Jump to content


Photo

Talk Origins Problems


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
69 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2005 - 06:55 AM

Yeah, they contridict thenselves to prove a point. I guess that's what you call: Making yourself falsifiable.

#62 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 05 May 2005 - 07:17 AM

I would like to say that I hope to go back and respond to some of the previous posts. However, since the subject is Talk Origins problems here is another one:

Under the "Welcome to talk.origins page" we find the following claim:

http://www.talkorigi...aq-welcome.html
The falseness of this claim is shown even by another talkorigins arcticle:

http://www.talkorigi...art1a.html#pred
see also: http://www.trueorigi.../creatheory.asp

View Post



Ok, you are really clutching at straws now. Taking two things written by seperate people and saying that their contextual usage of the verb 'predict' is contradictory. The first case is right Creation Science isn't predictive, though if we can describe it as such (for it could be said to make some predictions, of a sort), any predictions it claims have made have been found to be false. Your creation theory website does not actually give any creation theory, just says "read these books", but only after making lots of claims that aren't true....but I could start a thread just like this, for True Origins, though I won't. Until someone can demonstrate to me that either evolution actually violates the second law of thermodynamics, or until those websites revoke that claim, I'm forced to believe that all of their science (ie the parts that I am not qualified to debunk) is as bunkum as their thermodynamics.

#63 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 05 May 2005 - 07:36 AM

I missed this in my earlier posts but it needs responding to.

Added: I found the web page of the person who the accusation was made. I laugh as I read it in it's frail attempt to explain away what happened.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/rebutt.htm Glen


Lets look at the evidence against him shall we:

Motivation: The Paluxy tracks negate all of Kuban's hard work and call into question the security of his very soul. Its a good job the site was thoroughly documented!

Objection: Kuban had been working on the tracks for a decade already. He was the person that documented the site so well. Destroying the site that he had meticulously documented would be contrary to reason.

Observation: One of the evolutionists "was conspicuously disturbed by [the] presentation. "

Objection: Kuban was shocked by the claims that were being made about a footprint that he had studied years ago, and that it was being misrepresented in such a way.

Observation: He flew out to Paluxy after the presentation

Objection: He had already planned to go there weeks earlier.

Observation: He was carrying what appeared to be a metal rod to the site

Objection: A scientist carrying some kind of piece of equipment? He must be up to no good.




The bottom line is, the accusation is frail, not the defense. If some actual evidence was found that categorically pointed towards tampering and that Kuban was the man that did it - then so be it. Otherwise its just malicous rumourmonging.

Pro 10:18 He that hideth hatred [with] lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, [is] a fool.

Until the claims of wrong doing are substantiated, its simply slander/libel to blame someone for it. Perhaps you should think on that?

#64 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2005 - 07:39 AM

I think we are in danger of drifting wildly off topic here. However, as I said, if a creationist is allowed to act as full witness to the proceedings, where's the problem?  So there are two possible reasons why he is not letting the scientific community at his remarkable, scientifically amazing evidences.

  • A global conspiracy of scientists, intent on destroying or stealing any evidence that the world might be younger than currently thought
























  • The evidences are frauds or hoaxes or Baugh is not confident of their authenticity.
Now, given we have previously discussed (and I think we agree) hoaxes and frauds, and how we should be very careful to avoid taking evidence at face value unless it has been rigorously tested and confirmed as viable evidence.  For example, imagine if I claimed to have 500 hominid fossils that show clear transition from ape like through to homo sapien. However, I will not let anyone see or test this evidence, but I will show you some photos...or perhaps I swear I have an authentic hand written treatise by Jesus describing evolution and advanced quantum cosmology solutions. You would rightly be skeptical, especially if I refused to let any one perform authentication tests on it. So, we have to be skeptical, lest Baugh be concocting some elaborate hoax or fraud. We know that there are more lies out there than meet the eye - we need to treat this as one of them for now.

