Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Some concern for the creationist movement

Expand Messages
  • yuyuhakfan
    I am sure many of us have spent years in the creationist movement. We have seen new theories go and new ones make them selves known. We have seen ideas die and
    Message 1 of 21 , Jan 2, 2009
      I am sure many of us have spent years in the creationist movement. We
      have seen new theories go and new ones make them selves known. We
      have seen ideas die and rot and some become the standard creationist
      view. But I have some concern on the way creationists ideas are
      carried out and how many accept them.

      Lets be 100% honest with our selves. ICR has a near monopoly on
      creationism. Their research has help shape the way we view
      creationism and has become the standard creationist view, but why?
      Mostly because organizations like AiG support them and they control
      the creationist laymen. I'm not asserting they are unscientific in
      anyway, but we cannot be too quick to jump on the band wageon. Many
      creationist accept RATE's results purely because Humphreys said so
      and wrote a refutation article to Henke.

      This must stop. When setterfield released his theory of CDK, he
      received a lot of criticism. He was then told that he could not
      publish in our journals anymore. That's completely authoritatian.
      Sometimes we act like the anticreationist organizations we try to
      object to. I do not support setterfields theory, but I have a reason
      to object to it. Many laymen reject it because the bigwigs says so.

      Most YEC's have NEVER heard of Robert Herrmann's work, but yet it
      seems to me to be some of the most important work in creationism
      ever. Why? Because AiG does not report on his work.

      Many criticisms against creationism are pure foolishness, but we must
      live up to harsh reality that for every Herrmann, Humphreys, or
      Gentry there are five creation scienctists who do next to no original
      work and just report on things. There is nothing wrong with reporting
      things, but we need more then that.
    • steelville
      There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I ll post some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages. I think the most effective
      Message 2 of 21 , Jan 5, 2009
        There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
        some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.

        I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
        He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
        because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
        anti-creationist claims are.

        drdino.com

        --aec
      • Lowell Baker
        He has a good prison ministry now. His son is working hard on keeping things going. And, from what I last heard, he has a Real attorney, The IRS is one
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 6, 2009
          He has a good prison ministry now. His son is working hard on keeping things
          going. And, from what I last heard, he has a "Real" attorney, The IRS is one
          terrorist group that works real well. Only problem is that it goes after the
          little guy, There are over 900 "Off Shore" companies in the islands and the
          feds do nothing about it. Which simply means, it profits those in the
          government and finance.

          _____

          From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of steelville
          Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:30 PM
          To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement




          There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
          some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.

          I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
          He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
          because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
          anti-creationist claims are.

          drdino.com

          --aec






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • nathan lawrence
          I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am saying is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of reform.
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 6, 2009
            I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am saying is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research in the world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be engaged in research. The scienctific method does not only apply to Humphreys et al.

            --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@...> wrote:

            From: steelville <steelville@...>
            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM







            There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
            some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.

            I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
            He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
            because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
            anti-creationist claims are.

            drdino.com

            --aec


















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Temlakos
            Well, Nathan, I m not sure that I can speak to the current structure of the creationist movement. Mostly because there /is/ no structure as such. You have
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 6, 2009
              Well, Nathan, I'm not sure that I can speak to "the current structure of
              the creationist movement." Mostly because there /is/ no "structure" as
              such. You have a lot of different organizations, each with its own
              particular area of concentration, agenda, call it what you will. And,
              sadly, you have bad blood among creationists sometimes. The recent
              breakup of Answers in Genesis into Answers in Genesis (USA/UK) and
              Creation Ministries International (Australia/Africa/etc.) is a case in
              point.

              Now I'm not about to judge who was right and who wrong in the AiG/CMI
              dust-up. I'd probably be in an even less respectable position than was
              Moses when he tried to break up a fight between his fellow Hebrews, and
              one of them said, "What, are you going to kill me, too, as you did that
              Egyptian?" (Exodus 2:14)

              But I'll tell you what I've noticed: ever since AiG broke up, the USA/UK
              wing has concentrated primarily on building a fancy, showy museum--a
              good museum, to be sure, probably one of the best in the world--while
              CMI has turned out all the cutting-edge research between the two. Ask
              yourselves what AiG has come up with lately, to compete with John
              Hartnett's /Starlight, Time and the New Physics/.

              I don't mean to minimize ICR's contributions in this regard. After all,
              let's definitely not minimize the RATE Group, or Russ Humphreys' theory
              of the creation of planetary magnetic fields--a model that has certainly
              gained vindication by any reasonable standard whatsoever. But I have to
              say that John Hartnett's extension of cosmological relativity, and the
              knockout blow that it deals to the Big Bang (by kicking out the two
              Dagon's Temple Pillars that currently hold it up, namely dark matter and
              dark energy) seems to me the single most important research that has yet
              come from a creationist.

              Now if anyone wants to say that a man like John Hartnett might not be
              getting the credit he deserves, and for no better reason than that he is
              an Australian and everyone remembers the Americans first--well, I have
              to admit, that person would have a very good case. While it's worth
              remembering that the creation movement /began/ in the United States,
              with Henry Morris' /Genesis Flood/, that does not mean that the creation
              movement /remains centered/ in the United States.

              Nor, I imagine, that Jesus would look too kindly on the spectacle of
              people claiming "bragging rights" for human political divisions. I know
              that the Apostle Paul would tell everybody to quit developing followings
              based on anything but Christ and Christ alone.

              Temlakos

              nathan lawrence wrote:
              > I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am saying is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research in the world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be engaged in research. The scienctific method does not only apply to Humphreys et al.
              >
              > --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: steelville <steelville@...>
              > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
              > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
              > some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.
              >
              > I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
              > He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
              > because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
              > anti-creationist claims are.
              >
              > drdino.com
              >
              > --aec
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > ============================================
              > CreationTalk email listserv
              > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
              > CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
              > ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Charles Creager Jr
              I agree more creationist need to be engaged in research, but not all. Not every one has the ability or the time to do sound scientific research. RATE is with
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 9, 2009
                I agree more creationist need to be engaged in research, but not all. Not
                every one has the ability or the time to do sound scientific research. RATE
                is with out a doubt a high point in Creation Science research as well as the
                best funded project to date. It does stand as an example of what we can
                accomplish when the funding is there.





                ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>

                _____

                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 PM
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am saying
                is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of
                reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research in the
                world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be engaged in
                research. The scienctific method does not only apply to Humphreys et al.

                --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@comcast.
                <mailto:steelville%40comcast.net> net> wrote:

                From: steelville <steelville@comcast. <mailto:steelville%40comcast.net> net>
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                To: CreationTalk@ <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
                Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM

                There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
                some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.

                I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
                He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
                because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
                anti-creationist claims are.

                drdino.com

                --aec





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Charles Creager Jr
                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Temlakos Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:38 PM To:
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 10, 2009
                  From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of Temlakos
                  Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:38 PM
                  To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                  > Well, Nathan, I'm not sure that I can speak to "the current

                  > structure of the creationist movement." Mostly because

                  > there /is/ no "structure" as such. You have a lot of different
                  > organizations, each with its own particular area of concentration,
                  > agenda, call it what you will.



                  While true its not an entirely negative thing. Part of the problem with main
                  stream science is too much organization and centralization.



                  > And, sadly, you have bad blood among creationists sometimes.



                  That's just human nature in action. Through out the history of science there
                  have always bee rivalries, some of which are quite amusing to read about.


                  > But I'll tell you what I've noticed: ever since AiG broke up, the
                  > USA/UK wing has concentrated primarily on building a fancy,
                  > showy museum--a good museum, to be sure, probably one of the
                  > best in the world--while CMI has turned out all the cutting-edge
                  > research between the two.



                  AIG has started an on line journal called Answers Research Journal. CMI got
                  the existing journal in the split up that has given them an advantage.



                  > Ask yourselves what AiG has come up with lately, to compete
                  > with John Hartnett's /Starlight, Time and the New Physics/.



                  In all fairness Hartnett's work it's at level that's hard to compete with.
                  It's not a fair comparison.

                  > I don't mean to minimize ICR's contributions in this regard. After
                  > all, let's definitely not minimize the RATE Group, or Russ
                  > Humphreys' theory of the creation of planetary magnetic fields-a
                  > model that has certainly gained vindication by any reasonable
                  > standard whatsoever. But I have to say that John Hartnett's
                  > extension of cosmological relativity, and the knockout blow that it
                  > deals to the Big Bang (by kicking out the two Dagon's Temple
                  > Pillars that currently hold it up, namely dark matter and dark energy)
                  > seems to me the single most important research that has yet come

                  >from a creationist.



                  By the way Cosmological Relativity did originate with Hartnett but the
                  original concept was developed by Moshe Carmeli. Carmeli's work eliminated
                  the need for dark energy before the recent invoking of the concept to
                  explain the accelerated expansion rate predicted by Cosmological Relativity.
                  Hartnett's work in this area did eliminate the need for dark mater as well
                  as providing sufficient time dilation on Earth to solve the distant
                  starlight problem.



                  Personally I would say that Hartnett's work and RATE are at about the same
                  level, since they both solve a major creationist problem and deal a serious
                  blow the claims of Evolutionists.



                  > Now if anyone wants to say that a man like John Hartnett might
                  > not be getting the credit he deserves, and for no better reason
                  > than that he is an Australian and everyone remembers the
                  > Americans first--well, I have to admit, that person would have a
                  > very good case. While it's worth remembering that the creation
                  > movement /began/ in the United States, with Henry Morris'
                  >/Genesis Flood/, that does not mean that the creation
                  > movement /remains centered/ in the United States.



                  I have noticed a lack of Evolutionist attacks on Hartnett's work with
                  Cosmological Relativity. I think the following reasons are why this is the
                  case.



                  1. Cosmological Relativity has largely been ignored by the scientific
                  establishment. This evident by the fact that they invented dark energy to
                  explain away a major successful prediction of Cosmological Relativity: The
                  accelerating expansion. As a result Anti-Creationists choose to ignore it as
                  well.



                  2. Anti-Creationists are ignorant of Hartnett's work with Cosmological
                  Relativity. Not likely but a possibility



                  3. Anti-Creationists totally do not understand Cosmological Relativity and
                  as such can respond.



                  4. Anti-Creationists understand Cosmological Relativity and simply have no
                  response.



                  5. Anti-Creationists fail to see the difference between Hartnett's and
                  Humphreys' cosmologies. They think they have already disproved the time
                  dilation idea in their attacks on Humphreys' cosmologies and has such they
                  see no need to respond to Hartnett's cosmology.



                  6. Any combination of the above.




                  > Nor, I imagine, that Jesus would look too kindly on the spectacle
                  > of people claiming "bragging rights" for human political divisions.
                  > I know that the Apostle Paul would tell everybody to quit

                  > developing followings based on anything but Christ and Christ

                  > alone.
                  >
                  >Temlakos



                  Agreed.





                  ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                  Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                  Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • nathan lawrence
                  Consider this. When ever creationistic theory changes due to new theories, why does it happen? By what mechanism does the creationist mind change?  Is it that
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 10, 2009
                    Consider this. When ever creationistic theory changes due to new theories, why does it happen? By what mechanism does the creationist mind change?  Is it that a new theory has such great explainitory power or because AiG promotes them?
                     
                    I'm not saying AiG is doing pseudo-science, but why do they represent american creationism? We hardly ever here was the geoscience folk, yet they are by FAR doing the most amount of research. Why does this happen?  Compare what AiG has done for us compared to the seventh-day adventists and you will see what I mean.  
                     
                     

                    --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:

                    From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
                    Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                    To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 8:38 PM






                    Well, Nathan, I'm not sure that I can speak to "the current structure of
                    the creationist movement." Mostly because there /is/ no "structure" as
                    such. You have a lot of different organizations, each with its own
                    particular area of concentration, agenda, call it what you will. And,
                    sadly, you have bad blood among creationists sometimes. The recent
                    breakup of Answers in Genesis into Answers in Genesis (USA/UK) and
                    Creation Ministries International (Australia/Africa/ etc.) is a case in
                    point.

                    Now I'm not about to judge who was right and who wrong in the AiG/CMI
                    dust-up. I'd probably be in an even less respectable position than was
                    Moses when he tried to break up a fight between his fellow Hebrews, and
                    one of them said, "What, are you going to kill me, too, as you did that
                    Egyptian?" (Exodus 2:14)

                    But I'll tell you what I've noticed: ever since AiG broke up, the USA/UK
                    wing has concentrated primarily on building a fancy, showy museum--a
                    good museum, to be sure, probably one of the best in the world--while
                    CMI has turned out all the cutting-edge research between the two. Ask
                    yourselves what AiG has come up with lately, to compete with John
                    Hartnett's /Starlight, Time and the New Physics/.

                    I don't mean to minimize ICR's contributions in this regard. After all,
                    let's definitely not minimize the RATE Group, or Russ Humphreys' theory
                    of the creation of planetary magnetic fields--a model that has certainly
                    gained vindication by any reasonable standard whatsoever. But I have to
                    say that John Hartnett's extension of cosmological relativity, and the
                    knockout blow that it deals to the Big Bang (by kicking out the two
                    Dagon's Temple Pillars that currently hold it up, namely dark matter and
                    dark energy) seems to me the single most important research that has yet
                    come from a creationist.

                    Now if anyone wants to say that a man like John Hartnett might not be
                    getting the credit he deserves, and for no better reason than that he is
                    an Australian and everyone remembers the Americans first--well, I have
                    to admit, that person would have a very good case. While it's worth
                    remembering that the creation movement /began/ in the United States,
                    with Henry Morris' /Genesis Flood/, that does not mean that the creation
                    movement /remains centered/ in the United States.

                    Nor, I imagine, that Jesus would look too kindly on the spectacle of
                    people claiming "bragging rights" for human political divisions. I know
                    that the Apostle Paul would tell everybody to quit developing followings
                    based on anything but Christ and Christ alone.

                    Temlakos

                    nathan lawrence wrote:
                    > I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am saying is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research in the world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be engaged in research. The scienctific method does not only apply to Humphreys et al.
                    >
                    > --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@comcast. net> wrote:
                    >
                    > From: steelville <steelville@comcast. net>
                    > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                    > To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
                    > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
                    > some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.
                    >
                    > I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
                    > He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
                    > because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
                    > anti-creationist claims are.
                    >
                    > drdino.com
                    >
                    > --aec
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                    >
                    > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
                    > CreationTalk email listserv
                    > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
                    > CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
                    > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


















                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • nathan lawrence
                    Good point, but just look at the list of sciencists that AiG lists. Compare how many have contributed to creationism to those who merely report on it.   I do
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 10, 2009
                      Good point, but just look at the list of sciencists that AiG lists. Compare how many have contributed to creationism to those who merely report on it.
                       
                      I do believe that RATE is some of the most advanced research in creationism, but I don't believe it's the standard. I think that award goes to Gentry, even though he is somewhat out of date. If RATE acted more like Gentry, we might be more convincing (not that RATE isn't convincing).

                      --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...> wrote:

                      From: Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...>
                      Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 11:06 PM






                      I agree more creationist need to be engaged in research, but not all. Not
                      every one has the ability or the time to do sound scientific research. RATE
                      is with out a doubt a high point in Creation Science research as well as the
                      best funded project to date. It does stand as an example of what we can
                      accomplish when the funding is there.

                      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                      Genesis <http://genesismissi on.4t.com/> Mission

                      Items on eBay <http://shop. ebay.com/ merchant/ creagerjr123>

                      _____

                      From: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com] On
                      Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                      Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 PM
                      To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement

                      I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am saying
                      is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of
                      reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research in the
                      world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be engaged in
                      research. The scienctific method does not only apply to Humphreys et al.

                      --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@ comcast.
                      <mailto:steelville% 40comcast. net> net> wrote:

                      From: steelville <steelville@ comcast. <mailto:steelville% 40comcast. net> net>
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                      To: CreationTalk@ <mailto:CreationTal k%40yahoogroups. com> yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM

                      There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
                      some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.

                      I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
                      He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
                      because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
                      anti-creationist claims are.

                      drdino.com

                      --aec

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • MaryAnn Stuart
                      I agree with Charles. Few creationists have the funds or facilities or time to do active creationist research, even if they have the training and would like to
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 10, 2009
                        I agree with Charles.
                        Few creationists have the funds or facilities or time to do active
                        creationist research, even if they have the training and would like to do
                        it. Several creationists did in fact do careful research in past years
                        and were rebuffed by other creationists for a variety of reasons, and
                        their material has been discarded. Others wrote about things they were
                        very familiar with, only to have someone publish a book about "arguments
                        that creationists should not use". Yet others are called in question
                        about their qualifications. So, in addition to lack of funds and
                        facilities, there is negative incentive to try.
                        Furthermore, some of us older ones have another hang up, the details of
                        dispersing information in the 21st century. I learned one method of
                        writing up reports years ago; it is now considered out of date. I have
                        no idea how to use the currently required methods of submitting a
                        manuscript. One useful thing might be to have science journalists who
                        would help some busy scientists, doctors, or researchers to get their
                        ideas into print.
                        Some creationist scientists are well qualified to research and to write
                        but simply have no funds. One cannot make a living by researching as a
                        creationist. If one is making a "secular" living, there is little time
                        or energy left over for other major projects.
                        Lack of funds and encouragement and prayers has been a problem throughout
                        history.
                        The journals do show several research projects actually; we could be
                        encouraging the authors and editors, n'est ce pas?
                        By the way, AiG never intended to do research but to be a
                        missionary/evangelizing organization.
                        MaryAnn Stuart

                        On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:06:26 -0500 "Charles Creager Jr"
                        <cpcjr@...> writes:
                        I agree more creationist need to be engaged in research, but not all. Not
                        every one has the ability or the time to do sound scientific research.
                        RATE
                        is with out a doubt a high point in Creation Science research as well as
                        the
                        best funded project to date. It does stand as an example of what we can
                        accomplish when the funding is there.

                        ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                        Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                        Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>

                        _____

                        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com]
                        On
                        Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                        Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 PM
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement

                        I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am
                        saying
                        is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in need of
                        reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research in the
                        world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be engaged in
                        research. The scienctific method does not only apply to Humphreys et al.

                        --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@comcast.
                        <mailto:steelville%40comcast.net> net> wrote:

                        From: steelville <steelville@comcast. <mailto:steelville%40comcast.net>
                        net>
                        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                        To: CreationTalk@ <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM

                        There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
                        some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.

                        I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
                        He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
                        because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
                        anti-creationist claims are.

                        drdino.com

                        --aec

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                        ____________________________________________________________
                        Click here to save up to 75% on disability insurance.
                        http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1fvY2HkG1258L3pErpAyoZZp8lqJFijN0fyv8acGY5EB2Bg/

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • steelville
                        As to diverse creationist organizations arising, in my opinion it is The more the merrier . That is, not being a matter of one following Appolos, another
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                          As to diverse creationist organizations arising, in my opinion it is
                          "The more the merrier". That is, not being a matter of one following
                          Appolos, another Mark, another Paul, and all that. More being that there
                          are advantages to the existence of several Creation Science research
                          organizations, educational organizations, and ministries.

                          Internet activity growth has been driven mostly by the American economic
                          engine, particularly in the last decade of the 20th century, and
                          stabilized in the USA while the world caught up during the opening of
                          the 21st. In my opinion, that's why there's been more awareness in
                          general of what goes on in the USA, but as time goes on and the rest of
                          the world gets more comfortable in English, that will change.

                          In fact as the US meets up with the consequences that follow for a
                          Christian nation that turns its back on God, and the international
                          economy begins to wean itself off the dollar, international Creation
                          Science ministries and research efforts will dominate more. I think the
                          publicly available body of new Creationist research will likely decline
                          with both the slide in the US and world economy, the disruption of
                          currency markets, and an almost guaranteed increase in government
                          interference in Internet content.

                          Creation Science ministries should watch the situation closely, Things
                          can change overnight. Courts have already made Darwinian Paganism the
                          official "educational" religion in government indoctrination centers,
                          and by decree they have actually relegated Genesis the status of myth.

                          They already have laws that muzzle 501c3's during the most important
                          days of political campaigning,and it is not a stretch to consider
                          realistic that they will start enforcing what kind of speech is allowed
                          for Creation ministries. Or shut them down altogether by simply
                          declaring that it is fraudulent to say Genesis is supported by science,
                          or some such folly. Or call it child abuse to teach your kids.

                          Certainly the treatment in Texas of the ICR academy is a shining example
                          of this.

                          Dawkins already calls it child abuse, and says parents have no right to
                          teach it to their children! But note that he denied rumors that he had
                          said the same about witchcraft and the occult!

                          --Alan
                        • MaryAnn Stuart
                          You mention the geoscience folk . Do you mean the facility in Loma Linda? Yes, they may be doing good work, but how can we hear of it? Certainly not from
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                            You mention "the geoscience folk". Do you mean the facility in Loma
                            Linda? Yes, they may be doing good work, but how can we hear of it?
                            Certainly not from AiG, CMI, or ICR (not to knock any of them--they each
                            have their own things to do). Again, for some, it comes back to funding.
                            If Geoscience doesn't send out a free newsletter like the others do, I
                            don't hear from them. I would like to but don't know how.
                            In past years Bible Science Association fulfilled that useful role of
                            mentioning what everyone was doing, across the board. I do not know if
                            they are even still around today. By the way, they were started prior to
                            ICR by Missouri Synod Lutheran Pastor Walter Lang, who did promote
                            Adventist scientists, because at that time (1960's) they were the main or
                            only creationist scientists around. His "successors" in the other
                            ministries are a little less broadminded, perhaps.
                            There are creationists trying to do research--on shoestrings in spare
                            time. Look at BCS, or is it BSC? Todd Wood and others working on
                            biological "kinds".
                            Austin and others wanting to do more research at Mt. St. Helens.
                            Creation Research Society would love to do more at their facility in AZ.
                            OK, Listen up. Today I received an invitation from a shoestring group
                            who wants to combat the celebration this year of Darwin's birth and
                            publication by gathering creationist fossil researchers. Try to
                            encourage each other, coordinate with each other, and be heard. Will you
                            pray with us?
                            One of God's creations,
                            MaryAnn Stuart


                            On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:34:50 -0800 (PST) nathan lawrence
                            <yuyuhakfan@...> writes:
                            Consider this. When ever creationistic theory changes due to new
                            theories, why does it happen? By what mechanism does the creationist mind
                            change? Is it that a new theory has such great explainitory power or
                            because AiG promotes them?

