Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Oh so basically we can't understand any of your posts or quotations here because we're unsaved? Fanny, PDN any chance ye could ask JC to explain to why it seems like he's misrepresentated Stephen Jay Gould? Also, can you guys understand JC's posts? If not, I think we might all be in some trouble. :rolleyes:
... but you could be right!!!!:D0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Name one (Creation Science) paper then.
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_4/CRSQ%20Spring%2009%20Neandertal%20DNA.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_3/CRSQ%20Winter%2009%20Retina.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_2/CRSQ%20Fall%2008%20DeYoung.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_1/CRSQ%20Summer%2008%20Reed.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_4/Hypercane.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_3/Water_Gaps.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_2/Stellar_Remnants.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_1/Lichens.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_2/cost_substitution.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_4/body_mass.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_2/tertiary_stratigraphy.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_1/deposits_arizona.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_3/beyond_sci_cre.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_2/Dinotests.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_3/Henry.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_1/LaBrea3.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_4/Redshifts.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_3/LaBrea.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_2/tomb_eagles.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_4/LaBrea.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_3/Crimean.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_2/Trex.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_1/Cryptid.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_4/Muscle.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_3/Fertility.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_1/chaffin/acceldecay.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_2/cfjrgulf.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_2/embryology.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_1/atp.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_1/haymond.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/33/33_3/sedimentation.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/33/33_2a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/32/32_4a1.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/32/32_2a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_2b/31_2b.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_2a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_4a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_1/StellarPop.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_2/sun.html
...and there are thousands of more scientific papers, where they have come from!!!!:)
... in a previous posting I was challenged to submit Creation Science Papers for Evolutionist Peer Review. I was assured that this would be done in a serious and respectful way!!!!
You may take these papers and forward them for an evolutionist peer review on them if you so wish.
Looking forward to the results of any such peer review0 -
First linky I clicked on. Sigh.
Seriously mate, Leaving Cert physics doesn't cut it with the Vatican. Just because something is formatted as a peer-reviewed article, doesn't magically make it of great worth to humanity.0 -
If I have time I'll take this one and this one.
(Should only be a matter of fact checking.
Emma, if you have the time, I think you should take this one.:)
Any philosophers out there?
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
-Based on the fallacious assumption that because something it is beautiful it is designed.Why Abiogenesis is impossible.
As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.
At this rate he estimates it would require 10119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.
In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate. Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances. This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular. Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life. In the words of Horgan:
(The exponents aren't showing it's 10^x)
Using that argument doesn't say much for the merits or reputation of this "peer reviewed journal". I thought that once something was shown to be wrong you don't repeat it verbatim again???Must the universe be flat? The creation view has no such requirement. The flatness requirement arises only with the big bang theory. The Creator, with equal ease, could have made a closed, flat or open universe. However, I suggest that it may well be open, with a lack of large scale dark matter. The simple reason may be to frustrate all natural origin theories, most of which call for a closed or flat universe. Something similar occurs for the planets. We find sufficient created variety and uniqueness in the solar system to cancel all natural attempts at an explanation, including the popular nebular hypothesis.
JC, how about you pick one that deals with your field of creation science and we discuss that one in depth. Rather than going at all these at all angles.
Note to Self : Is it really going to be worth it, will JC be honest? Eitherway it will be a learning experience.:)
Edit : There was one on radioactive decay, oh nevermind!0 -
... Like I have previously said, I think that we have gotten to the stage on this thread when we can all appreciate the merits of Creation Science research
I'm sure great use could be made of it by Monty Python....and there are thousands of more scientific papers, where they have come from!!!!:)
Its called spam and I would wager theres many more then thousands, theres no shortage of rubbish on the internet.... in a previous posting I was challenged to submit Creation Science Papers for Evolutionist Peer Review. I was assured that this would be done in a serious and respectful way!!!!
Alright JC.
Lets choose one.
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
The Angular Size of the Moon and Other Planetary Satellites: An Argument For Design
And without even passing the title we have gone to fairyland.
