Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

reply to post by 1104light


Why wait? According to creationists personal revelation is just as important as anything science uses to justify its theories.

It might be highly improbable for a world to exist without it being filled with reptile infiltrators trying to murder you. How can we explain amino acids and gravity without reptile infiltrators trying to kill us? How could a universe without reptile infiltrators be so perfectly designed. Are these characteristics of the universe not some of the very fingerprints that one would expect to find in a universe that is designed by reptile infiltrators who want to murder you?


Therefore reptile infiltrators must be trying to kill you. See what an airtight and non ignorance dependent argument this is?

/sarcasm

Wertdagf
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

The crux of the argument, which uses applied statistical analysis to test a null hypothesis that there is a high degree of probability, with a high degree of certainty, that a Universe hospitable to life should come about, is a testable hypothesis. The method is to identify the critical variables implicit in the scientific theory of cosmogenesis, estimate the probability of their co-occurance and a degree of uncertainty, and compare the results with the null hypothesis that it is highly probable for a Universe hospitable to life to emerge from the events described by Sciences cosmogenesis

You cannot make claims about probability until you have another example of a universe to work with. Simply stating "We don't know the probability, therefore god" gets us no closer to any answers and claiming the universe needs a beginning and your god doesn't is dishonest at best.

You remind me of William Lane Craig if your interested you should check out his debate with Sam Harris.

edit on 17-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

I appreciate the informed reply. I concede it is ultimately impossible to know the number of these critical factors, or the probability of each, because we are neither able to observe or measure the state of this hypothetical singularity. Consequently I concede that discussing the matter with any degree of certitude is vanity at best. By the same reasoning, because of our inherent ignorance about the initial state of the Universe, it is reasonable to dismiss the accepted scientific theory of cosmogenesis.

I still believe that the appearance of design pervasive throughout the Universe remains cause to reject a theory of cosmogenesis and biogenesis by purely naturalistic means.

solomons path
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

The ever-tiresome "eugenics from evolution" claim . . . yawn and refuted many times over and long ago.

Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).

Darwin has no link to Marx . . .
As far as Huxley is concerned, Evolutionary Theory is based on evidence, not the opinions of men. After all most white supremacists claim to be "good Christians" . . . what does that say about your Christ?

Your claims are decades old and tiresome:
Evolution and Ethics

edit on 9/17/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

time will tell. im done here.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


So your doing the intellectually honest thing and admitting you doubt the existence of your creator?

See you in hell.

Wait.. wasn't that the entire foundation for your tirade? Did you just admit to argument from ignorance and a dishonest appeal to probability?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


You just said you cannot follow these things without absolute proof but then went on to say that a guess that some magic man did it all works for you. Huh?

reply to post by 1104light


Seems intentionally dishonest doesn't it?

At least in the end he admitted to doubting his god.

mrphilosophias
The first quote you cited is from one of my introductory paragraphs and is comprised of notions that I will be exploring and establishing throughout the work of the essay, which I do.

Doesn't matter where it happens. The definition of the fallacy actually indicates that it is a conclusion placed up front.

Please demonstrate my use of fallacy,

Already done but you refuse to accept it. Not wasting my time when others have already identified them and a couple have already been pointed out.

Wertdagf
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

So your doing the intellectually honest thing and admitting you doubt the existence of your creator?

See you in hell.

Wait.. wasn't that the entire foundation for your tirade? Did you just admit to argument from ignorance and a dishonest appeal to probability?

edit on 17-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

This isn't something that happens everyday:

I've gotten my opponent in debate to concede the counter point that defeats the logic of his own argument about "Dishonest Creationist Tactics". It's right here on record you said I'm being an honest "creationist", though I'm not sure I'd concede my veracity so easily.

Wertdagf I'm not sure if this is supposed to be the thread called a demonstration of irony, or if you're new to this whole intellectual discourse thing, but your not supposed to defeat yourself. Not only did you contradict the thread title and the premise of your argument by admitting my honesty but you also provided the counter-example by which I petition for this thread to be called "The Intellectual Dishonesty of Nihlists a demonstration of irony."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration 1: The Intellectual Dishonesty of Nihlists

Wertdagf
So your doing the intellectually honest thing and admitting you doubt the existence of your creator?

@Wertdagf. Prove the argument wrong.
I admitted this thing v you are intellectually dishonest
I never admitted this thing
:.
you are intellectually dishonest

The onus is on you. It is evident for all to see who is dishonest here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration 2: Irony

Wertdagf
Did you just admit to argument from ignorance and a dishonest appeal to probability?

