Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'

Worlnetdaily ^ | February 19, 2005 | unattributed

[Ichneumon]

Excellent post!

Do you really think it helps the credibility of you creationists when you say "Excellent post!" to a post full of so many errors, nonsense, and complete falsehoods?

Are you *trying* to reinforce the poor opinion many people already have of conservatives?

You folks are damaging conservatism at least as much as the enviro-wackos, communists, and other nutballs are damaging liberalism.

I ask you to PLEASE reconsider your reckless behavior.

[gimme1ibertee]

Oh,I see...Fishing for a laugh,are we? :P

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I ask you to PLEASE reconsider your reckless behavior.

Thanks for the advice. Have a nice day.

[Ichneumon]

["And can we encourage you to stop posting so much of this manure, so that we can all spend our time doing something more productive than correcting these floods of falsehoods?"]

I don't think that is in the cards. The whole idea is to be more persistent than scientists and hope they get tired and go away. It is much easier to paste the same lies than to do any actual reading or learning.

...and a mere six posts later (from yours), he proved your prediction right by posting page after page of the same old crap, without having done any reading or learning.

And Race, if you're wondering why people come to the conclusion that you're being dishonest instead of just honestly mistaken, it's because of this sort of stuff that you do. It looks way too much like purposeful deception on your part, in an attempt to "win" by sheer volume of nonsense what you can't do by solid argument and evidence.

The fact that you have gone out of your way to dodge questions about your behavior, and dodging rebuttals posted to you, also does much to make you appear dishonest instead of just mistaken. I'd like to believe differently, but until you begin discussing things in an intellectually honest manner, it's quite hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Ichneumon]

[I ask you to PLEASE reconsider your reckless behavior.]

Thanks for the advice. Have a nice day.

Your disregard for the damage you're doing to conservatism is duly noted.

[RaceBannon]

I am not dodging rebuttals like you accuse, I just have too many people that have me on their ping lists, I am being selective. Plus, I have more than 3 people trying to "catch me" in an error.

I have missed a few retorts, I admit, but I tried to make it up with my last lengthy response on C-14.

However, the constant mantra that I am lying is clearly immature on the part of those who throw it out.

If you want to call a theory a lie or fairy tale, that is fair game, but calling people liars, that is a different thing.

And there are two people who continually like to accuse others of being liars when all they do is believe the facts present something different than the other interprets it as.

and I believe I am on the right side of the argument, and that mens I will defend my argument when I can. I dont troll the thread to find easy pickings, either, I am only responding to those who have already responded to me.

Would you like me to start trolling?

I aint got the time! I have homework, too! (night classes, going for an EE. )

[Ichneumon]

Yawn. Just add it to the list, which is already very long.

No it isn't, but thanks for the falsehood. The number of actual frauds in the 140+ year history of evolutionary biology is extremely small. If you can list even ten (out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the field), I'll be amazed.

Speaking of falsehoods, however, let's look at a small sampling of the times that creationists have lied or misrepresented evolutionary biology or the evidence for it:

Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.

This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.

(Quick aside -- Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek, do you condone this behavior of creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)

How many more would you like?

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells, Jody F. Sjogren

Yawn. Read Icons of Evolution FAQs to learn just how badly creationist Wells misrepresents and outright lies about his subject matter. If, of course, you actually want to *learn* about this topic, instead of just reading creationist falsehoods in order to cling to the dogma that evolutionary biology "must" be a house of cards... Are you intellectually honest enough to do so?

The author retraces the reasoning of proponents of evolution from Darwin to the present to show what he sees as their empirically false, and frequently faked conclusions.

No, actually, Wells just lies about most of it. Which is sadly typical for creationists.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/072197-2.shtml EVOLUTION Posted on July 21, 1997

...and the "expert opinion" of a science fiction novelist is worth what, exactly?

The spirit of true science is simply to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not select and twist it to fit any preconceived notions.

Contrary to the misrepresentations by creationists, that *is* exactly how science operates. It's just that the creationists screech like little girls when scientists point out that "following the evidence wherever it leads" is exactly what prompted the development of the field of evolutionary biology. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS. So deal with it.

Isaac Newton didn't have any difficulty reconciling his religion with his science.

That's because fundamentalists don't see any conflict between the laws of motion or calculus, and their preferred religious beliefs. And there isn't any. Evolution, on the other hand, is seen by them as a challenge to their dogma, and thus it Must Be Denied (even though many Christians have no problem reconciling their religion and evolutionary biology, and in fact the MAJORITY of Americans who accept evolution *are* Christians, contrary to the creationist canard that evolution is only promulgated by "God-hating atheists".)

Two books that started me rethinking my ideas on the subject were: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler, 1986) Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson (Regnery Gateway, 1991)

Sigh... Both so severely flawed that I despair of the damage they've done to your knowledge. Yes, I'm serious. Both attack a misrepresented CARTOON VERSION of evolution, not the real thing, and are classic examples of what's known as a fallacious "straw man attack" (like beating up a scarecrow effigy of Arnold Schwarzeneggar instead of the real guy and then declaring "victory").

And I debated evolution with Johnson online back in the early 90's. Not to put too fine a point on it, the guy's an idiot when it comes to evolution. He has an extremely poor understanding of what the field of evolutionary biology *actually* consists of, as well as the evidence it's based on. Instead, he has a very sketchy, mistaken impression of it (probably from reading other creationist twaddle), and his only skill (typical of a lawyer) is being able to *sound* convincing when he tries to give the impression that he actually knows his topic and that the "flaws" he has identified in it are a) valid, and b) honest descriptions of what evolution actually says and the actual state of the evidence. Both are incorrect.

Denton suffers from similar hubris/incompetence.

But don't just take my word for it -- post what you feel is the STRONGEST blow that Johnson and Denton each strike against evolution, and then I'll be glad to show you why and how they're dead wrong (and likely incompetent and/or dishonest to boot).

Or if you want to start learning how badly those gentlemen have misrepresented their source material (all too common among creationists, see my links above), start here:

Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth? Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither science—nor Christian

Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views

Reviews: "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton

DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review

Reviews: Icons Of Evolution by Jonathan Wells

[PatrickHenry]

[Thunderous applause!]

[PatrickHenry]

One of those links, "DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review," will soon find its way into the List-O-Links. It's excellent. (Nothing wrong with the others, but I count on you to haul them out when needed.)

[RaceBannon]

Applying the creationoid standard to Christianity means that every digraced pervert priest, every adulterating, money-laundering televangelist, and every action of fringe Christian cults only mean that Christianity is itself a farce.

Umm, no, Because Christians have a standard to follow, the Bible.

It is when someone doesn't follow the Bible that they can rightly be called a fraud or fake.

It is also possible, I admit, to be a genuine Christian and NOT follow to the letter due to ignorance or intent, but also, according to the Bible, if the person admits it, and returns to the faith, it shows they are human and a sinner...just like the Bible said. It also, I know, this sounds like piling on, but...it also proves the Bible right when it calls all men sinners who are likely to fall if they arent following God as it says.

Evolution on the other hand has no standard to follow that is based on an absolute, except for the statement that EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

There is not one book or thesis that an Evolutionist has to state that is his definition of what is evolution and how it happens and where and why. There is Darwinian evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium, forced because of ecology or simple genetic isolation, and, to the great confusion of both sides, Evolution mixed with Creation as if the two are con-joinable.

Some even believe in Aliens spreading stuff across the universe, and some others believe that microbes on meteors did it.

The Creationist is one who believes it was God and God alone. Someone who calls himself a Creationist and believes evolution happened across phylum boundries either doesnt understnd or agree with all of evolution or doesnt understnad or agreee with what the Bible teaches.

[RaceBannon]

I have never seen a satisfactory reply to this particular accusation of double-standards. In fact I'm not sure that I've even ever seen a creationist attempt to explain why scientific fraud (uncovered by scientists, as usual ) invalidates all of science, yet religious fraud does not weaken religion in the least. While we are about it let us not forget that wonderful fraud, the Turin Shroud (shown to be fraudulent by scientists using C-14 dating, not by the power of prayer; how richly ironic in the context of the current debate)

Because religious fraud can easily be shown to either be in line with what the Bible teaches or against what the Bible teaches.

It is actually easy to explain most religious fraud when compared to the Bible, and most Christians are guilty of something, but in itself, there is a standard to follow, the Bible, while Evolution does not have anythng that is an absolute to follow.

But your comments that proving evolution wrong therefore proves all science wrong, that is a falsehood that no intelligent person engages in, I mean, after all, if it weren't for Bible Believing Christians, you wouldn't have science that we have today, like Newton, Morse, Fulton, George Washington Carver, Farraday, Boyle, Lister...shall I go on?

[RightWingAtheist]

I'm late to this, but I figure that I now have an appropriate reply to Ichneumon's post.

In my opinion, conservatism is currently facing the same crisis it did in the fifties and early sixties, when the John Birch Society threatened its legitimacy as a movement. Part of the problem was at least a result of a liberal media overly eager to paint the opposition as guilty of extremism by association, but there was indeed a genuine threat of total delegitimization of the movement, as many self-proclaimed mainstream conservatism were all to willing to let the Birchers into their ranks, but thanks to the efforts of William F. Buckley and the National Review, the Birchers were purged from their ranks, and the JBS effectively lost all credibility and influence. As it turned out, this was to the betterment of the entire world, as it led to the mainstreaming of conservative ideas in the public consciousness, and the eventual election of Ronald Reagan.

History is now repeating itself, with creationism being regarded as a plank in conservatism not just by its opponents, but by a distressingly high number of its proponents as well. Ichneumon is completely correct and accurate when he says that this is as damaging to conservatism as anti-anti communism has been to liberalism. Creationism not only has nothing to do with conservatism, it is directly opposed to it; conservatism is about the rejection of ideology and idealism, and the acceptance of reality, no matter how uncomfortable that reality may be. At the moment, there is a viewpoint continually being hammered away in the media that conservatism is the opposite of this realist perspective, that it is somehow inherently anti-science and anti-reason. Long after the elections, with its constant reminders of all the Nobel science nominees opposing Bush (even Frank Wilczek felt the need to politicize the award by putting on a Kerry-Edwards button during his press conference), we keep hearing the "Bush and the Republicans are the enemies of science" mantra. Chris Mooney is apparently writing a book on science and the contemporary conservative movement, and you can be certain that it will try to be hatchet job on all of us-and what's worse is that not all of it will be untrue. If conservatism wishes to win future hearts and minds, it will have to look inwards, and admit that there is a problem with creationism, and try to solve it.

So where are the equivalents of National Review and Bill Buckley today, to counteract the creationist cancer eating up conservatism from within? Well, until some magazine devoted to the "Rationalist Right" comes around (I've lost hope in Reason after Virginia Postrel left), Free Republic is taking the place of NR, and the role of William F. Buckley has been taken up by Patrick Henry, Physicist, RadioAstronomer, Ichneumon, Longshadow, Rightwhale, and all the other members of FR's science squad. Not only does a layman such as myself value your input on the science threads, but I salute each and every one of you, for the valiant battle you are fighting for the soul of conservatism. If we beat Dan Rather, than we can beat back the creationists.

[longshadow]

... and the role of William F. Buckley has been taken up by Patrick Henry, Physicist, RadioAstronomer, Ichneumon, Longshadow, Rightwhale, and all the other members of FR's science squad.

I am honored to find my name in the same sentence with ANY of the others; to be included with all of them together is too generous.

The essay as a whole is brilliantly written, and on-point. You have earned the right to have your name aside the rest.

[longshadow]

... and the role of William F. Buckley has been taken up by Patrick Henry, Physicist, RadioAstronomer, Ichneumon, Longshadow, Rightwhale, and all the other members of FR's science squad.

I am honored to find my name in the same sentence with ANY of the others; to be included with all of them together is too generous.

The essay as a whole is brilliantly written, and on-point. You have earned the right to have your name aside the rest.

[RightWingAtheist]

Well, I really don't think I deserve to have my name along the rest (and there are sooo many others I forgot to mention-RightWingProfessor, PiltdownWoman, ExDemMom, Doc30, drammach, snarkswhenbored, etc-sorry if I'm still forgetting any one!), because as a layperson who lacks the detailed background of the ladies and gentlemen mentioned, it's my job mainly to listen to them, and encourage others to try to understand them as well. What's more, I'm in a Social Studies department-communication and rhetoric studies, no less! Don't think they'd want me standing shoulder-to-shoulder to them

[SunkenCiv]

Not a ping, just a GGG update.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Right Wing Professor]

if it weren't for Bible Believing Christians, you wouldn't have science that we have today, like Newton, Morse, Fulton, George Washington Carver, Farraday, Boyle, Lister...shall I go on?

I'll stop you right there; Newton wasn't really a 'Bible-believing Christian'; he was a devout Unitarian who believed the Bible had been corrupted by Trinitarian heresies.

[Ichneumon]

"Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "Teaching evolution is also a religious doctrine", says Mr. Carley, who expressed a desire that this reality continue to be kept secret from the students. Mr. Carley futher reports that it is only Christians who are militant about this subject. "Biology teachers are always a warm, fuzzy, and peaceful people, who never say unkind things about God, Jesus, or Christians", he said.

Carley has said no such thing -- you need to retract this lie. You are bearing false witness. You are telling a lie.

Here's what Carely has *actually* said on the subject:

“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.”

The other parts you "quoted" him as saying were merely a stupid "putting words in his mouth" opinion written by Freeper "gobucks" -- gobucks was expressing his *own* (silly) opinion, and satirically "imagining" a press conference where Carley was speaking what gobucks believes to be the "real truth".

You have twice repeated this "quote" in this thread as if it were an actual, legitimate quote from Carley, when it most certainly is not.

So the only question remains is -- are you bearing false witness out of intentional dishonesty, or because you were too stupid to understand that those "quotes" were bogus?

Are you honorable enough to retract this falsehood? Or will you be like almost every other creationist I have caught posting falsehoods, and fail to acknowledge your sin?

And why do creationists on the whole turn out to be such shameless prevaricators? I really don't get it. I never have.

[jennyp]

Excellent, excellent points.

Don't forget Stultis, our resident historian of the crevo debate. (The one out in the real world, not just FR.)

[RadioAstronomer]

Don't think they'd want me standing shoulder-to-shoulder to them

Wrong!!! I am proud and honored to have you standing shoulder-to-shoulder with me any day of the week. Believe it.