|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Examples of Dishonesty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Both sides in the debate have accused the other of dishonesty.
This topic will allow each side to present examples of what they see as dishonesty. From Merium Webster Online
quote: I suggest that dishonest is not the same as a mistake. Nor is it ignorance. For this reason I don't think many of those posting creationist "facts" here are dishonest. It is those that have published them and have had a chance to correct them that are dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Totally agree with you Ned. It is the willful ingorance, or rather the continuing dishonesty in the face of contradictory evidence, among self titled creation scientists that I find dishonest. Somehow having a degree in computer science gives them the right to throw out or ignore data collected by reputable and well studied biologists. I am not saying that only trained biologists can have an opinion within biology, but it may behoove some to take a step back and understand their limitations. I might also add that people incapable of understanding contradictory evidence due to their limited background in the sciences are also not being dishonest, just dogmatic (which is a problem unto its own).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Maybe on over in "deceitful" in addition to just "dishonest" is how I look at the carbon-14 dating disinformation that I presented here. Of course, being off Dr Dino's site, I'm not sure what else we could expect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Loudmouth writes: I might also add that people incapable of understanding contradictory evidence due to their limited background in the sciences are also not being dishonest, just dogmatic (which is a problem unto its own).
If this is the case, one could also argue that misquoting other people or misrepresenting their ideas are also dogmatic, because people's faith requires them to do whatever it takes to make the evidence fit their faith. In other words, there's really no such thing as dishonesty on these boards then. Edited: Here is why I said people try to beat the evidence with whatever they have to make them fit their faith. Just how often do you hear a creationist admits or says "gee, I've never considered it that way before. Thank you for the new information and I hope I will learn more in the future"? In a lot of these cases, they just run away or stop answering all together. Would avoiding to answer certain questions or refuse to admit genuine evidence count as dishonesty or just being dogmatic? [This message has been edited by Lam, 04-28-2004] The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Avoiding questions is annoying, especially those that get to the heart of the matter. IMO, people in general don't want to answer questions that might cast them in a bad light, or show weakness. This isn't just creationists, but just people in general. It might be a fine line, but you can honestly answer questions or be openly honest. That is, the questions you do answer you do so honestly compared to a person who openly and honestly answers every question. I wouldn't call the former dishonest, just selective in what they answer. What I think it comes down to is that some people think science can never tell them what they should believe about the natural world. If someone believes in something strongly enough, it has to be true by the force of their faith alone. Some call it a flaw, other's call it blind faith, and still others call it holiness. Anything that may seem to contradict their belief has to be wrong, and therefore they may not answer since the real answer lies in their faith. Of course, psychoanalysis via internet is hardly a proven science, but for the most part this what I see on most evo vs creo sites. Added in edit: You may want to check out an article/post titled "Glenn Morton's Demon". It is written by a guy who was once a creationist but then realized his folly. He describes how he never let evidence supporting evolution cross his mental barriers. He compares this to Maxwell's Demon, who only let high energy particles through a gate creating a temperature differential (ie energy created for free). Interesting read. Another person whose opinion I would like on this topic is Truthlover, a poster here on EvC. He has also made the journey from young earth creationism to evolution. [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-28-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
A fraudulant Dating "test"
What occured here acording to the above site is that Ausin choose samples in a many which is understood to produce a date that is not that of a lava flow and then claimed it dated the lava flow. Since the date obtained was "too old" he claimed this invalidated the method. Since what is needed to use the method properly was already well understood there is not excuse for this. I submit this as an example of the kind of dishonesty that creation "scientists" get up to. (or is that down to? ) Zac, you wanted to play. Still want to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From ted holden's website at:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/evorants/neander_Matternes.html Again, despite looking much like us, neanderthals were vastly different genetically. Their DNA has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", cleanly eliminating them as a plausible ancestor for modern man. According to Sylas, Ted has been informed that this is erroneous, that the Neander DNA is as different from chimp DNA as our is, as well as ours being too different from the Neander to be true if there were any interbreeding or other relationships. Think of an isosceles triangle. Certainly Ted earns the epithet of creatortionista in my books, as he has posted false information on his website that he should know is false by your communication with him referenced above. This makes him an "Example of Dishonesty" too. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5282 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: From ted holden's website at:http://www.bearfabrique.org/evorants/neander_Matternes.html Again, despite looking much like us, neanderthals were vastly different genetically. Their DNA has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", cleanly eliminating them as a plausible ancestor for modern man. According to Sylas, Ted has been informed that this is erroneous, that the Neander DNA is as different from chimp DNA as our is, as well as ours being too different from the Neander to be true if there were any interbreeding or other relationships. Think of an isosceles triangle. There is an interesting weasel approach to such charges of dishonesty, often used by politicians and the like. Ted's words quoted from his website are indeed true in a technical sense. Their DNA has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". What Ted's page omits to indicate is who gave that description. Now it turns out that Ted knows the answer to this, because when Ted brought this up on Usenet some time ago and was challenged to give references, he gave the quote from an Indian newspaper, and I was able to confirm that indeed that description was given, by the expressindia reporter. The newspaper article was reporting on scientific papers, which of course do not say anything so ridiculous. In the Usenet thread, Ted made a couple of his characteristic blustering responses, and swiftly retired from the field. No modifications are made on his website, of course. The web page is thus formally accurate as worded, and deliberately misleading. Dishonest, in other words. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BigMike Inactive Member |
Fred Williams. The Evolution Fairytale is his website. I am new to this whole EvC community and the thing that got me started posting was his site. I also have reason to suspect that he may be well known here.
The sheer volume of misinformation and deception on that site boggle the mind. Mr. Williams claims the site is parody but is certainly lacking in humor in regards to himself. I posted in his message board under my real name, Mike Hager, and had a great deal of fun with Ol' Fred. I am both on his "debates" page, an exchange I will describe if requested, and on his "Dunce Cap Classics" where I am taken to task for telling Fred his arguments from personal credulity are worthless. If anyone should read my postings there, bear in mind that my vehemence was in response to the format and I would never respond in that manner to anyone here, especially anyone interested in an honest exchange (which Fred Williams is not). Any chance you're reading this, Fred, ol' buddy? How you doin'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Hey BigMike,
I would hazard a guess that any friend of Fred's is a friend of ours. Welcome Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5282 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Not necessarily; and I think we should avoid speaking of dishonesty without some better cause. This is probably a young person who has trusted sources that are unreliable. Sometimes untruths simply grow in the telling, without dishonesty being involved; just carelessness. For example, the following might be a sequence of writers, all quoting each other.
All the above are correct, as far as it goes, but they get progressingly more misleading. It does not take much more of this before you get the example that Lam has given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Edited-irrelevant
[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-29-2004] The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4572 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
One that bothers me is the assertion that the geologic record looks exactly as one would expect if a worldwide flood had occurred. I first saw this claim in the atrocious little book The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible and have seen it repeated elsewhere. My guess is that those who make such a claim are either wilfully ignorant or flat-out lying about the complex vertical sequences of environments in many places. Especially damning to the claim is the presence of formations that required great lengths of time to form, with supposed flood strata above and below.
So, why is this dishonest? Let us take the author of my old book as an example. If he knows he is spreading a bunch of falsehoods in the name of the Gospel, then he's lying. If he doesn't, then the falsehood is in his claiming to be an authority on the subject, because he knows nearly nothing about the geologic record. Thus, in that case he is still lying to his readers and possibly himself as well. *sigh* And to think how much I loved that stupid book as a kid....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024