Media Bias Stifles Creationists' Scientific Findings, Perspective

AgapePress ^ | February 11, 2003 | Jim Brown

[Remedy]

The president of a Christian apologetics ministry says there is a bias within the mainstream media to present anything that seems to support evolution or undermines the Bible.

When evolutionists claimed they found a meteorite from Mars with life in it, the report received front-page headlines around the world -- and even then-President Clinton got involved. Yet when even secular scientists agreed that there was no evidence of life in that rock, the story received little attention from the press.

Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, says that was not an isolated case of bias. He explains that the secular media -- which he describes as atheistic and anti-Christian -- publishes most anything it can that appears to indoctrinate people and "hits against the Bible."

"It's very hard for us to get anything in there because coming from a biblical, creationist position and worrying about biblical morality [and believing] that the Bible's true, the secular world by and large doesn't want to hear it -- and secular media certainly don't want people to hear it," he says.

Ham says II Peter 3 tells us that men are willingly ignorant, deliberately reject, or choose to disbelieve. Certainly, Ham says, that is being exhibited in the media. And according to Ham, that even extends to scientific journals.

He explains that his ministry, which defends the biblical account of creation, has had to produce its own scientific journals because of censorship by evolutionists. He says it is nearly impossible to have creation research papers published in magazines like Nature or Science.

"They say [our articles] are not scientific [because] they have the creationist philosophy," Ham says. "It doesn't matter how scientific our scientists are, if they come from a creationist perspective, they won't publish them.

"And then they turn around and tell the public [it] can't trust creationists because they don't publish reputable papers in scientific journals," he says. "In fact, they won't let us publish the papers."

Ham says when this occurs, he is often reminded of the passage in scripture which says: "The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."

[Sentis]

"Until "how life appears from chemicals only" gets explained to me at the molecular level, I will be forever a believer in creation"


I as a scientist can't answer that question without speculation.
You have a right to your belief in God and creation. I don't happen to subscribe to your belief but it doesn't mean I wouldn't change my mind if confronted by physical evidence that some outside force (God, Aliens, Spirits what have you ) created that first life form. However the jury is still out and there isn't evidence for what outside force if any is involved.

There are two sorts of creationists rational and irrational. You seem to be the rational sort which accepts facts when they are presented. My comments and posts are almost exclusively aimed at the irrational sort.

[balrog666]

My comments and posts are almost exclusively aimed at the irrational sort.

Well, they do seem to outnumber, and shout down, any rationalists in the Creationist side. But, in the long run, most rational Creationists have little to add to the discussion and tend to simply go away, or metamorphize into strident, invincibly-ignorant zealots (how many examples have we seen here over the last few years).

[bondserv]

See post #36

Allow me to reemphasize, I do not claim to know how much dust there should be on the moon.

Scientists made calculations to determine how much space dust would be on the moon. They then went to great lengths by putting giant pods on the lunar lander. They also made the ladder on the lander to short, which forced Armstrong to leap from the ladder. No one had measurement instrumentation on the moon. Scientists then made incorrect calculations to determine the amount.

My most important point is that the links provided often make so many assumptions (and the moon dust link clearly does much of this), that to make such definitive statements as these scientists do is to trust unreliable information. He sets up formulas as if he has had measurement equipment on the moon for 4.6 billion years.

Until all of the illegitimate assumptions (I recognize sometimes assumptions are necessary) are removed from the Theory of Evolution I will place no faith in it. Place your faith in it if you choose, but don't expect people who have legitimate problems with the theory to.

[Sentis]

bondserv said "Until all of the illegitimate assumptions (I recognize sometimes assumptions are necessary) are removed from the Theory of Evolution I will place no faith in it. Place your faith in it if you choose, but don't expect people who have legitimate problems with the theory to."

Fine go put your faith in the assumptions in your Bible but quit trying to force your illogical assumptions on those of us who except a few logical assumptions and a mountain of empiric data.
I don't have faith in evolution I have evidence so I don't need faith. Your the one who needs to place his faith on the biblical account because you have no evidence . Sorry your point is moot.

[f.Christian]

I took enough geology in college to know that prospecting has everything to do with probablility and nothing to do with evolution or so-called geologic time.

I have a meeting in 20 minutes so I'll be brief and give a few reasons why the earth is young:

Because the growth of coral reefs has been measured, no coral formaton need be over 3400 years old

The same with stalagmites and stalactites Radiometric contradictions abound, making it unreliable.

The geologic column exists only in text books. If the earth's layers were formed over millions of years, they should be relatively consistent everywhere.

Human artifacts have been found in layers dating back millions of years.

Human footprints dating back 150 million to 600 million years ago have been found in Utah, Kentucky, Missouri, possibly PA and TX.

Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere's He in only 40k years. The atmosphere has not yet stabilized.

Lead diffuses from zircon crystals at a known rate. The rate increases with temperature. Greater depths and temps should reveal less pb in the crystals. If the earth were even a fraction of the supposed geologic age, we should be able to measure a difference in the crystals found in the first 2 miles of the earth's crust. Instead, no measurable difference is found between the crystals near the surface and the crystals deep in the hot earth.

