Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I have seen this argument used. Most commonly when the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method.
2. In your most condescending tone respond to the un-washed using demeaning phases like "you obviously are not up to speed on blah blah" or "anyone who ever studied 8th grade blah blah should know that", etc.
This argument is also used, usually when the poster throws in a comment that a bright and reasonably well-educated 12 year old would see through. You aren't doing badly so far.
3. If the un-washed dares to continue the futile inquiry, simply respond with a terse, "The theory never said that" or "what is your source for that misguided statement".
Not bad. This is quite a good response to people who think that the theory of evolution is about morality, the existence of a deity, or abiogenesis.
4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provacateer and others.
Don't get that one I'm afraid. Typically I'd much rather discourage the provocateur (excellent use of language BTW) by showing them where their ideas are misguided. These are open forums that anyone is free to join, and there never seems to be any shortage of creationist posters backing each other up, curiously even when the more bizarre strictures of Leviticus are endorsed in public.
5. Make cute little insulting comments on the open forum to your pinger buddies so the unwashed can see how clever you are behind their backs.
You're losing it now. "open forum", and "behind their backs"? You're getting more incoherent, I'm afraid.
6. If an un-washed requests sources. Send them a link which contains no useful information, but does allow them to easily purchase books authored by you and your buddies.
I'd be real interested if you can provide five citations of that ever happening on FR. Hell I'll be real interested if you can provide one, as actually you've just made that one up because you were struggling to extend your list once you'd got past the descriptions of reasonable behaviour on the part of evos.
7. Are they still out there? If so it's time to impress them with all the letters you have following your name and all the places you went to school. Challenge them to attend 14 years of grad school so they can be as smart and broke as you are. That should convince them.
You are continuing to struggle here. I've never seen any evo on here try to impress with the letters after their name. On the contrary that particular argument is occasionally used as a proxy by the creationist, as in, "My uncle/friend/neighbour is a real smart top scientist with a ton of letters after his name and loads of peer reviewed publications and he says, 'Evolution is bunk'". Curiously the uncles/friends/neighbours never appear to post here themselves to explain why they think evolution is bunk. It is true that to understand the details of evolutionary biology you'll need to put a few years of study in. The idea that somehow those who haven't studied it can see grade-school objections that haven't occurred to those who have studied it is frankly just risible.
8. For the really difficult cases just to prove how smart you are and how dumb they are, without responding to their inquiries or arguments, start listing all the words they misspell.
Argumentum ad mis-spelling is used by both sides. From where I'm standing most of you seem to have difficulty with the Queen's English. ;)
9. If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proven you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error. Challenge the grammar and intellect of the un-washed. Try to convince them that if they weren't so dumb and illiterate they would have phased the question properly. Upon understanding the issue you would have obviuosly provided them proper enlightenment.
Please provide examples of evolutionists actively ducking an issue where they were in error by attacking intellect or grammar. Be specific, explain what error the evo was ducking.
10. And finally, remember how we handle issues of discord in our peer reviews and seminars. When a collegue dares to challenge your findings (like that would ever happen) start sounding righteoulsy indignant and throw some swear words and bad names their way. And make sure your pinger buddies throw some in as well.
I'm sure you can provide lots of examples of evos swearing at creationists. Tell you what, for each one of those you provide I'll provide you with an example of a creationist threatening evos with eternal damnation. I'll have an easier time finding my cites than you'll have finding yours.
A man should wash himself and take a meal before riding to court, even if he is not too well clad. No man should be ashamed of his shoes or trousers or of his horse either, though he has not a good one. Havamal v.61
Most ancient civilisations were beside the sea or great rivers. To these people their local areas *were* the whole world. When you read the Old Testament for example you don't get any sense of a world outside a small area in the Middle East. If you cannot see why such cultures would have folk-tales about devastating floods in the past that killed nearly everybody "in the world" then you need to talk to the citizens of New Orleans. Imagine the stories that would be told a hundred years later about Hurricane Katrina in a pre-literacy S Louisiana culture with no flood-defences to speak of.