                            I'm not saying AiG is doing pseudo-science, but why do they represent
                            american creationism? We hardly ever here was the geoscience folk, yet
                            they are by FAR doing the most amount of research. Why does this happen?
                            Compare what AiG has done for us compared to the seventh-day adventists
                            and you will see what I mean.



                            --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:

                            From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
                            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 8:38 PM

                            Well, Nathan, I'm not sure that I can speak to "the current structure of
                            the creationist movement." Mostly because there /is/ no "structure" as
                            such. You have a lot of different organizations, each with its own
                            particular area of concentration, agenda, call it what you will. And,
                            sadly, you have bad blood among creationists sometimes. The recent
                            breakup of Answers in Genesis into Answers in Genesis (USA/UK) and
                            Creation Ministries International (Australia/Africa/ etc.) is a case in
                            point.

                            Now I'm not about to judge who was right and who wrong in the AiG/CMI
                            dust-up. I'd probably be in an even less respectable position than was
                            Moses when he tried to break up a fight between his fellow Hebrews, and
                            one of them said, "What, are you going to kill me, too, as you did that
                            Egyptian?" (Exodus 2:14)

                            But I'll tell you what I've noticed: ever since AiG broke up, the USA/UK
                            wing has concentrated primarily on building a fancy, showy museum--a
                            good museum, to be sure, probably one of the best in the world--while
                            CMI has turned out all the cutting-edge research between the two. Ask
                            yourselves what AiG has come up with lately, to compete with John
                            Hartnett's /Starlight, Time and the New Physics/.

                            I don't mean to minimize ICR's contributions in this regard. After all,
                            let's definitely not minimize the RATE Group, or Russ Humphreys' theory
                            of the creation of planetary magnetic fields--a model that has certainly
                            gained vindication by any reasonable standard whatsoever. But I have to
                            say that John Hartnett's extension of cosmological relativity, and the
                            knockout blow that it deals to the Big Bang (by kicking out the two
                            Dagon's Temple Pillars that currently hold it up, namely dark matter and
                            dark energy) seems to me the single most important research that has yet
                            come from a creationist.

                            Now if anyone wants to say that a man like John Hartnett might not be
                            getting the credit he deserves, and for no better reason than that he is
                            an Australian and everyone remembers the Americans first--well, I have
                            to admit, that person would have a very good case. While it's worth
                            remembering that the creation movement /began/ in the United States,
                            with Henry Morris' /Genesis Flood/, that does not mean that the creation
                            movement /remains centered/ in the United States.

                            Nor, I imagine, that Jesus would look too kindly on the spectacle of
                            people claiming "bragging rights" for human political divisions. I know
                            that the Apostle Paul would tell everybody to quit developing followings
                            based on anything but Christ and Christ alone.

                            Temlakos

                            nathan lawrence wrote:
                            > I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am
                            saying is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in
                            need of reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research
                            in the world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be
                            engaged in research. The scienctific method does not only apply to
                            Humphreys et al.
                            >
                            > --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@comcast. net> wrote:
                            >
                            > From: steelville <steelville@comcast. net>
                            > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                            > To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
                            > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
                            > some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.
                            >
                            > I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
                            > He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
                            > because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
                            > anti-creationist claims are.
                            >
                            > drdino.com
                            >
                            > --aec
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                            >
                            > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
                            > CreationTalk email listserv
                            > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
                            > CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
                            > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                            ____________________________________________________________
                            Click now for debt negotiation and settlement services.
                            http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw394mrlKWC7yY9KENmFy0W3vckIFGtcCD45pnO87uXPucftM/

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • nathan lawrence
                            This is in reply to MaryAnn Stuart.   “You mention ‘the geoscience folk‘. Do you mean the facility in Loma Linda? Yes, they may be doing good work, but
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                              This is in reply to MaryAnn Stuart.

                              �You mention �the geoscience folk�. Do you mean the facility in Loma
                              Linda? Yes, they may be doing good work, but how can we hear of it?�

                              Yes I did and some of the other organizations associated with them.

                              �Certainly not from AiG, CMI, or ICR (not to knock any of them--they each
                              have their own things to do).�

                              Which is actually the point I�m trying to make. I�m not trying to knock on them either, I�m just pointing out what I see as a flaw in the way things are done.

                              �If Geoscience doesn't send out a free newsletter like the others do, I
                              don't hear from them. I would like to but don't know how.�

                              They also post every copy of their journal Origin�s on their website. The best way to keep up with them is to check that and look at the research section and personal bios here:
                              http://origins.swau.edu/

                              A short list of GRISDA research in recent years:

                              a catastrophic model for the Pisco Formation and evidence for it. (this also refuted the anti-creationist claim that chalk could not have formed quickly)

                              A catastrophic model for the Edmontosaurus bonebed and evidence for it

                              A new way of modeling digital modeling of fossil sites

                              Evidence that dinosaur eggs are sometimes misinterpreted as meaning peaceful conditions

                              Global Paleocurrent modeling and data collecting

                              A New Method for Determining Paleocurrent Direction in Sandstones

                              A New Method for Testing Models of Prebiotic Peptide Assembly

                              Among much more.

                              Sure this does not have as big of an impact has RATE and others, but it still has an impact on the debate. People always want to hear the silver bullet.

                              �By the way, they were started prior to ICR by Missouri Synod Lutheran Pastor Walter Lang, who did promote Adventist scientists, because at that time (1960's) they were the main or only creationist scientists around. His "successors" in the other ministries are a little less broadminded, perhaps.�

                              Interesting, but I think it�s undeniable that there is a certain bias against the 7th day folk. When CRS was founded, one of the board members refused to interact with them and left CRS.

                              �There are creationists trying to do research--on shoestrings in spare time. Look at BCS, or is it BSC? Todd Wood and others working on biological "kinds".�

                              They do good work, but how often does AiG talk about them? Not very much.

                              �OK, Listen up. Today I received an invitation from a shoestring group
                              who wants to combat the celebration this year of Darwin's birth and
                              publication by gathering creationist fossil researchers. Try to
                              encourage each other, coordinate with each other, and be heard. Will you
                              pray with us?�

                              I sure will.

                              Now, let me try to explain my point more. There is a humongous reporting bias by major American creationist organizations. Most research is done by a handful of people and the new theory become the latest craze in creationist circles. Sure RATE disproved Gentry�s interpretation, but they have not answered all of Gentry�s arguments against a secondary origin of granite either. But AiG has tarnished Gentry�s name to the point of no return.
                              Consider this reporting bias. Let compare Setterfield to Humphreys model of cosmology.
                              When Setterfield released his theory of CDK, it was solidly refuted. Setterfield realized this and REDID his theory (it is now called VC). But the damage was done. Setterfield was told by the major creationist journals that he could not publish any papers there. Humphreys release his theory and presented a few papers, but ,unknown to the public, Setterfield kept on publishing in SECULAR journals. If you count RAW research, Setterfield has done more then Humphreys. I�m not saying Setterfield�s theory is more credible, but is it fair to ban one model and then endorse another one that has produced less research?