The first paragraph starts;Creationist rubbish wrote:While the sun is about 400 times larger than the moon, the moon is also approximately 400 times closer to the earth
And straight away we have lies.Reality wrote:The Sun's distance from the Earth is about 390 times the Moon's distance, and the Sun's diameter is about 400 times the Moon's diameter.
Further down the rabbit hole we get;creationist rubbish wrote:"In other words, while the earth-moon system may demonstrate the Creator's imagination and concern for our enjoyment, it must not be thus for our existence."
So lets get this straight. Some super being who can do anything, made the diameter of the moon approximately 400 times smaller then the sun and placed the sun approximately 390 times further from Earth then the moon in order to give us 'enjoyment' once in a while by making the sun seemingly disappear ? does that really make sense to you ? Honestly ?
For anyone interested, some facts from reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipseYou may take these papers and forward them for an evolutionist peer review on them if you so wish.
As a chain email joke ?0 -
Advertisement
-
And without even passing the title we have gone to fairyland.
The first paragraph starts;
While the sun is about 400 times larger than the moon, the moon is also approximately 400 times closer to the earth
And straight away we have lies.
Originally Posted by Reality
The Sun's distance from the Earth is about 390 times the Moon's distance, and the Sun's diameter is about 400 times the Moon's diameter.
Maybe because it's 6 am and I'm wrecked, but I'm not seeing an error there.0 -
Maybe because it's 6 am and I'm wrecked, but I'm not seeing an error there.Creationism
While the sun is about 400 times larger than the moon, the moon is also approximately 400 times closer to the earthReality
The Sun's distance from the Earth is about 390 times the Moon's distance, and the Sun's diameter is about 400 times the Moon's diameter.
Well first, a little personal annoyance of mine.
- Larger. What is this ? Mass, volume, etc ? They are actually talking about diameter.
About 62 million moons can fit into sun. The suns diameter is about 400 times larger then the diameter of the moon.
Secondly, 390 is not 'approximately' the same as 400 when we are dealing with such huge figures. This is semi-acceptable for an encyclopedia or a high school textbook but on a 'scientific paper' ?
0 -
Re: JC's paper list.
I'm not sure if anyone else has had a scan but if the one about the retina is anything to go by, it's a load of crap. If I'm honest, it's quite a neat review of different types of eye systems but there's absolutely nothing in it to warrant the "intelligent design" slant and nothing in it to warrant the term "research".
Edit: I wrote this message before I saw that you guys were in a similar process of pulling one apart. Malty - I'm onto the one you suggested.0 -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant.[/FONT]
Mendel showed that units of inheritance could be passed to offspring unchanged (remain constant, if you like), thus negating the concept of mixing of inherited characteristics. If anything, this work supported Darwin by showing how variations could be inherited stably.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance[/FONT]
Darwin needed to know nothing about genetic mechanisms in order to understand inheritance and form his ideas about natural selection. People have been understanding and tinkering with inheritance for thousands of years with no knowledge of genetics. I know a sheep farmer in the Highlands of Scotland who has exhaustive records of breeding events and could tell you exactly which animal to cross with which to make X offsrping. He barely knows what a gene is - he doesn't need any of that rubbish.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, if there are only two competing concepts, destroying one is almost as conclusive as proving the other. [/FONT]
How the holy f*ck did this writer get a PhD?
The rest of the intro is the standard "Modern science was founded by creationists"/"Natural selection is circular" etc.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the middle 1800's some of the scientists who had rejected the Creator believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe's long neck through "the inherited effects of the increased use of parts" (Darwin, 1958, p. 202).[/FONT]
It will come as no surprise that the quote from Darwin is a sentence cherry-picked from a paragraph where Darwin also says:Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish....
So not a Larmarckist after all. And I severely doubt that Darwin wrote any of that in 1958.
Then follows a section on phenotypic variation via recombination, which is essentially correct apart from some confusion over basic science terms like gene/allele, you know, the ones you learned when you were 15. However, this section did highlight to me what I believe is the sole text on which JC bases his arguments.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of them to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.[/FONT]
He can give as many examples of "bad" mutations as he wants. He has lost the whole argument by use of the word "virtually" in his preamble.
