It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If what you were saying were true, then you could demonstrate it by putting forth a single piece of evidence that can be shown to be seen differently by a creationist and a person that accepts science.
No, that's just what people from Answers in Genesis want you to believe. The issue here is trying to get the evidence through to people, like yourself, you have been taught such ignorant things like 'it's a matter of world view'.
Well, it's hard to argue with a guy who has been shown to lie repeatedly and attack people for using his admittedly non-copyrighted material in a fashion appropriate with the material's status, evaded taxes, and lied to many, many people about the facts of the matter.
Description of Poisoning the Well:
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.
No, they aren't fallacious. You can make a number of very valid ad hominem attacks on Mr Hovind. He masquerades as a scientist, without pointing out that he has a diploma-mill doctorate in Bible studies. His dissertation is riddled with errors, even grammatical ones. He evaded taxes and is currently imprisoned for it. His videos are poorly made (I'm sorry, but it's my field of study, I have to point it out). He claims to have taught science for years without demonstrating any knowledge of it. He put out a bogus set of videos, has been corrected on their many scientific errors repeatedly (basic, basic stuff, not 'you're a creationist therefore you're wrong stuff), and hasn't changed them.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
NOT in logical debate. Logical debate is not a court of law where one's credibility is a basis for deciding truth. As stated earlier a person could be wrong on everything they had said without exception to date and their next argument would have to be accepted or discredited on it's own merits alone.
And I'd argue that Kent's history as a science teacher would more than qualify him to present lies contained in science books:
Lies in the textbooks
These lies are also included in Dr. Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution" which I previously strongly recommended you read.
(more to follow)
Ok, four replies to a single post...seriously? I mean, it's difficult enough to reply without that. And I'm going to just ask you to open up a thread on this topic.
No, it's not hidden. It's ignored. I mean, you're a Christian that takes the Bible as inerrant (at least that's what I gather from your posts)....which is blatantly false. I mean, the whole thing is exceedingly errant. The information that the Bible is full of errancy is out there, but Christians either ignore it or explain it away.
Demonstrate to me that your position on Hydrologic sorting has some validity, and I might be inclined to see your point, if not agree with it. Until then, it's founded in an ignorance of geology, which is frankly a really cool science. Geologists rock. (Yes, I made the corny joke).
Now, here's the crazy thing, creationist articles would be allowed to be published if they held any scientific merit. Science and Nature are open to any submission that conforms with its standards regarding academic rigor. Aside from that, ideology is not an issue.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Now, here's the crazy thing, creationist articles would be allowed to be published if they held any scientific merit. Science and Nature are open to any submission that conforms with its standards regarding academic rigor. Aside from that, ideology is not an issue.
This is false. Creation articles are rejected if they do not support old-age Earth or Evolution. Secondly, Creation Scientists publish papers in the peer-reviewed "Answers Research Journal" all the time. Be careful before you claim the ARJ is not a reputable Journal. That would be the "no true Scottsman" fallacy.
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it
conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of
faith.