                              Setterfield and Dzimano , "The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy ", Journal of Theoretics, 15th December 2003

                              Setterfield, "General Relativity and the Zero Point Energy", Journal of Theoretics, Dec. 2, 2003

                              Setterfield, "Reviewing the Zero Point Energy", Journal of Vectorial Relativity, JVR 2(2007) 3 1-28

                              Setterfield, "Reviewing a Plasma Universe with Zero Point Energy", Journal of Vectorial Relativity, JVR 3(2008) 3 1-19

                              Setterfield, "Exploring The Vacuum", Journal of Theoretics, Dec. 26, 2002








                              --- On Sun, 1/11/09, MaryAnn Stuart <maryannstuart@...> wrote:

                              From: MaryAnn Stuart <maryannstuart@...>
                              Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                              To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                              Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 1:15 PM







                              Recent Activity
                              Visit Your Group


                              Yahoo! News
                              Fashion News
                              What's the word on
                              fashion and style?

                              Need traffic?
                              Drive customers
                              With search ads
                              on Yahoo!

                              Find helpful tips
                              for Moderators
                              on the Yahoo!
                              Groups team blog.
                              .

















                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Charles Creager Jr
                              From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nathan lawrence Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:35 PM To:
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                                Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:35 PM
                                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                                > Consider this. When ever creationistic theory changes due to
                                > new theories, why does it happen? By what mechanism does
                                > the creationist mind change? Is it that a new theory has such
                                > great explainitory power or because AiG promotes them?



                                The answer here is yes. When AiG promotes a theory it gets more visibility.
                                You could have a theory with great explanatory power, but if no reads about
                                it, no one will accept it.



                                > I'm not saying AiG is doing pseudo-science, but why do they
                                > represent american creationism?



                                Visibility, it also makes them a magnet for attacks



                                _____

                                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                                Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:44 PM
                                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                                > Good point, but just look at the list of sciencists that AiG lists.
                                > Compare how many have contributed to creationism to those
                                > who merely report on it.



                                Both are needed.


                                > I do believe that RATE is some of the most advanced research
                                > in creationism, but I don't believe it's the standard. I think that
                                > award goes to Gentry, even though he is somewhat out of date.
                                > If RATE acted more like Gentry, we might be more convincing
                                > (not that RATE isn't convincing).



                                That said what you are talking about?



                                You're comparing apples to oranges here. Gentry is an individual, RATE was
                                research project.






                                ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                                Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                                Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jonathan Bartlett
                                For those interested in the research, I have a blog which focuses on Creation Research: http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/site/bartpub/blog/1 Most Creationists
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                                  For those interested in the research, I have a blog which focuses on
                                  Creation Research:

                                  http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/site/bartpub/blog/1

                                  Most Creationists have to be content with analyzing the results of other
                                  scientists, simply because there is no real funding to speak of. Science
                                  tends to cost money. Bryan CORE is one center of research, and they tend to
                                  publicize their work through AiG. Honestly, ICR isn't in the research
                                  business anymore. They had a shakeup, and there's not much left of them.

                                  The Geoscience Research Institute actually has both a newsletter and a
                                  journal. The journal's URL is:

                                  http://www.grisda.org/origins/

                                  Of course, most of their work you would never hear about because they
                                  usually are publishing in secular journals. Leonard Brand's work was the
                                  cover story for the February 2004 issue of Geology.

                                  AiG certainly is the most popular venue for non-technical Creationist work,
                                  and they are about equal with others as a technical outlet.

                                  Also, someone mentioned the BSG - you can find their papers at:

                                  http://www.creationbiology.org/

                                  There is also a similar Creation Geology group which sometimes meets with
                                  BSG and sometimes meets separately. This years meeting looks interesting.

                                  Creationism is actually a pretty diverse group, especially for its size.
                                  There are some times when politics gets into it, but I thinks its the
                                  exception rather than the rule, and there is usually a group somewhere out
                                  there willing to publish your stuff. In addition, Creationism is a
                                  tight-enough group that self-publicizing your work on the web wouldn't be
                                  too hard.

                                  Jon


                                  On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM, MaryAnn Stuart <maryannstuart@...>wrote:

