(Faith)I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here.
================
(CF) You're absolutely right - the deck is stacked against you, in the same way it's stacked against Flat Earthers, pherenologists, psychics, Holocaust deniers, supply-side economists, and everybody else promoting a position contradicted by the facts.
Yes, thanks a million for that confirmation of my point, Crash, and for confirming the fact that there really is no point in trying to talk to you or anybody else here, as I said one must feel from my side of the fence. Perhaps we have the foolish idea that maybe something would conceivably get through to somebody if we persist and maybe we'll try on that thin foolish hope, depending on how much stomach we have for the daily bath in scientific pretensions and arrogant contempt, or maybe just to try our debate skills in the worst of all possible test situations, or perhaps we'll just leave because we see that it's hopeless. I'm sure you wouldn't even characterize your statement as dogma, would you, but it sure is dogma, impenetrable, unyielding dogma. Some dogma has good support. Yours doesn't but then that's MY dogma.
Because that's what we talk about here. Facts, and what we can conclude from them. As Percy has said, creationists claim that not only is their model true on a religious basis, but also an evidentiary, scientific basis. We explore this claim here, so it's incumbent on creationists to defend that claim by showing evidence for creationism, in a manner consistent with the neutral guidelines represented by the scientific method.
If you only want scientists here, as I said, warn us all up front and the rest of us will go away. But as Percy admitted, even the scientifically knowledgeable creationists don't stick it out here. I believe my diagnosis is correct. Who wants the abuse? The veiled contempt? There's no constructive purpose in it.
But they never, ever do that. If there is any evidence for creationism it has yet to be presented, and none of the rest of us are aware of it. If you have some we'd love to see it.
I'm sorry, but I am very sure, although I haven't followed all the discussions here, that plenty of scientific evidence has been presented to you that you all defeat not by true counterevidence but on the basis of your prejudice. There is really very good evidence at many creationist sites, but you can't process it because it doesn't fit your paradigm. Of course it doesn't, it IS another paradigm. You aren't aware of it but your supposed scientific requirements are really just coercive categorical thinking.
We do want a balanced site. But you don't balance the truth with lies.
Nice line there. Has the ring of fine standards etc. Too bad it's a delusion. Keep it up and you'll be talking to other evolutionists exclusively in no time.
Creationists aren't allowed to balance the evidence for evolution with made-up falsehoods that support creationism. If they want to support creationism here they have to do it with evidence. The fact that there apparently isn't any evidence for creationism does put them at a disadvantage; but that's what happens when the model you're putting forth is wrong.
Well you're making your credo very clear. You don't even know it's a credo. You really think it's supported by evidence. As I said, I wouldn't even try against such a dug-in prejudice any more. (Oh maybe I would under certain circumstances, I'm known for my foolhardy feistiness, but I have certainly lost my enthusiasm for it). But my diagnosis remains accurate. It's the haughty arrogant contempt factor that prevents the balance from happening here. If other evolutionists here all share your view, we really should, rationally speaking, leave you to your pretensions.
(Faith) You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth.
==================
(CF) For a number of prominent creationists, we do actually have evidence of chicanery and deception.
How would that answer my point to Percy who made a generalization to ALL creationists? Besides, I don't trust any of you here to make a proper judgment as to anybody's motivations. I did run across a claim along the lines you are making somewhere on this site and thought how wrongly and unfairly reasoned it was. No deception was proved at all, simply an inability on the part of the interpreter to give the benefit of the doubt and imagine a more reasonable explanation.
We have evidence that they ignore data, pull quotes out of relevant context, defraud their supporters, offer arguments that they know are false, and so on and so forth.
I sincerely doubt that most of that would stand up to scrutiny but would come close to slander, because it comes out of your own preconceived notions about what is the important data, the relevant context, the valid argument for the point being made. A competing paradigm is going to focus on different data, different contexts, different arguments. Also, people make mistakes, believe it or not, may even forget what they said and have a new take on the subject and not be intending any deception whatever. Benefit of the doubt, benefit of the doubt. Not a whole lot of that around here. My own experience so far on this site is that I can't get across a very simple point at least partly because it's swallowed up in preconceptions, and I've even been accused of dastardly deeds when at worst I've worded something ineptly.
I'm sorry you're shocked to find out that we consider some - not all - of the prominent leaders on your side liars and charlatans, but we do have evidence that they are, and if you'd like to see it, we'll show it to you.
You're welcome to present it, but I have quite a bit on my plate at the moment so I can't promise giving it careful consideration right away.
The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself
I for one do give them that benefit of the doubt. But for many of them - Kent Hovind being the most prominent example - there's simply no escaping the conclusion that they are dishonest people. Again, we don't come to this conclusion simply because they're our opponents - that would be unfair - but because we have direct evidence of chicanery on their part.
I dread having to wade through your "evidence" but hey, OK, run it by me. I'll see what I can do with it. But please give me some time to get to it and through it.
For my part, I have no problem with creationists who admit that evolution is the best scientific model, that all the evidence points to it at this point, and that it represents the best scientific understanding we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth - but nonetheless insist that it isn't "really" true, that the evidence is God trying to test us, etc. You can't refute that argument. It's entirely possible that God created the world in such a way as to fool us. Whether or not he would have done so is a theological, not a scientific question.
If that is a common creationist belief I have to say that I reject it with heart and soul. As for evolutionism being the best understanding of the moment, while I can see why it is believed I don't think it is rational. As I said somewhere, even when I was still an atheist and earnestly tried to validate it to myself -- and at the time I took it on faith, I just wanted to prove it because I kept having doubts about it -- I could never find anything I could call actual proof for evolution. It was an extremely frustrating experience. I read all the popular stuff in the field, I even subscribed to
Skeptical Inquirer for years, but somehow I never found proof for any of it. A lot of posturing and chest beating about scientific method and facts and evidence and so on, but no actual proof. I have not lost my respect for scientific method and logical argument by any means, in fact I believe my respect has been enhanced since I became a Christian. The proof is simply not there. Since the majority of true science these days is done in the name of evolutionism it gives a scientific aura to the theory, and certainly the habit of evolutionist thinking among genuine honest hardworking scientists makes the whole thing very hard to challenge, but many actual facts that supposedly support the theory in reality are better explained by the Biblical view, and there are a whole raft of facts that the theory doesn't even notice. I'm sure many of your opponents on this site as well as well-known creationists have presented all this evidence, but you simply cannot process the information. Yes I know you will ask for proof of these statements too, and who knows, if I stick around long enough I may actually produce some, but it aint gonna be immediately.
But the creationists who insist that creationism can be a valid scientific model, that in fact it's a better, more accurate explanation of the evidence, need to put up or shut up. When they make that claim, they're saying that they believe that creationism can pass the high bar required for scientific validity. So they should not complain when their model is put to that very same test and found wanting. Evolution, and every other scientific theory for that matter, was put to the same test. That's why we accept it.
I'm sure you believe that with all your heart. I believe creationism has not yet developed into a full blown scientific theory but that they definitely do have much good reasoning on their side and it will only get better over time. Me, if I were running a Christian school I'd channel talented kids -- true Christian Bible believers only of course -- into science classes where they'd have to think their way through both theories with respect to every piece of data that came in view until they were expert at both. This doesn't worry me because I KNOW the Bible is the truth and that eventually the evidence you want will be forthcoming.
For creationists to claim that it's unfair to put them to the same test is tantamount to asking for special treatment, and why should they be allowed to have it?
Well, I for one believe you are wrong and that creationism will eventually explain things much better and that your view of creationism is as I've said simple prejudice, although certainly well supported by what you take to be the best of evidence, as most prejudices are (they really are, and since you consider creationism in the same light, this same extension of grace would be in order that I've just extended to you -- call it sincere and perhaps hidebound belief but based on truly excellent reasons and wrong nevertheless).
Or, since that is your view and the view of most at this site, then Percy should give up on any desire for balance absolutely. It is amply explained by your own attitude. A sign should be posted on the home page warning creationists that the deck is stacked here. That would only be fair.
™ Version 4.2