I'm sure Baugh, in all his smarts, should be able to devise a suitable method for testing some of his finds fairly and accurately, using plenty of witnesses, video cameras and so on, so that no jiggery pokery can take place, so that when the scientists confirm his astounding discoveries, nobody can claim anything fishy happened. That fact should help us discard the already unlikely first option, and look towards the second option as a distinct possibility.
[edit - I will note, however that regards to his education it is important for the reasons stated above. When deciding whether to 'just take his word for it' we have to examine his credibility. If he makes claims that he earned his degree and there seems to be some significant question of that, then we have at least one reason why we might not want to take his word on anything. Especially when other dubious claims have previously been made.  Would you have taken the word of Dawson had he found half a dozen 'Piltdown men' in the 60s?]

View Post


Well lets see. The evolutionist destroy the creationist evidence right in front of his eyes. What can the creationist do? Because the evolutionist have already made it clear that we are a bunch of liars, we would go on record as making a claim that the evolutionist would deny, and most would believe them instead of us. Trust is earned, it is not given. And from the experience most creationist have from dealing with evolutionist, there can be no trust.

Let's take a few slanderous ideas that most anti-creationist sites like talk origins have published in the past. The evolutionist could not explain away the human foot prints, so they start rumors that Baugh, plus some of his creationist friends, went out during the night and carved those foot prints. And alot of people believed that. I've had this brought up at other science forums. But my question would be: If Baugh did this, why did not someone put him in jail? Defacing government property is a federal offense, correct? The thing the sites like talk origins forgot to tell everyone about some of those prints Baugh was accused of carving was that some were found under a slab of rock that weighed as much as a car. So I guess you could say that Baugh and his friends become incredibly strong one night, move the slab, carve the print, and before day break, put it back.

Then we have personal family attacks. If you can't descredit the person, go after the family. So now we take the children of those who uncovered these foot prints, and tell everyone that they admit their father lied. Put this on several websites like talk origins. And when people start asking for proof, just let the story slowly fade away. But the damage was done. Again, trust is earned not given. And it can't be earned with slander.

Then we have the deal where talk origins even said that the school Baugh claims to have gone to does not even exist. This started a frenzy of websites posting the same accusations. Again, false accusations with no real evidence. So Baugh has to put up another website to defend his education. Problem is, he's been slandered so much now, even with a picture of his school on his site, no one believes him.

You see, the evolutionist played the media game with Baugh. Discredit the source, then nobody will believe anything he says. Was not that the point? So now regardless of what Baugh would bring out to show, you would be 99% sure he was lying, correct? And when you have everyone believing this, even some creationist themselves, then you've done a wonderous job. There are even some who help run this forum that don't even know Baugh. But from all the websites that mock him, including creationist sites, that have bought into the media hopla that's been cooked up, believe just as those sites would tell them. Never asking the other side of the story, but are willing to condemn a fellow creationist on the word from another that has been decieved by the media hopla played out by the other side. That's what lies do, and is the reason Baugh keeps to himself. It's a jury that is automatically set aganst him even before he opens his mouth. So why bother? No body believes him.

All of this was done because of human foot prints that where found among dinosaur prints. Descredit the man, then no one will believe what he has found. He paid a high price for those prints. More than he can pay to get his creditibility back. Can't undo what has been so well done and orchestrated. I guess that's what happens when the smartest minds in the world get together. They destroy what they hate and cannot explain. Things that would disgrace them to a point that most would lose their scientific jobs of any of it came to light. This was why it was fought so hard. This was why just over 3000 sites had it up to descredit it, just like talk origins. But most never even went out there to see the prints. It was a repeat of what everyone else was saying, and claiming. Which by a court of law, is hearsay, rumors etc.... And then the ones who did, what did they do? They were sneaky and sneaked out a plaster because they knew they were wrong, and were hiding from the truth.

