RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,11:24   

Dear BJ,  you ask why ID/creationists (IDiota) don't get any respect on science blogs.  Here are some of my observations.

Failure to answer a simple question:  How do you calculate CSI?

Some babble incoherently like Byers.

Some, like FL and IBIG, insist on their literal interpretation of the Bible being the only truth.

The misuse of real science, ie the second theory of thermodynamics.

The mental contortions required to make geology fit a 6000 year old earth with a noachian flood:
    - rocks are not really millions and billions of years old, God just made them look that way to fool us.
    - plate tectonics either doesn't exist or was much faster in the past.
    - claiming there is no place on earth where limestone is forming now so how can we say how long it takes to deposit 6 or 7000 feet of the stuff.
    - claiming the fossil record supports how dead organisms would have been deposited after a world wide flood.  

Quotemining:  The deliberate misquoting of evolution supporting scientists to make it appear that they support ID.  for example Gould, Hawking.  This "lying for Jesus" is especially reprehensible since in the internet age it is very easy to check what the author really said.  

Lying through "cut and paste":  individuals will try to argue their point with articles and links from places like aig or conservapedia without ever checking original sources. This is where you get the "Scientist sez" quotes like " Dr Joe sez chimps and humans are not related" and Dr Joe is a high school educated homeopath in Gunbarrel City, TX.

Deliberate misunderstanding of how science works.  Scientists doing research are constantly producing new data.  This data could be new fossils or mapping of the genome in a new organism or even the discovery of new organisms.  This new data may fit smoothly in the paradigm or be outside the box.  Scientists will argue and test and do more research to see where it fits or it may inspire a new research.  This messy process does not cancel out the value of the conclusions.

Endless repetition of arguments that have been dismissed dozens of times before.  I think the IDiota must have a play book because they argue the same things the same way time after time.  I give Byers credit for being a creative babbler.  

Deliberate "misunderstanding" of scientific terms such as transitional fossils. or misunderstanding common phrases such as Joe's "baseball sized rock" on another thread here.

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (15) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]