Reply to message 13 By: Fredric Rice To: Kerry Penny Re: Creationism vs. Science debates S

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank