Reply to message 13
By: Fredric Rice
To: Kerry Penny
Re: Creationism vs. Science debates
St: Local
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 6312833a
@REPLY: 1:239/200.0 1138F244
@PID: FM 2.02
LA> As I said, if there was any relevance in your claims then the
LA> evolutionists should have made mince-meat out of the Creationists,
Actually there is little scientific need to debunk Creationists. It is about
as absurd as debunking people who believe geometry doesn't happen or something
equally silly.
LA> in a series of hundreds of debates - specially as the series
LA> of debates progressed. There was no evidence that that was the case.
Creationists... little mindless children, for the most part.
_Every_ debate between Creationists and scientists which were constrained to
the dictates of scientific method have been soundly won by the scientist(s.)
There haven't been a "series of hundreds of debates" as there is nothing to
debate and no one with a real job bothers.
kp> I have never seen a creationist ask to undergo a series of debates
kp> with a scientist (specifically an evolutionary scientist).
They refuse outright when scientists set the rules and locations; that is,
when science is being discussed rather than cultism.
kp> I have heard of many one time only requests,
kp> with the topic to be announced.
What Creationists do is troll for scientists who will agree to 'debate' their
cultism inside of churches or arenas specifically filled by the Creationistly
gullible: Christians. Sadly some scientists, knowing that they have the
truth and science on their side, agree without considering the tactics
employed by the Creationists.
When a scientist agrees to 'debate' a cultist the Creationists responsible for
soliciting his or her participation examines the areas or venue of the
scientist and then searches for Creationists which are well-versed in areas
the scientist is not likely to be well versed. Then the Creationists
carefully steer the 'debate' along the lines the Creationist is well versed
in.
In FidoNet, as you've probably seen, when a Creationist makes the mistake of
opening his yap and uttering some bit of occultism, there is bound to be
someone (or a couple of dozen someones) who is well versed in the subject to
debunk the fool immediately and fully. In this respect the Creationist still
gets to pick the arena for the debate (they walk into SKEPTIC or HolySmoke)
yet they get _soundly_ and _repeatedly_ debunked.
Part of the Creationist dishonesty is to constantly ignore the truth so that
the better educated expend time and resources constantly debunking the
cultist. All a Creationist need to is say, "is not" and the better educated
expend 100 lines showing exactly why "it is so." When that's done, the
Creationist glibly responds, "that's contrary to the second law of
thermodynamics" and the better educated once again expends 100 lines
explaining to the cultist why he's mistaken. This continues and, for every
one-liner the Creationist offers, the better educated busts hirself up
correcting the cultist -- when there is not even any intention of actually
learning anything.
After the better educated explain Brownian Motion, Newton's three laws or
motion, what the thermodynamic laws actually say, what the fossil record
actually records and what it means, what general relativity means for
spectroscopy and beta decay et al. the Creationist is free to start at the top
with an "is not."
Creationists are ideologically constrained to adopt this methodology, to lie,
and to willfully ignore all the scientific evidence. They are also
constrained by their ideologies not to present any honest answers to the
questions which the better educated might ask along the way.
kp> And there has been no "series of hundreds of debates", so I can
kp> only assume you are saying this to mislead the reader.
"Appleon" is a liar. All of this has been explained to him countless times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(48) Wed 12 Jul 95 17:54
By: Ross Sauer
To: Laurie Appleton
Re: Re: Religion, Misc stuff.
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:1691 1eec8ec0
Well, let's get busy here. First, I've noticed you seem so fond of quoting
Gould, but why is Gould so furious at creationists then? Simple. He's fed up
with the way they misquote or take his quotes out of context to make it look
like he supports creationism, when in actuality, in his own words, it is a
"crock of ****" not worth the paper it's written on. Second, perhaps I used a
wrong example when I said that Arcaeopteryx is a featherd dinosaur, what is
agreed on is that Arc. hase bones an of a dinosaur, AND it has functional wings
and is covered with feathers. Is it a direct ancestor of birds? Possibly. It
also might be like what has happened to 90-95the life forms on earth, an
evolutionary dead end that went extinct. (Like mammoths) No, creationism is not
a science, why else do they refuse to submit their "evidence" for review,
correct obvious mistakes like the so-called "human" footprints found in texas
that turned out to be a medium sized carnosaur, or publish pamphlets like
"Bomby the Bombardier Beetle" that are hopelessly inaccurate. In fact, most of
creationist literature is very strongly ANTI-science, and will attack any
theory or scientist not in agreement with a date computed by an Archbishop
during the middle ages, and I'm sure you know how scientifically literate
people were at that time. Creationism is a POLITICAL movement, pretending to be
science. Why else did the supreme court during the '80s rule against ALL "equal
time" laws in those states where they existed? So get your nose out of the
creationist B. S. and go to a REAL library and find some books on fossils,
dinosaurs, and especially books by REAL scientists on what a load of crap
creationism is.
--- FreeMail 1.10 alpha-3
* Origin: Pirate's Cove BBS 414-564-2694 (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 747 835 852 890 943 1326 270/101 280/1 10 31 66 101 103
SEEN-BY: 280/113 333
@PATH: 154/169 22 222 270/101 280/1 102/2 835 943
