[quote]pushharder wrote:
anonym wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FWIW, TalkOrigins is famously known for being as or more religious in its atheism as any conventional religion ever was. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’d be some burnings at the stake if they could get away with it.
Can you link to the portion of their website where they explicitly state that no information is valid unless it supports what they set out to prove in the first place?
Or, at least provide some evidence for it being “famously known” to the extent where it actually does the above?
Ano, nothing against you personally up to this point on this thread; you’ve been representing your POV civilly. But what you did by misquoting my post was dishonest. You know what you did and everyone reading this does too. Now you go edit your post to include my full quote and then we’ll do business.[/quote]
What’s your full quote? What I have quoted is exactly what is on my screen as you having written.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s what I wrote and here is what is on my screen (I did not edit my post to include this. This was my complete original post):[b]
"If we dug deep enough I have little doubt some TalkOrigins-ers would profess a statement of faith similar to:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Law (sic) of Natural Selection and Evolution. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by infallible people who strikingly do not possess all information."
But they’re real, objective scientists, too." [/b][/quote]
Oh, well that shows as a separate post to me. Fair enough, though.
Well, that was on my screen when I decided to quote you, but I didn’t include it in my original response for two reasons: first, that would require a cut/paste job and I’m tired; and second, I didn’t feel as though it added anything to the post I was quoting to the extent that it would change my response.
But, OK, we can tack that on if you want (though for the record I had nothing sinister in mind by not quoting it). Still - you wrote that TalkOrigins is ‘famous’ for being as or more religious in its atheism as any religion ever was. That’s the part I’m interested in, and that is what I wanted evidence for. You having “little doubt” that somewhere there is a little clause on their website saying “we will ignore all evidence that does not specifically point to what we want” doesn’t make it so.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
First you say it wasn’t there then you confess it was but you purposely omitted it. Which is it?
"If we dug deep enough I have little doubt some TalkOrigins-ers would profess a statement of faith similar to: is the context for the rest of the post. If you can’t understand that you have a problem that I can’t help you with.[/quote]
You said I was misquoting you and demanded that I include your whole quote in my response. I assumed you meant I purposely deleted a portion of the post I clicked to quote, as opposed to not combining two of your separate posts into one.
I don’t see how it changes what I’m asking for, though. If they are ‘famous’ for being zealous in their atheism then you should be able to provide something comparable to the AiG quote without too much trouble. You having [quote]little doubt[/quote] that it exists doesn’t strengthen your assertion at all, in my mind.
But that’s ultimately besides the point - one of the MAJOR websites you cited as being a good source for creationist information has proven itself to have a major, MAJOR bias… they don;t even try to hide it; it’s explicitly stated in their Mission Statement. I would like to hear whether or not you feel we should still consider AiG a trustworthy source of information given that they blatantly state they won’t accept any result that does not match the conclusions they have in mind before doing any experiment/analyzing any data whatsoever.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
anonym wrote:
pushharder wrote:
First you say it wasn’t there then you confess it was but you purposely omitted it. Which is it?
"If we dug deep enough I have little doubt some TalkOrigins-ers would profess a statement of faith similar to: is the context for the rest of the post. If you can’t understand that you have a problem that I can’t help you with.
You said I was misquoting you and demanded that I include your whole quote in my response. I assumed you meant I purposely deleted a portion of the post I clicked to quote, as opposed to not combining two of your separate posts into one.
OK, fair enough. It was a glitch. No hard feelings.
Speaking of glitches have you noticed how you can edit your post (which again I did not do in this case) and it DOES show up only to disappear later? I’ve had this happen numerous times and it is aggravating.
Mods are you reading this? Can LFMatt tackle this question/problem?[/quote]
I noticed it on my last post on the previous page, actually. I added in an ‘edit: blah blah’ that summarizes my post right above this one. Showed up initially, but then disappeared on me. Lucky for you, I checked to see if that happened before accusing you of misquoting
This is something I found amusing: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. Basically, it is a collection of quotes going back to 1825 by scientists who claim that creationism is on the rise and evolution is on its last legs. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
I just thought it was interesting, given that it was mentioned a while back that evolution was bleeding badly and, as I wrote a little earlier, a 1997 Gallup poll showed only 5% of scientists surveyed believed in literal creationism (though many more believed in theistic evolution). I found the poll mentioned here:
but was unable to find it with a quick Google search. I honestly didn’t invest much time in that, but I’ll see if I can tomorrow if it really matters.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ano, nothing against you personally up to this point on this thread; you’ve been representing your POV civilly. But what you did by misquoting my post was dishonest. You know what you did and everyone reading this does too. Now you go edit your post to include my full quote and then we’ll do business.
[/quote]
Without sin, first stone, etc.
Also, you still haven’t grasped what a scientific theory is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would like to hear whether or not you feel we should still consider conventional hardcore evolutionists a trustworthy source of information given that they have been known to blatantly state they won’t accept any result that does not match the conclusions - that evolution is basically a Law of Science and therefore practically irrefutable. They have this in mind before doing any experiment/analyzing any data whatsoever.[/quote]
More gibberish. Any scientist worth his credentials would throw evolution out of the window if you could ACTUALLY disprove it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sarev0k wrote:
One could argue that darwin’s works have even accelerated racial tensions today. Social darwinism is based on the thought of men being born superior to other men. Sound familiar? Darwin was more of a social antagonist than a scientist. If youve ever even read any of darwin’s less popular works, youd realize that he was a huge racist, him and his buddies often referring to black people and other races as less developed and inferior. Thats just WRONG.
On another note, believing in evolution ultimately results in realizing that your existence is pointless.
Just to die and feed the earth? C’mon now.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
– The Descent of Man
How about you go read a book.[/quote]
And this quote explains what? Nothing more than a guy had a lot of time on his hands to sit down and think way to much about peoples “Social Instincts”.
Go read a book? I read ALL of darwins books. The only difference is i read them with objectivity and didn’t just buy whatever the professor was saying
