Arguing with Idiots… Part Deaux (A full-frontal assault on the Temple of Darwin)

Gordon Greene ^ | December 4, 2009 | Gordon Greene

[GL of Sector 2814]

Comeon, admit it, you drink goats bload on halloween and during winter solstace- You probably kick newborn kittens too (but only on days that you’re feelign generous)

Waitaminute, how could you have...

Did I leave my webcam on again?

[Natufian]

Ok, since you don’t have a definition of species (even though you’ve got some very fixed views on what can and can’t happen to species), how about you give us a definition of ‘kind’.

[Stultis]

Wrong.

Possibly. But at least my error stems from acknowledging creationists as conservatives.

So what is the explanation? With respect to creation and evolution in curricula, why do creationists quite generally seek a intellectually relativistic equal time accommodation, the way a liberal would, instead of insisting on a good, old-fashioned intellectual death-match, the way a conservative would?

[Alamo-Girl]

What they propose doesn’t even work under their conditions.

Indeed. And it doesn't go away simply because they refuse to mention it.

[Jaime2099]

"What you are seeing in these recent posts is spill over from Darwin Central.

If anyone wants to know what it’s like over there, that’s it."

They are so condescending, it is disturbing. They say their beliefs are not fact, yet they say Creationists are loony. I'm not sure they even know what a Creationist is, or an Evolutionist for that matter. Some of their beliefs make a mockery of the most sacred text ever written, and they want us to take some phony science research papers at face value and shut up. Where is the logic in their argument? They play a foolish game of what is the definition of is, and it gets really old quick. I'm glad you confront them, but many of them are simply unable to have a civil conversation.

[RegulatorCountry]

Demanding equal representation from a government entity is entirely different from attempting to enforce equal time via government means, upon the private sector.

Both have elements of government censorship, and both attempt to enforce an officially sanctioned viewpoint. In the first example, it’s largely to the exclusion of any alternative. In the second example, it’s requiring private resources be spent, in order to further a point of view that the private sector clearly does not desire to support.

So, you’re misattributing motives, and misplacing the taint of liberalism, here.

[Stultis]

I don't follow what you're saying.

All I know is that I, for instance, as a skeptic of man caused global warming, do NOT want the issue debated pro-forma in curricula. I don't want some namby-pamby, noncommittal, "some scientists believe this, some scientists believe that," issue oriented bull crap.

No. I want the issue fully joined, investigated and debated in science itself, not in secondary science textbooks. And unless and until AGW proponents can decisively answer, in the professional literature, the skeptics' relevant objections; I don't want one, single, solitary damn syllable of what they "believe" printed in a textbook, whether it's "balanced" by a contrary view or not.

[metmom]

They say their beliefs are not fact, yet they say Creationists are loony.

I never could figure out why if they don't know what the truth is themselves, that they think they can tell others that they're wrong. In order to determine if something is wrong, you have to know what is true and have a standard that you know is correct, to which to compare things. That's pretty basic science itself.

Some of their beliefs make a mockery of the most sacred text ever written, and they want us to take some phony science research papers at face value and shut up.

Many of them blow off Scripture as just being written by fallible men, without realizing that what they appeal to in research and peer review, is written by fallible men. They have nothing better to offer in that arena either. The same criticisms they level against others apply to themselves. If Scripture is unreliable for that reason, so is their work, exalted peer review notwithstanding.

Where is the logic in their argument?

There is none. They apply a double standard to EVERYTHING and constantly hold others to standards that they don't apply to themselves.

They play a foolish game of what is the definition of is, and it gets really old quick.

There's nothing harder to pin an evolutionist down on than definitions. They move the goalpost constantly and no matter what you bring to the table, it's not good enough because you're not a *real* scientist. Even if you can prove your point by posting links to other scientists who say the same thing, them they're not reliable or *real* scientists.

Then there's the tactic of them demanding that only scientists can correctly define scientific terms *as scientists use them*, and they reject the commonly held, widely used dictionary definitions. They've gone as far as posting their own definitions on FR. Then they can act like a secret little boys club; they snicker and roll their eyes about how stupid and ignorant others are because others don't know what they're talking about.

