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

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Same evidence, etc.

Expand Messages
  • Temlakos
    ... Oh, I have a comment, all right. And you re not going to like it one little bit. ... Absolutely. /You have no case/. ... Note carefully the phrase
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      dr.lindberg wrote:
      > I just discovered something strange, which you may wish to comment on.
      >

      Oh, I have a comment, all right. And you're not going to like it one
      little bit.

      >
      >
      > What I found is this:
      >
      > "As for Answers in Genesis <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis>
      > , read the quote in full.
      > "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
      > including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
      > Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is
      > always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess
      > all information." About AiG: Statement of Faith
      > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp> "
      >
      > http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionists_interpret_evidence_based_on_their_\
      > preconceptions
      >
      > It seems, at first glance at least, that your friends are making the
      > same "misrepresentation." Care to comment?
      >

      Absolutely.

      /You have no case/.

      Here is the statement of faith from the actual AiG page:

      > No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any
      > field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
      > contradicts the Scriptural record.

      Note carefully the phrase /interpretation of evidence/, not merely the
      word /evidence/ as your source, and now you, have quoted.


      > Would it be a distortion to suggest that it appears that the statement
      > might have changed?
      >

      If the suggestion that the statement might have changed had come from
      the original source, then Answers in Genesis could reply with a revision
      history of their statement of faith. But your source did not suggest a
      change, did they?

      Their statement, then, is worse than distortion.

      This is a deliberate attempt at intellectual fraud, one quite typical of
      Talk.Origins and their /confrères/.

      I am thoroughly shocked and surprised at you. /Not/ because I find you,
      yourself, guilty of that fraud; I have no particular reason to suspect
      you of that. But I do suspect, or rather, find, that you have /allowed
      yourself to be defrauded/. Specifically, you have accepted,
      uncritically, the statement from Talk.Origins (which, /at last/, I now
      can positively identify as the fraudulent source) without doing the most
      elementary form of due diligence.

      What you clearly failed to report to this body--I assume because you
      failed to understand it yourself--is that CreationWiki's response
      article uses the blue boxes to quote directly from Talk.Origins'
      "creationist claim" article. In essence, what you found was an article
      in our "Index to Creationist Claims" response series. Anyone who wants
      to look up the claim may do so. And in fact, the CreationWiki article
      quotes Talk.Origins accurately and fairly, and has them dead-to-rights
      on a charge of fraud. Lest any doubt remain in anyone's mind, here is
      the Talk.Origins link:

      Claim CA230-1, <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html>

      Now: /If/, and I repeat /if/, Answers in Genesis had revised their
      statement-of-faith since Talk.Origins wrote their scathing (and
      intellectually dishonest) "response" to the claim that they themselves
      interpret evidence according to their own preconceptions, then /they had
      the duty to update their response/. If they want to allege a change, let
      them allege it, and Ken Ham at AiG is then free to publish a revision
      history of his statement-of-faith on his site. But they are not alleging
      any change. Rather, /they allege that their quote of the AiG statement
      of faith is current./ More to the point, they allege that their version
      of the statement-of-faith is a true, complete and correct representation
      of the prevailing attitude and doctrine at Answers in Genesis and, by
      extension, all creationist organizations. And as I have now shown, that
      is absolutely, positively, categorically, utterly one-hundred-percent false.

      How dare Talk.Origins or anyone else accuse creationists of hypocrisy in
      this regard, when they resort to deliberate and willful
      misrepresentation of our positions in order to arrogate to themselves an
      air of relative respectability?

      Then again, I expect no better of them. Neither do my colleagues at
      CreationWiki, who have been responding to Talk.Origins' rather facile
      (and in some cases out-of-date) arguments for nigh on four years now,
      ever since CreationWiki's inception.

      But I expected better of you, and I didn't get it.

      You have repeatedly told me that you have not found evolutionists guilty
      of misinterpreting evidence according to their own preconceived notions.
      Well, you've just misinterpreted a /key/ piece of evidence--evidence of
      intellectual fraud. There's where /your/ preconceptions have gotten you.

