Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 3:58 AM
26 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 256 of 318 (450963)
01-25-2008 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by pelican
01-25-2008 12:04 AM


Re: how do you validate concepts?
Thankyou for that information I did not ask for, nor was it relevant to this thread.

Sorry, I thought you did ask:

Heinrik Message 179
How would you know you had misconceptions?

Don't you agree that one way you could know would be to apply the scientific method to see if you can invalidate conceptions?

The relevance to this thread is the matter of how people test concepts for their validity - see if they are true or false statements. The relevance to this thread is the fact that many creationists post concepts that are falsified, known to be false, and they obviously use some other method to determine what they think is valid.

I've been trying to find out how that system works.

THIS IS THE COFFEE FORUM WHERE WE DISCUSS TOPICS OTHER THAN SCIENCE OR CREATION. THERE ARE SPECIFIC SCIENCE THREADS TO MEET YOUR SCIENTIFIC NEEDS, SO STOP WASTING MY TIME AND THE FEW POSTS LEFT WITH SHOWING OFF TO YOUR MATES.

No need to lose your temper. The point remains that the scientific method is one way we have for determining when beliefs are false. I don't see how discussing that truth suddenly forces a "science thread vs non-science thread" confrontation - it is just a way to validate belief, and I find your reaction rather amusing, given the "role playing" admission above. If you have other methods I would like to know, hence I asked what you use. You said you hadn't thought about it, which I find rather curious if you are also questioning the validity of concepts expressed by people.

You don't have to be "in science" to use the method, and using the method doesn't necessarily create science out of what you do with it. Of itself the method is a philosophical construction.

Message 239
I sent a post completely mispelled and no punctuation, only one person responded. Later I sent exactly the same post but this time it was corrected. This time it sparked a flurry of debate which is absolutely wonderful and continuing still.

I thought your first message was a blatant attempt to look unintelligent. I also agree with Dameeva on some points, but not on others.

Percy's point still stands - when people pretend to know something they don't they will get picked on by those that do, particularly if they use ridiculous falsehoods as arguments, and most particularly if they carry on as if they know the subject.

The evidence, in black and white is in this thread. It cannot be missed. It clearly shows the onus is on the educated to make the effort to listen and understand those who cannot improve their standards to meet yours. You are asking the impossible of them but it is so possible for you.

So when someone posts that the earth is young I should try to understand them?

Aren't you being a little condescending to say that it is impossible for them?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added quote


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 12:04 AM pelican has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 257 of 318 (450965)
01-25-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by pelican
01-24-2008 10:44 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
Heinrik writes:

percy writes:

Getting back to the topic, the pattern that you're exhibiting here is another very common one with creationists, failure to perform even a cursory investigation.

Do you think creationists are also inept in their own chosen field?

Here's yet another example of a common creationist pattern, changing the subject. Your question has nothing to do with your failure to do even cursory checking of whether the Missler video was valid. As has been shown, the validity of Missler video, which shows him speaking his very own words with a clear and unambiguous meaning, as if that weren't more than enough evidence, is confirmed by a webpage at his own site saying the precise same thing.

The mystery is why creationists like yourself do things like this. In an earlier message you provided yet another example of a common creationist pattern, obvious dissembling, by denying you're a creationist in one paragraph, then in the next referring to "you evolutionists."

My recommendations to creationists are these:

  • Be honest (you broke this one).
  • Only get into discussions about things you understand.
  • Don't make claims you can't support (you broke this one, too).
  • Support your arguments with evidence (you also broke this one).
  • Don't write like a 3rd grader.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Spelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:44 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 11:21 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
SGT Snorkel
Junior Member (Idle past 3877 days)
Posts: 23
From: Boone, IA USA
Joined: 07-25-2006


Message 258 of 318 (450973)
01-25-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by pelican
01-25-2008 2:29 AM


Not Quite
Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists,

Only partially correct. It can be shown that the earth and all life on it was not created in a 6 day period 6000 years ago. It can be shown that there was no world wide flood 4500 years ago.

If you were to say that God started the universe 15,000,000,000 years ago, created the earth 4,000,000,000 years ago, and created the first 1 cell creatures 3,500,000,000 years ago then I would agree that science could not refute you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:29 AM pelican has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Taz, posted 01-25-2008 10:23 AM SGT Snorkel has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 259 of 318 (450976)
01-25-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by SGT Snorkel
01-25-2008 9:52 AM


Re: Not Quite
Snorkel writes:

heinrik writes:

Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists

Only partially correct.

Actually, Heinrik's got a point there. It really requires years of studies and discipline to be able to connect all the dots of the various scientific studies and fields to see and understand for yourself all the evidence against the biblical account. On the other hand, to believe in a 6 day creation 6 thousand years ago is the default belief because many people grew up indoctrinated by their christian parents.

