Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

reply to post by daskakik

daskakik
Science encourages questioning and challenging the status quo.

That statement is SO out of touch with reality that one has to wonder whether the poster has either completely OD'ed on the Koolaid or is just posting from another planet...

It is well known that Science and education are nothing but huge forms of mind control...

I see your post as another confirmation of this fact.

"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

“Through interviews with representatives from both sides of the debate, Stein found out that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance, according to a news release.

In another case, Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian Theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over”

“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning” said Stein in a news release.

“Scientists are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

Source

reply to post by Murgatroid

Says the guy who buys into the workhorse of population/mind control for the last 2,000 years.

The above Murgatroid post is a great example of creationist claims found here.

Claim CA320:

Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.

-- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

In contrast...

2: Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it.

reply to post by flyingfish


I noticed you passed right over EnochwasRight's post on the first page, which actually had some of the best material to ponder on and debate, from not only a scientific perspective with the videos he posted, but also from a metaphysical perspective with his later conjectures. A shame really, it could have made for an interesting exchange, but you clearly decided to deliberately ignore his post, alas. I'm reminded of your fourth point from your opening post:

flyingfish
4) scientists expect their listeners to think and hear critically, and to know enough about the subject to arrive at the reasoned, valid conclusions.

Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid properly set up debates in front of real scientists.

Which adds a funny sort of irony to the whole situation.

reply to post by Murgatroid


So, you are still repeating the same lies from Expelled over and over . . . continually sticking your fingers in your ears and have yet to refute my pointing out of these lies? This is the second thread you've done so.

I've already posted a pretty detailed answer to the lies contained in that "expelled" nonsense in this
thread at the bottom of page 3.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Expelled makes it sound as if Crocker was immediately removed (expelled, even) from the George Mason University classroom. On the contrary, she completed teaching the course in the normal fashion, even after student complaints and whatever “discipline” followed that meeting with the supervisor. Crocker’s position at George Mason University (GMU) was a non-tenure track contract position in which the employee teaches on a course-by-course basis for a set length of time, with no guarantee of a renewal. Universities commonly use such “contingent faculty”, and, while not being brought back for another term may be the result of inadequate performance, it most commonly is the result of staffing needs: whether or not an individual’s expertise is needed at a particular time, or whether regular faculty can handle the load for the particular semester. Tenured and tenure track faculty make up only 31.9% of university teaching jobs in the United States, so Crocker’s situation was not unusual. In fact, overlapping with her contract at GMU, she held another contract position to teach at Northern Virginia Community College.

Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”, after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation – suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy over intelligent design.

Crocker

In previous threads, I've exposed the agenda of Premise Media and Motive Marketing.

Just because you post the same lies, like a broken record, does not give them any more validity.

reply to post by flyingfish


Not only that, but Murg has been corrected on the fallacious information regarding Crocker contained in Expelled before. Yet, repeats the same lie, over and over.

The only "truth" contained in that film are the participants actual names.

ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by flyingfish

 

I noticed you passed right over EnochwasRight's post on the first page, which actually had some of the best material to ponder on and debate, from not only a scientific perspective with the videos he posted, but also from a metaphysical perspective with his later conjectures. A shame really, it could have made for an interesting exchange, but you clearly decided to deliberately ignore his post, alas. I'm reminded of your fourth point from your opening post:

flyingfish
4) scientists expect their listeners to think and hear critically, and to know enough about the subject to arrive at the reasoned, valid conclusions.

Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid properly set up debates in front of real scientists.

Which adds a funny sort of irony to the whole situation.

If anyone wants to debate EnochwasRight on that subject you can go to his thread Here.

Thanks, but no thanks.

ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by flyingfish

 

I noticed you passed right over EnochwasRight's post on the first page, which actually had some of the best material to ponder on and debate, from not only a scientific perspective with the videos he posted, but also from a metaphysical perspective with his later conjectures. A shame really, it could have made for an interesting exchange, but you clearly decided to deliberately ignore his post, alas. I'm reminded of your fourth point from your opening post:

flyingfish
4) scientists expect their listeners to think and hear critically, and to know enough about the subject to arrive at the reasoned, valid conclusions.

Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid properly set up debates in front of real scientists.

Which adds a funny sort of irony to the whole situation.

Why should he reply? Enoch's post was setup using false claims. He brings up the "digital universe principal" and makes the claim that it's the latest in accepted science... except that it isn't and there is a lot of criticism of the idea by scientists and physicists alike.

Which one of the items in the OP's initial post did being deceitful go into again?

Also - the thread is about dishonest creationist tactics, not digital physics, but Enoch came in and showed off that he has no issues ignoring the topic and trying to derail the thread.

reply to post by flyingfish


I think creationists that try to debate either have wandering mind syndrome (if it doesn't exist I am coining it now) or they purposely bait and switch to derail the conversation. You have seen it before they are trying to do it here. That just can't seem to stay focused on a topic.

As soon as their points are addressed usually more than adequately they switch to something else equally ludicrous but not connected to the topic at hand.

Sometimes it seems like your debating a kid.

Anyway OP good thread. If you have the energy you should fing examples of there tactics ATS is chock full of them. Remember to edit out their names I think that's part of T &C then again you could just post links.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I think the best example of creationists spamming unsubstantiated claims repeatedly in every thread and claiming victory in ignorance would be .....target food.

You all remember target food right lol? Dear god... that went on for almost a year non-stop in every science thread.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

This is simply another anti-Christianity thread thinly disguised with a caveat at the beginning. The OP makes this plain with remarks like "Creationists "debate" because they believe it is "saving souls" from their Hell

Not thinly disguised at all. Using words at their face value I think he eloquently built the case of that "aha" moment when the scales are peeled back from the eyes. Something like I went through when I started questioning my mind as to why I beleived in a world view from abrahamic/baylonian lore turned into a State religion by a dying Roman Empire circa AD 325 at the Council of Nicaea.

My eyes continue to clear when I read threads like

Yahweh = Satan. They have you worshiping evil. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Wertdagf


That's funny you said that because as I was writing my other post that person came to mind on several occasions I had even thought to mention Target Foods.

I once googled it and he spammed it so much it actually came up I think to~~hs folly came up as well.

I wonder what happened to him? There are a couple here who have made me think he signed up under another name.

In the meanwhile, science has learned that both humans and animals are made up of living organisms found in soil life, reinforcing what the Bible has always said about the origins of man.

reply to post by Deetermined


And like certain Creationist Christians - Science continues to deny evidence that we are not of this planet but perhaps Nephilim/Alien hybrids put on earth to worship and mine the Gold for our real rulers. Anomolies are tucked away never to be seen again. Xrissies still refuse to think that they are worshipping a Rome State sanctioned Judaeo created Pauline Religion very far removed from Jesus words

Science is not a belief system.

reply to post by flyingfish


I'm afraid you couldnt be further from the truth. Science is a belief system or perhaps to be clearer the investigation of science currently runs with an agenda, who supplies the teaching grants/jobs. Who supplies the research grants (in pharmacology to a large extent the Pharmacuetical Industry)

Case in point, fluoridation of drinking water, mercury in vaccines,. The pseudoscience of psychiatry (still looking for that ever illusive "disruptive brain chemical" whilst prescribing chemical straight jackets at the behest of the State)
Economists silence as to the true nature of fiat money creation by the Monopolist. Or the Bubbles created by the JPMorgans,

Society cannot function without a spiritual outlet. That is why the State sanctioned major religions play a pivotal role in sharing the spoils with science. Neither dares obliterate the other. They are akin to a fungus that slowly chokes off the hosts ability to remove the veil. For the Host to reclaim its sovereingty as a unique invididual would threaten the charmed and lofty materialstic rewarding position science and religion hold in this pile of SH"IT that the many call "civilized society"

reply to post by Evil_Santa

Evil_Santa
Why should he reply? Enoch's post was setup using false claims. He brings up the "digital universe principal" and makes the claim that it's the latest in accepted science... except that it isn't and there is a lot of criticism of the idea by scientists and physicists alike.