After demanding the right to define their own terms and tell others that they have no business doing it for them, they then turn around and demand to define everyone else's terms, including religious and theological ones. Well if it's the prerogative of the people within a field to define their own terms, that means that creationists and IDers are to be the ones to define what *creationism* and *ID* mean that they need to accept it and shut up about it.

The funny thing about that is, in so many cases the accusation of not knowing science and not being a real scientist is made by an evolution hobbyist. Some of the most vocal FRevos have neither a degree in science nor work in a scientific field and yet lecture others constantly about that which they know nothing about.

Their position is inconsistent to the core. The games FRevos play. And then they wonder why people aren't sucked into their little games.

[metmom]

Let's try this again......

It’s clear to me — even if they don’t admit it to themselves — that most creationists know deep down that evolution is in fact a strong theory, and creationism a weak one.”

Bzzzttttt....

Wrong.

[metmom]

With respect to creation and evolution in curricula, why do creationists quite generally seek a intellectually relativistic equal time accommodation, the way a liberal would, instead of insisting on a good, old-fashioned intellectual death-match, the way a conservative would?

Since we're now on the topic, probably because the liberal/atheist element has used the force of the government to squash that. The liberal/atheists don't even seek an equal time accommodation. It's not even all or nothing. It's all for them and nothing for everybody else.

Apparently, using litigation is the only thing they understand.

And sadly, this is supported by more FRevos than one would like to see on a conservative forum.

[Alamo-Girl]

They apply a double standard to EVERYTHING and constantly hold others to standards that they don't apply to themselves.

We should be pointing out each incident of a double standard so Lurkers will be aware when the debate has been "weighted."

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!

[CottShop]

[[I never could figure out why if they don’t know what the truth is themselves, that they think they can tell others that they’re wrong. In order to determine if something is wrong, you have to know what is true and have a standard that you know is correct, to which to compare things. That’s pretty basic science itself.]]

It’s because they have no solid foundation like objective truth upon which to make any sound objective determinations on- when everythign is subjective, the ‘facts’ can and very often do, change with hte winds. The TRUTH of the bible isn’t even enough for htem to base anythign on because nothign in the bible to them is true- it’s just a collection of ‘good stories’ that they think are menat to be nothign more than a general guide which folks can use to develop their own set of ‘moralities’ by.

[[Then there’s the tactic of them demanding that only scientists can correctly define scientific terms *as scientists use them*, and they reject the commonly held, widely used dictionary definitions.]]

Again- there are no absolutes with htese folks- anythign can mean anythign they like- whether the evidence refutes what they claim or not- when the evidence refutes their claims, they simpyl turn meanings on it’s head, and demand that everyone else do the same or else they’ll be ‘unscientific’.

[[After demanding the right to define their own terms and tell others that they have no business doing it for them, ]]

And that’s exactly what htese ‘self-professed “Christians’ in the evo camps do- they demand the right to ‘interpret the bible the way they see fit’ saying ‘noone has a monopoly on bible interpretations’, and despite hte fact that the very bible itself refutes their claims, they insist that those who beleive God’s word are ‘anrrow minded bigots’. I’m afraid there’s gonna be one heck of a rude awakening for these folks some day

[[Their position is inconsistent to the core. The games FRevos play. And then they wonder why people aren’t sucked into their little games.]]

Yep- they are so insecure in their unbeleif, that htey feel the need to suck as many true Christians into their pit- misery loves company, and they crave the approval of htose who stand for hte truth, and by golly if they run into uncompromising Christians, then al lhell breaks loose. They’ve neither fully committed to either atheism or true Christianity, but want to be ‘liked’ by both camps at the same time- at least true atheists are ‘secure’ enough in their committment not to be twofaced about hteir decision

[metmom]

And that’s exactly what htese ‘self-professed “Christians’ in the evo camps do- they demand the right to ‘interpret the bible the way they see fit’ saying ‘noone has a monopoly on bible interpretations’, and despite hte fact that the very bible itself refutes their claims, they insist that those who beleive God’s word are ‘anrrow minded bigots’.

And after saying ‘noone has a monopoly on bible interpretations’, they act like they do by proceeding to tell us that we're wrong.

