This message is one example of cogently formulated messages in this thread airing what discourages creationist participation in the debates on this board.
quote: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.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
because Bolder-dash hasn't the slightest clue how the scientific community works as demonstrated perfectly in that post. Rather than deserving accolades, this post deserves scorn for once again putting forth the absolute lie that science is a "good-old-boys club" keeping the upstart opposition down.
Science works through evidence and reproducibility. The highest honors in the scientific field come from proving the existing paradigm to be wrong, not from publishing just another paper that says the same old thing - the precise opposite behavior that Bolder-dash describes.
I know you really want to think that Creation Scientists and others are just being held down by "the man." I know you watched Ben Stein's abomination "Expelled" and nodded to every single word.
But you're wrong. Bolder-dash is wrong. The claims he makes and you support are lies, they are contradictions to easily produced facts, they do not in any way reflect reality outside of your hopelessly misguided minds.
This isn't a PotM. It's just another PRATT.
Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden content. this is meant to be a positive thread, not a place to rebut or editorialise.
Since I was the target of the post in question I will forgo the opportunity to describe my revulsion to this nomination.
Let me just point out that the quality of the two posts now nominated differ considerably in both intellectual content and effectiveness. Juxtaposing the two shows well the proper debating style and considered presentation of the former, with the self-serving, inane, asinine, scatter shot bullshit of the latter.
Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden. Let's try and keep this thread positive.
Note: As always, this is not a thread for debates. Posts should be limited to nomination, seconds, and acceptance statements by nominees.
No "I'm opposed to that nomination" messages.
Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.
Percy, at "My HUGE problem with creationist thinking"
Author: Percy Forum: Education and Creation/Evolution Thread: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking Message #: 100
At least one other person gave it a "5", prior to me.
As I type this, there are 6 replies to a Mazzy message. Percy's is by far the best of them. Maybe a little snarky, but the snark was done eloquently. The other 5 messages range from OK to pretty crappy.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Re: Percy, at "My HUGE problem with creationist thinking"
At least one other person gave it a "5", prior to me.
That was me.
I am not sure if I would second this nomination, though. But then I am left with the fact that Percy's posts are frequently eloquent and pertinent in equal measure - but this often goes unacknowledged.
I think I'll say "Thirded!", which is then dependant on someone else saying "Seconded!"...
It is a bit rare when we see a creationist presented with a good argument, and then accept that argument. While not necessarily posts of great ingenuity, Chuck77 is showing a lot of honesty and character that is refreshing in message 236 and 237.If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson