is AIG an objective and reliable source for science?

[Audie]

It appears to me their approach is anti science, the opposite of science.

[Kurieuo]

No, not AiG. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ience.html

[Audie]

No, not AiG. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ience.html

Ah, dueling websites! Or thst a gish?

Wanna speak for yourself?

Why not judt link ye bible?

[Kurieuo]

[Audie]

No, not AiG. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ience.html

I refer to the AIG that putd conclusion first.

[Kurieuo]

Everyone, all sides, does confirmation bias. I don't like singling out AiG anymore, because it's really old news to me. But yet, it's open/shut case in my opinion that they take it to new levels in trying to force science into their beliefs. Even Scripture is largely read first having their interpretation of it, which is planted in churches, Sunday schools and what-not, and then a person comes to Scripture already "knowing" what it says and means. Just like the science. AiG aren't alone, RTB are really bad at reading science into Scripture too, but at least such a truth source, I feel, is taken more seriously.

[Audie]

Everyone, all sides, does confirmation bias. I don't like singling out AiG anymore, because it's really old news to me. But yet, it's open/shut case in my opinion that they take it to new levels in trying to force science into their beliefs. Even Scripture is largely read first having their interpretation of it, which is planted in churches, Sunday schools and what-not, and then a person comes to Scripture already "knowing" what it says and means. Just like the science. AiG aren't alone, RTB are really bad at reading science into Scripture too, but at least such a truth source, I feel, is taken more seriously.

Say whatcha will, it is at least an ideal in science to be objective. And, more ,it is self protection
for researchers who dont want to make fools of themselves.

For AIG, the highest value is fidelity to preconceived ideas.

Which may be fine; but such is rightly viewed as the opposite of science,
and anything from such a source gets no respect from those who understand and value
science for what it is

If a study has merit, it can be found elsewhere. Dont link to a creosite if you wsnt
an articke to be read by anyone butbthe choir.

The "creosites" seem genrrally the refuge and purview
of corrupt scientists like k wise, or complete whack jobs like ron wyatt.

[Kurieuo]

Everyone, all sides, does confirmation bias. I don't like singling out AiG anymore, because it's really old news to me. But yet, it's open/shut case in my opinion that they take it to new levels in trying to force science into their beliefs. Even Scripture is largely read first having their interpretation of it, which is planted in churches, Sunday schools and what-not, and then a person comes to Scripture already "knowing" what it says and means. Just like the science. AiG aren't alone, RTB are really bad at reading science into Scripture too, but at least such a truth source, I feel, is taken more seriously.

Say whatcha will, it is at least an ideal in science to be objective. And, more ,it is self protection
for researchers who dont want to make fools of themselves.

The biggest lie fallen for, is that science is objective. Rather, science is a subjective pursuit of knowledge where rational subjects (i.e., us) experience and attempt to explain such in a logical manner. And as such, science can and always will only be subjective no matter what an objectivist might think to the contrary.

Regarding "say whatcha will" did you not read my views align to yours anyhow re: AiG. So again, I'm confused.

[Audie]

Everyone, all sides, does confirmation bias. I don't like singling out AiG anymore, because it's really old news to me. But yet, it's open/shut case in my opinion that they take it to new levels in trying to force science into their beliefs. Even Scripture is largely read first having their interpretation of it, which is planted in churches, Sunday schools and what-not, and then a person comes to Scripture already "knowing" what it says and means. Just like the science. AiG aren't alone, RTB are really bad at reading science into Scripture too, but at least such a truth source, I feel, is taken more seriously.

Say whatcha will, it is at least an ideal in science to be objective. And, more ,it is self protection
for researchers who dont want to make fools of themselves.

The biggest lie fallen for, is that science is objective. Rather, science is a subjective pursuit of knowledge where rational subjects (i.e., us) experience and attempt to explain such in a logical manner. And as such, science can and always will only be subjective no matter what an objectivist might think to the contrary.

Regarding "say whatcha will" did you not read my views align to yours anyhow re: AiG. So again, I'm confused.

The attempt to be objective is a highest value. I dont know who said or believes the "lie" you refer to.

AIG does the opposite. That is the difference to be noted with regards to
your "everyone does confirmation bias".

[Kurieuo]

That is a true statement though, everyone does do confirmation bias. Did you read the rest of my post?

[Audie]

That is a true statement though, everyone does do confirmation bias. Did you read the rest of my post?

Yeah, but, well never mind.

One thing that puzzles me a little, is how so many people can be satisfied to to to a "site" in the first place, knowing its purpose it to promote some ideology.

The purpose of AIG is anti science, opposite of science, and opposite of objectivity. (in case any lurkarians didnt get that)

[crochet1949]

Audie -- everyone is promoting Some ideology. You and I happen to 'promote' opposing ideologies. The various sites We would be visiting would be in opposition to each other in some points. I visit a variety of sites to get information -- that doesn't mean I agree with everything I read.

[Audie]

Audie -- everyone is promoting Some ideology.

Oh?

[crochet1949]

Audie -- everyone is promoting Some ideology.

Oh?

Could you expound a bit?