Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

flyingfish
reply to post by greavsie1971

 

And it is an issue when the people your lying to are other peoples impressionable children.

Interesting. I wonder who else are you taking an issue with about these children who are being lied to, most people don't know and they don't even know that they don't know.
Do you make it an issue with adults during Christ,as time? Under what conditions is it okay for you to condone lies to "impressionable" children? Are you going after the entertainment industry, or just the little guys?

flyingfish

borntowatch
Sadly this is just a rant, nothing new or relevant has been discussed

I choose creation as I still havnt seen a transitional fossil or evolution in a process.

Sorry I dont accept your views but, why rant at others views.

Sadly your wrong, in fact you come in here and prove my point by posting typical creo nonsense.
Look up "transitional fossils" stick to objective verifiable evidence and stay away from creationist propaganda.

Ok then if you must I am wrong. Dictator much?
Still doesnt stop this thread being a rant.

Prove any fossil is transitional and not a species, Yawn,been there and done it.
You offer nothing valid, just tired old rhetoric.

I choose to believe based on evidence, not your evidence.
Please believe what you want to believe

TarzanBeta
reply to post by flyingfish

 

dear flyingfish,

I propose that you will do a better job convincing people that God did not create the universe when you can scientifically prove that He did not.

Until then, creating a thread for the purpose of arguing this, again, only proves that you are not scientific enough to have realized that your effort is in utter vain.

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?" For if it is possible to give an estimate to the age of the universe, then it follows that there must have been a beginning, and therefore, there must have been nothing before that beginning.

Answer that question scientifically and you will be having an honest debate. Until then, you're just a sower of strife.

you can not prove the non existence of an event.it is a mathematical impossibility. the onus is upon those touting creationism/ID to prove that an omnipotent being did in fact create everything around you. And by proof I don't mean quoting biblical passages. The bible isn't the word of god. its the word of men, mostly illiterate bronze age shepherds, but still men. Even if god spoke to some or all of the alleged authors of the various Hebrew books it is still mans interpretation of gods words. that interpretation has been bastardized so heavily through the intervening 3 millennia that it bears little resemblance to the original text. That doesn't mean there is no god, it simply means that there is no preponderance of evidence aside from anecdotal interpretation and perceptions/interpretations of events that can't be explained easily.

reply to post by borntowatch


Are any of you going to post anything relevant to the OP.
This thread is about Dishonest Creationist Tactics, not about disproving god, not about the universe, not about philosophy.

reply to post by flyingfish


Since it doesn't appear that you are much of a communicator, maybe it would help if you picked one dishonest tactic and give your opinion on why you think it's dishonest. Maybe then someone will have something to go on.

Deetermined
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Since it doesn't appear that you are much of a communicator, maybe it would help if you picked one dishonest tactic and give your opinion on why you think it's dishonest. Maybe then someone will have something to go on.

Just pick any thread in this forum that start with "undeniable proof."

ATS has been infected with creationist dishonest post and tactics. I'm sure it's probably due to the fact that they get away with posting nonsense with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. Any one can come on ATS and say they have proof of just about anything and it can become front page news.
if you read the OP you will see I have already outlined many of the tactics being employed.
I think when it comes to debating creationism in such an open forum where objective evidence is NOT encouraged, these sort of dishonest tactics flourish, hence all the creo activity.
Hopefully some poster will get some tips in this thread on how to deal with this biased situation.

reply to post by Wonders


I don't know what your talking about. This thread is about Dishonest Creationist Tactics.

The fact is that creationists don't last very long in debates or forums where objective evidence is required. Since their claims are contrary to verifiable facts, they can only maintain those claims if they can avoid critical examination. As a result they fall away.
But new creationists come along all the time, all of them being fed those same old claims from the same old creationist books that have been around since the 1970's and 1980's, even the more recent online sites are mostly recycled old claims from those early years. Obviously, those sites never tell their readers about those claims ever having been refuted and, indeed, will even claim that scientists have never been able to respond to those claims.
And each new generation of creationists comes along and feeds from that same old trough of misinformation. And in turn each new generation of creationists gets shot down in flames, causing them to either lose their faith or else slink off and hide in forums like ATS or continue to use those old cherry's to proselytize while running away in terror when they encounter anyone knowledgeable in the subject.

reply to post by flyingfish


Creationism vs Science
Where did this debate come from? Does anyone know? Where did this debate gain its origins? I think the much bigger issues are how people use their beliefs. Is it for personal enrichment or a guiding factor in their decision making.

Why is their a need to bride science and philosophy? For what purpose? All any of these debates will ever prove is that people naturally will argue and debate things for no reason.