      Temlakos
    • dr.lindberg
      ... on. ... ... field, ... is ... possess ...
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:
        >
        > dr.lindberg wrote:
        > > I just discovered something strange, which you may wish to comment
        on.
        > >
        >
        > Oh, I have a comment, all right. And you're not going to like it one
        > little bit.
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > What I found is this:
        > >
        > > "As for Answers in Genesis
        <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis>
        > > , read the quote in full.
        > > "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
        field,
        > > including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
        > > Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence
        is
        > > always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not
        possess
        > > all information." About AiG: Statement of Faith
        > > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp> "
        > >
        > >
        http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionists_interpret_evidence_based_on_their_\
        \
        > > preconceptions
        > >
        > > It seems, at first glance at least, that your friends are making the
        > > same "misrepresentation." Care to comment?
        > >
        >
        > Absolutely.
        >
        > /You have no case/.
        >
        > Here is the statement of faith from the actual AiG page:
        >
        > > No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any
        > > field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
        > > contradicts the Scriptural record.
        >
        > Note carefully the phrase /interpretation of evidence/, not merely the
        > word /evidence/ as your source, and now you, have quoted.
        >
        >
        > > Would it be a distortion to suggest that it appears that the
        statement
        > > might have changed?
        > >
        >
        > If the suggestion that the statement might have changed had come from
        > the original source, then Answers in Genesis could reply with a
        revision
        > history of their statement of faith. But your source did not suggest a
        > change, did they?
        >
        > Their statement, then, is worse than distortion.
        >
        > This is a deliberate attempt at intellectual fraud, one quite typical
        of
        > Talk.Origins and their /confrères/.
        >
        > I am thoroughly shocked and surprised at you. /Not/ because I find
        you,
        > yourself, guilty of that fraud; I have no particular reason to suspect
        > you of that. But I do suspect, or rather, find, that you have /allowed
        > yourself to be defrauded/. Specifically, you have accepted,
        > uncritically, the statement from Talk.Origins (which, /at last/, I now
        > can positively identify as the fraudulent source) without doing the
        most
        > elementary form of due diligence.
        >
        > What you clearly failed to report to this body--I assume because you
        > failed to understand it yourself--is that CreationWiki's response
        > article uses the blue boxes to quote directly from Talk.Origins'
        > "creationist claim" article. In essence, what you found was an article
        > in our "Index to Creationist Claims" response series. Anyone who wants
        > to look up the claim may do so. And in fact, the CreationWiki article
        > quotes Talk.Origins accurately and fairly, and has them dead-to-rights
        > on a charge of fraud. Lest any doubt remain in anyone's mind, here is
        > the Talk.Origins link:
        >
        > Claim CA230-1, <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html>
        >
        > Now: /If/, and I repeat /if/, Answers in Genesis had revised their
        > statement-of-faith since Talk.Origins wrote their scathing (and
        > intellectually dishonest) "response" to the claim that they themselves
        > interpret evidence according to their own preconceptions, then /they
        had
        > the duty to update their response/. If they want to allege a change,
        let
        > them allege it, and Ken Ham at AiG is then free to publish a revision
        > history of his statement-of-faith on his site. But they are not
        alleging
        > any change. Rather, /they allege that their quote of the AiG statement
        > of faith is current./ More to the point, they allege that their
        version
        > of the statement-of-faith is a true, complete and correct
        representation
        > of the prevailing attitude and doctrine at Answers in Genesis and, by
        > extension, all creationist organizations. And as I have now shown,
        that
        > is absolutely, positively, categorically, utterly one-hundred-percent
        false.
        >
        > How dare Talk.Origins or anyone else accuse creationists of hypocrisy
        in
        > this regard, when they resort to deliberate and willful
        > misrepresentation of our positions in order to arrogate to themselves
        an
        > air of relative respectability?
        >
        > Then again, I expect no better of them. Neither do my colleagues at
        > CreationWiki, who have been responding to Talk.Origins' rather facile
        > (and in some cases out-of-date) arguments for nigh on four years now,
        > ever since CreationWiki's inception.
        >
        > But I expected better of you, and I didn't get it.
        >
        > You have repeatedly told me that you have not found evolutionists
        guilty
        > of misinterpreting evidence according to their own preconceived
        notions.
        > Well, you've just misinterpreted a /key/ piece of evidence--evidence
        of
        > intellectual fraud. There's where /your/ preconceptions have gotten
        you.
        >
        > Temlakos
        >

        Thanks for your comments.

        I looked at the CreationWiki page again, as you suggested.