                                  > You mention "the geoscience folk". Do you mean the facility in Loma
                                  > Linda? Yes, they may be doing good work, but how can we hear of it?
                                  > Certainly not from AiG, CMI, or ICR (not to knock any of them--they each
                                  > have their own things to do). Again, for some, it comes back to funding.
                                  > If Geoscience doesn't send out a free newsletter like the others do, I
                                  > don't hear from them. I would like to but don't know how.
                                  > In past years Bible Science Association fulfilled that useful role of
                                  > mentioning what everyone was doing, across the board. I do not know if
                                  > they are even still around today. By the way, they were started prior to
                                  > ICR by Missouri Synod Lutheran Pastor Walter Lang, who did promote
                                  > Adventist scientists, because at that time (1960's) they were the main or
                                  > only creationist scientists around. His "successors" in the other
                                  > ministries are a little less broadminded, perhaps.
                                  > There are creationists trying to do research--on shoestrings in spare
                                  > time. Look at BCS, or is it BSC? Todd Wood and others working on
                                  > biological "kinds".
                                  > Austin and others wanting to do more research at Mt. St. Helens.
                                  > Creation Research Society would love to do more at their facility in AZ.
                                  > OK, Listen up. Today I received an invitation from a shoestring group
                                  > who wants to combat the celebration this year of Darwin's birth and
                                  > publication by gathering creationist fossil researchers. Try to
                                  > encourage each other, coordinate with each other, and be heard. Will you
                                  > pray with us?
                                  > One of God's creations,
                                  > MaryAnn Stuart
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:34:50 -0800 (PST) nathan lawrence
                                  > <yuyuhakfan@... <yuyuhakfan%40yahoo.com>> writes:
                                  > Consider this. When ever creationistic theory changes due to new
                                  > theories, why does it happen? By what mechanism does the creationist mind
                                  > change? Is it that a new theory has such great explainitory power or
                                  > because AiG promotes them?
                                  >
                                  > I'm not saying AiG is doing pseudo-science, but why do they represent
                                  > american creationism? We hardly ever here was the geoscience folk, yet
                                  > they are by FAR doing the most amount of research. Why does this happen?
                                  > Compare what AiG has done for us compared to the seventh-day adventists
                                  > and you will see what I mean.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Temlakos <temlakos@... <temlakos%40gmail.com>>
                                  > wrote:
                                  >
                                  > From: Temlakos <temlakos@... <temlakos%40gmail.com>>
                                  > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                                  > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com <CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  >
                                  > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 8:38 PM
                                  >
                                  > Well, Nathan, I'm not sure that I can speak to "the current structure of
                                  > the creationist movement." Mostly because there /is/ no "structure" as
                                  > such. You have a lot of different organizations, each with its own
                                  > particular area of concentration, agenda, call it what you will. And,
                                  > sadly, you have bad blood among creationists sometimes. The recent
                                  > breakup of Answers in Genesis into Answers in Genesis (USA/UK) and
                                  > Creation Ministries International (Australia/Africa/ etc.) is a case in
                                  > point.
                                  >
                                  > Now I'm not about to judge who was right and who wrong in the AiG/CMI
                                  > dust-up. I'd probably be in an even less respectable position than was
                                  > Moses when he tried to break up a fight between his fellow Hebrews, and
                                  > one of them said, "What, are you going to kill me, too, as you did that
                                  > Egyptian?" (Exodus 2:14)
                                  >
                                  > But I'll tell you what I've noticed: ever since AiG broke up, the USA/UK
                                  > wing has concentrated primarily on building a fancy, showy museum--a
                                  > good museum, to be sure, probably one of the best in the world--while
                                  > CMI has turned out all the cutting-edge research between the two. Ask
                                  > yourselves what AiG has come up with lately, to compete with John
                                  > Hartnett's /Starlight, Time and the New Physics/.
                                  >
                                  > I don't mean to minimize ICR's contributions in this regard. After all,
                                  > let's definitely not minimize the RATE Group, or Russ Humphreys' theory
                                  > of the creation of planetary magnetic fields--a model that has certainly
                                  > gained vindication by any reasonable standard whatsoever. But I have to
                                  > say that John Hartnett's extension of cosmological relativity, and the
                                  > knockout blow that it deals to the Big Bang (by kicking out the two
                                  > Dagon's Temple Pillars that currently hold it up, namely dark matter and
                                  > dark energy) seems to me the single most important research that has yet
                                  > come from a creationist.
                                  >
                                  > Now if anyone wants to say that a man like John Hartnett might not be
                                  > getting the credit he deserves, and for no better reason than that he is
                                  > an Australian and everyone remembers the Americans first--well, I have
                                  > to admit, that person would have a very good case. While it's worth
                                  > remembering that the creation movement /began/ in the United States,
                                  > with Henry Morris' /Genesis Flood/, that does not mean that the creation
                                  > movement /remains centered/ in the United States.
                                  >
                                  > Nor, I imagine, that Jesus would look too kindly on the spectacle of
                                  > people claiming "bragging rights" for human political divisions. I know
                                  > that the Apostle Paul would tell everybody to quit developing followings
                                  > based on anything but Christ and Christ alone.
                                  >
                                  > Temlakos
                                  >
                                  > nathan lawrence wrote:
                                  > > I know of the existence of other creationist organizations. All I am
                                  > saying is that the currect structure of the creationist movement is in
                                  > need of reform. Creationist treat RATE as the most creationist research
                                  > in the world, but why must this be true. All creationist should be
                                  > engaged in research. The scienctific method does not only apply to
                                  > Humphreys et al.
                                  > >
                                  > > --- On Mon, 1/5/09, steelville <steelville@comcast. net> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > From: steelville <steelville@comcast. net>
                                  > > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                                  > > To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
                                  > > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:30 PM
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > There are several other Creation ministries out there, maybe I'll post
                                  > > some as time goes on at the signature area of my messages.
                                  > >
                                  > > I think the most effective ministry is the one started by Kent Hovind.
                                  > > He was despised by darwinoids, "hated" is probably a better word,
                                  > > because he made the issues clear enough to see how ridiculous
                                  > > anti-creationist claims are.
                                  > >
                                  > > drdino.com
                                  > >
                                  > > --aec
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                                  > >
                                  > > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
                                  > > CreationTalk email listserv
                                  > > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
                                  > > CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
                                  > > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > __________________________________________________________
                                  > Click now for debt negotiation and settlement services.
                                  >
                                  > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw394mrlKWC7yY9KENmFy0W3vckIFGtcCD45pnO87uXPucftM/
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Charles Creager Jr
                                  From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of steelville Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:55 AM To:
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                                    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                    Behalf Of steelville
                                    Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:55 AM
                                    To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                                    > As to diverse creationist organizations arising, in my opinion
                                    > it is "The more the merrier". That is, not being a matter of one
                                    > following Appolos, another Mark, another Paul, and all that.
                                    > More being that there are advantages to the existence of several
                                    > Creation Science research organizations, educational
                                    > organizations, and ministries.

                                    In science diversity is a good thing. In fact one of main problems in
                                    establishment science is too much organization and centralization.
                                    Establishment science's degree of organization and centralization is such
                                    that it stifles innovation.

                                    > Creation Science ministries should watch the situation closely,
                                    > Things can change overnight. Courts have already made
                                    > Darwinian Paganism the official "educational" religion in
                                    > government indoctrination centers, and by decree they have
                                    > actually relegated Genesis the status of myth.

                                    I have always found interesting that the scientific establishment will use
                                    the courts to protect their precious theories from competition and
                                    criticism, this a total disregard of the scientific method. Judges are the
                                    least qualified people on the planet to render a verdict on questions of
                                    science and as such in name of science they being totally unscientific.

                                    What we see in the scientific establishment is a despotic tyranny that will
                                    to force conformity by punishing those that refuse to toe the party line.
                                    The excuse often given is the need to weed out kooks but the irony is that
                                    this process actually allows genuine kooks to flourish, while suppressing
                                    legitimate scientific enquiry. These kooks can gain and maintain a following
                                    by claiming that the scientific establishment is ignoring and even actively
                                    suppressing evidence for their theories.

                                    By the way, I'm sure that groups like ICR and AiG are already watching the
                                    situation closely and planning possible option

                                    > They already have laws that muzzle 501c3's during the most
                                    > important days of political campaigning,and it is not a stretch
                                    > to consider realistic that they will start enforcing what kind of
                                    > speech is allowed for Creation ministries. Or shut them down
                                    > altogether by simply declaring that it is fraudulent to say
                                    > Genesis is supported by science, or some such folly. Or call it
                                    > child abuse to teach your kids.

                                    Sadly I can see something like this happening and the election of Barack
                                    Hussein Obama as president of the US makes such insanity all the more
                                    likely.

                                    Actually there are two more likely approaches.
                                    1. Declaring any one else that refuses to follow the party line (including
                                    not believing Evolution) to be tourists and enemies of the state to be
                                    arrested and summarily imprisoned or executed.
                                    2. Declaring such views as evidence of mental illness worthy of confinement
                                    to a mental institution.

                                    Both approaches have been used against Christians and other dissenters in
                                    such places as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

                                    ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                                    Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                                    Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Lowell Baker
                                    Went to the site. They had a vertebra that had been crushed and had 4 tooth makes clean thru it. Neat fossil. ... From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jan 11, 2009
                                      Went to the site. They had a vertebra that had been crushed and had 4 tooth
                                      makes clean thru it. Neat fossil.

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                      Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                                      Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:57 PM
                                      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                                      This is in reply to MaryAnn Stuart.
                                       
                                      “You mention ‘the geoscience folk‘. Do you mean the facility in Loma Linda?
                                      Yes, they may be doing good work, but how can we hear of it?”
                                       
                                      Yes I did and some of the other organizations associated with them.
                                       
                                      “Certainly not from AiG, CMI, or ICR (not to knock any of them--they each
                                      have their own things to do).”
                                       
                                      Which is actually the point I’m trying to make. I’m not trying to knock on
                                      them either, I’m just pointing out what I see as a flaw in the way things
                                      are done.
                                       
                                      “If Geoscience doesn't send out a free newsletter like the others do, I
                                      don't hear from them. I would like to but don't know how.”
                                       
                                      They also post every copy of their journal Origin’s on their website. The
                                      best way to keep up with them is to check that and look at the research
                                      section and personal bios here:
                                      http://origins.swau.edu/
                                       
                                      A short list of GRISDA research in recent years:
                                       
                                      a catastrophic model for the Pisco Formation and evidence for it. (this also
                                      refuted the anti-creationist claim that chalk could not have formed quickly)
                                       
                                      A catastrophic model for the Edmontosaurus bonebed and evidence for it
                                       
                                      A new way of modeling digital modeling of fossil sites
                                       
                                      Evidence that dinosaur eggs are sometimes misinterpreted as meaning peaceful
                                      conditions
                                       
                                      Global Paleocurrent modeling and data collecting
                                       
                                      A New Method for Determining Paleocurrent Direction in Sandstones
                                       
                                      A New Method for Testing Models of Prebiotic Peptide Assembly
                                       
                                      Among much more.
                                       
                                      Sure this does not have as big of an impact has RATE and others, but it
                                      still has an impact on the debate. People always want to hear the silver
                                      bullet.

