Answers In Genesis

Great Debates
1

As related in my 11 questions thread, AiG sent me an email regarding my challenge, but (rather bizarrely) forbade me to reveal the contents of that email to the folks at the SDMB. It’s still a little unclear to me what, exactly, they don’t want you to know; the email seemed fairly innocuous.

I’ve received another email:

**

I’ve accepted his challenge and posted his email here. Dig in, guys. If you find anything relevant to the 11 questions, post it to that thread and I’ll give my reply. Again, my offer still stands: a scientific answer to all 11 questions from a framework of special and separate creation means I’ll read the book of your choice.

-Ben

2

From the wording, I wonder . . .

If the above “is no secret,” why do they think the previous one was a secret?

3

Creation science websites can be such a stitch sometimes. I’ve seen a few, thanks to my cousin who is a Christian fundamentalist, but this one does have some ideas that I hadn’t seen before.

Namely, it seems to suggest that the presence of extraterrestrial life is inconsistent with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

My favorite part comes from this page:

In other words, since the stars were made for mankind, they couldn’t have been made for extraterrestrial life. And since ETs are never mentioned in the Bible, they can’t exist.

Nice way of quashing scientific inquiry. :rolleyes:

I have to say, Ben, that you’re not going to find the answers to your eleven questions here. Folks like this are generally pretty immune to argument.

And like andros, I’m curious as to why they brand their response to your legitimate inquiry to be “secret.” My first guess is that the sender knew that the content of the e-mail would be quickly picked apart on this message board.

4

Cripes, that’s almost as funny as that Family Research Institute site that was linked to in a recent Pit thread.

Gee, maybe that’s because they all lived at a time prior to the modern sciences of archaeology and geology!

5

Ben, there is nothing relevant to any of your eleven questions anywhere on that site. The site is well-organized, has decent graphics, and is updated frequently, but that doesn’t make its content any better that the any of the other creationist nonsense out there. The article that they linked you to barely contains any references to actual whatsoever to science. Instead, it merely attacks the people who defend the theory of evolution. We see the familiar charges that all evolutionists are atheists whose only goal is to destroy religion, that evolution is responsible for communism and the Holocaust, that belief in evolution will lead to declining morality, etc… The only actual references to scientific creationism are references to literature that happens to be sold on that website. I can personally assure you that all of the books which they are hawking are examples of pseudoscience, and they have all been firmly and thoroughly refuted by real scientists.

The article claims that Lerner is being misleading by focusing exclusively on evolution in his report. However, evolution is the only field of science which is consistently attacked in the public schools. There is no large-scale movement to teach fairy tales in other fields such as chemistry or math, so there is no need for Lerner to focus on them when his purpose is to defend science from mythology.

Finally, don’t be misled by the academic credentials of the people who write for that website. While it’s true that they may have PhD’s, that does not make them “top scientists”, nor does it imply that their arguments are worthy of respect. Much of the “scientific” writing on the site is laughably immature. I would be very surprised if any of their writers even knew what an intron or a pseudogene was. Here’s one example of what happens when a real scientist looks at an AiG publication:
http://www.leptonic.com/skip/comments061000.htm

6

Ben, do you feel honour-bound to comply with their request to keep secrets? (I’m itching to hear what they said, can you tell?)

7

I just read the feature article “The Supposed Consistency of Evolution’s Long Ages”, by Michael J. Oard. He seemed to pointing to the fact that some scientists have had problems with their radiometric data. O.K. I’ll buy that, the method is tricky. However, the guy’s conclussions went way beyond the few examples he cited. He found some examples of experimental data not supporting a particular hypothesis and seized on that as proof. That’s not even close to proof, and makes a travesty of the scientific method.

Next I wondered “who is this guy?” I looked at the bibliography for the article. Two of his “sources” are articles that HE wrote. [sub]snort[/sub] I then looked up his resume, and his highest degree is a M.S. in Atmospheric Science. He’s a freakin’ weatherman.

Maybe I should ask Al Roker what the REAL origin of the species is. He could probably squeeze it in between today’s weather and the travel forecast.
-Beeblebrox

“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

8

<< If God had done that, and if these beings were going to visit us one day, then He would surely not have left us unenlightened about this. >>

Let’s see, God’s Revealed Word didn’t mention microbes, bacteria, kangeroos, nuclear power, or ebola viruses, to name but a few. So those must not exist either?

I refuse to use the oxymoron “creation science” – there is no science in this mumbo jumbo.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the Bible is reconcilable with science (one takes the Bible as poetic rather than literal, for instance), and I believe in a Creating Force (call it God) behind the processes that created the universe and life. I also believe that God gave us (enabled us to evolve) the wits to figure things out for ourselves, rather than rely on His Revelation for subjects like biology, astronomy, chemisty, etc.

9

“REAL science”…is that the one that finds the TRUTH? :rolleyes:

10

…and the truth will set you free.