This has been the source of my frustration for many years as I have seen over and over scientists losing on the debate floor to people who were ignorant beyond belief just because those ignorant people appealed to the ignorance of the masses.

The other thing is we are seeing a lot of creationist patterns in this thread, the same pattern that they themselves don't even recognize. Again, it really takes years of discipline to really recognize these fallacies and fallacious thinking patterns. These creationist tactics REALLY DO WORK when they have to explain themselves to the masses. It's only when they are faced with really educated people like judges and scientists that their arguments fall apart.

If we are talking about swaying public opinion, creationism really has the upper hand in this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by SGT Snorkel, posted 01-25-2008 9:52 AM SGT Snorkel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 01-25-2008 11:52 AM Taz has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3159 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 260 of 318 (450982)
01-25-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
01-25-2008 8:42 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
Maybe I can explain on behalf of Heinrik but from my observations. I'm sure Heinrik will correct me if I am mistaken.

percy writes:

Here's yet another example of a common creationist pattern, changing the subject. Your question has nothing to do with your failure to do even cursory checking of whether the Missler video was valid. As has been shown, the validity of Missler video, which shows him speaking his very own words with a clear and unambiguous meaning, as if that weren't more than enough evidence, is confirmed by a webpage at his own site saying the precise same thing.

The key words here are 'another example of common creationist pattern'. Heinrik assumed you were referring to the topic, namely "Anyone else notice this pattern."

percy writes:
Getting back to the topic, the pattern that you're exhibiting here is another very common one with creationists, failure to perform even a cursory investigation.

Again, here you refer to the topic but take it a bit further. You name this 'pattern' as a "failure to perform even a cursory investigation into your claims (Missler evidence)." Heinrik accepted your definition of the 'pattern' as a fact and felt there was nothing to disagree with. He then asked a very innocent question in regard to their failure in this scientific cursory investigtions.........

heinrik writes:

Do you think creationists are also inept in their own chosen field?

........... meaning exactly what he says. No inuendos. No ambiguous meanings. No disagreement. Just a straight forward question. I think he just forgot to say that he agreed with your factual statement regarding the all important "pattern of creationists."

By the way, I read on another of Heinriks posts that he is not a creationist. Someone said he was 'the devils advocate but lets not bring religion in as well hey?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 01-25-2008 8:42 AM Percy has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 261 of 318 (450989)
01-25-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Taz
01-25-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Not Quite
Taz writes:

If we are talking about swaying public opinion, creationism really has the upper hand in this.

Right, that's the true core of the problem, isn't it. All we have to do to defeat creationism is give a science education to the 99% of the American public that doesn't already have one. Or at least to 50.1%.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Taz, posted 01-25-2008 10:23 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 6:10 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 262 of 318 (450998)
01-25-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by pelican
01-25-2008 12:48 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
quote:
RAHVIN writes:

Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong.


ABSOLUTELY! You got me pegged. I haven't heard of the Goldern Mean fallacy (I will sure as hell look it up, though) but the definition is precise. I love the 'underdog' and I'm a sucker for a cause.
I just figured someone had to do it.

For some reason I still don't get the impression that you're arguing the "underdog" position just so that the Creationists are represented. Do you mean to say you love such "underdog" positions as Flat Earth believers?

This is another very common Creationist position: that every opinion needs to be respected, regardless of its merits or veracity. This is what leads us to the "it's just a theory" and "both sides should be taught, let the kids decide" idiocy.

False opinions, like Flat Earth believers, do not need to be respected. Only their right to beleive in retarded nonsense needs to be respected.

Oh, and the Golden Mean fallacy, also known as the Middle Ground fallacy, invoves taking the middle-ground compromise position between any two sides of any argument, becasue clearly both sides must be the "extreme" positions. It's the argument of the eternal fence-sitter, and the fool who wants all sides to be happy even if one side is simply wrong. An example would be someone who beleives both the Flat Earth "theory" and the fact that the Earth is roughly spherical should be taught in a classroom, so that both sides are represented and happy. The position is fallacious because one side in an argument can simply be wrong, and a compromise is no more accurate. You see this very often from cdesign proponentists.

quote:
rahvin writes:

Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.


Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools? I see that their children would be taught this and it would become fact for them. I see the dilemma. God help us! (Just a bit of irony there)

That is part of the reason sites like this exist, and the reason the Dover trial happened in the first place - religion is fine, until it starts to pretend to be science.

From my personal life experiences in dealing with many problems, I have found the solution cannot be found by looking at the problem. First I identify the problem, (not always easy) then I look elsewhere for a solution that will be for the greater good.

In this case, I see the solution in lightening up a bit. Stop taking the 'hilarious perceptions of scientific information' so seriously. It is the information that you do not need to attack. It's a very simple deduction of a bit of a theory. The information itself is only dangerous if children were to believe it as fact. But this information that some take as fact cannot be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. All you get is green mouldy peanut butter, which is in fact another form of life anyway, so he has actually proved it to be true whilst trying to disprove it. You gotta laugh (literally)

Give 'um enough rope and they'll hang themselves! (Not to be taken literally.)

