The Ignorance of Creationists

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Why didn't I use the link you provided? Because the link you posted didn't contain the full quote. It removes that this is a reference to the words of another or that the discussion is about Nile archeology.

and all I was doing with Wiki was reading further down and posting the facts that are often overlooked, that radiometric dating is inaccurate.

No, you cited a snippet from wiki that references the need to calibrate radiocarbon dating and then skipped over how that calibration corrects for possible inaccuracies. It is not inaccurate.

I'd like to ask how the need for calibration of carbon-14 dating shows that carbon-14 dating is inaccurate. Also, why aren't you looking into how you were off by a factor of 10 on the scale of carbon-14 effectiveness? You said it's only good to 5000 years ago, yet it's good to 60,000 years ago.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
manipulation of data and truth is one thing we ignorant Creationists are quite used to by now I might add...

Academic Palgiarism

You'd imagine so after years of Hovind seminars

he has some interesting points that he is quite adamant about, I somehow can understand why

Let's not go into Hovind, there's already dozen of sources out there that clearly debunk his...how can I put this delicately...BAT # CRAZY IDEAS

Loved one of his interviews at a creationist museum where you saw people roam around with dinosaurs in a diorama. It felt a bit like Disneyland's "It's a small world" ride, totally surreal










It's rare to find someone who's so incredibly wrong the second he opens his mouth

What's on earth is this about?

The Black Book


...somehow I'd felt some deep truth in this site

Any suggestion??? tksss

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ah, the ExtantDodos, such a great job they do. I could have simply created a thread called "The Ignorance of Kent Hovind" and simply went: WATCH THESE VIDEOS, then linked to the videos you provided on top of the entirety of their work debunking his claims.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Ah, the ExtantDodos, such a great job they do. I could have simply created a thread called "The Ignorance of Kent Hovind" and simply went: WATCH THESE VIDEOS, then linked to the videos you provided on top of the entirety of their work debunking his claims.

Pretty much...but we all know you love typing

Originally posted by leeangqi
The Black Book

What's on earth is this about?

...somehow I'd felt some truth deep in this site

Any suggestion??? tksss

edit on 30-1-2011 by leeangqi because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by leeangqi because: (no reason given)

I'd start by noticing that nothing on that site is backed up by credible evidence and then go from there...and with "go from there" I mean find a more informative website

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Why didn't I use the link you provided? Because the link you posted didn't contain the full quote. It removes that this is a reference to the words of another or that the discussion is about Nile archeology.

and all I was doing with Wiki was reading further down and posting the facts that are often overlooked, that radiometric dating is inaccurate.

No, you cited a snippet from wiki that references the need to calibrate radiocarbon dating and then skipped over how that calibration corrects for possible inaccuracies. It is not inaccurate.

I'd like to ask how the need for calibration of carbon-14 dating shows that carbon-14 dating is inaccurate. Also, why aren't you looking into how you were off by a factor of 10 on the scale of carbon-14 effectiveness? You said it's only good to 5000 years ago, yet it's good to 60,000 years ago.

so in fact I was not... what you call it... "quote-mining" then correct ? if you have issues with the comment I posted then take it up with the site owner in the link I provided.

My selection of the quoted text is exactly how it appears on the site which I provided the link. It also served its purpose well for the point I was trying to make and about how science alot of times fudges data so some can win their meal, it does not matter if the quote was made about Nile archeology, instead what matters is that the comment was made... and I don't even want to bring up Piltdown Man supporting my statements.

your "quote-mining" attack on me was only an attempt to discredit established fact, but in turn only made yourself look (how should I say) rather desperate.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I never accused you of quote mining (except in the wikipedia instance), I accused the reference of being a quote mine. An individual can unknowingly cite a quote mine, it happens quite often.

My selection of the quoted text is exactly how it appears on the site which I provided the link.

Which is why I provided you with a counter-link to the original text. In fact, if you had bothered to visit the link I provided, it discusses the evolution of this particular quote-mine and actually gathers the 'intermediate stage' from the site you provided. I never accused you of anything, I did accuse the source of something.

The quote is still dishonestly edited. It removes all context. It's a reference to Egyptology.

It also served its purpose well for the point I was trying to make and about how science alot of times fudges data so some can win their meal,

Except that is not what the quote states. It's about

it does not matter if the quote was made about Nile archeology, instead what matters is that the comment was made...

It actually does matter. It's talking about a practice that is found in a certain portion of archeology, and it doesn't even make reference to specific events. It talks about a general attitude. Unfortunately it doesn't contain any references, so it's anecdotal at best. Of course, that doesn't seem to matter to you. Why haven't you bothered with providing a single reference to an event where someone actually fudged data on purpose and was discovered by someone other than honest colleagues reviewing the work.

and I don't even want to bring up Piltdown Man supporting my statements.

Don't, as it was not a fraud made to support evolutionary theory and was actually viewed with skepticism by many immediately and was then debunked by evolutionary biologists.

See how quickly I rebutted ol' Pilty? I've heard it far too many times to even bother with anything longer than that.

your "quote-mining" attack on me was only an attempt to discredit established fact,

I'm sorry, but an off-hand anecdote and your own personal bias doesn't make something established fact. Please demonstrate where the science of radiometric dating is flawed.

but in turn only made yourself look (how should I say) rather desperate.

