Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: What makes Creation web sites useless? started by C.J.O'Brien
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on 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:
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?
Posted by: Ichthyic on 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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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).
Posted by: Mike PSS on 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?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 23 2006,05:20