RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: What makes Creation web sites useless?, I would like an intelligent answer< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,16:08   

So there's a situation.
But this is just the sort of wingnut that needs to meet Paley and dave and all our buddies. In a veritable torrent of double- and triple-posted drivel on PT, he ("Your Competition," long ago improved to "Young Creationist") demanded:
Quote
Let me ask you something…you like to sit there and laugh and say Creation web sites are “useless.” What makes them useless? I would like an intelligent answer to this.

Solid AtBC material, I figger. Heyeck, Imantuligibent answers is our specimified thingy, rahght?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,20:26   

I think the fellow just misunderstood what was meant by "useless".

as examples of honest, rational though, they are completely useless; actually beyond that into the realm of detrimental.

as examples of psychological maladies, they serve as invaluable point sources of evidence.

AIG is a literal font of both humor and insanity.

just like UD.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,23:37   

personally, i think what makes them useless is the fact that anybody can understand them.
What i mean by that is when people provide links to back up their arguments (such as they are) the creationist sites are like baby talk -if you can understand the bible you can understand these websites.
Actual science sites take some real effort to understand, if you are not familiar with the field. And the depth of material available means that you can quickly get in over your head and not understand a word (and tens of thousands of scientists working for millions of hours make alot of words!;).
Real research papers dont couch things in baby talk for non-specialists. Whereas creationist websites, even when talking about real hard science read like a 15 year olds essay.
So, creationist sites are fantastic if you want to preach to the converted in baby talk, but to everybody else they are just playing at science and not even trying very hard at that usually ("the bible says" is not a scientific argument).

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:36   

I'm always impressed with the amount of bibliography and reference that a creationist paper will use.  A two-page presentation about the age of the earth may have over thirty references posted.  I think this is supposed to give an air of respectability to the paper to show that the author is well read and done full research into the subject (that they are butcherring).  

My 10 year old is making bibliographies in her reports at school.  Can she file a report with AIG or ICR because of the breadth and depth of her referencing? ;)

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:20   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,08:36)
I think this is supposed to give an air of respectability to the paper to show that the author is well read and done full research into the subject (that they are butcherring).

It reminds me of this, from George Orwell:
Quote
Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Just substitute "Religious" for "Political."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2006,12:33   

Quote
What makes them useless?


Their creators, oddly enough.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2006,04:42   

I regard creationist sites as the churches of the web. Their utility is the same as brick-and-mortar churches - to reinforce beliefs reality does not, provide a sense of community, and solicit funding.

Now, are brick-and-mortar churches "useful"? I'm sure a psychologist would think so.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2006,05:03   

Well...brick and mortar churches are at least often aesthetically pleasing.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2006,05:38   

Quote (thurdl01 @ Oct. 12 2006,10:03)
Well...brick and mortar churches are at least often aesthetically pleasing.

On a more practical note. In the UK, churches are also normally a very good source of local history. Usually containing records of births, deaths and marriage. Sometimes going back to C1,000 years.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2006,08:21   

Granted, creationist websites have adopted the Winston Smith school of writing history.

  
  9 replies since Sep. 22 2006,16:08 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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