If you think that there is any evidence for a global flood then you need to talk to some geologists. They went looking for the evidence in the 18th Century, as geology became better understood. They found none, and no-one has found any since. Our modern understanding of geology is used by mineral and petroleum companies when searching for deposits. Those companies follow the money. If flood geology predicted anything in any useful way those companies would employ flood geologists, not conventional ones.
Amongst the things you need to explain if you want to sustain flood geology is angular unconformities. These make perfect sense with conventional geology, and none at all with flood geology.
Evolved, huh.. Hatred based on ignorance isn't an evolved position, it is quite the opposite. When pressed to show that you know anything of your subject, you hide your ignorance behind a swatting at another subject of which you are also apparently ignorant. What kind of person does that?
You would attack Hovind for not knowing anything etc.. Not having established that in any way, it appears that is exactly what you have done - not what he has done. What kind of person does that?
I can answer the question; but, I leave it to you. Perhaps there is enough humanity left in your "evolved" self to still experience shame for your actions.
I'll quote a crushing passage from it, for those who can't be bothered to follow the link...
"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him. " "
Placemarker
POP "Tagline"
This is grand entertainment.
Went to bed early last night and now I'm just buried. But it's funny stuff.
Two can play at that game. I can cite scientific theory that says bleeding a patient removes bad blood and cures the patient.
So what if you can cite myths from different cultures. Those myths may embody a great deal of truth. Most myths are not based on fiction, they are based on an element of fact that is attempted to be explained in light of the belief system of the culture from whence the "myth" comes. In that case, the individual "myth"s are not the issue - the common thread of truth is the issue. That is just plain and obvious unless you don't want to deal with the central point.. that of a flood.
For most, a flood means there is a God who can and will judge this planet. What does a child do when scared? Covers it's eyes and pulls the blanket over it's head to hide itself from what it fears... The blanket vanquishes the closet monster as it were.. But in truth, were there a closet monster, the blanket is no defense and the child is doomed. Yet, you pull a blanket of willful ignorance over your head to hide from your closet monster - God.
And you want to burn nincompoopish, gullible simppletons at the stake. I hate to think what you'd have done to the Three Stooges.
PH could fake Hovind. I don't think Hovind could fake PH.
Really? "Scientific theory" as in (a) explains past observations (b) makes successful predictions of future observations and (c) there are potential observations that would falsify it (that haven't been made so it is still a theory, and not a failed hypothesis). I'd love to see your cite for that.
See #1003.
For most, a flood means there is a God who can and will judge this planet. What does a child do when scared? Covers it's eyes and pulls the blanket over it's head to hide itself from what it fears... The blanket vanquishes the closet monster as it were.. But in truth, were there a closet monster, the blanket is no defense and the child is doomed. Yet, you pull a blanket of willful ignorance over your head to hide from your closet monster - God.
And yet many devout people see no physical evidence for a global flood, and abundant physical evidence that falsifies a global flood. Are they hiding from God too?
The one who makes the claim, must prove it.
I won't hold my breathe waiting for this ... but I did get a good laugh out of it. The haughty arrogance displayed here no longer amazes me. It's par for the course.
Truly, a wasted life.
</internet idiot mode>
You have to go back in history and read - it was actual practice.. lol
I stand by my statement.
I'm well aware that "bleeding" was actual practice. I was taking issue with your assertion that it was a scientific theory.
Rhetorical body-swerve placemarker
My calculations were in serious error. It appears it required 10^25 cc of water to flood the Earth - still an incredible number that would require much of the oxygen boung in minerals to be converted to water.
In addition, to flood the Earth in 40 days and 40 nights, it would take 6 inches per minute of rainfall. 12 inches per hour is considered a deluge. (of course there's the minor problem that each inch of rain increases the Earth's diameter requiring even more to keep up the rate).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.