Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
59 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,101 Year: 4,213/6,534 Month: 427/900 Week: 133/150 Day: 3/23 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   June, 2011, Posts of the Month
Inactive Member

Message 6 of 26 (618870)
06-06-2011 6:45 PM

Bolderdash Boldly Blasts Board Bias
Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?
Message 167

This message is one example of cogently formulated messages in this thread airing what discourages creationist participation in the debates on this board.

I can give you plenty of examples of scientists studying evolution who WANT to find particular conclusions.
That is all you are doing when you pick out some creationist website and try to show that they have an agenda, and then use that to paint every objection to evolution as having an agenda. If PZ Myers makes comments about needing to reaffirm his atheism, does that mean all of science therefore has an agenda?

When Michael Behe says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Simon Conway Morris says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Michael Denton says its wrong... When a thousand other scientists say it's wrong, why must we look for a motivation for their saying its wrong-unless you are also going to look for a motivation every time a scientists says its right?

If those saying it is wrong are in the minority, so what? That's not very surprising at all. The majority of astronomers looking for alien life believe in alien life. the majority of shark researchers like sharks.

Anyone who is honest knows that the scientific community is an old boy kind of network. Counter theories are not giving the same access to resources as the paradigm. Atheists have also be shown to be very afraid or at least antagonistic towards those of faith, Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers..should I continue?

So you claim intellectual dishonesty, and I also claim intellectual dishonesty on your side. Do you have the moral superiority? Does Wikipedia have the moral superiority when they intentionally censor the truth and bias all information on their site. Do Universities have the moral superiority when they banish scientists with opposing viewpoints? If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. What they can show in a lab, and what they actually can only speculate about because they don't have true answers. The more your side fights transparency, the more obvious it is that it is they who are not operating in an honest fashion.

You can get down off your moral high horse, because you were never on it to begin with.

The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 06-06-2011 6:55 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 7:16 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 9 by Panda, posted 06-06-2011 7:46 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022