Originally posted by Starrman Are you turning into ivanhoe?
Besides, I'm not sure you're right, I've certianly seen actions from creationists which would support his post.
lol. No.
While some of the creationist arguments given on this forum could hardly be called intellectually transparent, I think whitehead's summation of the stance in general is false. There are many sincere scientists who would find his accusation of intellectual skullduggery rather harsh.
Originally posted by orfeo Whereas scientists never manipulate data? South Korean stem cell research is immediately springing to mind, along with cold fusion.
I wasn't making any statement about the other side of the coin, but you're quite right.
Originally posted by orfeo Whereas scientists never manipulate data? South Korean stem cell research is immediately springing to mind, along with cold fusion.
Originally posted by dj2becker What about the Nebraskan man?
Just as I said in the radioactive decay post, creationists will always inject what they think are cracks in established science to dupe their followers into thinking creationism is absolutely correct and therefore should be taught in biology. Lets not forget the true aims of creationists: They could care less about science and who or what gets trampled in their quest to drive a wedge in the concept of separation of church and state. I can only assume they want to have a form of goverment like a christian version of Iran, where the religion IS the state. Then they could bring back such beloved institutions like the inquisitions, crusades, indulgences, mabye even a witch burning or two for fun entertainment after a saturdays' illegal drinking bout.
Originally posted by sonhouse Just as I said in the radioactive decay post, creationists will always inject what they think are cracks in established science to dupe their followers into thinking creationism is absolutely correct and therefore should be taught in biology. Lets not forget the true aims of creationists: They could care less about science and who or what gets trampled in t ...[text shortened]... t to have a form of goverment like a christian version of Iran, where the religion IS the state.
I for one wasn't suggesting that 'creationism is absolutely correct'. But there are plenty of people on the other side of the debate that try to pretend that science is absolutely correct - which is just as patently dogmatic and one-eyed.
Separation of church and state is an entirely different issue - unless you want to establish science as the state 'religion'.
Actually, now that I think of it, a lot of atheists who focus on the separation of church and state are trying to do exactly that.
Originally posted by sonhouse Just as I said in the radioactive decay post, creationists will always inject what they think are cracks in established science to dupe their followers into thinking creationism is absolutely correct and therefore should be taught in biology. Lets not forget the true aims of creationists: They could care less about science and who or what gets trampled in t ...[text shortened]... bye even a witch burning or two for fun entertainment after a saturdays' illegal drinking bout.
I never thought I'd witness the Chewbacca defense in this thread. Do you actually believe that these are the sentiments shared by creationists? Crusades? Inquisitions? Drive a wedge between the separation of church and state? Wow! I'm afraid you give the poor creationist folk waaay too much credit.
I'll have you know, my good sir, that I care very much for good science, it's when wishful thinking such as that exhibited by your previous post is an added ingredient that I start having my reservations.
Originally posted by Halitose Ad hominem and a shameless, lame strawman.
OK proove me wrong. Find me a creationist website which presents evidence that makes sense if a belief in creationism is not first assumed. In fact show me one that makes sense or does not have clearly manipulated evidence.
When we have discused dating methods you yourself have never provided any evidence at all for any alternative hypothesis but merely attemted (unsucessfully) to to shed doubt on any dating method mentioned often on the logically weak idea that if it happened before you were born then you cannot observe it therefore its unknowable.
Originally posted by twhitehead
This is actually untrue. Creationists do not interpret evidence differently from scientists. They manipulate the evidence to fit thier beliefs. Strangely enough I dont think they even believe thier own hypothesis, but rather wish to shed doubt on anything contradicting the Bible.
Originally posted by twhitehead OK proove me wrong. Find me a creationist website which presents evidence that makes sense if a belief in creationism is not first assumed. In fact show me one that makes sense or does not have clearly manipulated evidence.
When we have discused dating methods you yourself have never provided any evidence at all for any alternative hypothesis but merely ...[text shortened]... ve thier own hypothesis, but rather wish to shed doubt on anything contradicting the Bible. [/i]
Actually the burden of proof lies with you to prove that all creationists are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Your demand for me to prove your assertions wrong is ludicrous. You need to provide proof for your own assertions first.
Originally posted by Halitose Actually the burden of proof lies with you to prove that all creationists are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Your demand for me to prove your assertions wrong is ludicrous. You need to provide proof for your own assertions first.
I never said "all creationists are morally and itellectually bankrupt."
What I said was that there is no scientific controversy over evolution and that creationism is not a different way of interpreting empirical evidence.
Its a shameless statement yes but is not an Ad hominem and I doubt if it is a stawman.
Originally posted by twhitehead I never said "all creationists are morally and itellectually bankrupt."
What I said was that there is no scientific controversy over evolution and that creationism is not a different way of interpreting empirical evidence.
Its a shameless statement yes but is not an Ad hominem and I doubt if it is a stawman.
Here's what you said: "Creationists do not interpret evidence differently from scientists. They manipulate the evidence to fit thier[sic] beliefs."
If this accusation is true, it certainly implies that creationists are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I see no disclaimer that there are exceptions to this sweeping statement of yours. It qualifies as an ad hominem, since this is an argument made personally against your opponents (creationists) instead of addressing their arguments.
One way of setting up a straw man is to "invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical". This you have clearly done, so I still maintain my accusation of shameless conduct by you.
Originally posted by twhitehead OK proove me wrong. Find me a creationist website which presents evidence that makes sense if a belief in creationism is not first assumed. In fact show me one that makes sense or does not have clearly manipulated evidence.
When we have discused dating methods you yourself have never provided any evidence at all for any alternative hypothesis but merely ...[text shortened]... ve thier own hypothesis, but rather wish to shed doubt on anything contradicting the Bible. [/i]
Find me a scientific website that doesn't assume that creationists are idiots.
Originally posted by orfeo Find me a scientific website that doesn't assume that creationists are idiots.
Most scientific websites do not mention creationists and no such assumptions are made. Although there may be some site which make that statement I dont think it could be called an assumption. The term idiot is usually used as an insult and therefore could hardly be an assumption. I personally do not think that creationists are idiots. My question to you though is do you think that scientists are idiots?
Originally posted by twhitehead Most scientific websites do not mention creationists and no such assumptions are made. Although there may be some site which make that statement I dont think it could be called an assumption. The term idiot is usually used as an insult and therefore could hardly be an assumption. I personally do not think that creationists are idiots. My question to you though is do you think that scientists are idiots?
15 Mar '06 13:14
WTF!
Back to Top