See Demonstration 1
To answer your question-no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration 3: Futility

mrphilosophias
it seems evidently so that unless science has created some sort of Einstein-Rosen bridge that allows them to closely observe the origins of the Universe from a space and time far removed from the origins of the Universe, then it would seem that this is a matter that science is unable to answer with any degree of certainty. Why is this a question that science is unable to answer? By it's own criterion it is beyond the scope of science to make predictions, hypothesis, experiment, and reach conclusions, if the matter in question is unobservable and/or immeasurable.

[edit]sarcasm: it would have to be an interdimensional Einstein-Rosen bridge[/edit]

mrphilosophias
The singularity that preceded the Universe, its rapid expansion, and inflation into the Universe that we wonder upon today is not able to be observed, and therefore these scientific theories are highly speculative to say the least. Even still science does offer us a story about where the Universe came from and how it unfolded and developed over time, and it does so with an air of confidence unfitting to mortal creatures. Science makes the argument that upon a framework of accepted laws and theorems derived from what we can observe, it is possible to extrapolate to that which can not be directly observed, and as such it is possible to test hypothesis and reach conclusions.

I would challenge this premise on the grounds that it is impossible to extrapolate with any degree of certainty from what we know about the Universe here and now, as if it is necessarily applicable to the Universe there and then

mrphilosophias
Must we attempt to flesh out some equation by which we can calculate the probability that all the requisite conditions for this Universe to exist should coincide? This would be a futile endeavor no doubt, as it seems at first glance that its measure would be multiplied by an infinite degree of uncertainty, for objectivity sake.

Wertdagf
Did you just admit to argument from ignorance and a dishonest appeal to probability?

@Wertdagf. No, I'm pretty sure that I made my ignorance clear from the start.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I did admit was this:

mrphilosophiasI concede it is ultimately impossible to know the number of these critical factors, or the probability of each, because we are neither able to observe or measure the state of this hypothetical singularity. Consequently I concede that discussing the matter with any degree of certitude is vanity at best. By the same reasoning, because of our inherent ignorance about the initial state of the Universe, it is reasonable to dismiss the accepted scientific theory of cosmogenesis.

I still believe that the appearance of design pervasive throughout the Universe remains cause to reject a theory of cosmogenesis and biogenesis by purely naturalistic means.

SEE BOLD

Would someone be so kind as to remind me, what is the name of this thread again?

mrphilosophias
I've gotten my opponent in debate to concede the counter point that defeats the logic of his own argument about "Dishonest Creationist Tactics". It's right here on record you said I'm being an honest "creationist".

Fantastic, you pose as an "honest creationist" so that when someone types it down you can respond as if this somehow proves your point. Is this dishonest tactic supposed to disprove the argument about "Dishonest Creationist Tactics"?

And then you even do an end zone dance. What a joke.

Who created the universe? - the creator
Who created the creator? - none, he always existed

hmmm Why do we need an intermediate?

Who created the universe? none, it always existed, it is just going through changes
Maybe bing bang was just a super massive supernova in an infinite universe we haven't discover yet.

Imo Life isn't a design, it's a law... one of many laws of physics that apply everywhere in cosmology and goes hand in hand with existence.
Maybe white holes or pulsars or extragalactic jets, generate ''waves'', that produces the structure of molecule shapes, dna, etc in a ''sacred geometry'' way. Just like the salt or sand or fluids change paterns with sound vibartion.

I may be wrong, But I find it much more logical and possible than an invisible man in the sky, who existed in the absolute ''emptyness'' and after infinite time of existence he felt like creating the universe one awkward moment.

Although creation says he created earth (flat surface) and heavens above. doesn't mention anything about earths round shape, galaxies, universe or that the stars are actually ''suns'' like ur sol.

The primitive, naive desert people who wrote ''creation'' didn't know all this, but the ultimate power almighty God who created everything would have told them, don't you think? - If he was real...

His attitude stade the same when he just stared and watched his children torturing and killing in his name Galileo and many others that dared to think logical and explore cosmos, science and nature. instead of just the holy writings.

Today, they (Church) have invented ''symbolism'' in the words of the bilble (that has been changed and processed countless times) , just to fit in modern society, rediculous stories like Noahs ark, Adams apple, Babels tower etc

Sorry if I have offended anyone, I just can't find any logic at all, in any religion

reply to post by Dr1Akula


Nice post!

Just one thing...

Maybe bing bang was just a super massive supernova

I've heard stories..

reply to post by Wertdagf

Why is it religious people bring up naziism and hitler when the guy was a devot catholic and even painted a pictures of mary and baby jesus? If your wondering where people got the idea to ruthlessly murder and enslave, look no further than the old testament.

