ABC Hatchet Jobs Against Denver Christians

[Granite]

Did he or did he not say, "We can't cover everything"? Carter admits they don't spend much time on the subject and that he gave an essentially abbreviated tour, yet ABC's being criticized by you and others for abbreviating their own material. Convenient.

Shawn responded accurately and honestly, yet his answer makes you uncomfortable.

Why is that?

I'm beginning to think you and others responded angrily to this report because it makes YEC and this "museum" look incredibly ridiculous.

 

[Servo]

Did he or did he not say, "We can't cover everything"? Carter admits they don't spend much time on the subject and that he gave an essentially abbreviated tour, yet ABC's being criticized by you and others for abbreviating their own material. Convenient.

Shawn responded accurately and honestly, yet his answer makes you uncomfortable.

Why is that?

I'm beginning to think you and others responded angrily to this report because it makes YEC and this "museum" look incredibly ridiculous.

Granite, when you visit Denver like you talked about once, you should take the tour. I went to school with Rusty Carter (a great guy) and I have taken the tour with Denver Bible Church. It is well worth the time. :up:

Colorado would be a great place to have a honeymoon!

 

[Granite]

Granite, when you visit Denver like you talked about once, you should take the tour. I went to school with Rusty Carter (a great guy) and I have taken the tour with Denver Bible Church. It is well worth the time. :up:

Colorado would be a great place to have a honeymoon!

Sorry, got plans as far as the honeymoon goes. I'm booked solid!

 

[Jefferson]

Did he or did he not say, "We can't cover everything"?

No one can cover everything. The subject is too massive. There aren't enough hours in a day to cover everything. So Nightline finds one of a hundred things that weren't covered and tried to make it appear as if Biblically Correct Tours was running away from the issue. That's sleazy.

Carter admits they don't spend much time on the subject and that he gave an essentially abbreviated tour, yet ABC's being criticized by you and others for abbreviating their own material. Convenient.

All Nightline had to do was to simply ask, "What do you guys say about the radiometric dating issue?" That would have been honest journalism. But instead Nightline, fearing an intelligent, well reasoned response, were the one's who ran away from the issue. That's not just sleaze. That's cowardice.

Shawn responded accurately and honestly, yet his answer makes you uncomfortable.

No, what makes me "uncomfortable" is how ABC continuously gets away with presenting itself as an objective news source.

Do you actually think ABC was so amateurish that they tried to get a good quote for the broadcast by only interviewing 1 kid out of perhaps 30 or so? Or do you think it was much more likely that they interviewed several kids, maybe even all of the kids to get a good quote for the broadcast? And out of all the kids, you don't think there was just one who referenced just one little tidbit of evidence he was aware of and impressed with? Not even the brightest kid in the group?

Hmm. I wonder what happened to that quote.

 

[Granite]

Nightline didn't run away from anything; they came to Denver, lest you forget. Based on the BEL program and the ABC report Carter simply was unhappy not only with the presentation of the report, but the way he and the museum looked. I don't blame him. The museum, and YEC, are ridiculous enough without any outside help. (T-Rex as a vegetarian is almost, almost, amusing.)

Maybe if Shawn had lied or given another answer (other than the truth) you would have been pleased. You appear intensely uncomfortable with how his answer sounded, and you should. But instead of acknowledging the flaws exposed in the report and the distressing lack of objectivity at this "museum" all you can do is complain about how Carter and company looked. (You should also consider the possibility that none of these kids had a better answer other than this one. I'm sure that never crossed your mind.)

Did you even watch the video or aren't you going to bother? I think I know the answer to this.

 

[Jefferson]

Nightline didn't run away from anything; they came to Denver, lest you forget.

They came to Denver to do a hatchet job and part of that hatchet job was running away from getting the full story (ex. simply asking what their response is to the radiometric dating issue.) Why didn't they just simply ask that question Granite?

Based on the BEL program and the ABC report Carter simply was unhappy not only with the presentation of the report, but the way he and the museum looked. I don't blame him. The museum, and YEC, are ridiculous enough without any outside help. (T-Rex as a vegetarian is almost, almost, amusing.)

Why is it amusing?

Maybe if Shawn had lied or given another answer (other than the truth) you would have been pleased. You appear intensely uncomfortable with how his answer sounded, and you should. But instead of acknowledging the flaws exposed in the report and the distressing lack of objectivity at this "museum" all you can do is complain about how Carter and company looked.