People aren't bad or wrong because of their philosophy or religion spirituality or lack of, They are wrong or bad because they are people and no one is perfect.

God bless, have a star!

Deetermined
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Since it doesn't appear that you are much of a communicator, maybe it would help if you picked one dishonest tactic and give your opinion on why you think it's dishonest. Maybe then someone will have something to go on.

Not speaking for the Op, but I see this happen a lot.
The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, ""which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored"" [4].

reply to post by flyingfish


You sir, can have my first ever flag on ATS. Nice post, well put. S&F..

StarPower
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Creationism vs Science
Where did this debate come from? Does anyone know? Where did this debate gain its origins? I think the much bigger issues are how people use their beliefs. Is it for personal enrichment or a guiding factor in their decision making.

Why is their a need to bride science and philosophy? For what purpose? All any of these debates will ever prove is that people naturally will argue and debate things for no reason.

People aren't bad or wrong because of their philosophy or religion spirituality or lack of, They are wrong or bad because they are people and no one is perfect.

God bless, have a star!

edit on th30pmSun, 15 Sep 2013 20:20:48 -0500p20130America/ChicagoSun, 15 Sep 2013 20:20:48 -0500 by StarPower because: (no reason given)

I respectfully disagree with you. People are bad when they assert ideas they know are wrong. This is deceitfulness and they know it. Like the above poster pointed out with quote mining, this is done deliberately and is dishonest. And it's just one of the dishonest tactics creationist use.

Where did this debate come from?
This is a long and complicated answer probably started well before Origin of the Species, with the most famous early case the trial of Galileo in 1633 for publishing Dialogue, a book that supported the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around.

The creationist movement discussed in this thread probably started in 1968 when the Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas the ban Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. The Court used the same rationale in 1987 in Edwards vs Aguillard to strike down a Louisiana law that required biology teachers who taught the theory of evolution to also discuss evidence supporting the theory called "creation science."

It get's complicated from there, with many more conflicts in numerous courts with the introduction of Intelligent design and the Kansas evolution hearings to the Dover trial. The most recent being the Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design.
More recently, the intelligent design movement has attempted an anti-evolution position that avoids any direct appeal to religion, even to the point of denying their religion. Scientists argue that intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is still essentially creationism.
Intelligent Design in Politics
The Wedge Strategy

Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts. —National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism

randyvs
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Bad religion you say ?
Yes, very bad. Very bad indeed. Naughty, naughty, dirty little tactics.

This is a worthless post, do you have anything to say about the OP?

Deetermined
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Since it doesn't appear that you are much of a communicator, maybe it would help if you picked one dishonest tactic and give your opinion on why you think it's dishonest. Maybe then someone will have something to go on.

How about someone saying something outlandish like:

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 flyingfish


No, this thread is about your dishonest tactics.

You see, you will do no good helping people to see the error of their ways by attacking their ways. But you will do better by showing them the -right- way.

Wasting brain power developing a list of tactics instead of applying that brain power to solving the original problem is a sign of greater wisdom and stronger intelligence.

Otherwise, your opening post is just some whines in bullet points. It's an absolutely and utterly pointless thread in which "trolling" and really bad logic manifest inevitably.

If you were a scientist, like I said before, you would have already performed your research and found that in every thread wherein creationists and atheists discuss each others' motives, the entire place goes straight to Gehenna.

peter vlar

you can not prove the non existence of an event.it is a mathematical impossibility. the onus is upon those touting creationism/ID to prove that an omnipotent being did in fact create everything around you. And by proof I don't mean quoting biblical passages. The bible isn't the word of god. its the word of men, mostly illiterate bronze age shepherds, but still men. Even if god spoke to some or all of the alleged authors of the various Hebrew books it is still mans interpretation of gods words. that interpretation has been bastardized so heavily through the intervening 3 millennia that it bears little resemblance to the original text. That doesn't mean there is no god, it simply means that there is no preponderance of evidence aside from anecdotal interpretation and perceptions/interpretations of events that can't be explained easily.

You claim what is a mathematical impossibility, and yet you don't understand logic at all.

If one desires to say, "God did not create the universe", it does not matter whether they say the word "not" or whether they leave it out. Whether the speech is in the positive or the negative, it doesn't matter. IF you knew the math that you claim to know, you would know that. Negative doesn't mean less in numbers; it means the opposite direction, geometrically speaking. And since we are speaking specifically of creation, I believe geometry is pretty fitting here (because geometry does indeed mean "measuring of the land").

Mathematically speaking, or, more accurately, for those that think they are so inclined to thinking;; logically speaking (for math is expressed using symbols in the abstract which are actually just representatives of their worded counterparts, which you learned in elementary school, my dear Watsonians), it is the job of anyone who contests any statement to prove the statement to be false, or the statement stands.