                                      “By the way, they were started prior to ICR by Missouri Synod Lutheran
                                      Pastor Walter Lang, who did promote Adventist scientists, because at that
                                      time (1960's) they were the main or only creationist scientists around. His
                                      "successors" in the other ministries are a little less broadminded,
                                      perhaps.”
                                       
                                      Interesting, but I think it’s undeniable that there is a certain bias
                                      against the 7th day folk. When CRS was founded, one of the board members
                                      refused to interact with them and left CRS.
                                       
                                      “There are creationists trying to do research--on shoestrings in spare time.
                                      Look at BCS, or is it BSC? Todd Wood and others working on biological
                                      "kinds".”
                                       
                                      They do good work, but how often does AiG talk about them? Not very much.
                                       
                                      “OK, Listen up. Today I received an invitation from a shoestring group who
                                      wants to combat the celebration this year of Darwin's birth and publication
                                      by gathering creationist fossil researchers. Try to encourage each other,
                                      coordinate with each other, and be heard. Will you pray with us?”
                                       
                                      I sure will.
                                       
                                      Now, let me try to explain my point more. There is a humongous reporting
                                      bias by major American creationist organizations. Most research is done by a
                                      handful of people and the new theory become the latest craze in creationist
                                      circles. Sure RATE disproved Gentry’s interpretation, but they have not
                                      answered all of Gentry’s arguments against a secondary origin of granite
                                      either. But AiG has tarnished Gentry’s name to the point of no return.
                                      Consider this reporting bias. Let compare Setterfield to Humphreys model of
                                      cosmology.
                                      When Setterfield released his theory of CDK, it was solidly refuted.
                                      Setterfield realized this and REDID his theory (it is now called VC). But
                                      the damage was done. Setterfield was told by the major creationist journals
                                      that he could not publish any papers there. Humphreys release his theory and
                                      presented a few papers, but ,unknown to the public, Setterfield kept on
                                      publishing in SECULAR journals. If you count RAW research, Setterfield has
                                      done more then Humphreys. I’m not saying Setterfield’s theory is more
                                      credible, but is it fair to ban one model and then endorse another one that
                                      has produced less research?
                                       
                                      Setterfield and Dzimano , "The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy ", Journal
                                      of Theoretics, 15th December 2003

                                      Setterfield, "General Relativity and the Zero Point Energy", Journal of
                                      Theoretics, Dec. 2, 2003

                                      Setterfield, "Reviewing the Zero Point Energy", Journal of Vectorial
                                      Relativity, JVR 2(2007) 3 1-28

                                      Setterfield, "Reviewing a Plasma Universe with Zero Point Energy", Journal
                                      of Vectorial Relativity, JVR 3(2008) 3 1-19

                                      Setterfield, "Exploring The Vacuum", Journal of Theoretics, Dec. 26, 2002



                                       




                                      --- On Sun, 1/11/09, MaryAnn Stuart <maryannstuart@...> wrote:

                                      From: MaryAnn Stuart <maryannstuart@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                                      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 1:15 PM







                                      Recent Activity
                                      Visit Your Group


                                      Yahoo! News
                                      Fashion News
                                      What's the word on
                                      fashion and style?

                                      Need traffic?
                                      Drive customers
                                      With search ads
                                      on Yahoo!

                                      Find helpful tips
                                      for Moderators
                                      on the Yahoo!
                                      Groups team blog.
                                      .

















                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                      ------------------------------------

                                      ============================================
                                      CreationTalk email listserv
                                      Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/ CreationWiki
                                      http://creationwiki.org/ ============================================Yahoo!
                                      Groups Links
                                    • nathan lawrence
                                      I think that you are not making the difference between elite creationists and upper middle class creationists and laymen. Why do most creationists reject
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jan 12, 2009
                                        I think that you are not making the difference between elite creationists and "upper middle class" creationists and laymen. Why do most creationists reject (let alone understand) Gentry's ideas. Sure RATE provided a serious blow to Gentry, but was that what made his theory less popular? To quote Gentry in his rebuttal to ICR:
                                         
                                        "I MUST SPEAK OUT FOR THE SAKE OF PASTORS AND MANY OTHERS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE BADLY MISLED INTO THINKING THEY MUST ACCEPT YOUR NEW POSITION BECAUSE OF THE STRENGTH OF YOUR REPUTATION OF BEING THE WORLD'S LEADING CREATION GEOLOGIST."
                                         
                                        I do believe that ICR disproved Gentry, that Snelling model is likely, and the secular models are refuted, but I will always keep in mind Gentry's model until his 1979 challenge to evolutionists is met:
                                         
                                        "I will likewise relinquish any claim for primordial 218Po halos when coercive evidence (not just plausibility arguments) is provided for a conventional origin. . . . and in this respect I will consider my thesis to be doubly falsified by the synthesis of a biotite which contains just one 218Po halo (some of my natural specimens contain more than 104 Po halos/cm3)"
                                         
                                        Maybe I have a bone to pick with the man or something or maybe I have a little marxist in me (I am a criminology [national security/terrorism] major),  but I just see too much resemblance between the way american creationism acts and the way secular science organization work.
                                         
                                        1: Reporting bias
                                        2: Laymen depend to much on them
                                        3: Double standards
                                        --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...> wrote:

                                        From: Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...>
                                        Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement
                                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 4:42 PM






                                        From: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com] On
                                        Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                                        Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:35 PM
                                        To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement

                                        > Consider this. When ever creationistic theory changes due to
                                        > new theories, why does it happen? By what mechanism does
                                        > the creationist mind change? Is it that a new theory has such
                                        > great explainitory power or because AiG promotes them?

                                        The answer here is yes. When AiG promotes a theory it gets more visibility.
                                        You could have a theory with great explanatory power, but if no reads about
                                        it, no one will accept it.

                                        > I'm not saying AiG is doing pseudo-science, but why do they
                                        > represent american creationism?

                                        Visibility, it also makes them a magnet for attacks

                                        _____

                                        From: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com] On
                                        Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                                        Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:44 PM
                                        To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement

                                        > Good point, but just look at the list of sciencists that AiG lists.
                                        > Compare how many have contributed to creationism to those
                                        > who merely report on it.

                                        Both are needed.

                                        > I do believe that RATE is some of the most advanced research
                                        > in creationism, but I don't believe it's the standard. I think that
                                        > award goes to Gentry, even though he is somewhat out of date.
                                        > If RATE acted more like Gentry, we might be more convincing
                                        > (not that RATE isn't convincing).

                                        That said what you are talking about?

