oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Ok,
Paul Giem over at UD - It's a long one
| Quote | The linguistic world is replete with examples. To welsh on a debt, an Irish temper, and German engineering are just a few of the examples of baggage that otherwise neutral names can pick up (in the last example, a good one, in contrast to some other baggage the word German has acquired). This process cannot be halted by fiat. It is picked up first by fair generalizations, and secondly by unjustified prejudice. The precise amounts of these two processes can be debated. Once people figure out what the new terms are, the old stereotypes are immediately reapplied.
Attempts to circumvent this process do not last. Consider the sequence Negro, black, and (in the U.S.) African-American, or the sequence (American Indian, Native American, indegenous, and multiple other names that have been applied. When I was in college, I worked for a summer as a sanitation engineer, which used to be a garbageman. Now they are environmental services specialists.
It doesn’t really matter what you call them. Until the underlying reality changes, changing the name only obfuscates, and that temporarily. Creationists, and to a lesser extent (other) ID advocates (there are some who are both), will always think that Darwinists, or whatever you want to call them, are wrong on the big picture. So whatever new name someone comes up with will in short order carry much the same baggage.
The only thing that will change some of this is if the new breed stops trying to oust people from academia based on their disbelief in philosophical naturalism. Then there will be a change in content, and then the new name will actually mean something different.
I regard the complaints about “Darwinist” as mostly whining, especially in view of Larry Farfarman’s comments at (46). But then, I would have been happy at one time with the term “garbageman”. In my book it is a bureaucratic mindset that wants to call a spade a manual digging implement. |
Link
Yet on the AIG webpage where he explains how the earth could be as young as 4000 years and radioactive dating methods are all wrong he says
| Quote | Thus, if one accepts a designer intelligent enough to produce life, and a short timescale, it becomes very difficult to avoid the claims of the Bible. There is also the inability to adequately explain the Creation Week on the basis of Mesopotamian or Egyptian legends or customs. This implies that Genesis 1–9 is not just myth, but an account of what actually happened.
I arrived at that conclusion by following the data. I am not afraid of further data. I welcome challenges and actually look for them. I believe that if we do our homework carefully enough, and without succumbing to bias, we will find that the Book, including a literal 6-day creation, will stand. When properly understood, nature testifies to the trustworthiness of God’s Word. |
Link
Yeah, well that first quote did not exactly say "those creationists (of which I am one)" or "us creationists think that" did it now? Not quite looking for that challenge are you Paul?
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