        Here is the quotation again, with a little more context:

        These quotes are not just the views of individuals. Look at the way
        evolutionists do their work and the explanations they are allowed to put
        forward about the unknowable past. The way they work with evidence is
        that, just as these two men say, evolutionists will only allow the
        natural, the material cause, no matter its observed inadequacy. This, in
        itself, is not the problem, because people can do as they choose. But
        note that creationists are more open about their preconceptions, even
        the ones that seem very stringent (I'll explain the Answers in Genesis
        statement further on). But on the other side we see evolutionists, left
        and right, telling us uncritically their doctrine, with no open
        admission about their assumptions and preconceptions, as though
        inhumanly they have none and are purely unbiased. They act as if they
        have the unbiased facts and creationists have nothing but blind faith
        and force and distort the evolutionist's unbiased facts into a narrow
        biased blind system. This is misleading. This is the hypocrisy that
        creationists fight with, not only with evolutionists, but also with
        those of the public who have swallowed this deception. We don't say
        "Believe us in everything", but simply look at yourself for who you are,
        look at the evidence and take both points of view into account, knowing
        the biases involved, in this democratic world we live in.
        As for Answers in Genesis <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis> ,
        read the quote in full.

        "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
        including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
        Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is
        always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess
        all information." About AiG: Statement of Faith
        <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>

        They are simply saying this: we know we, as humans, are fallible and
        incomplete in knowledge, so this is our presupposition, our assumption,
        the foundation from which we work. This doesn't tell you how they deal
        with difficult data, but it is most likely that they deal with it in a
        similar way to how the atheist, naturalist, or evolutionist will deal
        with it: "we don't have an explanation now, but with further research,
        we believe we'll find it. And even if we don't, we don't claim to have
        all the answers anyway. It is simply a gap in our knowledge." To some
        that might be a sign of weakness to claim we don't know it all. I
        believe, rather, that it is a sign of self-knowledge. Knowing our
        incompleteness, we will study and search further, but we rely on the
        knowledge of Someone who knows better, Who knows it all: the Creator.

        http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionists_interpret_evidence_based_on_their_\
        preconceptions


        I know I'm slow sometimes, but I'm afraid I don't see any indication
        here that they are quoting from Talk.Origins. Could you please point it
        out to me?

        In fact they clearly introduce it by writing: "As for Answers in Genesis
        <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis> , read the quote in full."


        Am I being foolish in interpreting that to mean that they are quoting
        from Answers in Genesis? <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis>

        When you say "your source," my source here is CreationWiki. The article
        was one you referred me to. The quotation was not in a blue box, or at
        least it didn't show up as such on my computer.


        For what it's worth, the Talk.Origins page is marked "created
        2003-6-30, modified 2004-5-6."

        The CreationWiki page appears to have been last changed on 21 July 2008
        <http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Evolutionists_interpret_evidenc\
        e_based_on_their_preconceptions_%28Talk.Origins%29&oldid=147561>

        Thanks!

        Cheers!








        "A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his
        friends." -- Baltasar Gracian


























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Temlakos
        ... Now at this point you haven t actually said what s wrong with the above. ... This is a sore point with me, and it s getting sorer. It is the third or
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          dr.lindberg wrote:
          > -
          > Thanks for your comments.
          >
          > I looked at the CreationWiki page again, as you suggested.
          >
          > Here is the quotation again, with a little more context:
          >
          > These quotes are not just the views of individuals. Look at the way
          > evolutionists do their work and the explanations they are allowed to put
          > forward about the unknowable past. The way they work with evidence is
          > that, just as these two men say, evolutionists will only allow the
          > natural, the material cause, no matter its observed inadequacy. This, in
          > itself, is not the problem, because people can do as they choose. But
          > note that creationists are more open about their preconceptions, even
          > the ones that seem very stringent (I'll explain the Answers in Genesis
          > statement further on). But on the other side we see evolutionists, left
          > and right, telling us uncritically their doctrine, with no open
          > admission about their assumptions and preconceptions, as though
          > inhumanly they have none and are purely unbiased. They act as if they
          > have the unbiased facts and creationists have nothing but blind faith
          > and force and distort the evolutionist's unbiased facts into a narrow
          > biased blind system. This is misleading. This is the hypocrisy that
          > creationists fight with, not only with evolutionists, but also with
          > those of the public who have swallowed this deception. We don't say
          > "Believe us in everything", but simply look at yourself for who you are,
          > look at the evidence and take both points of view into account, knowing
          > the biases involved, in this democratic world we live in.
          >

          Now at this point you haven't actually said what's wrong with the above.
          But then you state:

          > As for Answers in Genesis <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis> ,
          > read the quote in full.
          >
          > "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
          > including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
          > Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is
          > always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess
          > all information." About AiG: Statement of Faith
          > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>
          >

          This is a sore point with me, and it's getting sorer. It is the third or
          fourth time that you have misquoted the AiG Statement of Faith, by
          leaving out the key phrase /interpretation of/. Besides, the phrase /by
          definition/ does not appear where you place it (or rather, where
          Talk.Origins, whom you persist in quoting uncritically, places it).

          The second sentence is they key. /Evidence is always subject to
          interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information/.
          That is absolutely, positively incontrovertible. Do /you/ claim to be in
          possession of all information? Can you possibly envision a scenario in
          which any human being /does/ gain possession of all information? The
          answer to the first question is up to you; the answer to the second is
          /No/, whether you want to admit that or not.
          > I know I'm slow sometimes, but I'm afraid I don't see any indication
          > here that they are quoting from Talk.Origins. Could you please point it
          > out to me?
          >

          That snippet you took, the one beginning with "by definition," was from
          the blue boxes. Those blue boxes contain text lifted from the original
          Talk.Origins "claim page" that that article was written to respond to.
          Once again, this text:

          > "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
          > including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
          > Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is
          > always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess
          > all information." About AiG: Statement of Faith
          > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>

          is lifted straight out of the Talk.Origins page. But the /actual/
          Answers in Genesis statement of faith says this:

          > no apparent, perceived or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field,
          > including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
          > Scriptural record....

          Now if you will /kindly/ follow the link to Answers in Genesis, you will
          see that for yourself.

          > In fact they clearly introduce it by writing: "As for Answers in Genesis
          > <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis> , read the quote in full."
          >
          >
          > Am I being foolish in interpreting that to mean that they are quoting
          > from Answers in Genesis? <http://creationwiki.org/Answers_in_Genesis>
          >

          Just a minute, neighbor. At first we were talking about a response
          article to Talk.Origins' /Index of Creationist Claims/. Now suddenly you
          /switch/ to CreationWiki's article on Answers in Genesis. And for
          everyone's information, that article /does not/ quote the AiG Statement
          of Faith /at all/. The most that it quotes is this statement from AiG
          head Ken Ham:

          > We all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth,
          > have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference
          > lies in how we interpret what we study.

          What is wrong with that?

          But back to the issue at hand:

          Here is the article that we were talking about:

          <http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionists_interpret_evidence_based_on_their_preconceptions_%28Talk.Origins%29>

          Here is the article on Talk.Origins that the above article was in
          response to:

          <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html>

          Here is where you will find the /actual/ AiG Statement of Faith:

          <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>

          Now earlier in that article, this quote:

          > /By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
          > field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
          > contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact
          > that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
          > who do not possess all information./

          did indeed appear in a blue box.

          Of course, now I understand the mistake that one of our editors must
          have made. In reiterating that quote, he appeared to have lent it a
          credence that it did not deserve. I will now change that quote.

          You have done CreationWiki a service that you might, or might not, have
          intended.

          Temlakos
        • notdoctor
          ... have ... Thank you! I m glad to help any way I can. I was just trying to get you to understand that the mistake did not originate with me. It did appear
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:
            >

            >
            > Of course, now I understand the mistake that one of our editors must
            > have made. In reiterating that quote, he appeared to have lent it a
            > credence that it did not deserve. I will now change that quote.
            >
            > You have done CreationWiki a service that you might, or might not,
            have
            > intended.
            >
            > Temlakos
            >

            Thank you! I'm glad to help any way I can.

            I was just trying to get you to understand that the mistake did not
            originate with me. It did appear that it might have been a change at
            AiG, and that CreationWiki and perhaps even TalkOrigins were quoting an
            earlier version.

            Cheers!



            Notice in a field:
            THE FARMER ALLOWS WALKERS TO CROSS THE FIELD FOR FREE,
            BUT THE BULL CHARGES

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/awordfitlyspokengroup/message/91
            <../../../../../awordfitlyspokengroup/message/91>








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