Re: Ostrich eggs a proof of the YEC position

Does anyone know if someone has done a rhetorical analysis of "conspiracy
language" used by YEC propagandists? Like the passage quoted below:

>>You’d think this would be front-page news in science magazines, but it
>>wasn’t. Why not? It’s obvious that many of these magazines aren’t
>>concerned with finding the truth; rather, they tend to defend only
>>already-held beliefs.

Keeping the truth from the public is a canard so commonly used by these
folks that I usually skip the paragraph. But it might be useful to do a
study of it and expose the technique.

Come to think of it, the passage above is a perfect description of YEC
writings.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
To: "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Ostrich eggs a proof of the YEC position

>I thought that canard had been laid to rest by scientists already.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html
>
>
> *Sarfati's Alleged Problems for Evolution*
>
> answers in Genesis has evolutionary biology on the run now. In an article
> from 2002, Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory
> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp>, they
> explain that development shows that evolution is all wrong, since
> developmental pathways in different animals are /completely different/,
> and can’t possibly be the result of gradual transformations.
>
> Man will they ever learn...
>
> Carol or John Burgeson wrote:
>
>>>From AIG this month:
>>-------------------------------
>>Q: Why are ostrich eggs a problem for evolutionists?
>>
>>A: It’s widely believed that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Yet a recent
>>study of ostrich eggs conclusively shows that the digits (or “fingers”)
>>of the ostrich develop in a totally different way than dinosaur digits
>>did.
>>
>>The report says, “This creates a new problem for those who insist that
>>dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for
>>example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that
>>has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.”
>>
>>You’d think this would be front-page news in science magazines, but it
>>wasn’t. Why not? It’s obvious that many of these magazines aren’t
>>concerned with finding the truth; rather, they tend to defend only
>>already-held beliefs.
>>Many scientists just look for evidence that supports their
>>preconceptions, and often ignore evidence that goes against them. So this
>>information doesn’t get widely reported. But those who believe in the
>>authority of God’s Word, which says dinosaurs were created on the day
>>after birds (Genesis 1:20–25), know the real story.
>>----------------------------------------
>>So check out Gen 1:20-25 -- how could we have meiised the word
>>"dinosaur" there?
>>
>>Burgy
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 4 10:12:58 2006