Which one of the items in the OP's initial post did being deceitful go into again?

Also - the thread is about dishonest creationist tactics, not digital physics, but Enoch came in and showed off that he has no issues ignoring the topic and trying to derail the thread.

Of course, it's his prerogative to decide exactly what and to whom he responds to, I just thought it was rather evasive that when somebody brought something forward that had a fair bit of meat to it, it was completely bypassed, when he had taken the time to reply to posts that were somewhat less substantial. Perhaps he's already debated with Enoch though and feels there is nothing else to say, I'm unsure.

Anyway, I do believe in "creationism" as it were, that the universe is structured in a intelligent way, although the form that my belief takes is not dogmatic and is not bound to any particular religion or philosophy, although the material that is known as "The Law of One" forms the basis for my current system of belief paradigms and understanding.

Essentially, in the beginning you have an infinite point of consciousness that decides to fragment itself so it can experience "other than". Some might call this being "god", but I don't like to use that term because the word itself is extremely charged and usually indicates that you and I are separate from this being, but we are not. We are this being, I liken us to the tendrils of a root structure; we appear to be separated, but once you follow the tendrils up, you will see that they are connected to the entirety of the tree. That is a rather simplified explanation, but one I believe to be apt.

reply to post by flyingfish


Looks like your the poor soul this week whom decided to kick the hornets nest.
I applaud you for the bravery. But I must say there are countless others who argue the same things and we all know this fairytale wont end well for anyone.
There's good people on both sides of this argument however you always have a few rotten eggs who play everyone against each other for their own advantages.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

We are in an image: Genesis 1:27 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

That does not negate the proposition that we are merely a dream in Gods slumber.

It is both evident from nature, God's word and science itself

The Gods word that you hold fast is based on babylonian stolen myths reinterpreted through a Jehovah (Mountain god of Sinai) edicts at the rape pillage and genocide by the tribes of David.
Promulgated further at The Council Of Nicaea 325 AD at Constantines request to create a State Sponsored new cult to keep the sheep under Romes rule.

From the holographic universe theory you conveniently ignore or hide the fact that we can effect/change in the "material" world through our mental actions and belief systems. But for you to be honest you would then have to admit that we can create miracles...no God needed. And that then would be witchcraft wouldn't it

reply to post by TarzanBeta

convincing people that God did not create the universe when you can scientifically prove that He did not.

Oh dear, here we go

from wiki
Proving a negative
Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove

Ah lets leave logic at the door.

Create a thread showing how you know something that no other scientist has been able to figure out : "How is it possible that something came from nothing?"

How about you start to prove that the new testament is faithfully translated from primary sources by firstly digging up some hitherto undiscovedred scrolls from the middle east, sit there for the next 20 years translating with citations ...blah blah blah.

Better yet prove to me the Flood in the OT is not stolen from other cultures mythology or that the creation myth is not rendered from the Enuma ELish,


And what about the Lords Prayer
en.wikipedia.org...

Relation to Egyptian Prayer from The Coming Into Day (Book of the Dead)
Parallels in the Lord's Prayer can be found in Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.or that the Lords Prayer

reply to post by TarzanBeta

No, this thread is about your dishonest tactics

And then immediately in your next post

And you probably make more money than me. Such is the way of the lazy self-proclaimed academics these days.

Whats money got to with the op or your response? How about staying on topic

Oh hang on you did exactly the same thing here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

where you spoke in a "KJV" English voice as if to add authority to your ramble trying to justify the Televangelicals call for money to keep them in the Luxury that they have become accustomed to?

What does that make you, a self proclaimed Zealot, Sicarii, Sanhedrin?
Or A Saul converted to Paul (but to all intents and purposes still fundamentally -Saul) on the never ending journey to Damascus

I just dropped something - GRAVITY I am alive - Evolution? Not that simple.

reply to post by MrConspiracy


Heres something simple
The Earth goes around the sun with mathematics to prove it ...Galileo

"It does not" ...The Church...

Galileo is executed...NOT THAT SIMPLE