                                        You're comparing apples to oranges here. Gentry is an individual, RATE was
                                        research project.

                                        ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                                        Genesis <http://genesismissi on.4t.com/> Mission

                                        Items on eBay <http://shop. ebay.com/ merchant/ creagerjr123>

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Charles Creager Jr
                                        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nathan lawrence Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:11 PM To:
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jan 13, 2009
                                          From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                          Behalf Of nathan lawrence
                                          Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:11 PM
                                          To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Some concern for the creationist movement



                                          > I think that you are not making the difference between elite creationists
                                          > and "upper middle class" creationists and laymen.



                                          This is an over simplification but different levels of success and
                                          prominence are normal in any field.



                                          > Why do most creationists reject (let alone understand) Gentry's ideas.
                                          > Sure RATE provided a serious blow to Gentry, but was that what
                                          > made his theory less popular?



                                          1, Gentry's reaction to RATE's radial halo results seems less than open
                                          minded.

                                          2. Gentry's more recent work in cosmology has been less than stellar.



                                          > I do believe that ICR disproved Gentry, that Snelling model is likely,
                                          > and the secular models are refuted,

                                          I agree but Gentry's problem is totally close minded on this issue.

                                          > I will always keep in mind Gentry's model until his 1979 challenge to

                                          > evolutionists is met:
                                          >
                                          >"I will likewise relinquish any claim for primordial 218Po halos when

                                          > coercive evidence (not just plausibility arguments) is provided for a
                                          > conventional origin. . . . and in this respect I will consider my thesis
                                          to
                                          > be doubly falsified by the synthesis of a biotite which contains just

                                          > one 218Po halo (some of my natural specimens contain more than 104

                                          > Po halos/cm3)"



                                          With regards to Snelling's model this is an unreasonable condition since it
                                          would require reproducing the conditions of the Genesis Flood, No an easy
                                          task, even with an unlimited budget.



                                          > I just see too much resemblance between the way American

                                          > creationism acts and the way secular science organization work.
                                          >
                                          > 1: Reporting bias



                                          Please give an example.



                                          > 2: Laymen depend to much on them.



                                          While unfortunate, it is also a normal layman response in any field.


                                          > 3: Double standards



                                          Once again please give an example.



                                          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                                          Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                                          Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • steelville
                                          Nathan, All you have to do is shed light on this or that subject and bring it up when you can. Nobody has really disagreed with you, except that it seems like
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jan 13, 2009
                                            Nathan,

                                            All you have to do is shed light on this or that subject and bring it up
                                            when you can. Nobody has really disagreed with you, except that it seems
                                            like most of us don't view it as big a problem as you do. I don't, and
                                            it will all sort itself out, for sure, as it says: 2 Corinthians 13:8
                                            For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

                                            Not even the enormous behemoth of the Darwinist Establishment, not even
                                            the worldwide Beast government, not Satan and all the demons of hell can
                                            stop the Truth.

                                            You have a valid point, which is that ICR, or AIG, or this or that one,
                                            is not the only Creationist game in town, and that much is right. Not
                                            only that, but like I said the more the merrier.

                                            ICR has concentrated on sharing the science that serves as a testimony
                                            to Creation and to the Living Word of God, and deserves its place at the
                                            table still. As time goes on, though, there are a lot more people
                                            becoming involved in many more ways, more than we realize sometimes,
                                            because the Pagan Conformist Media Cartel absolutely suppresses any
                                            positive news about their stranglehold cracking up.

                                            In fact, maybe you've noticed, but local newspapers and news wire
                                            services are beginning to carry a LOT more articles that carry their
                                            pagan Darwin chant, and all that Big Bang noise.

                                            In fact, look what they're spending through NASA and SETI to find a
                                            nano-meter of evidence for life elsewhere, because for one thing, they
                                            think it will cast doubt on Genesis, and second, they are actually
                                            trying to fill a spiritual void.

                                            Carl Sagan almost articulated this second aspect in his book and movie
                                            Contact, and in comments, where he expresses a yearning for knowing "We
                                            are not alone". Of course he did some "psychological projection" with
                                            that, putting that thought in the mouths of the characters in the book,
                                            and in comments about finding aliens or evidence of same, filling a
                                            religious need among believers.

                                            That was also a pivotal thought expressed in the Star Trek movie, "First
                                            Contact", in which encounters with extraterrestrials brought a new world
                                            of peace among humans, and so on.

                                            --aec
                                          • wj14s@aol.com
                                            Please read the refulgent and concise; description of the following story in conjunction with your message! Some concern for the creationist movement
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jan 19, 2009
                                              Please read the refulgent and concise; description of the following story
                                              in conjunction with your message! "Some concern for the creationist movement"

                                              “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth . . .” so begins the
                                              story of creation in Genesis. Through our faith, we believe that this is
                                              true.

                                              But what happens when science counters God’s creation with Darwin’s theory
                                              of evolution?
                                              Learn valuable information on the authentic proof of creation through the
                                              compelling book, ROMW vs RAMB God Adam and Creation.
                                              © Copyright 2008.

                                              ROMW vs RAMB Reveals God Adam and Creation: What Would Grandma and Grandpa
                                              Adam, and Eve say? ….If They Could See us now: by: Simeon W. Johnson
                                              Learn more: _http://www.simeonjohnson.com_ (http://www.simeonjohnson.com)


                                              In a message dated 1/13/2009 10:36:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                                              steelville@... writes:




                                              Nathan,

                                              All you have to do is shed light on this or that subject and bring it up
                                              when you can. Nobody has really disagreed with you, except that it seems
                                              like most of us don't view it as big a problem as you do. I don't, and
                                              it will all sort itself out, for sure, as it says: 2 Corinthians 13:8
                                              For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

                                              Not even the enormous behemoth of the Darwinist Establishment, not even
                                              the worldwide Beast government, not Satan and all the demons of hell can
                                              stop the Truth.

                                              You have a valid point, which is that ICR, or AIG, or this or that one,
                                              is not the only Creationist game in town, and that much is right. Not
                                              only that, but like I said the more the merrier.

                                              ICR has concentrated on sharing the science that serves as a testimony
                                              to Creation and to the Living Word of God, and deserves its place at the
                                              table still. As time goes on, though, there are a lot more people
                                              becoming involved in many more ways, more than we realize sometimes,
                                              because the Pagan Conformist Media Cartel absolutely suppresses any
                                              positive news about their stranglehold cracking up.

                                              In fact, maybe you've noticed, but local newspapers and news wire
                                              services are beginning to carry a LOT more articles that carry their
                                              pagan Darwin chant, and all that Big Bang noise.

                                              In fact, look what they're spending through NASA and SETI to find a
                                              nano-meter of evidence for life elsewhere, because for one thing, they
                                              think it will cast doubt on Genesis, and second, they are actually
                                              trying to fill a spiritual void.

                                              Carl Sagan almost articulated this second aspect in his book and movie
                                              Contact, and in comments, where he expresses a yearning for knowing "We
                                              are not alone". Of course he did some "psychological projection" with
                                              that, putting that thought in the mouths of the characters in the book,
                                              and in comments about finding aliens or evidence of same, filling a
                                              religious need among believers.

                                              That was also a pivotal thought expressed in the Star Trek movie, "First
                                              Contact", in which encounters with extraterrestrials brought a new world
                                              of peace among humans, and so on.

                                              --aec




                                              **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
                                              steps!
                                              (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
                                              cemailfooterNO62)


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.