Talk:Answers in Genesis

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article or part thereof was copied from Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, {{{user}}}, (under the same name) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png

How AiG is supposedly not scientific

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.-AmesGyo! 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.-AmesGyo! 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.-AmesGyo! 15:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

This is nothing more than biblisceptic rhetoric masquerading as fact. Are you blokes incapable of having a rational debate without this sort of nonsense? Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-AmesGyo! 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.-AmesGyo! 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.-AmesGyo! 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)
On the salt in the ocean, see here. On human population growth, the lack of a constant growth rate makes it impossible to determine an exact starting point. But we have data on a range of known growth rates, and using the lowest known growth rate still gives a starting point for human population far more recent that the evolutionary age. To put it the other way, the growth rate needed to fit with the evolutionary age is so close to zero for so long that it falls far short of any known long-term growth rate for human population. Of course, this doesn't "prove" anything. Evolutionists can invent all sorts of explanations for this, but in doing so they are going outside the known evidence and speculating in order to fit the data into their theory. Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 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!-AmesGyo! 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

If a modern human skull was found and dated to six million years ago, the dating method would be called into question; it wouldn't falsify evolution.
The salt-in-the-oceans argument does not contradict the biblical record, because the argument was for the maximum possible age, not the actual age.
It being mentioned only on the AiG site does not affect whether or not it is science, which is what the question was; so again you have tried to dismiss the answer by raising a different objection.
It doesn't make any real difference, but it is not only on the AiG site. It is also on the CMI site, and probably on the ICR site as well, at a minimum. The main researcher in this case does not work for AiG nor CMI (and never has). That objection is irrelevant.
I understand what falsifiability is, thank you. But explaining what it is does not demonstrate that evolution per se, or naturalism on which it is base, is falsifiable. I'm still waiting on an answer to that.
Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Gonna go ahead and say "mission accomplished." Denny Crane.-AmesGyo! 15:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, you all already know what I think. It's all on Ames talk page and mine. I have given several examples of falsifiability (the steg bone, the skull) all of which could potentially falsify evo. I still haven't seen a single example in all the hullabaloo of a falsifying statement about ID. Bring it, please...Id love to hear it.--PalMDtalk 15:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I answered the stegosaurus bone argument, and AmesG has agreed with me that it wouldn't falsify evolution.
I don't know what skull example you are referring to. I've searched the archived talk page of Ames' and your talk page for "skull" with no hits on either.
Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Once again, give me an example of a potential falsification statement for creationism. Please. Also, I disagree with Ames to a certain extent. If a human skull was found in a 300 million year old strata, or homo erectus in a 1000 year old strata, or the whole steg bone thing, the current theory of evolution would be largely invalidated/falsified. So, it is falsifiable. Whether or not it will eventually happen, well, I have opinions based on fact, but no crystal ball. Give me any such example from creationism...I really do want to know.--PalMDtalk 22:41, 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.-AmesGyo! 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!-AmesGyo! 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?-AmesGyo! 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?-AmesGyo! 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)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think AiG might be an Australian organization, so I'm not sure how involved they are with the American educational system's controversies. MountainDew 22:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
You're wrong! Actually, there is a grain of truth in what you say, but there's more to it than that.
The following skips a few details, but is the gist of it. AiG started in Australia as the Creation Science Foundation. It subsequently opened an office (although it was technically an independent organisation) in New Zealand, then America. The American "branch" was started by Ken Ham, an Australian who was one of the founders of CSF. However, the American one couldn't use the same name ("Foundation" legally could only be used for something else in the U.S.), so chose the name Answers in Genesis. Subsequently CSF in Australia and New Zealand changed to the AiG name also. Other branches/offices were opened in the U.K., Canada, and South Africa, all using the same name. Last year AiG US (who operated the web-site that all countries used) decided to go it alone, and formally separated from the other organisations (except for the U.K.). So the remaining countries changed their name to Creation Ministries International, and started their own web-site (duplicating much of the AiG web-site, as most of the content had originated in Australia anyway; this explains why you will very often find the same articles on both). So apart from AiG U.K., and the founder being Australian, AiG is for all intents and purposes an American organisation.
Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


I was wondering why the category of Christianity was removed from this article. If Creationism was a sub-category of Christianity, I would understand, but it isn't (and shouldn't be). Philip J. Rayment 21:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Philip, In looking at Christianity, it's mostly Christian principles or events that had a profound impact on its history or deal with theology. I had AIG mirror ICR. If we want the Christian label, I'd recommend Category:Christian organizations, and probably put the same in ICR. Learn together 21:59, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, that's good reasoning. And Christian Organisations sounds like a good idea to me. Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, didn't mean to cause any difficulties. ;-) Learn together 22:34, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Difficulties? What difficulties? This was just a good, proper, conversation about the article. No difficulties at all. Keep up the good work. Philip J. Rayment 22:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

As far as consistency goes, have a look at Creation Ministries International. I've just added Christian Organization to that, but there is a consistency issue there. I'm sure you can sort it out. Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Dispute with Creation Ministries International, financial origins of

The article says that...

1. AiG US withdrew from the group of sister AiG organizations, that they all had been sharing the one web-site run by the American ministry, and that this effectively forced the remaining organizations in Australia (the parent organization), New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa to rebrand, as Creation Ministries International (CMI).
2. AiG US stopped distributing Creation magazine and the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation (both published by the Australian ministries), switching subscribers to the new Answers magazine published by the American ministry.
3. CMI claims that this was unethical, unlawful, and harmed their ministry.
4. On its website, AiG US does not discuss the lawsuit between itself and CMI, but does state that the parting was due to how to best present their common YEC message.

From what I recall, the definition of the (sacred) ministry being harmed includes the merchandizing of publications. For that matter, what is Ken Ham's own answer to the question of what justifies the merchandizing of (sacred) ministry? Does he think the Apostles saw to the distribution of copies of their own letters by way of selling the copies like a man sells vegetables at a farmers market? And, if the demand for copies of those letters had been as high as the demand for the publications of AiG, does Ken Ham think the Apostles would have been justified---in the opinion of Jesus himself---to sell them like common produce as the means of meeting that demand? PatternOfPersona 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

...Any thoughts, anyone? PatternOfPersona 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Nevertheless, although the dispute wound up including financial issues its origin was an attempt to dilute personal power in the interests of Godly ministry. That is in my reading at least (my reading has been fairly extensive). LowKey 19:33, 23 August 2011 (EDT)