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

Keith Sisman's post to CFTF!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    George Jackson posted a note from Keith Sisman on the coCBanned list expressing some concern over some petition some folks were signing regarding an effort to
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      George Jackson posted a note from Keith Sisman on the coCBanned list expressing some concern over some petition some folks were signing regarding an effort to keep "young-earth, creation-science" and other such fallacious scientific teachings out of public school classrooms.

      In the final analysis, Keith Sisman wrote:

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: KeithSisman
      > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006

      > To: CFTF@yahoogroups.com

      > Subject: [CFTF] Creationism

      > (excerpt)

      > Methinks the evolutionists need
      > to deal openly with creationists
      > questions, rather than taking the
      > line of ignoring the problem and
      > hoping it will go away. If evolution
      > is true (it is not), then those who
      > promote it will be able to defend
      > it (they cannot).

      All Keith and his fellows have to do to actually defeat "evolution" is to demonstrate that nothing is over a few thousand years old.

      There has been an outstanding challenge (offer to "openly deal with creationists' questions) regarding that issue which has not been accepted.

      If the evidence of age arguments can be sustained, as Todd S. Greene has proposed to do in taking up the affirmative that some things really are more than a few thousand years old and the negative to the opposition which affirms nothing is more than a few thousand years old, then "young-earth, creation-science" is falsified.

      Will Keith Sisman even acknowledge the possibility that his "young-earth" position is subject to falsification based upon evidence outside of scripture (i.e., the empirical real world evidence)?

      Keith was to have his book on the subject out by this time. I think he has decided against it; knowing that trying to claim, scientifically, that nothing is over a few thousand years old would be a "loser" for him and his reputation, such as it might be, as a reputable source. (I understand he may have plausible deniability as to the reason for the delay of his book).

      Then again, maybe his book is out and he simply failed to send me my complimentary copy for comment!~

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... This is the young earth creationist Keith Sisman wrongfully pretending that evolutionists have ignored creationists questions. In fact, scientists and
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In coCBanned, Robert Baty wrote (post #5668):
        > George Jackson posted a note from Keith Sisman on the coCBanned
        > list expressing some concern over some petition some folks were
        > signing regarding an effort to keep "young-earth,
        > creation-science" and other such fallacious scientific
        > teachings out of public school classrooms.
        >
        > In the final analysis, Keith Sisman wrote:
        >
        >> -----Original Message-----
        >> From: KeithSisman
        >> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006
        >> To: CFTF@yahoogroups.com
        >> Subject: [CFTF] Creationism
        >
        > (excerpt)
        >
        >> Methinks the evolutionists need to deal
        >> openly with creationists questions,
        >> rather than taking the line of ignoring
        >> the problem and hoping it will go away.
        >> If evolution is true (it is not), then
        >> those who promote it will be able to
        >> defend it (they cannot).

        This is the young earth creationist Keith Sisman wrongfully
        pretending that "evolutionists" have ignored "creationists'
        questions." In fact, scientists and others who take science
        seriously have openly dealt with all kinds of creationist claims
        about science and have explained exactly what is wrong with them.
        Keith, in the typical manner of creationist rhetoric, just pretends
        that none of the literature critical of creationism exists. Of
        course, in reality, we all know that we can find such discussion
        about creationism all over the place, including on the internet:

        AntiEvolution.org - The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution
        http://www.antievolution.org/

        National Center for Science Education
        http://ncseweb.org/

        Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
        http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/

        Evolution Education Wiki
        http://wiki.cotch.net/

        TalkOrigins Archive
        http://www.talkorigins.org/

        No Answers in Genesis!
        http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/

        Creation Science and Earth History
        http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/

        The Panda's Thumb
        http://www.pandasthumb.org/

        Talkdesign.org
        http://www.talkdesign.org/

        Talk Reason
        http://www.talkreason.org/

        Foundation, Fall, and Flood
        (Website by former young earth creationist Glenn Morton)
        http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

        Pharyngula
        http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

        The Austringer
        http://austringer.net/wp/

        Evolution Resources
        (by Kenneth R. Miller, biologist who testified in the Kitzmiller
        trial)
        http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

        It's pretty amazing how Keith can be so utterly oblivious to reality
        that he can seriously pretend that he isn't aware of any of the
        voluminous discussion of the scientific errors and logical fallacies
        that permeate creationism. (Frankly, though, I know better. Keith is
        only pretending such ignorance, in order to prop up the standard
        young earth creationist rhetorical charade.)

        > All Keith and his fellows have to do to actually defeat
        > "evolution" is to demonstrate that nothing is over a few
        > thousand years old.
        >
        > There has been an outstanding challenge (offer to "openly deal
        > with creationists' questions) regarding that issue which has
        > not been accepted.
        >
        > If the evidence of age arguments can be sustained, as Todd
        > Greene has proposed to do in taking up the affirmative that
        > some things really are more than a few thousand years old and
        > the negative to the opposition which affirms nothing is more
        > than a few thousand years old, then "young-earth,
        > creation-science" is falsified.

        I have a standing invitation to young earth creationists - including
        Keith Sisman - to debate/discuss the following propositions:

        | Proposition: The empirical evidence shows that the
        | Earth has been in existence longer than one hundred
        | thousand (100,000) years.

        | Proposition: The empirical evidence shows that the
        | Universe has been in existence longer than one
        | hundred thousand (100,000) years.

        Those are stated as I would affirm them. Here I state them as the
        young earth creationists would affirm them:

        | Proposition: The empirical evidence shows that the
        | Earth is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
        | years old.

        | Proposition: The empirical evidence shows that the
        | Universe is less than one hundred thousand
        | (100,000) years.

        But instead of dealing openly with the scientific issues against
        young earth creationism, Keith and many other young earth
        creationists take the line of ignoring the problem and hoping it
        will go away. (As we observe with the current example of Keith's
        rhetoric.)

        > Will Keith Sisman even acknowledge the possibility that his
        > "young-earth" position is subject to falsification based upon
        > evidence outside of scripture (i.e., the empirical real world
        > evidence)?
        [snip]

        No. Because Keith will not deal with the physical evidence.

        As always with my posts, this post may be freely copied/distributed
        by anyone, anytime, anywhere.

        — Todd Greene

        Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
        http://creationism.outersystem.us/
      • rlbaty50
        ... wrote in part: I have a standing invitation to young earth creationists - including Keith Sisman - to debate/discuss the following
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
          <greeneto@...> wrote in part:

          I have a standing invitation to young earth creationists - including
          Keith Sisman - to debate/discuss the following propositions:

          Proposition #1:

          > The empirical evidence shows that
          > the Earth has been in existence
          > longer than one hundred thousand
          > (100,000) years.

          Proposition #2:

          > The empirical evidence shows that
          > the Universe has been in existence
          > longer than one hundred thousand
          > (100,000) years.

          Those are stated as I would affirm them. Here I state them as the
          young earth creationists would affirm them:

          Proposition #3:

          > The empirical evidence shows that
          > the Earth is less than one hundred
          > thousand (100,000) years old.

          Proposition #4:

          > The empirical evidence shows that
          > the Universe is less than one hundred
          > thousand (100,000) years old.

          As always with my posts, this post may be freely copied/distributed
          by anyone, anytime, anywhere.

          — Todd Greene

          Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
          http://creationism.outersystem.us/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.