Why are you putting "museum" in quotes? Tell me all you know about this museum and why you are disparaging it.

(You should also consider the possibility that none of these kids had a better answer other than this one. I'm sure that never crossed your mind.)

Let's take this one step at a time. Yes or no, do you actually think ABC was so amateurish that they tried to get a good quote for the broadcast by only interviewing 1 kid out of perhaps 30 or so? Yes or no.

Did you even watch the video or aren't you going to bother? I think I know the answer to this.

First of all, I don't know where to find the clip. And secondly, did you even listen to the BEL show or aren't you going to bother?

 

[Granite]

They came to Denver to do a hatchet job and part of that hatchet job was running away from getting the full story (ex. simply asking what their response is to the radiometric dating issue.) Why didn't they just simply ask that question Granite?

Why is it amusing?

Why are you putting "museum" in quotes? Tell me all you know about this museum and why you are disparaging it.

Let's take this one step at a time. Yes or no, do you actually think ABC was so amateurish that they tried to get a good quote for the broadcast by only interviewing 1 kid out of perhaps 30 or so? Yes or no.

First of all, I don't know where to find the clip. And secondly, did you even listen to the BEL show or aren't you going to bother?

The full story could have been far more embarrassing, Jefferson. They should consider themselves lucky that ABC didn't press even harder.

Why didn't they ask? Who knows. They didn't ask all they could have, for sure. For example, they could have asked for Carter's academic qualifications. They could have asked what peer-reviewed articles he's written. They could, in other words, have asked him if he was any kind of expert in palentology, anthropology, or archeology.

It is "amusing" because it happens to be inane, but that's a subject for another time.

Do you not consider the honest answer of a Christian child to be good enough? I'm not sure whether to be surprised at this or not.

I watched the clip, you didn't, and it's exceedingly easy to find. Having listened to the radio program as well, it still sounds as though Carter was deeply embarrassed by actual, real life exposure to the media, and he's trying to salve his stung pride.

 

[Jefferson]

Granite:

I see you're starting to dodge my questions. Have a nice day.

 

[Granite]

Actually, I answered them, and you didn't care for the answers. If you want to go ahead and believe Carter's the victim of wicked old ABC, as opposed to the victim of his own naivete, knock yourself out. There's barely smoke here and no fire.

 

[SUTG]

From the article you linked to:

Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."

In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity.

When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."

From reading this, it sounds as if Jack has issues with honesty.

"We can't cover everything", but we'll make sure to let them know that they date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer.

That is why they insist on "the whole truth" in the courtroom. To keep Jack's particular brand of dishonesty to a minimum.

 

[koban]

Actually, I answered them, and you didn't care for the answers. If you want to go ahead and believe Carter's the victim of wicked old ABC, as opposed to the victim of his own naivete, knock yourself out. There's barely smoke here and no fire.

Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.

 

[Jefferson]

Actually, I answered them...

I asked, "Why are you putting "museum" in quotes? Tell me all you know about this museum and why you are disparaging it."

You refused to answer.

Then I asked...

"Yes or no, do you actually think ABC was so amateurish that they tried to get a good quote for the broadcast by only interviewing 1 kid out of perhaps 30 or so? Yes or no."

You refused to answer.

 

[Granite]

I asked, "Why are you putting "museum" in quotes? Tell me all you know about this museum and why you are disparaging it."

You refused to answer.

Then I asked...

"Yes or no, do you actually think ABC was so amateurish that they tried to get a good quote for the broadcast by only interviewing 1 kid out of perhaps 30 or so? Yes or no."

You refused to answer.

I hold most museums in suspicion. The academic community is notorious for suppressing artifacts that disrupt a particular pet theory, and can be just as dogmatic as religionists. (Keep in mind that I'm not referring to evolution, so please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.)

I suspect ABC stuck with the best quote they had, or used Shawn's to illustrate the point they were trying to make.

Now that I answered your questions I'd like you to answer mine.

And I sincerely doubt that you will.

 

[aharvey]

From the article you linked to:

Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."

Instead of whining about how badly ABC treated him, Jack should be (and I'll bet is!) thanking his lucky stars ABC's reporters weren't as informed as they should have been. The fallaciousness of the fossil circular logic claim that he is spreading here has been exposed for decades.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: circular fossils.

 

[Jefferson]

I hold most museums in suspicion.

