Summations Only

Buz, as everyone familiar with your little performances knows, you're the one who refuses to do proper research (and complains bitterly whenever it is suggested that you should do more). You're the one who foolishly falls for nonsense, lies and fraud (and complains bitterly when it is suggested that you should vet your sources with more care). And you're the one who complains when others DO think for themselves instead of mindlessly accepting your assertions.

Not only do those labels not come from Dawkins, they don't even make sense. Logical validity refers to the form of an argument. It can't reasonably be applied to a position (even if the position were self-contradictory it would be more correctly be labelled as logically incoherent, but none of the positions listed are detailed enough for that to be a real possibility)

quote:

---

How about Hugh Ross? although not a YEC (he is a progressive creationist), he became an astrophysicist before he became a Christian and he claims it was his discoveries in astrophysics and subsequent study of several different religions that drove him to that choice.

​

His story here (annoying audio can be disabled at the bottom of page)

---

I think that you need to read more carefully.He converted at age 19, and it had nothing to do with astronomy or the creation story. The whole thing is too lengthy, but these quotes taken from page 3 tell enough of what is going on So he converted at age 19, and his conversion was emotional, not intellectual. So it was NOT after he became an astrophysicist at all.And it becomes pretty clear that he was't just reading the Bible, he was reading Christian apologists, because he falls for a lot of falsehoods.So we have an emotional conversion based on falsehoods. Not a very good example.Edited by PaulK, : Apparently the web page put "Page 2" AFTER "Page 3"

quote:

---

Like science's reluctance to falsify cited research and evidence of the Exodus crossing?

---

By which you mean "science's refusal to mount expensive expeditions which will almost certainly find nothing". It doesn't take much of a brain to see through your "evidence"

quote:

---

Like science's reluctance to any consideration of observable fulfilled ancient Biblical prophecies relative to ID?

---

Buz, the ID movement tries to pretend that it is NOT religious. If scientists tried to link the ID movement to claims of fulfilled Biblical prophecies the ID movement would scream blue murder.Besides, you haven't got any good examples of fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Just bits of the Bible you misrepresent so that you can pretend that they have come true, or will come true or even that you only wish would come true.

quote:

---

Like science's aversion towards asking questions or studies on anything depicting what is considered on tiny planet earth as the supernatural

---

You mean like your silly claim that the dinosaurs magically turned into snakes ? There are two good reasons that scientists ignore that. Firstly because it is a silly idea that you made up (it doesn't even make sense if you assume creationism and accept a literalistic interpretation of the Bible !) and secondly because the evidence is conclusively against it.Look Buz, I know you hate science but does it really make sense to continue with this childish vendetta ? So scientists follow the evidence instead of your personal opinions. Is that really something to get upset about ? Is it really a just cause for all the nastiness ?

quote:

---

First of all, the basic premise of ID is that we can detect design in nature and therefore recognize that there must be a designer. The identity and nature of this designer is not revealed. However, my observation is that creationists have latched onto this idea and see it as a way to bring credibility to their cause. So it has become (or at least perceived as) creationism in disguise. That makes it difficult for me personally to support the movement.

---

I think that it is more accurate to say that ID was founded by creationists to give credibility to their cause. Most of the leading lights of the movement are creationists (Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Nancy Pearcey, Paul Nelson). Some are even Young Earthers. The ID textbook Of Pandas and People started life as a creationist text, only changing track when Young Earth "Creation Science" was found to be religion masquerading as science. Even the definition of "intelligent design" was originally a definition of "creation".