[GodGunsGuts]

I would say post and walk away from the usual suspects. But every so often a genuine evo or agnostic shows up, and the conversation can be quite pleasant. They are few and far between, but it does happen from time to time. What blows my hair back is the number of hits creation posts get (usually anywhere from 1000 to 5000 views). I trust the Lord the someone, somewhere is having his or her eyes opened by them. Having said that, I would like to encourage you to keep writing and posting on FR, you are an EXCELLENT writer, and you have an uncanny ability to mix some much needed levity amongst your otherwise heavy topics.

All the best—GGG

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

In order to determine if something is wrong, you have to know what is true and have a standard that you know is correct, to which to compare things.

I've always thought that was one of your sillier arguments. Several experiments proved that life doesn't spontaneously generate in rotting meat--in other words, that theory was wrong--but not because they discovered what was right.

[betty boop]

Many of them blow off Scripture as just being written by fallible men, without realizing that what they appeal to in research and peer review, is written by fallible men. They have nothing better to offer in that arena either. The same criticisms they level against others apply to themselves. If Scripture is unreliable for that reason, so is their work, exalted peer review notwithstanding.

Simply outstanding metmom!!! Thank you so much for this penetrating essay/post!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

This is fascinating because creationists, generally being conservative, tend to hold EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE view wrt to every other subject.

Good post on the subject. The related issue that fascinates me is that conservatives, or what I always thought of as conservatives, generally value hard work, learning, and the resulting expertise over feel-good ideas. They rightly question the economic ideas of a president who's never run a business. But in this particular field, all that is out the window. Scientists worked for 17 years on the Ardi fossils before saying anything, but an Internet poster can decide, based on some photos, that they're wrong, and we're supposed to pay attention because they have the right religious beliefs. In this field, all of a sudden, it's like we're supposed to take the Holiday Inn ads seriously.

[metmom]

That’s because the truth is, is that it takes life to generate life.

[Agamemnon]

Where is the logic in their argument?.... There is none. They apply a double standard to EVERYTHING and constantly hold others to standards that they don't apply to themselves.

And that is the reason I have said for years that evolutionists resemble the liberals that we as true conservatives despise, and it is just one of the evidences that evolutionists share little to nothing in common with what inspired the founders of our nation.

Double standards are for liberals. Judeo-Christian Conservative principles are the standards against which conservatives are willing to be measured because they are based in Truth.

As shown with the global warming frauds, evolutionary "peer-review" is merely "science" accomplished in pursuit of a politically motivated consensus. That is why they have often and openly declared on these threads that the study of science has nothing to do with "truth" and that science doesn't "prove" anything.

Is mathematics not the purest of sciences? Mathematics is chock full of formally termed and mathematically demonstrable "proofs." Statistical measures form confidence intervals of probabilities of certainties. The most precise stistically derived certainties are those which are obtained within the most narrowly defined intervals or "goal posts".

As with the general concept of truth, in math there are absolutes together with perfect concepts of right and wrong. Sure there's theoretical postulates one can make about theoretical subsets of applied mathematics in theoretical contexts. In these concepts, however, that which is bedrock mathematical truth is often "bent-to-fit" some theoretical concept. In that it resides outside the concept of mathematical truth, it remains merely theoretical. But math calculated correctly obtains only right answers and identifies quite plainly what are wrong answers.

When evolutionist "materialistas" say science can't prove anything, they have clearly divorced their study of science from mathematical certainties, because they want to shift the goal posts and measures on a whim to suit their self-important self-enlightenment, not to seek after nor to affirm what is true.

That way it's "science" because "peer-review" says it's science, not necessarily that the study of science was based in fact, or in anything more than than fraudulent contrivances and modeling techniques some fallible or even purposefully less-than truthful "scientist" imagined.

What's worse in the case of AGW is that it is now abundantly evident that they committed fraud for monetary gain, sacrificed what they knew to be true for monetray gain, and lied openly for monetary gain and "OBJECTIVE" PEER-REVIEW LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT... AND IT DID SO REPEATEDLY!!

By that measure they are left as dumbfounded as was Pilate as he stared at Truth incarnate and could only mutter, "What is Truth?"

"Peer review," became a conspiracy to obscure truth in AGW, even as it has been a conspiracy for many years to hide truth and ignore competing evidence against materialistic evolution.

My point is: Liberals do that. Not conservatives.

I counter what is a patently liberal manifestation of philosophy in science with the following maxim:

"The study of science absent the search for truth is no study of science at all."

FReegards!