee
I meant I didn't think carm was a YEC site, but AiG is.

Can both be correct - or is this not important?
Correct about the mustard seed? Yes, each and both are reasonable explanations.

You asked for evidence. I gave it.
You gave someone's assertions
They back it with argument, just as their opponents do. Both sides present the evidence and show how it matches their theory. I think the creationist case is at least as plausible (scientifically) as the evolutionist one.

I do not care what the source is... but AiG has been shown to be anti-science.

I shall stick with the science thanks :-)
Now that is your opinion of AiG, not shared by their scientists or by on-lookers like me. Whatever, you asked for evidence and I gave it you. The source does not matter.

The bit underlined is the bit you quoted.

I've jst demonstrated that it is a fact they are anti science, not an opinion.

No you haven't.

How ? Their claims are not peer reviewed science.

You haven't understood what it means to be "peer reviewed"

That is why they are not taught in science classes anywhere.

And this hasn't been demonstrated.

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on March 12, 2010 at 2:37pm

@Michael

AIG has a pick and reject approach to empirical science.

Surely everyone has this approach? You pick what appears sound and you reject what doesn't.

If it has no immediate relevance to the vast age of the universe they accept it , if not they reject it.

People use a similar standard to reject biblical claims. Either way, I'm sure it's not as simple as you make out ;)

Thus they will accept most physics and chemistry but reject all forms of geology and cosmology because they are historical sciences.

That is a blatantly untrue statement. They do not reject "all forms" of geology or cosmology. However, they may reject certain claims about geology or cosmology and certain theories around geology or cosmology.

Hence Jim is right

Hence he is not.

Further their arguments are always flawed, palin wrong and often dishonest.

always flawed? Do demonstrate.
palin wrong? looooool made me chuckle, I assume you mean plain. Do demonstrate that too.
And once again, please show how they have been dishonest. I've asked you this several times and you've failed to back up the assertion.

No intellignet person could find a good word to say for aIG

This is the "no true scotsman" fallacy. It simply isn't true. You don't appear to have a rational case here.

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on March 14, 2010 at 6:43pm

Lee
OK then, from the top of my head, what are 'their scientists' saying would falsify the global flood claims made in the bible?

What are ‘their scientists' saying would falsify their claims the Earth is around 10,000 years old?

What are 'their scientists’ saying that is scientific?

Actual, what are ‘their scientists’ saying science is?
All of this is available on-line at the various creationist sites. But here's a start:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1

http://www.bryancore.org/encore.html

http://www.bryancore.org/researcharticles.html

http://www.bryancore.org/issues/volumes.html

http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm

Permalink Reply by Lee on March 15, 2010 at 10:18am

Hi Jim,

Not sure if this reply will fall in the right place - but I love the HR diagram

It is my favourite graph

Ages ago I wrote a post on it... just in case anyone else is as sad as me and likes graphs.

http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/2008/08/best-graph-in-word-ever.html

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 19
• Next ›
• Page