You believe what you believe quite strongly, but it is not necessary to attack your opponents in such a sophmoric manner, especially if you are trying to show yourself more learned.
The very title of the thread is sophmoric. The opinions of Scientific American writers and the High Priests and Priestesses of evolution are not the final word on how things came to be.
The fact that a publication such as Scientific American would stoop to such tactics, to say nothing of the tactics of groups such as the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Humanist Association, ACLU, National Science Teachers Association, the American Geological Instutute, the American Chemical Society, the National Educators Association, the American Institute of Biological Sciences and the American Anthropological Association, speaks volumes concerning the motovatations of these adherents to the theory of evolution.
These, and other groups, have been working together through a national "comminucations network" for over 20-years, according to a 1981 article published in Scientific Integrety (Scientific Sophistry might make a better title), by Wayne Moyer, NABT Executive Secretary, to marginalize and demonize Creationists and keep their opinions out of education and the public venues.
The published articles and papers I have collected over that time tell me one of two things. 1) Evolutionists are a collective of control-freaks who cannot tolerate their views being questioned; or, 2) They know their positions are untenable and they are very afraid of having to share the millions of dollars funneled into their research and education programs by governments every year. Perhaps they are a mixture of both.
I was taught long ago that, when seeking the truth concerning a thing, one must be prepared to accept the possibility that one's own theories and beliefs will be called into question. That it is often necessary to cast aside those theories and beliefs from time to time, if truth is what one really seeks.
When I read these creation-evolution threads, I have to wonder, what is it that is being soughtafter.
Such usage may be undiplomatic, but it isn't false.
You believe what you believe quite strongly, but it is not necessary to attack your opponents in such a sophmoric manner, especially if you are trying to show yourself more learned.
Rigidity is believing what you believe despite mountains of contrary evidence. Insisting upon following evidence and logic isn't belief at all but realism.
In short, you should be criticizing medved for posting his indefensible lunacies over and over and over and over in-line on thread after thread after thread. To say we have to simply post our rebuttals every time he posts his junk is to empower him to make every thread about why the Earth having ever orbited Saturn is nonsense, why instantaneous light travel is nonsense, why psychic parrots and recent dinosaurs are nonsense.
He's going to post his crap on every thread because he's a nutcase. Some of us are going to call him on it because he's polluting the discussion in a brazen attempt to make everything about his delusions. You're going to nod your head and tell him what a revolutionary he is because you've got the critical faculties of a bivalve mollusc or you wouldn't be a creationist.
Get used to it.
The very title of the thread is sophmoric. The opinions of Scientific American writers and the High Priests and Priestesses of evolution are not the final word on how things came to be.
The article cites facts. It's not the results of an opinion poll.
The fact that a publication such as Scientific American would stoop to such tactics, to say nothing of the tactics of groups such as the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Humanist Association, ACLU, National Science Teachers Association, the American Geological Instutute, the American Chemical Society, the National Educators Association, the American Institute of Biological Sciences and the American Anthropological Association, speaks volumes concerning the motovatations of these adherents to the theory of evolution.
What tactics? If you mean the word "final," talk to PH. He appended it, not SciAm. If you mean compiling rebuttals to creationist arguments, it seems there is no satisfactory way to make such an answer, including not answering.
If creationism raises its clamor of charges and no one answers: point for creationism. They're trying to ignore you away.
If some few scientists take up the onerous task of researching and rebutting the claims of creationists, they are "zealots." I've seen the TalkOrigins crew, Dawkins, Gould (when he isn't being misquoted to sound like a creationist), and Don Lindsay attacked and their points dismissed ad hominem for exactly the sin of compiling the research of mainstream science and exposing the falsehood of creationsist claims. But if Scientific American publishes a rebuttal of creationist points, now they're "stooping."
The claims of your literature are false. Who is allowed to tell you?
The published articles and papers I have collected over that time tell me one of two things. 1) Evolutionists are a collective of control-freaks who cannot tolerate their views being questioned; or, 2) They know their positions are untenable and they are very afraid of having to share the millions of dollars funneled into their research and education programs by governments every year. Perhaps they are a mixture of both.
In all your long spew, you have not answered a single point raised by Rennie in his article. You have done nothing but assault messengers. All of Rennie's 15 rebuttals are based on hard fact. You are 0 for 15 in addressing them. The charges you raise are hypocritical.