#65 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:30 AM

Well lets see. The evolutionist destroy the creationist evidence right in front of his eyes. What can the creationist do? Because the evolutionist have already made it clear that we are a bunch of liars, we would go on record as making a claim that the evolutionist would deny, and most would believe them instead of us. Trust is earned, it is not given. And from the experience most creationist have from dealing with evolutionist, there can be no trust.


It doesn't have to be in front of a creationist though does it? When it's one person versus another, its a question of reputation and motive. In this case, the evolutionists had already documented the foot prints, so destroying them would serve little purpose since they were already documented. So why destroy it? No motivation. However, the creationist has a possible motivation here, take a few photos at exactly the right angle, the right distance away with the right amount of water so that the photos look unmistakably like human feet...then, when someone goes to look at the evidence and doesn't find it, they can claim that the evidence was destroyed. So based on motivations and what could be achieved through destruction or claiming destruction, I'd say the creationist has a stronger motivation.

Let's take a few slanderous ideas that most anti-creationist sites like talk origins have published in the past. The evolutionist could not explain away the human foot prints, so they start rumors that Baugh, plus some of his creationist friends, went out during the night and carved those foot prints. And alot of people believed that. I've had this brought up at other science forums. But my question would be: If Baugh did this, why did not someone put him in jail? Defacing government property is a federal offense, correct? The thing the sites like talk origins forgot to tell everyone about some of those prints Baugh was accused of carving was that some were found under a slab of rock that weighed as much as a car. So I guess you could say that Baugh and his friends become incredibly strong one night, move the slab, carve the print, and before day break, put it back.


I never saw the claim made about them being carved...and indeed it would be a crazy accusation since the site was documented before Baugh got there.


Then we have personal family attacks. If you can't descredit the person, go after the family. So now we take the children of those who uncovered these foot prints, and tell everyone that they admit their father lied. Put this on several websites like talk origins. And when people start asking for proof, just let the story slowly fade away. But the damage was done. Again, trust is earned not given. And it can't be earned with slander.


Once again, I have never seen this so I cannot verify it.

Then we have the deal where talk origins even said that the school Baugh claims to have gone to does not even exist. This started a frenzy of websites posting the same accusations. Again, false accusations with no real evidence. So Baugh has to put up another website to defend his education. Problem is, he's been slandered so much now, even with a picture of his school on his site, no one believes him.


Not so much 'doesn't exist', but isn't accredited. Or even better that he went to CAE, a division of IBC of which he was the president. And several claims to be getting qualifications from institutes that can't give those qualifications. It certainly makes him look bad, you have to admit. He's at the very least, grossly exaggerating his qualifications .

You see, the evolutionist played the media game with Baugh. Discredit the source, then nobody will believe anything he says.


That's all well and good - but not all scientists are in a war against creationism...I'm sure he could find an independant lab to confirm his findings, at least to give himself some credibility?

Was not that the point? So now regardless of what Baugh would bring out to show, you would be 99% sure he was lying, correct? And when you have everyone believing this, even some creationist themselves, then you've done a wonderous job.


It's the boy who cried wolf isn't it though? You could argue that evolutionists have overplayed things here, but that doesn't stop the overriding conclusions. We have to take this man's word for something, except he has been shown to be of dubious word. If Einstein had said "I have discovered a way to travel forwards through time, but I'm not showing anyone my proof", and when questioned why would should listen to a patent's clerk he retorts "I have a degree from the institute that I'm the president of", alarm bells should ring that this might be a dubious claim here...Einstein had a terrible academic background, and he gave himself a degree? However, that wouldn't mean, that on presentation of his proof, that people would hold his untruths against his theory. They might still remember him for being the crazy guy who told a porky about his education, but his theory would live on as strong as it is now.


All of this was done because of human foot prints that where found among dinosaur prints.


That's the issue though. there are human foot shaped prints. Did the fact tham many of them are huge or have only 3 or 4 toes not tip people off? You know, I found a fossilized fried egg - does that mean neandarthal man had frying pans?