Oh, I certainly do laugh at them. The peanut butter and bananna videos are pricelessly hillarious. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out their broken logic, misconceptions and outright lies. An ueducated populace that believes in religious dogma in spite of obvious and directly contradictory evidence is worse than any WMD - how many would die if "faith healing" took over instead of actual medicine? I know this is a slippery slope argument, but the dangers of a populace that discounts science becaue "it's just a bunch of theories," has no idea of how to think critically and examine beliefs for veracity, and honestly believes that half of the science they rely on every day is nothing but a bunch of lies and distortions is very, very real.

Look at it this way for a moment. No-one wants to be laughed at, but if when you are laughed at, you are not ridiculed, not ostrasized, don't have something rammed in your head that you cannot understand, are completely accepted for who you are regardless of beliefs, they will simply ask, feeling completely safe, "why are you laughing"? Then they are open and ready to hear you.

They really aren't. The Creationist mindset incorporates a persecution complex - they are taught to expect ridicule and worse in response to their beliefs, and taught that they must ignore all criticism and logic, endure any amount of ridicule or what they perceive as slander and hold to their blind faith at all costs, because everything that disagrees with them is literally a lie of the Devil. That's one of the root causes of the problem. It's usually hopeless trying to convince the Creationist him/herself. The point of the debate is intellectual exercise, and to convince the lurkers and observers who never say a word.

Ridicule has its place, in such examples as the Flying Speaghetty Monster, whose Noodly Majesty was created to illustrate the silliness of YEC beliefs. But you're the only one claiming Creationists cannot understand anything. I think they have the ability, simply not the inclination. They've been told all the "answers" by their religion, and are taught specifically not to examine those beliefs and test them against reality. The reason most Creationists have such a poor writing style and fail to do even the most cursory research is simply intellectual laziness becasue they believe they already know the truth. Is this stupid? Sure. Does it mean they are incapable of anything else? I certainly hope not.

Edited by Rahvin, : Quote fixing.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 12:48 AM pelican has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 263 of 318 (451024)
01-25-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by pelican
01-25-2008 12:43 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
quote:
Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools?

Yes.

Creationists want religious non-science to be taught as though it were science, and there have been several attempts at enacting such educational policies which have ended up in front of the US Supreme Court because this violates the Constitution.

You know, the US is falling behind many other countries in science education, and the vocal and influential religious people who embrace ignorance when it contradicts their religious beliefs have been a large part of the reason for this. They get on school boards.

I mean, when our Republican Presidential candidates were asked to raise their hands when asked if they accepted the Theory of Evolution, several of them didn't.

That's the danger, Heinrik. That someone can get so far along the path to becoming the next President of the United States of America and yet can be so anti-science and ignorant.

Most of the country didn't bat an eye.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 12:43 AM pelican has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by molbiogirl, posted 01-25-2008 6:10 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 264 of 318 (451025)
01-25-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by pelican
01-25-2008 2:29 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
quote:
Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists, as you rightly point out. Creationists cannot prove their case against evolutionists. Both are in the same position. It isn't about who is right and who is wrong because until their is some mutual understanding, this debate will see us all dead and still carry on.

Well, no, that's not true.

Science can certainly provide a strong evidence-based case against the Creationist's claims regarding the natural world. Furthermore, this case is built using methods which anyone, regardless of belief, can use. Scientific methodology works, in other words, regardless of if you believe it works or not.

Just because Creationists refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Just because Creationists refuse to admit their errors doesn't mean they haven't been demonstrated to be in error.

So, I disagree that this debate isn't about who is right and who is wrong.

It is about exactly that.

It is also about the correction of errors and intellectual honesty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:29 AM pelican has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3159 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 265 of 318 (451029)
01-25-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
01-25-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Not Quite
percy writes:

All we have to do to defeat creationism

Oh my god! Is this how we co-exist in the world? What if creationism was 50% true and evolution was 50% true? Neither can totally prove or disprove their claims. Haven't we agreed on that?

Love thine enemies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 01-25-2008 11:52 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Rahvin, posted 01-25-2008 7:27 PM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 268 by tesla, posted 01-25-2008 8:19 PM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 276 by nator, posted 01-26-2008 6:15 PM pelican has responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 266 of 318 (451030)
01-25-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by nator
01-25-2008 5:31 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
You know, the US is falling behind many other countries in science education, and the vocal and influential religious people who embrace ignorance when it contradicts their religious beliefs have been a large part of the reason for this. They get on school boards.

Let me make this clear.

The U.S. is 33rd out of 34 re: belief in evolution as of 2006.

Just above Turkey.

TURKEY.

Just below Cyprus.

CYPRUS.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,555,Unscientific-American-US-Almost-Last-in-Understanding-Evolution,RJ-Eskow-The-Huffington-Post

The U.S. is 24th out of 29 re: science education as of 2004.

Just above Portugal, Greece, Italy, Mexico.

Just below Spain, Hungary, Poland, Luxembourg.

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/mathscience/article-math2.htm

And creos want to shove us further down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by nator, posted 01-25-2008 5:31 PM nator has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 267 of 318 (451048)
01-25-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by pelican
01-25-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Not Quite
Oh my god! Is this how we co-exist in the world? What if creationism was 50% true and evolution was 50% true? Neither can totally prove or disprove their claims. Haven't we agreed on that?

Love thine enemies.

Accuracy is not binary. There are degrees of accuracy. Evolution has proven to be extremely accurate, on a level with the Theory of Gravity.

Creationism isn't accurate at all. It's not even missing the target - it doesn't know what continent the target is on.

The Theory of Evolution will always remain tentative, but because of its proven accuracy, it should be weighted considerably more than something that has the predictive accuracy of a blind man and a dart board on the other end of town.

"Coexistence" is not the problem. Creationists are welcome to beleive whatever they'd like. It's simply not acceptable in science classrooms.

And those who spout falsehoods as truth and make statements about science without even knowing the definitions of the terms they throw around even after being corrected repeatedly deserve whatever mockery they get.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 6:10 PM pelican has not yet responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2231 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 268 of 318 (451055)
01-25-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by pelican
01-25-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Not Quite
Oh my god! Is this how we co-exist in the world? What if creationism was 50% true and evolution was 50% true? Neither can totally prove or disprove their claims. Haven't we agreed on that?

public opinion is that the opinion of the individual is whats important, and the individual opinion is that if your opinion isn't the right one, everyone else are fools.

its really a subconscious thing tho. most are not even aware there doing it.

i once saw a preacher talk about his church recently and said that if a 15 foot angel came down and said be here at church next Sunday and God is coming, that the church would be flooded.

i thought about that..and decided that less than half of anyone seeing that would bother showing up.

it makes m think of a cartoon idea i had, where a tall older looking man with long greying hair and a staff walks up to a man in an office chair and Say's : i am God. the man in the office chair swings around looks at him without much interest and Say's: i don't believe in God. while munching on a sandwich. the two look at each other , the man disinterested and the old man just studiously, then the old man Say's: " oh i get it, you don't exist" and zaps the man out of existence with his staff. the last caption is the old man walking up to another person saying "i am God."

the point is, even if someone was to show people beyond all shadow of a doubt that God is, that Jesus died for you, and even produced scientific proof, and physical proof, it wouldn't matter, because unless they have released some of their dogmatic views of the world, no other view will suffice regardless.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 6:10 PM pelican has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 01-26-2008 6:19 PM tesla has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 269 of 318 (451073)
01-25-2008 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Woodsy
01-25-2008 7:46 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Woodsy responds to me:

quote:
One might say it produced "catchy" tunes.

Yes, but "catchy" is culturally defined. That doesn't mean the definition doesn't exist. It simply means that it is inherently tied to the culture in which it exists. It changes over time as the culture changes. The "catchy tunes" of today don't have any bearing on the "catchy tunes" of yesterday. If you're going to have an automatic creation of music (hello, Mozart!) then you need to define the general shape of what you're looking for first.

quote:
Personally, I expect that these things could be described in an organized way and the description could be verified by observation.

But that's just categorization, not science. Science doesn't make distinctions like "good" or "bad." It can't. What it can tell you is that if you define certain characteristics as "good," then it would seem that this object meets the criteria of what "good" is or what "bad" is.

quote:
There is probably an interesting discussion here, but I suppose it's off-topic for this thread. Pity.

Well, perhaps we should take it somewhere else. It seems to be in the border area between "Is It Science?" and "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Woodsy, posted 01-25-2008 7:46 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 270 of 318 (451075)
01-25-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by pelican
01-24-2008 10:44 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
Heinrik asks:

quote:
Do you think creationists are also inept in their own chosen field?

Yes. If you look at creationist arguments, you will often find they have an "any port in a storm" method of argumentation. That is, they will latch onto any argument they think denies evolution, even if that argument directly contradicts a previous argument they have made. So long as the conclusion of the argument is, "And thus, evolution isn't true," it doesn't matter what the argument actually is. This goes along with a common pattern of being unable to express their thoughts well. Since they don't rightly understand their own argument, since they cannot see how the arguments relate, it is not surprising to see them be unable to articulate it very well.

So yes, creationists are inept in their own chosen field.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:44 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by tesla, posted 01-26-2008 9:07 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 279 by pelican, posted 01-26-2008 6:44 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019