Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
:Placemarker
Right. I'm going to be real gullible about this and take you at your word, and explain to you why it is important if you really want to understand what is going on to read as many of the links on Ichneumon's homepage as you can. Take as long as you need to think about them and digest them, and understand them.
Thing is, most people don't know much about science. So a huckster like Hovind can make convincing stuff up, squirt it out at a rate of 30 seconds/claim, and people who don't know a whole lot about the scientific field that Hovind is talking about think that he is putting up genuine objections to accepted mainstream science, that somehow the rest of the scientists have been too dishonest or stupid to see. Yet somehow even gradeschoolers can understand that Hovind is right and the rest of science is wrong.
I've got a shock coming for you now. Understanding science is hard. Really clever people like Ichneumon and VadeRetro and physicist (I don't include myself at that intellectual level) spend their *whole lives* studying this stuff. To get to a level of understanding where you might be able to contribute something new of any significance typically takes 10 years unless you luck into a new field. To adequately understand the rebutals of much of Hovind's material you need to put a whole lot of work in.
Alternatively you can just turn it into a "my experts versus your experts" debate. Evos aren't too interested in that as a subject, even though the experts who agree with evo outnumber those who don't thousands to one. We agree that the truth of a scientific idea doesn't rest on the number of supporters it has. But most of those who post here on the evo side have a considerable understanding of the science being debated. And it is painfully obvious that most of those who debate against evo have zero understanding of that which they reject.
Hence the endless canards surrounding the word "theory". The endless harping on about the tiny number of frauds and errors associated with evolution over the last 150 years. The endless quoting of scientists out of context to make it seem as if they reject evolution. The endless lists of pre-Darwinian scientists who didn't support evolution. The bizarre nonsense about geology and biology posted by those who have never spent ten minutes studying either subject. Interminable claims that pre-columbian europeans thought the world was flat. Claims that the inability of scientists to make life disproves evolution. Claims that if scientists could make life evolution would be disproved. Claims that there is no evidence for evolution (Ichneumon posted a ton of it, but you justed carried right on posting without pausing to read it. Isn't it more important to post accurately than to post quickly?). Claims that evolution is anti-religion. Claims that evolution is communist. Claims that evolution supports unfettered free-markets. Claims that evolution leads to a collapse in morality... All utterly without foundation.
Notice how much it takes to refute one of my arguments...a zillion words...of mostly extracted copied and modified rubbish. Hey whatever gets you thru the night...
Yep, we all got your answer Eleni. Ichneumon goes to the trouble of carefully providing a detailed point-by-point refutation of lies that you perpetuate and you respond with an airy handwave.
You are utterly without shame, and the evidence is there for all to see.
In simple words for your intellectual highness, (heh), if it's taken this long for the courts to decide the matter, I'd say open your trap when the courts have decided it.
Contention not in evidence.
BTTT
Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Tilton, Kent Hovind et al. You just keep on believing...and they'll keep on fleecing.
P.T. Barnum said one is born every minute. Where do they find the rest of them? Apparently defending the Hovinds of the world.
Sorry, Charlie.. Try again. The Christian Community decried these guys you would categorize Hovind with - when it was found they were in the wrong. I have not seen such a finding of fact in Hovind's case. And it's been how long...
Smells more like smear tactics in avoidance of what he has to say. But then cut and paste monkeys are that way...
I've evolved. The same cannot be said of those who believe that dinosaurs co-existed with man, snakes can talk, virgins give birth, the dead can be resurrected, there is a supreme being who sits around with nothing better to do than answer the prayers of nitwits, or there was a guy who spent three years partying with twelve of his buddies but remained abstinent the whole time.
You know, this "500 theses about Piltdown" lie a few posts up in the thread has reminded me of an FR crevo classic.
Do you remember the guy who had the same bugbear, that somehow Piltdown was a major plank of evolutionary beliefs. In promotion of his belief he posted a list of about 15 scientific papers that cited Piltdown...
Problem was, that when you examined the papers they came up as follows:
The frantic weaseling by the poster when his error was pointed out was wondrous to behold. In an effort to deflect the subject he then posted another list to demonstrate the mendacity/gullibility of paleontologists. This was papers about "Brontosaurus". Naturally enough google was once again his friend (hurrah!), and he managed to find and include in his list, "Bully for Brontosaurus" by Gould.
You forgot about trees with magic fruit, and ancient civilisations building seven-story towers that frightened God.
Thanks for the reminder!
Don't worry, she'll be back. And don't be surprised to see the 500 Piltdown Theses lie repeated as if it had never been debunked. It is the standard MO.
Elsewhere you speak of your "logic". It seems sadly lacking here in your response. I don't think you should believe in evolution just because you have it explained to you what scientists mean when they use the words "fact", "observation", "theory", and "law". The actual evidence that sustains the theory is what counts.
But at least you can stop using the word theory in its non-scientific "wild-assed-guess" sense when referring to the theory of evolution. As in "It is just a theory". Or "your THEORY". Or "Let me know when it has become a law". You are long past the point where such rejoinders have become dishonest. Reject the theory of evolution if you are comfortable rejecting the evidence that sustains it. Equally well it is your right to reject germ theory, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity. But don't pretend that scientific theories are weak wishy-washy things that can be handwaved away because "they are just theories".
I have a dim memory of that thread. The usual range of responses when a creationist's post is clearly shown to be worthless trash is that the creationist will:
1. Run away.In some cases, the creationist's response will be more than one of the above. Note: one option is missing from the above -- the creationist will never support his claims with verifiable evidence.
2. Deny the original post.
3. Dig in a creationist dumpster for similar material, which starts it all over again.
4. Condemn you to hell.
5. Hit the abuse button.
6. Freepmail his insane buddies for backup.
7. Claim victory.
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.