11

Hmmm… I was just about to post my favorite creationist webpage of all time, which happens to be put out by AiG, but they mysteriously are offline today…
And is it just me, or does AiG sound like a stereotypical kung-fu battle cry? “Ha! You cannot defeat me! Your evolutionist kung-fu is inferior to the Seven Days of the Divine Hand method! AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG!”
-Ben

12

C K Dexter Haven wrote:

Don’t tell me you actually believe in kangaroos! :eek:
Blasphemer!

13

<< If God had done that, and if these beings were going to visit us one day, then He would surely not have left us unenlightened about this. >>

hmmm, how about this:

From explorefaith.org

Tee hee :smiley:

14

Oh, great. The Zeta Reticulans might have their own version of Pat Robertson.

15

Somewhat OT, but some might be interested:

Creation “scientists” often appear to be against discussion. Recently the Institute for Creation Research set up a set of discussion boards. (There appears to be no link from the main page). On June 26 of this year their terms and conditions included:

"ICR’s discussion forum is primarily intended for young earth creationists to discuss matters, ask questions, find people with similar interests, etc. ICR welcomes others with serious questions that are asked in good faith. This is not a debate forum. Please go to Yahoo and use their advanced search function, and you can find plenty of places to debate. By registering, you agree that you are either a young earth creationist or someone with a serious question.

Any questions, comments, etc. that are derogatory or inflammatory in nature towards ICR or other posters will be deleted and the offending poster will be banned. …"

And, of course, a clause that their moderators could edit messages.

Around that time a self-professed young Christian female, a college student in one of the biological sciences, posted several questions about “creation science” to talk.origins (using the handle “Diamond Dust”). She appeared to making an honest effort to reconcile her faith with the evidence that she was seeing. A creationist refered her to the ICR discussions.

She posted a message asking how to reconcile the observations of objects millions of light years away with a young Universe. Her post was edited to say something completely different, and her account was deleted.

A talk.origins regular repeated the experiment, posting:

“Could someone tell me how we can see objects millions of light-years away if the universe were created less than 10,000 years ago.”

Within an hour, his message was edited to say:

“Has anybody checked out Dr. Humphrey’s latest article here? It is about the last seven years of starlight and time. It has related links on Russ and all the debates from AIG’s tech journal. It is pretty awesome. He even has a video called Starlight and Time as well.”

and his account was deleted. (See this thread at Google).

Around the same time, the terms and conditions at the ICR site changed to:

“ICR’s discussion forum is intended for young earth creationists to discuss matters, ask questions, find people with similar interests, etc. This is not a debate forum. Please go to Yahoo and use their advanced search function, and you can find plenty of places to debate. By registering, you agree that you are a young earth creationist.”

I guess serious questions aren’t allowed. There are some who feel that the amount of editing that took place was actionable.

16

Jon, I cannot believe I just read that.

Good to know that lying, misrepresentation, and general assholery are still ok with God.

17

<< This is not a debate forum >>

Yeah, obviously the silly twit had posted in General Questions, when it shoulda been in Great Debates.

18

Well, the ICR has the right to restrict membership to YECs if they want. It’s their website (I make a similar argument on my own BB). But to edit others’ posts… wow.

19

I wrote:

I just remembered something!

Back in 1995, when the first planet outside our solar system was discovered (51 Pegasi b, nicknamed “Bellerophon”), I saw an article in my local newspaper about a local Catholic archbishop. He said that if there were intelligent beings living on this planet, their souls would need saving!

Damn, I wish I had kept that article!

A few days later, some Catholic cardinal published a retraction of this viewpoint, claiming that original sin might not have happened on 51 Pegasi b. (!) Neither the cardinal, nor the original archbishop, seemed to be aware that 51 Pegasi b was way too close to its star to be hospitable for life. (It also has about the mass of Saturn, which means it’s probably a gas giant with no solid surface to stand on.)

20

In searching for my favorite creationist webpage, I found this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp

Nice picture of Tom Hanks, eh?

Here’s my (ex-)favorite:

I like that one because the interview goes like this:

“So, you have a new model for the Earth’s magnetic field?”

“Oh, yes.”

“Could you tell us about it?”

“Of course! It’s completely Biblical.”

“Totally?”

“Yes.”

“And it makes the evolutionist look foolish?”

“Yes, it’s nice that way.”

“Wow! Great!”

But what is the model? I remember asking a creationist about the Earth’s magnetic field, and they gave me the url to that interview, saying it would explain everything. “Everything” in this case means, of course, that some scientist has figured it all out and you don’t need to think about it anymore.

But what really made it my favorite was the picture of the big laser. What does it have to do with anything? Isn’t this article about geomagnetism? Sadly, I found that Humphreys works at Sandia, so there is a reason (however tenuous) for the laser to be there.

But now I’ve found this:

"Was Noah a Martian?

According to a recent report, Noah’s Flood actually occurred on Mars—not Earth!"

Docs Baffled!

-Ben