88 replies to this topic

[jason777]

Dear Jason777

I am confused as to your meaning here.

You believe that AIG only publishes credible materials, in order to remain respectable. But they personally believe the non-credible material.

But the word credible actually means "warrants belief".

If the material is non-credible, why would they believe it? And if was credible, why do they not publish it?

Could you please elaborate?

Many thanks---SeeJay

I might believe a witness that sighted bigfoot,but i can't hardly allow such hear say into a peer reviewed journal,regardless if i believe it's credible or not.

Thats the difference between AIG and the evolutionists peer reviewed journals.The evolutionists have no problem publishing an extinct gorilla as a hominid,but AIG wants confirmation first.


Thanks.

[Adam Nagy]

I might believe a witness that sighted bigfoot,but i can't hardly allow such hear say into a peer reviewed journal,regardless if i believe it's credible or not.

Thats the difference between AIG and the evolutionists peer reviewed journals.The evolutionists have no problem publishing an extinct gorilla as a hominid,but AIG wants confirmation first.
Thanks.

Is that an amazing statement and so full of truth. I've said it before and I'll say it again, evolution is one strong blind faith chalked full of denial.

[jason777]

Is that an amazing statement and so full of truth. I've said it before and I'll say it again, evolution is one strong blind faith chalked full of denial.

Exactly.I could link you 20 years worth of "Peer Reviewed Facts" that A.aferensis is a transitional form between the genus Pan and Homo,but it's actualy aligned with gorillas.

Even Carl Baugh messed up by claiming to have found a human tooth that turned out to be a fish tooth.Everybody makes mistakes,but if he would have waited to verify it first he would'nt have ended up with egg on his face.AIG does'nt want that kind of ridicule so they reject anything they can't verify.

[Adam Nagy]

Exactly.I could link you 20 years worth of "Peer Reviewed Facts" that A.aferensis is a transitional form between the genus Pan and Homo,but it's actualy aligned with gorillas.

Even Carl Baugh messed up by claiming to have found a human tooth that turned out to be a fish tooth.Everybody makes mistakes,but if he would have waited to verify it first he would'nt have ended up with egg on his face.AIG does'nt want that kind of ridicule so they reject anything they can't verify.

I have to admit, that when I first ran into this article I recoiled a little at first:

http://www.answersin...nts-we-dont-use

After a while I've come to see the logic of it. This is also a good article:

http://www.answersin...5/i2/bullet.asp

This is coming from a guy who had his first introduction into creation science through Kent H*vind's ministry. I've reviewed H*vind's materials numerous times after growing and learning from additional creation sources or anti-creation evolution sources. Frankly, I still think H*vind is great teacher. He merely opens himself to criticism, mostly through misunderstanding, when he share's every potential concept out there. He's also a little rude, but that makes his material entertaining.

AiG's balance doesn't discredit many evidences. They just warn us to be more cautious so that we can withstand scrutiny and not fall into the traps that evolutionists often do, by playing fast and loose with evidence.

[SeeJay]

I might believe a witness that sighted bigfoot,but i can't hardly allow such hear say into a peer reviewed journal,regardless if i believe it's credible or not.

Thats the difference between AIG and the evolutionists peer reviewed journals.The evolutionists have no problem publishing an extinct gorilla as a hominid,but AIG wants confirmation first.
Thanks.

Hi jason777, thanks for the response.

I'm still not sure I understand.

You seem to be saying AIG wouldn't publish material generally regarded as non-credible, even though some people regard the material as credible.

So I am unclear why some people would regard something as credible, even though it is generally regarded as non-credible. Doesn't that just mean there are some credulous people? That fact doesn't make the claims themselves less or more credible, its just a comment on the nature of people.

For a hypothetical example:

Claim 1. Some guy says he thinks he saw Bigfoot.

Claim 2. Sir Richard Attenborough and 9 film crew filmed a family of 2.5m bipedal hominids in Oregon with 3 digital cameras from different angles.

Claim 2 is inherently more credible than Claim 1. Some people might believe Claim 1, but that doesn't make it credible in an objective sense, because it isn't. It's just hearsay of something, well, not credible. Claim 2 has multiple witnesses and physical evidence to back it up.

Cheers ---SeeJay

[jason777]

Is this credibile?

2ByWc5hTgBk&hl=en&fs=1

I beleive it is.In fact,the BBC with a huge budget and modern costume technology could'nt even come close to reproducing it,but i still can't verify it and say it proves bigfoot exist...Understand?

[Fred Williams]

Is this credibile?

2ByWc5hTgBk&hl=en&fs=1

I beleive it is.In fact,the BBC with a huge budget and modern costume technology could'nt even come close to reproducing it,but i still can't verify it and say it proves bigfoot exist...Understand?

Didn't the BBC also say they couldn't reproduce crop circles?

Fred

[jason777]

Didn't the BBC also say they couldn't reproduce crop circles?

I would'nt be suprised if they did,but i have seen many people do it and without any corroborating evidence whatsoever i would have to say their all hoaxes.

What i have'nt seen is anybody with 1967 camera technology and no money ever come close to reproducing the patterson gimlin film,so it remains plausable to me,but is unverifiable.Therefore,it's up to the individual to believe or not and does'nt belong in a Creation Research Journal.



Thanks.

[SeeJay]

Is this credibile?

2ByWc5hTgBk&hl=en&fs=1

I beleive it is.In fact,the BBC with a huge budget and modern costume technology could'nt even come close to reproducing it,but i still can't verify it and say it proves bigfoot exist...Understand?

Hi jason777

Thanks again for explaining. Yes, I understand, but I have some doubts.

Bigfoot is an excellent example that explains what you meant: some people genuinely regard it as credible, some genuinely do not, including various experts in film, makeup and paleoanthropology on both sides. The evidence is just not enough to say either way.

Personally I do not think Bigfoot is credible. I believe it is more probable than not that the footage was faked, and the circumstantial evidence from population genetics is that large hominids need a reasonably large breeding population, and it seems very unlikely such could remain virtually completely hidden whilst living so close to modern human societies. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that people could take a different view of the probabilities which would also be quite reasonable, and conclude it is credible. I note that the existence of Bigfoot is not ruled out absolutely by evolutionary theory, nor an professional scientist that I could find who had written on the subject.

All of this kind of makes your point.

My doubts come about when considering your comments as they apply, for example, to Ron Wyatt's Ark research. I do not think this is a case where different people can reasonably come to different conclusions on the probabilities. It seems obvious to me Ron Wyatt and his friends ar simply not credible in an objective sense, thus why would anyone e.g. at AIG regard it as credible? My reasons for thinking this were explained at length in posts above in this thread.

I suppose, in short, we need to look at each case on its merits.

Thanks---SeeJay