Talk:Answers in Genesis

How AiG Isn't Science

I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-AmesG 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes we should use it! And of course it is biased - it has a conservative Christian bias! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smile (talk)

Andy has yet to admit that the site is biased. He's still pretending it's neutral. Until he does otherwise, we should keep the "dream" alive.-AmesG 23:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody has to "admit" anything. This is a conservative Christian wiki project - it is in the name! Smile 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Bull. Look at the Commandments. It's supposed to be neutral and non-opinionated.-AmesG 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm backing AmesG on this one, AiG is shady and should be avoided as a reference. On their "about us" page they say: "When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account." That's a convienent way of saying, if it doesn't agree with the bible then the evidence is wrong and we're right. Jrssr5 11:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

What utter rubbish from AmesG and Jrssr5. It presents a worldview that they are ideologically opposed to, so they try and dismiss it with unsubstantiated slander and twisting what they say. Philip J. Rayment 00:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's also unfounded in science, but that's just picky, educated me.-AmesG_yo! 01:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's also wrong, and intellectual snobbery is unbecoming. Philip J. Rayment 01:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Snobbery is tolerated when one side is clearly correct. Offer me real science. Aaaaaand go.-AmesG_yo! 01:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Creation science is real science. Philip J. Rayment 01:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Creation Science is to science what lightning bugs are to lightning (or possibly, what rat poison is to rats, since its only purpose is to KILL a branch of science). It's a collection of efforts to shoehorn the fossil record, astronomy, geology. etc, into the framework provided by a 4000-year-old fairy tale told by illiterate herders. What's next, Scientific Geo-Terrapinism? --BDobbs 15:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

"Shoehorn" is a really good verb to describe it. Good analogy.-AmesG_yo! 15:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-AmesG_yo! 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Very disingenuous. Of course I saw it—I refuted much of it. But you removed my refutation to an archive, and ignored (assuming you saw it) my edit comment pointing out you had ignored the refutation and simply repeated the incorrect information. Philip J. Rayment 02:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Care to refute it again? I must have missed it. Feel free to post your refutation on my talk page in a new section. It should be... interesting.-AmesG_yo! 02:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's still there in your archive, as per the link I gave, so I don't feel inclined to repeat it. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It looks like you gave up on the argument after PalMD001 explained it to you, so I'm not going to say that you refuted anything. But most of the problems you raise seem to be the basic misunderstandings of how science adapts to deal with new evidence, and how that's different from falsifiability. As you said, a stegosaurus bone with a human bitemark would change a lot about dinosaurs. But it wouldn't change evolution, necessarily. It wouldn't disprove the 4.5bn year old earth. What "evidence" do you guys even have for an "old earth"? And if you say, "the Bible, that's it," I might scream.-AmesG_yo! 11:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Then you didn't look very closely, because I responded to every reply he made in that section (by the way, I just realised that my intended link to the section wasn't to the section, sorry, but I've fixed it now).

Thank you for agreeing that human bite marks on a dinosaur bone wouldn't refute evolution; that was my point—that evolution itself (as distinct from specific details) is not falsifiable, just like you blokes accuse creation of being. So if evolution itself is not falsifiable (note that I asked for something that would falsify evolution, and that question was never answered), why the double standard in insisting that creation must be?

I figure you meant to ask what evidence we have for a young Earth? Apart from the Bible (which we consider reliable historical evidence, not scientific evidence), there are various dating methods that, whilst not guaranteeing to give an accurate age, are inconsistent with the old Earth idea. One is the amount of salt in the ocean, which gives an upper limit on the age of the oceans of (if I remember correctly) around 65 million years. Another is the size of human population, which could not have been increasing (as it does) for the million years or so that humans have been about.

Philip J. Rayment 11:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip please explain the salt in the ocean issue. As for human population the growth has not be constant so it would be very difficult if not impossible to use this argument to refute the time that humans have been on the planet.--TimS 12:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is falsifiable. If you could show me a modern human skull dated to 6 million years ago - well, slap me and call me Sally, that'd do it! But you won't. Also, your "age" evidence is specious. The salt-in-the-oceans argument (1) contradicts the literal Bible (but what doesn't, these days?) and (2) is refuted here. I notice that the only source that actually stands by the salt-in-the-oceans thing is AnswersinGenesis, so citing it to prove its own veracity is a bit circular, ne? So here's an analogy I can give you to work out how science is falsifiable, but how theories work. I have a box full of marbles. I hypothesize, saying, "all marbles in this box are red." I start pulling out marbles, and I get 3 red marbles, and 4 crimson marbles, and 2 pink marbles. These new "findings" do not dispute my theory's major premise - that all marbles are red - but they inform what type of red the marbles are. So I change my hypothesis, saying, "all marbls in this box are shades of red." The theory still has strong predictive value, but has been strengthened by the finding of contrary evidence, since its major premise remains unchallenged. If, however, I pulled out a blue marble, the whole theory would have to go. So it is with evolution. I've seen a lot of pink marbles that make the theory more complex, but well Philip, I'm still waiting for that blue one!-AmesG_yo! 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Gonna go ahead and say "mission accomplished." Denny Crane.-AmesG_yo! 15:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views

Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views? Is the article correct? There is no citation. Conservative 23:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Only Genesis. No evil-ution. They're that nuts.-AmesG 23:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

A citation? Conservative 23:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

He can't give one because that is not what they believe. He is criticising them with a straw-man argument of his own invention (although I'll admit that it may not be intentional; he might be so ideologically opposed to them that he actually believes his straw-man argument to be true). Philip J. Rayment 00:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight. Just like how you approach science, Conservative.-AmesG_yo! 01:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank God for the sourcing rule. Conservative 01:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

What "sourcing" rule? All of your edits are unfounded in fact, too - either relentlessly quote mined, taken out of context, or from nonsense organizations like AiG!-AmesG_yo! 01:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

More vilification of an organisation with a worldview that you oppose. Philip J. Rayment 01:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Have you read the ACLU article?-AmesG_yo! 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I hadn't, but a quick look at it now, and I don't know what point about it you are referring to. Philip J. Rayment 02:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Vilification of an organization whose worldview you oppose?-AmesG_yo! 02:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that you're claiming that the ACLU article is, like I accused you of, vilification of an organisation with a worldview that (many) editors here oppose. Is that correct? If it is, I'll have a look and see if I agree with you, and if I do, I'll try and do something about it. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)