Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

No, it isn't.

Creationism is treated as humbug because it is humbug. I think we have gone through this a lot of times already. It is for this reason that creationists are not considered to be scientists. And anybody who claims to have come to the creationism conclusion through the tools of science is an impostor.

The reason creationists are not treated with respect is exactly because there is balance when judging creationism and the theory of evolution. When analyzing both with the same standards, creationism is humbug while evolution is an actual theory that does predictions, plenty of which have already been confirmed. It is for these reason that creationists are not worthy any more of respect, considering that if they were really into that science thingie they should have moved already, they don't even qualify as trolls anymore nowadays... At least not the funny kind.

it is just about in every thread in which you try to push for the discussion about how 'evolutionists' belittle creationists instead of taking they seriously and thus they are biased or parcial. However, if you were to take creationists seriously, you would HAVE to be biased. It is by an unbiased look that so many people give creationism as much importance as a pool of poo.

This is what I mean when saying that it is not the scientists' fault creationism is humbug.


Yes, I do find it funny you two are so much like each other, yet he is a crazy religious person and you claim to be a member of a crazy anti-religion (among other things) group.

Edit: Replaced BS with humbug.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 08 Feb 2010, 5:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Meh, crazy people often think more than sane people anyway... it is why we are crazy.

No, crazy people are just crazy. There's no correlation between the amount of thought and crazyness.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 08 Feb 2010, 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The difference being that there is a massive inersubjective consensus among the scientific community that young-earth creationists are distorting the evidence.

Have you ceased playing around with linguistic sophistry and empirical distortion to undermine evolutionary biology?

The objection is more along the lines of when YECs (falsely) claim that the evidence better supports creationism than evolution. Either you are assuming that virtually all experts in all relevant fields are complete morons (and just happen to have come to the same wrong answer) or you are assuming that there is a massive anti-Christian conspiracy among a large group of people, many of whom are Christian and most of whom have no particular antipathy towards Christianity. Is there a third alternative I'm missing here?

Oh my. Such bitterness and such ignorance.

Nope. Just like Asperger's stereotypically portrays, it is the act of thinking more, of thinking differently, and of having difficulty properly expressing oneself. It is certainty true that you view yourself as more intelligent and wiser than me of of Adam-anti-um, but that is most likely due to our association with views which you find repulsive. In essence, we are heretics to the views which you accept as absolute truth, and as such we must be lesser beings than yourself.

Do you actually have the faintest idea what the zeitgeist movement is about?

I'm not sure if linguistic drift has fundamentally changed this, but for the longest time "crazy" was associated with psychosis.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Science doesn't need a congress.



Have you ceased the ad hominems and bulverisms?

You know... it is possible that people rudely dismiss your ideas not because they are evil or brainwashed, but because your ideas are self-evident nonsense and people get sick of hearing about them.

Just a thought.

Your way to expose your argument has always been in the form of "there's strong opposition to my argument therefore it must be right". You try to play this card whenever you try, but honestly, I do not think I am the only one who is tired of this foul attempt at gaining legitimacy for something that is far from being legit in its own right just because of the amount of opposition towards it. I mean, it is ridiculous. In a way it is similar to what the zeitgeist nuts say. I wonder what do you think of these guys using your exact same arguments but to prove religion wrong and also to push a lot of other things that I hope we both disagree with.

Yes, I agree. You couldn't have said it better.

As with any controversy, any item of debate which contradicts a notion which one has already concluded or accepted as true is, to them, "self-evident nonsense".

Your way to expose your argument has always been in the form of "there's strong opposition to my argument therefore it must be right". You try to play this card whenever you try, but honestly, I do not think I am the only one who is tired of this foul attempt at gaining legitimacy for something that is far from being legit in its own right just because of the amount of opposition towards it. I mean, it is ridiculous. In a way it is similar to what the zeitgeist nuts say. I wonder what do you think of these guys using your exact same arguments but to prove religion wrong and also to push a lot of other things that I hope we both disagree with.

Yes, I agree. You couldn't have said it better.

When a majority of the people who actually do the science, make the empirical observations, develop the pragmatic applications (antibiotics for evolution), and study the material, it's pretty hard to say the central theory is wrong without a coherent and working alternative.

When someone uses flood geology to mine for oil I will be impressed with their substitute for geology, when someone can use creation science to predict the fossil record I will be impressed with their alternative.



Have you ceased using an outdated and highly oversimplified model of the scientific method? Have you ceased rejecting all progress in the philosophy of science since 1910?