Scientists who tried vainly to talk to AIG

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm looking for examples of people who tried to talk to the folks at AIG as if those folks at AIG were willing to be corrected on their anti-scientific claims.

I know, I know.

But still, it does occasionally happen where someone who knows science will see if a creationist is as willing to listen to reason as they claim.

And I'm looking for specific examples of people trying to communicate to AIG about the errors in their articles, and AIG refusing to do anything about the errors because the corrections invalidate their young earth viewpoint and are ignored.

So, aside from the Nye-Ham debate, are there any examples of someone trying to talk seriously to the folks at AIG and finding out what they already know - that evidence won't change their minds?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder if searching FDST would be useful? Find someone responding with 'WHen Dr. Forrester says ____, AIG points out that his head is pointy and his dick is short....."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

FDST?

Actually, I'm serious. I'm trying to build a case with a creationist I am debating about the dishonesty of AIG. Of course he falls for their bullshit articles, and constantly says "if you think the article is wrong tell them, see what they say."

I know this has to have been tried in the past. And of course nothing changes. So, if you know of any previous attempts at this vain endeavor, I would be grateful to know of them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

FDST?

Actually, I'm serious. I'm trying to build a case with a creationist I am debating about the dishonesty of AIG. Of course he falls for their bullshit articles, and constantly says "if you think the article is wrong tell them, see what they say."

I know this has to have been tried in the past. And of course nothing changes. So, if you know of any previous attempts at this vain endeavor, I would be grateful to know of them.

Sorry, FSDT. Fundies say the darndest. And i was serious, too.

I believe they've taken down their oath of fidelity to Genesis? THey used to brag that they would publish no findings that contradicted the Books, meaning they already knew how any 'research' would turn out, which kind of hampers truth seeking. I think i read about that at Talkorigins.

 

[Mageth]

FDST?

Actually, I'm serious. I'm trying to build a case with a creationist I am debating about the dishonesty of AIG. Of course he falls for their bullshit articles, and constantly says "if you think the article is wrong tell them, see what they say."

I know this has to have been tried in the past. And of course nothing changes. So, if you know of any previous attempts at this vain endeavor, I would be grateful to know of them.

Well, there is AiG's admittance that there are arguments that creationists should avoid:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/

I suspect that at least some of these are listed in response to AiG being shown the error of their ways.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's an example of a rare moment of honesty, the opposite of what I'm looking for.

 

[Cobalt]

FDST?

Actually, I'm serious. I'm trying to build a case with a creationist I am debating about the dishonesty of AIG. Of course he falls for their bullshit articles, and constantly says "if you think the article is wrong tell them, see what they say."

I know this has to have been tried in the past. And of course nothing changes. So, if you know of any previous attempts at this vain endeavor, I would be grateful to know of them.

Sorry, FSDT. Fundies say the darndest. And i was serious, too.

I believe they've taken down their oath of fidelity to Genesis? THey used to brag that they would publish no findings that contradicted the Books, meaning they already knew how any 'research' would turn out, which kind of hampers truth seeking. I think i read about that at Talkorigins.

AIG statement of faith
Their oaths look to be in force still.

 

[Mageth]

Sorry, FSDT. Fundies say the darndest. And i was serious, too.

I believe they've taken down their oath of fidelity to Genesis? THey used to brag that they would publish no findings that contradicted the Books, meaning they already knew how any 'research' would turn out, which kind of hampers truth seeking. I think i read about that at Talkorigins.

AIG statement of faith
Their oaths look to be in force still.

And from there (emphasis added):

"• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This really isn't addressing my question. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly.

I'm debating a creationist on Facebook. He posts articles from AIG. I respond to his posting by pointing out the errors in the AIG articles.

He wants me to take my arguments directly to AIG.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so I'm looking for any scientists who have tried that before me. That way I can show him that it doesn't work.

 

[Sarpedon]

Invite him to try it himself and see what happens. Might be enlightening for him.

 

[Mageth]

This really isn't addressing my question. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly.

I'm debating a creationist on Facebook. He posts articles from AIG. I respond to his posting by pointing out the errors in the AIG articles.

He wants me to take my arguments directly to AIG.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so I'm looking for any scientists who have tried that before me. That way I can show him that it doesn't work.

The Statement of Faith that Cobalt provided a link to makes it clear that reason will not work against AIG.

"In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith

...which includes, e.g.:

"• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In other words, it's pointless to take your arguments to AiG. By the statement of faith, and by their definition, you are clearly wrong!

 

[James Brown]

I think what you're asking for is a tall order, and I doubt it will have any impact on your Facebook friend. Imagine, you find a website written by a scientist who says, "I pointed out to AiG that they were wrong about this scientific fact. AiG responded that I was wrong" etc.

Show that to your Facebook friend, and he'll likely just agree with AiG that the scientist is wrong. The end result is the same.

That said, this site was directly set up to rebut AiG, so you might find something there.

 

[Mageth]

I think what you're asking for is a tall order, and I doubt it will have any impact on your Facebook friend. Imagine, you find a website written by a scientist who says, "I pointed out to AiG that they were wrong about this scientific fact. AiG responded that I was wrong" etc.

Show that to your Facebook friend, and he'll likely just agree with AiG that the scientist is wrong. The end result is the same.

That said, this site was directly set up to rebut AiG, so you might find something there.

Another site:

talkorigins.org

 

[Mageth]

Another site is the Panda's Thumb site. Here's a link to the first in a series of articles that might be of interest:

Understanding creationism:
An insider’s guide by a former young-Earth creationist