Descredit the man, then no one will believe what he has found. He paid a high price for those prints. More than he can pay to get his creditibility back. Can't undo what has been so well done and orchestrated. I guess that's what happens when the smartest minds in the world get together.


You act like there are global scientific conclaves where scientists get together to talk strategy. Creationists are perfectly capable of turning the tables...if they want to attack the credentials of an evolutionist who wants you to take his word for it without evidence then they are welcome to do so. If any evolutionist stands up and proclaims "I have proven creationism wrong for all time" and does not provide any supporting evidence for his claims, and if he happens to have a degree from unacredited place called "Athiests International College" (which he just happens to have part ownership in), then knock him down. Tell the world that he is not a man to be trusted, that he has phony credentials, that he is all smoke and mirrors. Tell the world how his friends and family agree with the conclusion he is a fraud. That's fine.

Its just a shame the amount of creation scientists who have these types of degrees is quite embarassing...coupled with the ones who have degrees in irrelevant subjects (engineering seems popular for some reason). You have to say - its not entirely a credit to the cause is it?

#66 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 May 2005 - 03:01 PM

see also: http://www.trueorigi.../creatheory.asp

View Post


I read the link you provided, I assume it was meant to provide an answer to “what the theory creation is” (in a scientific context), yes?. Well after it gets past defining terms and gets to the chapter What then is the Theory of Creation? it’s post a table that’s list conditions? Yet no theory!

The next chapter Where is the Theory of Creation documented? lists some excuse why they cant explain it simply, and then refer you to some more books to read.

Have you read the link yourself? If so where exactly do you think the theory of creation is presented in that post.

#67 Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*

Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2005 - 05:58 PM

The table includes:

The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data.

Why? Is there independent verification of the accuracy of the Bible?

~~ Paul

#68 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2005 - 08:08 PM

It doesn't have to be in front of a creationist though does it? When it's one person versus another, its a question of reputation and motive.  In this case, the evolutionists had already documented the foot prints, so destroying them would serve little purpose since they were already documented.  So why destroy it?

But then you add that you can't find the documentation, and it's like it never existed.

No motivation. However, the creationist has a possible motivation here, take a few photos at exactly the right angle, the right distance away with the right amount of water so that the photos look unmistakably like human feet...then, when someone goes to look at the evidence and doesn't find it, they can claim that the evidence was destroyed.   So based on motivations and what could be achieved through destruction or claiming destruction, I'd say the creationist has a stronger motivation.

See, even you bought into the old wives tale that was cooked up. Yep, the old put the water in the foot print trick. Yep, every creationist took that course :) .

I never saw the claim made about them being carved...and indeed it would be a crazy accusation since the site was documented before Baugh got there.
Once again, I have never seen this so I cannot verify it.

Roland T. Bird in a 1939 article in Natural History (43:5.254-61) mentioned giant carved human footprints from Glen Rose, Texas. Clifford Burdick refusing to believe the prints were carved, searched and located the prints in 1945. In 1961 pictures of these tracks appeared in The Genesis Flood. In 1970 Stanley Taylor with a film crew dammed up the Paluxy River to produce the film Footprints in Stone which claimed dinosaur and human footprints are found together.
reference: http://www.bibleands.../footprints.htm
It is connected to this website. Funny how we keep poping into this Kuban guy at every turn with Baugh. Starting to look very suspicious.

[b]Not so much 'doesn't exist', but isn't accredited. Or even better that he went to CAE, a division of IBC of which he was the president. And several claims to be getting qualifications from institutes that can't give those qualifications. It certainly makes him look bad, you have to admit. He's at the very least, grossly exaggerating his qualifications .

It all seemed to be ok with other scientist, enough to appear on NOVA.

That's all well and good - but not all scientists are in a war against creationism...I'm sure he could find an independant lab to confirm his findings, at least to give himself some credibility?

How do you get back what has been totally destroyed? You think one little independant lab result will make him rise above it? LOL, you know better than that. Nice try.