If you look at my previous posts leading up to mentioning Hitler you would have seen how I mentioned that the Eugenics agenda of Bertrand Russell led to the thinking of rationalizing wiping out the "undesirables"
This is what happens with science, used as an excuse in the absence of ethics/morals.


BTW I am not a religionist, xristian, scientist,new-ager or philosopher.

Someone earlier (not you) tried to associate my posts or position as condoning or ignoring the Old Testament genocides of the Hebrews


reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight
from ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
"Associating Eugenics and Nazism with Evolution (or in your case Science) is another dishonest (and in my view quite despicable) tactic. "

well lets ponder further if modern day religion or modern science emphasizes such views...

In “The Impact of Science on Society” Russell writes “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority

"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
- Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.Go ahead and be my guest, use science to defend the above

"There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important."
- Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
-
Professor Richard Dawkins

"Problem-makers reproduce in greater percentage than problem-solvers, and in so doing cause the decline of civilization… In short, if capable, intelligent people had most babies, society would see its problems and solve them."
- Dr Elmer Pendell, (Socialogist) from Sex Versus Civilization, 1967

Please feel free to add recent eugenics quotes from any modern day equivalent Pope, Archbishop or Rabiis.

I am amazed at responses that quote the bible. The assumption is this ancient tome, written in the Bronze age when the world was flat, can be used to substantiate the origins of the universe is astounding. Why get involved in a scientific debate and use a badly-written book, with equally bad characters (even those who have heard the "voice of god" to direct them to kill their own child ), as a foundation for ANY argument? Take the Noah's Ark fairy tale-why no animals from Australia? Because the authors knew nothing of that continent.

To legislate/mandate schools to teach alternate methods of the origins of the universe, one which includes religious "science" is child abuse. It's just like believing in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny is setting kids up to believe in reincarnation (the Jesus zombie)-so much fantastic mythology that offered a place in heaven after death. Sounded like a great deal to an uneducated slave in the pre-Gutenberg press dark ages at the time. It's amazing that it is still around today.

Oh, and hello this is my first post after lurking for 5 years.

reply to post by eggman90


Welcome eggman.

Nice first post.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by eggman90

 

Welcome eggman.

Nice first post.

Thank you

reply to post by eggman90


Good thread guys, I'm enjoying all the comments.

eggman90- Thank you for this. Quality writing, and appreciated.

Your post reminded me of an exchange in one of the science forums. A member (foreveryoung) started off spouting croe nonsense and after a year of learning the truth, this is the exchange that really stood out to me.

It took me a very long time to eventually come around to believing the earth is indeed very, very old. .-foreveryoung

CF asks:

But the way you do that in an effective way is, you talk about the evidence. Evidence is what trumps your professor and your textbook. Evidence trumps intuition. That's why your textbooks have copious bibliographies; that's why you have to justify your conclusions in your science classes with your experimental results and not just with your say-so.
Hopefully it was the evidence that brought you around. I, for one, would be pretty interested to hear you talk more about the process that brought you around. It doesn't even have to be an argument - I just want to hear what you have to say about that. It's something that I'm interested in. -crashfrog

FY response:

The main evidence that has always been presented to me are the radiometric dates given for meteorites and various rocks. I got around that by the possibility of accelerated radioactive decay. People would bring up the heat problem but I had answers for them as well. It was the mechanism for accelerated decay that was the biggest problem for me. By looking for answers to this problem on the web, I found out that an accelerated speed of light could provide the mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay. I was told that an accelerated speed of light would pose many problems because the speed of light was part of certain physical equations and would manifest itself in obvious ways. I got around that by saying that all the physical constants changed in tandem in such a way that no physical manifestation would show. Unless there was an underlying mechanism that could be responsible for such a change in all the constants in tandem, it was very much a case of hand waving. The only mechanism possible was a change in the very fabric of space that is measure by the zero point energy. Setterfield has not shown how a change in the zero point energy could change all the constants in tandem to where there would be no noticeable change in reality. That is the starting tension that I had.

What changed it for me was how radiometric dates matched exactly with isotope ratios for climate related extinction events. I am doing a term paper on the "sixth great extinction" in a class called paleobiology. In going over the various opinions of scientists on the causes of the past 5 great extinctions, measurements of particular radioisotopes that are related to climate and are a proxy for conditions that are thought to be causes of extinction, I came to the conclusion that things fit like a hand in glove with the radiometric dates. You cannot accelerate things like climate proxies in isotope ratios. Two separate phenomena that could not possibly influence one another were in such PRECISE agreement, I could not possibly maintain my position any further without a total denial of reality.