No, it made me realize that you were being deceived by deceptive editing. You also deceptively left out information about calibration methods. And finally you took a single off-hand anecdote as enough evidence to simply state that we can chuck out radiometric dating.

Please, provide some substance to your arguments.

Creationists are still reusing old arguments, misrepresenting what evolution is and isn't, and just generally displaying a total lack of understanding of general areas of science. So I'm just going to bump this thread right here.

reply to post by TechUnique


This is awesome, your side of the argument gets totally ripped apart and you come back to say that you no longer wish to debate the theory because all your doing is banging heads and not getting anywhere. From where I sit it’s because basically that’s all you’ve got is circular reasoning.

If you follow a book written two thousand years ago over hundreds of years by different people and their different accounts of stories handed down by their forefathers and plagiarized to suit the needs of the rulers of the time, as the word of some manmade god you’re the ignorant one , actually if you think about that fact even the bible has evolved which should be a slap in the face to creationist, their own book “evolved” laughing my butt off right now about that.

Your presentation sucks, as does your condescending attitude. I (used to ) Know people like you that think they are a 'special snowflake, above all the rules, and superior to the unwashed mouth breathing masses. I don't even have time for you, thus this is short. Dust to dust.

reply to post by Plotus

Originally posted by Plotus
Your presentation sucks, as does your condescending attitude.

I'm merely stating facts. Creationists, even those who should know better, repeatedly demonstrate ignorance of basic science. Either they're ignorant or they know better and are lying.

I (used to ) Know people like you that think they are a 'special snowflake, above all the rules, and superior to the unwashed mouth breathing masses.

What? I'm sorry, but you must be reading the wrong thread. I'm not above any rules and I'm not superior to anyway unwashed masses. Creationists just don't know science or they're just not showing that they do. They're uninformed about something...and I'm uninformed about plenty of things as well.

I don't even have time for you, thus this is short. Dust to dust.

So you just popped in hear to insult me? Classy.

Er... Madnessinmysoul?

You do realize that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, right?

And either way yo really are going about this the wrong way, try the "friendly guy who happens to be and Atheist" routine. You're an Atheist, right?

Originally posted by Cuppy
Er... Madnessinmysoul?

You do realize that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, right?

And either way yo really are going about this the wrong way, try the "friendly guy who happens to be and Atheist" routine. You're an Atheist, right?

Well, biblical creationism is...and so is Muslim and Hindu creationism

As for being friendly, sure...but it's not easy if some people bring up the same flawed creationist arguments over and over again. Like the one where they claim scientists say it all happened "by chance", when in reality, they're saying natural forces are responsible for it.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Details, Please.

reply to post by Cuppy

Originally posted by Cuppy
Er... Madnessinmysoul?

You do realize that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, right?

Well, I know that there's a creationism spectrum and that it does allow for evolution past a certain point on that spectrum. Of course, the majority of people who identify as 'creationists' fall in the part of the spectrum that does not allow for evolution.

And either way yo really are going about this the wrong way, try the "friendly guy who happens to be and Atheist" routine. You're an Atheist, right?

Um...it has nothing to do with my atheism. I thought creationists were ignorant when I was a Catholic. Creationists are ignorant of science, it's just something that I've found generally true on here. They regularly demonstrate their ignorance.

Whether it's the claim that Einstein's relativity is unproven or that there is geologic evidence for a Biblical flood, they say things that are simply untrue and show an ignorance that can often be traced to specific creationist websites.

reply to post by Cuppy


A suggestion for some details would be to sort the threads in this sub-forum by either post count or flag count and read over the repetition of false arguments from creationists between those threads...and then notice how often people like MrXYZ or myself repeatedly have to refute those arguments, often multiple times in the same thread.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Well, I know that there's a creationism spectrum and that it does allow for evolution past a certain point on that spectrum. Of course, the majority of people who identify as 'creationists' fall in the part of the spectrum that does not allow for evolution.

Um...it has nothing to do with my atheism. I thought creationists were ignorant when I was a Catholic. Creationists are ignorant of science, it's just something that I've found generally true on here. They regularly demonstrate their ignorance.

Whether it's the claim that Einstein's relativity is unproven or that there is geologic evidence for a Biblical flood, they say things that are simply untrue and show an ignorance that can often be traced to specific creationist websites.

But you keep saying "Creationists are ignorant", this is covering all Creationists and is simply rude and unneeded. You have proven the opinions of others that you're just being sarcastic and smarmy. (no, not the exact words).

Come on man, just try to avoid starting # like this, otherwise you look like a troll.

Originally posted by Cuppy
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Details, Please.

They all claim humans just popped up in their current form...we KNOW that's not what happened. Furthermore, they also make a ton of hogwash claims like global floods, or that the sun was created after the earth, or other similar nonsense.

reply to post by Cuppy


Well...I'd have to say that all creationists are in fact ignorant. All people are ignorant. Of course, what I had exactly said is (emphasis added):

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, I'd like to actually call into question the amount of education and research that the majority of creationists on here have with regard to the sciences.

I'm talking about the majority of creationists that post on ATS, not all creationists.