I've lost the will to live. He then recants and acknowledges the existence of beneficial mutations. Then resorts to the "such mutations never change one kind of animal into another" blah blah "Always loss fo information" etc etc. His conclusion is obviously that creation is the only way to explain diversity.
Needless to say, I cannot find anything by this writer in the NCBI database, a collection of all peer-reviewed published papers in the world.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Needless to say, I cannot find anything by this writer in the NCBI database, a collection of all peer-reviewed published papers in the world.
One of the things, we've asked JC or Wolfy to show us is the papers that were submitted by creationists for peer review but were rejected. Both Lawrence Krauss and Ken Miller challenged the Discovery Institute to show that the Institute had more papers rejected than Krauss or Miller had in one single year. DI, seems to have just ignored that challenged. As for CRJ papers, well JC or Wolfy have yet to show us one paper that was submitted for peer review and rejected.
We're not interested in any that made it through, because most of those (I think there was mainly just one) have been largely discredited. Every so often a error ridden paper will slip through* the threshold which is why I find it so telling that creationists aren't even trying to submit one : they know that even with fallibility of the peer review process they probably have 0% chance in succeeding. So, instead, like any good pseudo scientists, they scream:
"CONSPIRACY!!".
*The review comments on that paper are interesting, the reviewers were unable to find any mistakes so had no choice but to publish it (honesty) but after about six - nine months the underlying errors were found to be, well, numerous.
We published the paper in the hope that someone would be motivated to devote substantial energy to figuring out what was going on and that the discipline of statistics would be advanced through the identication of subtle problems that can arise in this kind of pattern recognition.0 -
Advertisement
-
... Like I have previously said, I think that we have gotten to the stage on this thread when we can all appreciate the merits of Creation Science research ... and to satisfy some of the demands from Evolutionists for access to peer-reviewed Scientific Papers on Creation Science Reserarch here are a few links across all Creation Science disciplines over the past 20 years ... there should be something there for everyone ... enjoy!!!:D
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_4/CRSQ%20Spring%2009%20Neandertal%20DNA.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_3/CRSQ%20Winter%2009%20Retina.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_2/CRSQ%20Fall%2008%20DeYoung.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_1/CRSQ%20Summer%2008%20Reed.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_4/Hypercane.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_3/Water_Gaps.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_2/Stellar_Remnants.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_1/Lichens.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_2/cost_substitution.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_4/body_mass.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_2/tertiary_stratigraphy.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_1/deposits_arizona.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_3/beyond_sci_cre.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_2/Dinotests.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_3/Henry.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_1/LaBrea3.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_4/Redshifts.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_3/LaBrea.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_2/tomb_eagles.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_4/LaBrea.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_3/Crimean.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_2/Trex.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_1/Cryptid.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_4/Muscle.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_3/Fertility.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_1/chaffin/acceldecay.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_2/cfjrgulf.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_2/embryology.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_1/atp.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_1/haymond.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/33/33_3/sedimentation.htm
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/33/33_2a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/32/32_4a1.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/32/32_2a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_2b/31_2b.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_2a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_4a.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_1/StellarPop.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_2/sun.html
...and there are thousands of more scientific papers, where they have come from!!!!:)
... in a previous posting I was challenged to submit Creation Science Papers for Evolutionist Peer Review. I was assured that this would be done in a serious and respectful way!!!!
You may take these papers and forward them for an evolutionist peer review on them if you so wish.
Looking forward to the results of any such peer review
Who knew there were so many deluded history deniers out there? It's sad really. Your list J C is a testament to a huge waste of intellectual effort and unfortunately, to the mountain of lies propagated be these so-called "creation scientists". I looked at one or two. They were all just muck (or pondslime, if you prefer)
If this is the best that creation "science" can offer, its just really sad.0 -
-
doctoremma wrote: »How the holy f*ck did this writer get a PhD?.
Have you seen "Dr" Kent Hovind's *ahem* doctoral dissertation?0 -
doctoremma wrote: »How the holy f*ck did this writer get a PhD?