It's the boy who cried wolf isn't it though? You could argue that evolutionists have overplayed things here, but that doesn't stop the overriding conclusions. We have to take this man's word for something, except he has been shown to be of dubious word. If Einstein had said "I have discovered a way to travel forwards through time, but I'm not showing anyone my proof", and when questioned why would should listen to a patent's clerk he retorts "I have a degree from the institute that I'm the president of", alarm bells should ring that this might be a dubious claim here...Einstein had a terrible academic background, and he gave himself a degree?  However, that wouldn't mean, that on presentation of his proof, that people would hold his untruths against his theory. They might still remember him for being the crazy guy who told a porky about his education, but his theory would live on as strong as it is now.

See, you even inject your own thoughts that just happen to go along with what has been said. But let me ask you something. Did you check up on the runor mill quotes about baugh before you repeated them? Hmmmm? I think not. So you are doing exactly what started this whole think. Repeating what has not really been confirmed, and with no interaction with the accused I might add. Things will run amuck when we don't get two sides of the story. It would be like you going to court because your accused of something. But the court only hear from those who said you did it. Would that be fair? And how bad do you think these people could make you look?

That's the issue though. there are human foot shaped prints. Did the fact tham many of them are huge or have only 3 or 4 toes not tip people off? You know, I found a fossilized fried egg - does that mean neandarthal man had frying pans?

And there you attempt to make fun through a joke to try and make this all look like it stupid. Just as what was done to Baugh. I guess I should not have expected better.

You act like there are global scientific conclaves where scientists get together to talk strategy.

Does the forums that you and others go to, to conspire what you will say, or how you will respond to a creationist ring a bell? I guess you don't know that I have been around this debate subject for a while and have seen alot.

  Creationists are perfectly capable of turning the tables...if they want to attack the credentials of an evolutionist who wants you to take his word for it without evidence then they are welcome to do so. If any evolutionist stands up and proclaims "I have proven creationism wrong for all time" and does not provide any supporting evidence for his claims, and if he happens to have a degree from unacredited place called "Athiests International College"  (which he just happens to have part ownership in), then knock him down.  Tell the world that he is not a man to be trusted, that he has phony credentials, that he is all smoke and mirrors. Tell the world how his friends and family agree with the conclusion he is a fraud. That's fine.

Sorry, we don't try and put ourselves into situations where rumors get out of control, through an action of our own. Besides, it best to leave it to the experts, don't you think?

Its just a shame the amount of creation scientists who have these types of degrees is quite embarassing...coupled with the ones who have degrees in irrelevant subjects (engineering seems popular for some reason). You have to say - its not entirely a credit to the cause is it?

View Post

So would you say unacredited schools are against the law? Not everyone is rich.

#69 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 05 May 2005 - 10:55 PM

But then you add that you can't find the documentation, and it's like it never existed.


I never added that. There is documentation at the website you posted. Are you suggesting that he destroyed the evidence AND all the documentation that Baugh and others collected?

See, even you bought into the old wives tale that was cooked up. Yep, the old put the water in the foot print trick. Yep, every creationist took that course


Why would every creationist have taken that course? I never stated it as fact, but as conjecture, as a second read of what I actually said will reveal. I was of course referring to this and Kuban's response to it. I used no wives for my source.

Roland T. Bird in a 1939 article in Natural History (43:5.254-61) mentioned giant carved human footprints from Glen Rose, Texas. Clifford Burdick refusing to believe the prints were carved, searched and located the prints in 1945.


Erm, you said "they start rumors that Baugh...went out during the night and carved those foot prints", when I ask about that you tell me that 40-50 years before Baugh got there someone referred to them as being carved? I don't understand.


It all seemed to be ok with other scientist, enough to appear on NOVA.


Your going to have to give me more than a sentence here. OK with what other scientists? Whats NOVA exactly?

How do you get back what has been totally destroyed? You think one little independant lab result will make him rise above it? LOL, you know better than that.


Erm, I was under the impression that he had lots of evidence locked away in safes just waiting for confirmation. One independant lab would not raise Baugh above anything, but it might lend him some credibility to build upon.