What finally pushed me over the edge happened on another theology website that I have frequented over the years. Someone finally took the time to explain to me what it meant for an ancient writing to be in mythological form. I always fought against this notion because the atheists always said genesis was mythological, but they meant it as in a complete fabrication or fairy tale. When it was explained to me that mythological writing can be about completely real historical phenomena, but written in such a way as to be understandable to mythologically thinking cultures, I was finally convinced. Genesis was telling me a true story. It was just written in a way that was not meant for people of my era who have a culture immersed in thought that has been with us since the age of enlightenment. Genesis is not going to give us a history of the earth or the universe that is scientific terms of the twenty first century. I did not have to abandon belief in the bible being completely true and accurate to also believe the earth was 4.56 billion years old. There was nothing else left now to stop me from believing it. .-foreveryoung

Thanks again everyone!

Here is a video for you all to enjoy, make sure you watch in HD!
I'll be back later.

Creationists always want to frame the debate as creationism vs evolution, and then proceed to attack what is usually a straw man of evolution.

Let's be honest. That debate was lost by creationists many years ago. We've moved on since then. Certain zealots may be stuck in a time loop in certain areas, but the rest of the world has moved on. More importantly, the scientific community has moved on.

They are beating a dead horse. Like a really, really long dead one.

This is why it's pointless debating evolution with them. You end up wasting all your time defending evolution, when it's not up to us to do so. Their debate is with science. Science won. Move on.

Time is more productively served attacking creationism. Let them play defence for once.

Don't let them frame the debate. Stay on topic we ae talking about creationism's dishonest tactics here. I hope we see many, many more threads like it. Debating evolution is off topic..

Kaboose
reply to post by flyingfish

 

There is no need for creationist such as myself to be dishonest, when the real science facts and evidence points to intelligent design in all things.

Most of the dishonestly, lies, and coverup come from the Evolutionist side, I would say 99% does. Many of these frauds are still in museums and textbooks today, such as Lucy being one of the latest frauds.

Evolution violates known scientific laws and some ideas like:
Evidence of complex design always leads to an intelligent designer in all things....except biology.
Universal law that things naturally going from order to disorder, evolution violates this.
Where did the information come from for the first DNA.
Why did and how did two sexes evolve including the food for them evolve at the same time and all from the same initial pile of DNA.
Bio-genesis- that only life can produce life.
Natural mutations are always a loss of DNA information.
Lack of transitional fossils, we should be swimming in them, many fossil creatures didn't change at all and found alive today.
Age of earth- lots of evidence pointing to a younger creation age, comets for example.
the list goes on...

This thread is hilarious. The OP makes a very valid observation about the vast majority of Creationist arguments and the tactics they use to debate with. So the natural response from the Creationists is to use the very tactics that they are being called out for to refute the OP. Case in point, if the person I just quoted had bothered to read the OP, he'd see that first off he is using a Gish Gallop as well as the fact that many of the points he listed have already been refuted in this very thread. As for the ones that haven't been refuted in this thread, the source material in the OP does a good job of doing it.

I could spend time refuting this vastly uninformed poster's ignorant post, but it's already been done. He hasn't brought anything new to the table, just parroting the same tired half-truths and lies that Creationists always do. Not to mention he is doing it the same way that Creationists always present these half-truths and lies, the Gish Gallop. Way to go Kaboose for proving the OP's point.

@OP great thread, I enjoyed reading your OP and then the subsequent source material. As I read it, I realized it was all true. I've argued against the very tactics that your link describes, sometimes more than once in a single debate, many times on ATS. Several poster's screennames come to mind as I think about them too, some of which have come into this thread only to try these tactics and fail miserably.

reply to post by eggman90

I am amazed at responses that quote the bible.

The amazing to me is that those who attack God's Word are the same people who are gullible enough to believe the state backed religion of Darwinism.

It's obvious that we are being lied to...

WHY do people even believe what TPTB are telling them?

Believing in Darwinism makes JUST as much sense as believing in things like the NIST report.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

Scientific facts prove that it is an impossible deliberate fraud which is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science.

"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

Murgatroid
It's obvious that we are being lied to...

WHY do people even believe what TPTB are telling them?

Believing in Darwinism makes JUST as much sense as believing in things like the NIST report.

Or the bible.

What is amazing is how you go on and on about being lied to but still give that piece of propaganda a pass.