You have to remember that University in the US doesn't mean the same thing it does here. Anyone can open one, thus getting a PhD is much easier. Still doesn't mean he's qualified to do anything.0 -
Have you seen "Dr" Kent Hovind's *ahem* doctoral dissertation?
Snicker. He bought a degree from a unaccredited institute? JC will be claiming he's a doctor next. Hovind should be banged up for fraud....Oh wait.0 -
Have you seen "Dr" Kent Hovind's *ahem* doctoral dissertation?
I think I've permanently damaged my brain by reading that.
Does this need debunking ? Its just one big steaming pile of lies.Extract, p29. wrote:"Because of this, the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching. In the country of Turkey (which is almost totally dedicated to Mohammed) evolution is taught as fact."
uh huhExtract, p32. wrote:"Another man that is very important as we trace the history of Evolution is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He was an extremely fat person. In fact, he was so fat that they had to cut a curve in the dining room table so that he could get up to the table."
The entire thing is like something a 10 year old would write.
You couldn't, and I really mean that, you couldn't make this rubbish up.
This is a dissertation for theology ? I could get two dozen PhD's in theology in a year if this is the standard.0 -
-
-
Because of this, the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching. In the country of Turkey (which is almost totally dedicated to Mohammed) evolution is taught as fact.
Turkey is a fiercely (sometimes militantly) secular state, especially in its schooling. Which is why evolution is taught as fact in science lessons. I'm sure like all religions, there are creationists and evolutionists within Islam.0 -
I'm unable to express my feelings on this matter in the appropriate manner because I'd be banned from boards and probably the internet if I did.
I know it's an absolute disgrace that these folks are allowed to have so much influence on public opinion when they are so inherently dishonest. Anti-science is always the same...
*From a post I'm constructing for green issues*
In 1991,Western Fuels, The National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (ICE). The goal of this organisation is outlined as follows:
- Reposition Global Warming as a theory (not fact).
- Target Print and Radio Media for maximum effectiveness.
- Achieve broad participation along the entire electric industry.
- Start small, start well and build on early successes.
- Get the concepts developed and implemented as soon as possible.
- Test market execution in 1991.
- Build national involvement as soon as test market results are in hand.
- Go national in late autumm of 1991 with media program.
- Use a spokeperson from the scientific community.
Strategies used for initial test.- Find a receptive population and pretest various strategies.
- Use focus group to test the ICE name and creative concepts.
- If successful, go nationwide.
- ICE : Information Council for the Environment.
- ICE: Information Citizens for the Environment.
- ICE: Intelligent Concern for the Environment.
- ICE: Informed Choices for the Environment.
- Broadcast media will directly attack the global warming by relating "irrefutable evidence" to the contrary, delivered by a believable spokesperson.
- The print creative will attack proponents through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom. Each ad will invite the listener/reader to call or write for further information, thus creating a data base
- "How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that does not exist?"
- Carbon Tax.
- Create Illusion of "Debate".
Results from Initial Test.- Audiences trusted “technical sources” most, activists and government officials in middle, and industry least.
- Scientists are the most credible spokespersons.
- “Information Council on Environment” was best name, because ICE is postioned as technical source.
- Target Audiences Identified.
- Older, less educated males.
- Receptive to messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming. For example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence.
- Younger, lower-income women.
- Are more receptive to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be “green” consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information.
- Members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.
- Older, less educated males.
The end result was this video.
Perhaps beginning the rubbish pseudo skeptic arguments.
It's truly frightening that people don't really care about logic or technical details (most scientific research backs up this claim too:() but instead chose to focus on what they perceive to be other peoples motives and beliefs. I mean, imagine if Global Warming said that we should consume as much chocolate as possible, how many pseudoskeptics do you think there would be? Or if Evolution said there was one man and one woman at the beginning of the human race? The reason I'm bringing this to light is to because I've recently found that while knowing and explaining the science really well is a good thing. The only way to alleviate peoples concerns is to explore the motives and beliefs of the parties involved. Technical detail and logic mean sweet f all. I think it's time we stopped debunking creationist claims and showed Wolfy and JC the methods they use to spread their "science".0 -
Advertisement
-
I know it's an absolute disgrace that these folks are allowed to have so much influence on public opinion when they are so inherently dishonest.
