Summations Only

quote:

---

...underestimating Dawn "liar for Spock" Bertot's error....

---

I would like to rise in limited defense of Dawn Bertot.As Paul's epithet for Dawn suggests, since arriving here in 2007, Dawn has demonstrated a breathtaking ability to misunderstand the simplest points and write with a brain numbing lack of clarity on a variety of subjects. Given this more than amply evidenced tendency, I think more proof is needed to support the claim that Dawn is lying, as opposed to just being as confused and inarticulate as Dawn normally appears to be.I did say it would be a limited defense.

Perhaps I could have worded my point better.I didn't mean to suggest that Dawn never lies. Instead, my point was that Dawn's inability to communicate on a normal human level is sufficient to explain this thread, and many others as well.And, I didn't mean to single you out necessarily. Others in this thread have accused Dawn of lying in this thread. Yours was simply the most recent mention of the word, so that's the one I responded to.

quote:

---

...followed from replicable testable procedures as opposed to the mush-minded conclusions historical sciences come to...

---

How do you explain the fact that the only people who make this distinction are creationists?

quote:

---

We're the only ones who care. Nobody else has the motivation.

---

You're seriously telling me that you think creationists are the only ones who care about whether science is accurately described and delineated? Physicists don't care. Astronomers don't care. Biologists don't care. Anthropologists don't care. Chemists don't care. Physicians don't care. Geologists don't care. Criminal forensic investigators don't care. Meteorologists don't care. Botanists don't care. Only creationists.Please, think about that for a few minutes. Does that sound even a little bit reasonable?

quote:

---

Sigh. It's an illusion of science that deceives people into thinking it's science. Only creationists are in a position to recognize that fact and spend time opposing it.

---

Well, I'll tell you this; you could make yourself rich beyond the dreams of avarice if you could find a way to convince juries that what criminal forensic investigators do isn't science and doesn't produce reliable results. But I think we both know that, deep down in your heart of hearts, you know as well as we do that it is, and it does.No, what you do is called special pleading. All other scientific results are fine, just not those that dispute your peculiar religious beliefs.

quote:

---

What evolutionists and old earthists do is NOT the same thing as criminal forensics.

---

How are they different? Both look at evidence from past events that neither of them were there to witness and come to conclusions based on that evidence. What's the difference?

quote:

---

Forensics has all kinds of stuff to work with from the current time period, Anything connected to a crime scene has shown up hundreds of times in other crime scenes in recent enough time to be used for reference, or just other current human contexts. You may not have direct witnesses, but you'll have lots of people connected with the situation who could give relevant clues. The geological past is however absolutely without such references.

---

Pronounced by someone with virtually no knowledge in either field. Unless you have education or expertise you've not previously mentioned.

quote:

---

1) I've seen a lot of crime dramas and real-life crime reports.
2) I know nobody has written an eyewitness account of any of the geologc time periods.

---

Neither of which demonstrates even a rudimentary understanding of the methods each of them uses to come to their conclusions.

quote:

---

But I will put the witness of the Bible above any manmade evidence of anything where I think there is a contradiction.

---

This, of course, disqualifies you from doing science. Science doesn't conclude that any particular piece of evidence is incontrovertible. And, because all creationists hold to this same article of faith, they are equally disqualified.

quote:

---

I avoid discussing the time issues except to say the Bible gives the time frame of 6000 years and I don't need any other dating system. On this basis I am entitled to a very informed opinion.

---

It certainly isn't a scientific opinion.

quote:

---

If I can't understand what you are saying you aren't exactly successfully refuting me.

---

You need to make a bumper sticker that says this and sell it at the Creationists' Book Store. You wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelf.

quote:

---

Yes, I've given you all delicious fodder for ridicule, but the point is if you don't succeed in getting your point across to me I'm not going to abandon my argument, am I?

---

You've already made it as clear as you can that you will never abandon your point, because the bible tells you so. So don't play coy and suggest that if we could only phrase our arguments of words of one syllable or less, so that you can understand, you will agree that we are correct.

quote:

---

It's always puzzled me why believers give a toss for scientific or even philosophical argument.
  —Tangle

---

Because they want their fairy tale taught in science classes, especially in public science classes, and they have learned through the years that that won't happen unless it's enough like science to fool a few judges.That's really all it boils down to.