But not Nightline?

The academic community is notorious for suppressing artifacts

But Nightline is supposed to be trusted implicitly?

that disrupt a particular pet theory, and can be just as dogmatic as religionists.

And the libs at Nightline don't have their own dogmatic pet theories?

I suspect ABC stuck with the best quote they had,

I agree. But "the best quote" according to Nightline and the best quote according to a neutral observer without an agenda would be two very different things.

or used Shawn's to illustrate the point they were trying to make.

Exactly. And the point they were trying to make were that all Christian homeschooled children are brainwashed automatons.

Do you really think that if Shawn waxed eloquently about scientific creationism, that Nightline would have included that clip?

Now that I answered your questions I'd like you to answer mine.

You asked, "Do you not consider the honest answer of a Christian child to be good enough?"

Good enough for what? Good enough to be the shining example of the best and brightest of Christian homeschooling to be displayed to the entire nation? Of course not. That's why Nightline picked him.

 

[Granite]

But not Nightline?

But Nightline is supposed to be trusted implicitly?

And the libs at Nightline don't have their own dogmatic pet theories?

I agree. But "the best quote" according to Nightline and the best quote according to a neutral observer without an agenda would be two very different things.

Exactly. And the point they were trying to make were that all Christian homeschooled children are brainwashed automatons.

Do you really think that if Shawn waxed eloquently about scientific creationism, that Nightline would have included that clip?

You asked, "Do you not consider the honest answer of a Christian child to be good enough?"

Good enough for what? Good enough to be the shining example of the best and brightest of Christian homeschooling to be displayed to the entire nation? Of course not. That's why Nightline picked him.

I don't trust much implicitly at all, nor do I doubt ABC has an agenda. Carter's got an agenda, too. Having an agenda isn't sinister in and of itself. It's the way of the world.

Tell me something, Jefferson: if a Christian child who answers a question accurately sounds brainwashed to you, aren't you the one who should have a problem with what, why, and how the child thinks? You and I actually agree on this. The kid doesn't sound like he thinks for himself. What does that tell you? I'm still stunned that the sincerity of a Christian youth is what seems to be the one thing really offending you. That's real telling. Unless this kid sounds like a Ph.D., it seems like he can't win with you. And here's the kicker: you agree with what he said. It's the style of how he sounded and looked that sticks in your craw.

Is this poor kid's honest answer to blame for what you think is a "hatchet job"? He tells the truth, ABC shows it, and suddenly the report becomes a smear hit piece. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

 

[Jefferson]

Having an agenda isn't sinister in and of itself.

It's sinister if you are lying to the public by claiming to be broadcasting a neutral, unbiased news story when in reality the story is biased.

Tell me something, Jefferson: if a Christian child who answers a question accurately sounds brainwashed to you, aren't you the one who should have a problem with what, why, and how the child thinks?

Some brainwashing is legitimate. I memorized my time tables as a child. If someone asks me today what 6X8 is I'll just parrot, "48" without even thinking about it. That's being brainwashed and there's nothing with it. There's nothing wrong with brainwashing yourself with the truth. Even the Bible says, "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." (Romans 12:2)

You and I actually agree on this. The kid doesn't sound like he thinks for himself. What does that tell you?

It tells me he is an average kid. In fact, it tells me he is an average adult. That's what political correctness is all about. Peer pressure. People not thinking for themselves. The Bible describes people as sheep, both Christians and nonchristians.

I'm still stunned that the sincerity of a Christian youth is what seems to be the one thing really offending you. That's real telling. Unless this kid sounds like a Ph.D., it seems like he can't win with you. And here's the kicker: you agree with what he said. It's the style of how he sounded and looked that sticks in your craw.

Is this poor kid's honest answer to blame for what you think is a "hatchet job"? He tells the truth, ABC shows it, and suddenly the report becomes a smear hit piece. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

We've gone around this before. I don't have a problem with the kid's sincerity. I have a problem with ABC implying that 100% of public school children are bright, independent-minded freethinkers and that Christian homeschooling should be considered child abuse and made illegal.

 

[koban]

I have a problem with ABC implying that 100% of public school children are bright, independent-minded freethinkers and that Christian homeschooling should be considered child abuse and made illegal.

Wow.

Did we watch the same report?

 

[Granite]

Wow.

Did we watch the same report?

I don't think Jefferson actually watched it yet.