Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Museum a House of Cards Sitting on Old Old Earth Rocks
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 16 of 61 (723304)
03-28-2014 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-28-2014 3:45 PM


I guess I'm asking us to consider who among us has no irrational stance on anything. There but for the grace of God go us, except that God granted us no such grace and we are in all likelihood treading our own irrational path on some topic or another. We err if we deem creationists to be poor misbegotten souls of an inferior caste. They are us and we are them.
No I'm not. It's all very well going all dewy-eyed and Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto about them, but there are differences. For example, I wouldn't presume to teach others about a scientific subject without first having looked at a relevant textbook. I have spent what must amount to several working days this year alone looking up quotations and references to verify them. (Not just about evolution, I have other interests, but still.) I find out what my intellectual opponents think by reading what they have written, and criticize them accordingly. And so forth. There are subjects on which I may still be irrational --- who knows? --- but at least I am conscientious. This does, I think, make them inferior to me, because they have failed, not through want of reason, but through want of effort. Any man may be irrational now and then, but no-one is obliged to be habitually and systematically lazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-28-2014 3:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 61 (735442)
08-15-2014 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
08-14-2014 7:36 AM


Re: Another creation "museum" ...
According to Lutz, the most compelling pieces in the museum are Ica stones from the Aeronautical Museum of Lima, Peru: smooth andesite stones etched with images of humans and dinosaurs interacting. ...
Technically, he's right --- the Ica stones are the most compelling evidence for creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2014 7:36 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 38 of 61 (735489)
08-16-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mram10
08-16-2014 4:02 PM


What post do you think you're replying to?
---
Finally, some clarity!
I didn't know that the PHDs like Walt Brown, Dr. Jason Lisle, etc were not real scientists.
Just so I have it right... if these doctors are against the theory of evolution, then they are not "real" scientists.
Well, a scientist has to do science. My stepson has a degree in teaching, but he doesn't have a job as a teacher and never has; in fact he works as a security guard. So would it be accurate to call him a teacher? No, he's a security guard.
In the same way if someone gets a qualification in science, but spends all his time bullshitting rather than doing science, then it is reasonable to say that he is not a scientist but a bullshitter.
Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?
Because it's easy to discount very small insignificant trivial things.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mram10, posted 08-16-2014 4:02 PM mram10 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 61 (735550)
08-17-2014 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
08-17-2014 5:46 PM


Re: Engineers are not scientists
Economists and mathematicians can and do get B.Scs. I'd consider them scientists too - and why not? They all follow rational, objective models in trying to understand our world.
Though I like to think that mathematicians are wrong less often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 08-17-2014 5:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2014 2:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024