See, you even inject your own thoughts that just happen to go along with what has been said. But let me ask you something. Did you check up on the runor mill quotes about baugh before you repeated them? Hmmmm? I think not. So you are doing exactly what started this whole think. Repeating what has not really been confirmed, and with no interaction with the accused I might add.


So, rebut the claims then. Dispute the sources. That's fine I'm all up for some actual facts being presented.

And there you attempt to make fun through a joke to try and make this all look like it stupid. Just as what was done to Baugh. I guess I should not have expected better.


No, I was showing how lots geological things look like other things, but that doesn't say anything, there needs to be more. Baugh seems to be relying principally on the fact that these things look like human footprints.

Does the forums that you and others go to, to conspire what you will say, or how you will respond to a creationist ring a bell? I guess you don't know that I have been around this debate subject for a while and have seen alot.


That's in a small debate that takes up a tiny corner of the world, not in the worldwide global scientific community. You seem to blowing the proportions of the debate out of the water here. Most scientists are hardly, if at all, aware there is any debate going on.

  Sorry, we don't try and put ourselves into situations where rumors get out of control, through an action of our own. Besides, it best to leave it to the experts, don't you think?


That's fine and high and mighty and all, but my point was that you'll be very lucky to find someone on the evolutionist front that falls into the category I described.

So would you say unacredited schools are against the law? Not everyone is rich.


Why does rich have to go with acredited? There are plenty of people who are not rich who go to acredited universities, schools and colleges. Are they against the law? No, but I don't see the point of having a degree or any qualification from a source that doesn't meet certain national standards. The entire point of a degree is to demonstrate that you have met that standard.

[edit-
What it comes down to is this: Any scientific evidence that Baugh has that is accessible to the scientific community has been dismissed. Any killer evidence has either been destroyed (according to Baugh), or Baugh fears it will be destroyed by the global conspiracy of scientists that are out to get him (even though only a few scientists have gone out of their way to discredit him). Given that we have to rely on Baugh's word of mouth, and honour, and his source as an authority we have to examine those credentials. Trust has to be earned, you say. That's great, what has Baugh done to earn trust? What scientific work has he produced that has been accepted by the scientific community? How much has been rejected?

Should we be attacking the person rather than the evidence? No, we shouldn't. However, Baugh has put himself in the position of 'my word against your word', and until he puts his exhibits up for scrutiny he will remain in that position. Since the only thing he is putting out there is his reputation/character, it is inevitable that there will be people who will try and show that to be not what it might be cracked up to be.

Incidentally, even if the Paluxy man tracks were accepted as fact and we believed that there were giant mutant humans roaming around with dinosaurs that doesn't actually harm evolution. In fact, a case could be made for such a thing supporting evolution! It goes like this: We believe that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. This is based on the fact that we haven't seen any around and their fossils stop appearing at that point in the strata. However, if a dinosaur colony was found to exist, or if man and dinosaur were contemporous, it would merely be a confirmation of the rarity of fossilization. Thus, when someone says "Why do we not have transitional fossils" evolutionists can say, "We are missing 65million years of dinosaur fossils, it is amazing we have the record we do...the fact that we can even infer transitions speaks volumes".]

#70 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2005 - 03:42 AM

I can now see this is going onto a stale mate, So I'm closing the thread it's basically going no where at this point.

Added:
I also learned a lesson here. I gave this one thread special posting rights so we could discuss what was discussed. I doubt I'll be doing that again anytime soon. This thread was looking like those we try and stay away from here, that you normally see at other forums. And basically made the forum not look so well. I may decide to use this as an example of why we have the rules we do. Not so much what anyone person said here, but basically where this thread started to go once the rules where relaxed somewhat.

I really can't be mad at anyone for this but myself. So don't anyone think that it was closed for that reason. I don't hold gurdges for what was partially my fault for allowing the thread to go where it did.

Admin3




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users