Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,20:48)|
|Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2011,17:34)|
|Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:46)|
|Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?|
um, you do realize that Creationists accuse scientists of fraud and dishonesty on a regular basis, don't you?
AFAICT, Creationists tend not to explicitly, directly accuse scientists of fraud; the standard schtick (again, AFAICT) is to make some kind of statement or argument which is critically dependent on an unspoken presumption that scientists are frauds. Such as, just to pick a random example, the experiment is designed; therefore, the results are designed. It's not an explicit accusation of malfeasance, so it's not slander, right? Basically, it's the same old 'word magic' bullshit that Creationists indulge in so damn often. I suspect that most Creationists don't even realize what they're doing when they make veiled accusations of fraud/sleaze/turpitude... which is why it can be effective to drag such implicit accusations out into the cold, hard light of day where everybody can clearly see them for what they are.
and force them to actually conduct a dialogue about the paper they are trashing.
Fine, the experiment was designed. What part of the results were designed by the experimenters. Was the final RNA sequence designed? Was each mutation designed? etc. etc.
Hammer them on the science and on their non-answers.
Take everything they say to the next logical conclusion (as Cubist has shown with the roulette wheel).
"Oh, we weren't there so we don't know what happened? By that logic, unless the judge and jury were present at the crime, then no one could be convicted."
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.