Since you claim to be familiar with the oil drilling business, you may know that gas, oil and water are trapped in relatively permeable rock. The pressure disappears somewhere between 10k and 100k years. There is no possible way for the oil to be trapped for 50 million years.I am talking about serious men (often Christian men) who raise their families based on tests which tell them where the oil, gold, copper, uranium might be due to geological movements of millions of years.

Volcanoes belch a cubic mile of debris into the atmosphere each year. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old, about 10x the earth's volume should have been put into the atmosphere and that's at current rates. Evos claim that volcanic activity was higher in the past.

The rate of continental erosion indicates a young earth.

River sediment transport indicates a young earth

The rate of accumulation of minerals and salts in the ocean indicates a young earth.

Meteorite material is found in relatively shallow earth.

Meteoric dust accumulation indicates a young earth.

The rate of decay of the earth's magnetic fields indicates a young earth.

The rate of cooling of the earth indicates a young earth.

The rate of recession of the moon indicates a young earth.

The accumulation of dust on the moon indicates a young moon.

There are many more reasons such as OOP artifacts but I'm late for the meeting.

87 posted on 02/02/2003 3:33 PM PST by Dataman

.. .. .. 'lifted' (( link )) !

[metacognative]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by this 'failure' of a 2000 year old nature story?
I can give you many of the 150 year old darwinite
myth of progressive development. For starters, except where there is a mind involved, no progressive development happens in the real world. There are no blind watchmakers

[Sentis]

Fchristian you did not write this you cut and pasted it off another topic. Please use your own words and don't pull this Bull of cutting and pasting. Your posts are legendary in displaying your inability to verbalize but at least they were your posts. This post has been answered and refuted in other threads the fact you lifted it from someone indicates you can't even read.

[f.Christian]

I've seen every bug eyed evolutionist staring off at every canyon -- mountain -- bug .. .. ..

thinking // believing how it all grew out of a washed out mudball === looney !

[Sentis]

Thank you for using your own words because your posts express so clearly how inarticulate you really are.

[Sentis]

Star formation which can clearly be seen in nebulas is a progressive development

Microbiotic evolution which even many Creationists admits happens is progressive development

Formation of crystals is progressive development

fire displays progressive development

These are just a few example of real world progressive development.... Wow those complex stars sure must find it hard to form out of that chaotic soup of Gases because you tell them they can't do it.

[f.Christian]

Delusions -- -- -- a full blown psychotic (( all lies -- hate --- DENIAL // no reality )) !

TYPICAL EVO!

[VadeRetro]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by this 'failure' of a 2000 year old nature story?

The fossil record, the geologic column, the night sky. Before you even start, I realize that for each case somebody has concocted an alternate "For Luddites" version, based upon things not being what they look like. I hate that.

[f.Christian]

Evolution (( overlords )) is -- full on -- BRAINWASHING (( redacting // deleting -- HATING God -- conservatism )) and . . .

INDOCTRINATING (( mind -- soul rape )) // programming LIBERALISM -- LOVING lies // bias -- all through America // society ! ! !

All unashamedly (( liberalism )) on the FR too ==== "fraud // corruption" ==== UNADULTERED tyranny // blasphemy -- slavery !

[freedumb2003]

>>Evolution (( overlords )) is -- full on -- BRAINWASHING (( redacting // deleting -- HATING God -- conservatism ))... All unashamedly (( liberalism )) on the FR too. <<

Buy the premise, buy the bit. This is just name calling disguised as some sort of logical argument. I could just as easily say the ultimate brainwashing is believing that Genesis is anything other than allegory written for near-ignorant savages (which it is).

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: 1rep·ro·bate
Pronunciation: 're-pr&-"bAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -bat·ed; -bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin reprobatus, past participle of reprobare -- more at REPROVE
Date: 15th century
1 : to condemn strongly as unworthy, unacceptable, or evil < reprobating the laxity of the age >
2 : to foreordain to damnation
3 : to refuse to accept : REJECT
synonym see CRITICIZE
- rep·ro·ba·tive /'re-pr&-"bA-tiv/ adjective
- rep·ro·ba·to·ry /-b&-"tOr-E, -"tor-/ adjective

[freedumb2003]

Man, you talk wierd.

[f.Christian]

Good description of evolutionists --- total ignorant savages !

[rwfromkansas]

Cute......not funny though.

[freedumb2003]

>>Good description of evolutionists --- total ignorant savages ! <<

Boy, that put us in our place! Yes, I will slink off to my cave now and lick my wounds. Your repartee and clear logic is still stinging.

The fact remains, the target audience of the Bible were barely literate and needed help in understanding how the world came into existence. Taking the Bible literally word for word is truly ignorant and a sign of the complete inability to think for oneself.

[f.Christian]

Swallowing evolution literally lie // denial for lie -- lie-- brainwashing // indoctrination is truly ignorant (( slavery )) and a sign of the complete inability to think // LIVE for oneself -- Truth // reality // honesty -- sincerity .. .. .. non psychotic -- sanely (( free )) too ! ! !