Its not even the dishonesty that annoys me most anymore, its the self induced ignorance.
As for Hovind's 'dissertation', I have seen better quality writing on after hours. I have seen better quality writing by Korean middle school (junior cert) students. And I am talking about the quality of the English itself, not the actual subject.
I mean come on!Kent Hovind wrote:He was an extremely fat person. In fact, he was so fat that they had to cut a curve in the dining room table so that he could get up to the table.
Your mamas so fat ....0 -
Its not even the dishonesty that annoys me most anymore, its the self induced ignorance.
As for Hovind's 'dissertation', I have seen better quality writing on after hours. I have seen better quality writing by Korean middle school (junior cert) students. And I am talking about the quality of the English itself, not the actual subject.
Perhaps it's not his first language, or perhaps he has some sort of dyslexia or reading and writing disability. I give people the benefit of doubt there as long as their content is somewhat reasonable. Hovind's content.....
0 -
Have you seen "Dr" Kent Hovind's *ahem* doctoral dissertation?
Absolutely priceless:)
The "Patriot University" must be very proud of its alumnus. I know some 8 year olds who can write better than this muppet ('Dr' Hovind)0 -
I think its great that J C posted his list of creationist 'research papers'. It is probably his only worthwhile contribution to this entire thread. Nothing can possibly demonstrate the dishonesty and idiocy of young earth creationism more than the writings of these young earth creationists themselves.
The outright lies and dishonesty of frauds like Hovind say everything that needs to be said about these people. J C, you are in fine company indeed. It is for this reason that I have utter contempt for young earth creationists. They lie and deliberately mislead people in order to further their religious agenda0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Re: JC's paper list.
I'm not sure if anyone else has had a scan but if the one about the retina is anything to go by, it's a load of crap.doctoremma wrote: »If I'm honest, it's quite a neat review of different types of eye systems but there's absolutely nothing in it to warrant the "intelligent design" slant and nothing in it to warrant the term "research".
Edit: I wrote this message before I saw that you guys were in a similar process of pulling one apart. Malty - I'm onto the one you suggested.0 -
-
If I have time I'll take this one and this one.
(Should only be a matter of fact checking.
Emma, if you have the time, I think you should take this one.:)
Any philosophers out there?
...you're in such a 'tissey' that your head must be spinning!!!!:D
... calm down and chill out!!!:D
... if I'd known that all these Creation Science papers were going to have THIS effect on you ... I'd have 'drip fed' them to you ... one at a time!!!:Dhttp://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
-Based on the fallacious assumption that because something it is beautiful it is designed.
The Probability shyte.
(The exponents aren't showing it's 10^x)
Using that argument doesn't say much for the merits or reputation of this "peer reviewed journal". I thought that once something was shown to be wrong you don't repeat it verbatim again???
Universe is flat. (Margin of error :2%)
JC, how about you pick one that deals with your field of creation science and we discuss that one in depth. Rather than going at all these at all angles.
Note to Self : Is it really going to be worth it, will JC be honest? Eitherway it will be a learning experience.:)
Edit : There was one on radioactive decay, oh nevermind!
... your're like a teenager all mixed up ... and not sure whether you love or hate Creation Science!!!!:eek::D
... you're torn between two 'loves' ... and feeling like a fool ... loving both is breaking all the rules ... there must be a song in there somewhere!!!:D0 -
....is that your considered professional Evolutionist SCIENTIFIC opinion???
...this is WHY Creation Science has established it's own peer-review system.:)
Tearing things apart until they're resistant to it is what peer review is. If you're establishing your own system, you're avoiding peer review.0 -
DogmaticLefty wrote: »You're an atheist with too much time on his hands, aren't you?
...AKA a Theist!!!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Tearing things apart until they're resistant to it is what peer review is. If you're establishing your own system, you're avoiding peer review.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement