From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:04:29 GMT

In article <REUS.92Aug19123303@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens
Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
 
>>
>>I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. As previously stated,
>>it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
>>may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
>>with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
>>God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?
>>If such a tree were created, I have no problems with God also creating
>>tree rings if he so desired. Nobody asked me why God chose to deceive
>>us, but rather why an asshole dicked with the information. That was
> >the context of my reply.
>    
> *********
> 
>  No reasonable attempt seems ever to be taken in this newsgroup 
> to debate fundamental assumption of evolution-version creation . 

   This is because the creationists repeatedly refuse to state their
basic assumptions in a format that can be used.  I don't think they
have a single set of fundamental assumptions, rather each creationist
makes up his fundamental assumptions when forced to by Socratic inquiry
or ridicule.  The result is I never here the same fundamental assumptions
twice.  Jim Loucks for instance on adjacent days said God would confound
intellegence and that God wasn't trying to decieve us.  These indicate
two cotradictory fundamental assumptions about the nature of God.

> There will be many different views on the matter but dating methods 
> (circularity or not!) has to play a basic role. The above view is 
> one of the few entirely reasonable ones and I tend to agree with it 
> perhaps only that physical age of the earth seems old and biological 
> age of humankind very young indeed.

   A view for which no evidence is known to exist.  What definition of 
the word "reasonable" are you using?  Mandkind and the earth appear quite
old, though the earth is older.  Your bald asertion is not worth spit by 
itself.

> Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order 
> to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of 
> thinking on issues of origin of biological and geological origin. 
> It serves this purpose reasonable well and has no other purpose.

   That, you weasle worded bastard, is a damn lie.  There is no "IC" standard
at all, no one maintains such a standard, no one tries to enforce it.  Everyone
is free to bring in evidence and be heard.  Your scurrilous lie, above, is very
simillar to Lionel Tun's claim that "top evolutionists" were "concealing
information that would tend to invalidate evolution".  You are claiming there
is a standard apart from objective investigation to which someone in the
scientific or rationalist establishment is trying to get everyone to conform.
So, I challange you:

   (I) who maintains the IC standard?

   (II)  what is the IC standard?

   (III) Where does the IC standard from II fail to be merely the result of
         observation and objective cogitation?

recall that Lionel eventually had to retract his claims because he couldn't
support them so either your wrong or you're facing a conspiracy powerful enough
to make the Iluumanati wet their pants.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
 
> |  Jens Peter Reus Christensen   |                                         |
> |  Department of mathematics     | e-mail:          reus@math.ku.dk        |

Isn't it remarkable how the IC conspiracy has forced such bland sameness on
the thinking of mathemeticians?

Dan Ashlock
Department of Mathematics
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa 50011
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU