Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[oldcats]

But he makes it sooo easy not to ignore him! LOL
Oldcats

[Kyrie]

JediGirl is expressing an opinion that medved's repost has been previously debunked and represents junk science. That's an opinion. It is very different from saying that "scientists agree that early earth atmosphere was not composed of hydrogen, ammonia and methane."

And her opinion appears to continue along the lines that if an idea has been refuted, it should not be repeated. One of the ideas in her posted article was clear that one should never quote an authority without being able to "explain the logic and science behind one's argument." Intellectual integrity would then suggest that she should be able to explain the logic and science behind any argument she makes, otherwise she should clip that part out of the article if she ever posts it again. Otherwise she is making the Medved mistake.

It is true that in this thread she has not championed radiometric dating. But I would expect her to use it in an argument against a creationist. Would she hold herself to the standards given in this article she has posted? Apparently she supports holding creationists to this standard...

Likewise, you appear to hold some sort of opinion concerning the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating. What your opinion is, I have no idea.

My opinion is simply this: if you agree with the article JediGirl posted, you must never use a radiometric dating argument in polite company unless you can "explain the logic and science behind" all of the math involved. If you don't see the need to do this with your arguments, then you don't believe the article. If we don't believe the article, it is as one of Medved's and ought to be treated as such. If JediGirl posts things like that often, she is as Medved. Well, maybe we'll cut her more slack. But let's be honest with ourselves, okay?

I chose radiometric dating as an example for three reasons

1. I thought there was a high probability that JediGirl would subscribe to radiometric dating. Perhaps she could verify this...
2. If not JediGirl, many who post to these threads in opposition to creationists have already used radiometric dating arguments. Correct?
3. Radiometric dating arguments are based on mathematical formulas that most people get from textbooks without understanding why the formulas are the way they are. That is, why is an exponential function used in the formula rather than, say, a logistic function? Even those who have seen the derivation of the formula from differential equations may not be aware of the probabilistic assumptions underlying them. Or they may not be aware of why it is considered reasonable that these assumptions would hold for radioactive decay. This type of ignorance is precisely what the author of this article was denouncing when it manifested itself in creationists. Shall we have a double standard?

[BMCDA]

I know, I know ;-D
Though I'm wise enough to know that ignoring him is a good idea, sometimes I'm also foolish enough to disregard this wisdom and reply to his convoluted posts nonetheless.

[oldcats]

Guess we all have to have our vices. LOL
Oldcats

[medved]

Why not have one of your alter-egos (piltdown_woman...) spam it for you? You could claim innocence.

If I were to spam these threads like you spam these threads, why would I have to "claim innocence"? Are you admitting that the kind of spamming you do here is wrong?

Are you admitting to using more than one identity on this forum?

I mean, I never felt I needed more than one voice on any one forum myself.

Basically, I figure I've done a fairly good job of condensing a number of fairly unanswerable arguments against evolution into a fairly short and readable package and I figure I'm doing a kind of community service in posting it around enough that anybody reading one of these threads for the first time has a good chance of seeing it. That gets these arguments out into the public arena and public hands and I'm convince that THAT, and not having to spend an extra third of a second scrolling once in a while is the reason I see the continual crybaby act from you and a halfdozen others.

Tell you what: If you think I'm committing some kind of abuse here, all you need to do is hit the abuse button and, if the FR moderator(s) tell me to stop it, I'll stop it with a smile on my face. But don't expect me to stop it on your orders.

[jennyp]

Tell you what: If you think I'm committing some kind of abuse here, all you need to do is hit the abuse button and, if the FR moderator(s) tell me to stop it, I'll stop it with a smile on my face. But don't expect me to stop it on your orders.

Done:

Oh Most Benevolent & Merciful Moderator, We need some guidance here. As you can see, in the last 8 days medved has spammed these threads with identical copies of his two big essays, "God hates IDIOTS, too!" and "Some useful references". A couple times he's even spammed them twice in one day.

Several of us have asked medved to post his essays as a vanity post once and for all, and then he can link back to them whenever he wants to advertise his masterpieces. But he shrugs off our requests and keeps on spamming. (See this thread for a sample of people's frustration & his attitude.)

So the question is: Is the kind of spamming medved does consistent with the FR posting guidelines? If not, could you please tell him to cool it with the spam? (Nobody wants medved banned - we think he just needs some counseling on FR etiquette.)

Thread	"God hates IDIOTS, too!" 3 1/2 pages, 11 kb	"Some useful references" 2 1/2 pages, 8 kb
Not-So-Intelligent Design	201 posted on 3/5/02 6:08 AM Pacific by medved	202 posted on 3/5/02 6:11 AM Pacific by medved
A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]	221 posted on 3/5/02 10:08 PM Pacific by medved
A Second Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]		21 posted on 3/6/02 6:03 AM Pacific by medved
Dinosaur With Mature Feathers Uncovered in China	95 posted on 3/6/02 6:29 PM Pacific by medved
Design vs. evolution discussion Monday	11 posted on 3/8/02 4:13 PM Pacific by medved	12 posted on 3/8/02 4:15 PM Pacific by medved
Panel weighs science-standard bill (Evolution v. Intelligent Design)	18 posted on 3/8/02 4:21 PM Pacific by medved	19 posted on 3/8/02 4:22 PM Pacific by medved
Common Creationist Arguments	165 posted on 3/9/02 10:08 AM Pacific by medved	166 posted on 3/9/02 10:09 AM Pacific by medved
Creation vs evolution in England state school	14 posted on 3/9/02 10:19 AM Pacific by medved	15 posted on 3/9/02 10:20 AM Pacific by medved
Fundamentalists re-create Eden, with dinosaurs	100 posted on 3/10/02 7:47 AM Pacific by medved
How Evolution Monkeys with Duplicate Genes	128 posted on 3/12/02 7:07 PM Pacific by medved	129 posted on 3/12/02 7:08 PM Pacific by medved
Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience	46 posted on 3/13/02 10:18 AM Pacific by medved	47 posted on 3/13/02 10:20 AM Pacific by medved

[Junior]

But don't expect me to stop it on your orders.

A request is not an order. Nobody is ordering you to do anything, we simply want you to exhibit a little consideration for the rest of us. By creating your own thread and linking to it, you are not "giving in" you are simply showing that you are an adult with a modicum of empathy for the rest of the folks on these threads.

[VadeRetro]

Another key phrase, "DE-EVOLVED." Saved threads on my HD link to:

2/21/2001.

2/28/2001.

3/29/2001.

6/14/2001.

6/15/2001.

These are just threads I saved for other reasons. Sometime last summer I stopped saving threads, period. I hope nevertheless that this gives some idea of the ridiculous number of ASCII Spliffords in the FR archives.

[TomB]

Perhaps in the future when medved spams another thread, instead of linking to the same old refutations over and over, you could just link back to the picture in post 177. The fact that he sees "rows of structures" in that picture discredits him more than anything else you could post.

[VadeRetro]

Settlements on Mars! And they have pictures.

(Well, did you really expect their houses to look like ours?) ;>

[TomB]

Well, did you really expect their houses to look like ours?

No. But I did expect them to look like, well, something.

[PatrickHenry]

Bless you, jenny! This is long overdue. Now we're all waiting for some freeping justice around here. Medved needs some gentle counseling from the management.

[VadeRetro]

Some of your links are crossed. The "Panel weighs science-standard bill (Evolution v. Intelligent Design)" link actually points to the "Dinosaur with Mature Feathers" thread and thus misses the medved posts.

[VadeRetro]

"Fundamentalists re-create Eden, with dinosaurs" also has a problem (wrong thread).

[PatrickHenry]

A few bad links are nothing. If the management can do the equivelant of a "self search" on medved, and get "full text", it will probably blow their server out. Medved's probably posted his spam stuff at least a hundred times a month.

[medved]

A few bad links are nothing. If the management can do the equivelant of a "self search" on medved, and get "full text", it will probably blow their server out.

Maybe in 1955 or 56...

Since you seem oblivious to this kind of reality, allow me to explain it to you. An 80 GB hard disk on today's market is basically a $100 item. By way of contrast, the bible, both testaments, is about 4.5 megabytes, War and Peace is about 4 mb, and all of Shakespear's plays and sonnets together is about 6.5 mb. All the spamming I could conceivably do over the next five years, even accepting the wrong notion that what you refer to as spamming is spamming, would probably cost less than one dollar in disk space.

[PatrickHenry]

All the spamming I could conceivably do over the next five years, even accepting the wrong notion that what you refer to as spamming is spamming, would probably cost less than one dollar in disk space.

Not much of a defense, is it? But don't tell it to me, explain it to the management. Perhaps they'll be sympathetic.

[medved]

"Fundamentalists re-create Eden, with dinosaurs" also has a problem...

Only problem I noticed there was the conduct of one person using the pename "VadeRetro. Not exactly what I'd call major abuse, but not what I'd call gentlemanly behavior or reasonable debate tactics either. This is the thing where from about post 203 to about 225 Retro first claims to have demolished the point I make about Venus' albedo and links an earlier post supposedly supporting the claim and then, half a page later with his position completely in tatters, rather than the retraction or apology which one would anticipate from a gentleman, he reverts to smear mode and links in the standard talk.origins banishing-ritual page for yours truly, saying something like "For all lurkers, I may not be able to make my case on this one but here is a total refutation of everything the other guy ever had to say about anything in life, and it must be true since it's on the www."

Pretty sorry act.

[VadeRetro]

Perhaps you mistook my announcement to refer to your point about Venus's albedo when it referred to your point about Venus, i.e, Velikovskianism. All I ever say or have said about the albedo is that by focusing on it you're ignoring that your theory is dead, dead, dead from being ridiculous to begin with.

[jennyp]

Some of your links are crossed.

Darn! I could only search back 8 days, and the link at the bottom of a post that points to the post itself only gives a relative (anchor tag) link. So I had to add the full url manually. Version 1.1 should have, ah, not so may bugs...