Replies

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.

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!

[[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

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.

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!

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!

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.

The difference is that no one claims infallibility for science. (Well, maybe a few do, like Dawkins, but mostly not, and not here.) That's why peer review exists--to check one another's work. Who checks the work of translators who, we are told, were guided by the hand of God?

Looking at Job 40:17, the verse that's supposed to be about a dinosaur, I see the familiar "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." And also "It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The ligaments of its thighs are intertwined." But also "He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together." So is the tail stiff or swaying? Is it even a "tail" at all, or another appendage? And is the second sentence about leg muscles or something associated with that other appendage? What process is there for deciding which of those translations was guided by the hand of God?

A word about definitions:
Commonly accepted understandings of the meanings of words and this usage allows speakers of a particular language to communicate one to another. Dictionaries serve as a reference for the broadly accepted meanings, what interests most of us.

To claim a special meaning or usage for a word simply because one chooses to apply it in a certain way is the kind of linguistic destruction described by Orwell. If I hold up two fingers and demand that all agree with my saying it is to be called three or four fingers then it becomes impossible for us to discuss numbers at all.

Further if my usage becomes a jargon understood and used only by a rather small coterie its as though they speak a different, isolating language.

This isn't a matter of one person having a larger vocabulary but with meanings of words. If I use a word in a way not typical to my audience then I'm responsible to define exactly what I mean, that is if I wish to be be understood. Demanding that my reader or listener play detective with my usage of words just won't do.

True, certain disciplines have their own vocabularies, a jargon, but that is not the same as assigning an arbitrary meaning to words.
Take the much bandied about “species”. If one is of the Biblical “creationist” view then species will likely be used in the broad sense of being able to reproduce, interbreed, whether with help or on the animal's own, a kind, a common group.

If one is a Darwinist then Wikipedia will provide a dozen different definitions, take your pick.

A dictionary might simply say a class of things with common attributes and name. But what attributes?
Recently a large number of dinosaur “species” disappeared when it was realized they were only already existing animals in a different stage of growth.

Species is the eye of the beholder.