It is NOT the job of someone who produces the statement to prove it.

In fact, it is this incredibly lazy mentality that has made people so incredibly and disgustingly stupid. I refer you to this wonderful world within which we currently reside...

Or do you not seek wisdom and counsel when you stumble upon new information? Or are you just as adolescent as everyone else and say, "Show me or I won't believe it!"

Alright little one. Get up off your butt and go figure it out for yourself. If you do not have a reason to trust me, then by all means, go and learn.

Because it does not matter what I say to you. Wisdom is transferred through trusted relationships. Knowledge is transferred through business relationships. What is the relationship here? Academic. So therefore, it is upon you to go seek. For we have no bond other than that which I perceive, and that is that you are a brother, or a cousin, or some relation, by necessity, by nature.

Nothing lazier can possibly be said by one who claims to be wise.

If you need to know, go find out.

As it is written, "It is the glory of the Lord to conceal a matter; but the honor of kings to search out a matter."

You are exposed. You seek honor without work. You seek understanding without experience. You seek reaping without sowing.

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

TarzanBeta

peter vlar

you can not prove the non existence of an event.it is a mathematical impossibility. the onus is upon those touting creationism/ID to prove that an omnipotent being did in fact create everything around you. And by proof I don't mean quoting biblical passages. The bible isn't the word of god. its the word of men, mostly illiterate bronze age shepherds, but still men. Even if god spoke to some or all of the alleged authors of the various Hebrew books it is still mans interpretation of gods words. that interpretation has been bastardized so heavily through the intervening 3 millennia that it bears little resemblance to the original text. That doesn't mean there is no god, it simply means that there is no preponderance of evidence aside from anecdotal interpretation and perceptions/interpretations of events that can't be explained easily.

You claim what is a mathematical impossibility, and yet you don't understand logic at all.

If one desires to say, "God did not create the universe", it does not matter whether they say the word "not" or whether they leave it out. Whether the speech is in the positive or the negative, it doesn't matter. IF you knew the math that you claim to know, you would know that. Negative doesn't mean less in numbers; it means the opposite direction, geometrically speaking. And since we are speaking specifically of creation, I believe geometry is pretty fitting here (because geometry does indeed mean "measuring of the land").

Mathematically speaking, or, more accurately, for those that think they are so inclined to thinking;; logically speaking (for math is expressed using symbols in the abstract which are actually just representatives of their worded counterparts, which you learned in elementary school, my dear Watsonians), it is the job of anyone who contests any statement to prove the statement to be false, or the statement stands.

It is NOT the job of someone who produces the statement to prove it.

In fact, it is this incredibly lazy mentality that has made people so incredibly and disgustingly stupid. I refer you to this wonderful world within which we currently reside...

Or do you not seek wisdom and counsel when you stumble upon new information? Or are you just as adolescent as everyone else and say, "Show me or I won't believe it!"

Alright little one. Get up off your butt and go figure it out for yourself. If you do not have a reason to trust me, then by all means, go and learn.

Because it does not matter what I say to you. Wisdom is transferred through trusted relationships. Knowledge is transferred through business relationships. What is the relationship here? Academic. So therefore, it is upon you to go seek. For we have no bond other than that which I perceive, and that is that you are a brother, or a cousin, or some relation, by necessity, by nature.

Nothing lazier can possibly be said by one who claims to be wise.

If you need to know, go find out.

As it is written, "It is the glory of the Lord to conceal a matter; but the honor of kings to search out a matter."

You are exposed. You seek honor without work. You seek understanding without experience. You seek reaping without sowing.

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

In regards to where the onus lies in explanations, it is, on this message board and in the academic world, upon the one who makes a claim. If you make a claim it is for you to substantiate it. It is at that point I would look into said claim to verify or refute it. You've got the process completely backwards, no offense. As for your tolkienesque riddles and word games in the name of algebraic expression, I'll leave all that to someone who has said it better than I could.

"When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” Stephen Hawking

OP quite elegantly brings out the tactics used. Not only in his post but if you read the thread you see how they lie, try to argue different topics that are not relevent and do not understand what science even is.

reply to post by flyingfish


You lost me on your first mark here:

"1) scientists limit themselves to what is known, and they (generally) clearly state what is their opinion and speculation when they stray from what is known."

Maybe we should really define what "known" actually is. Because your version of known is about the same as my version of known, and by that I mean the faith based one. It seems you have debated many a creationist, and that is a good thing I encourage a healthy debate. But when you start asking questions like what happened before evolution was started, and before that, and before that, and so on, that is where you find the same exact faith based "known".

The second part of your mark there may as well go hand in hand with the known, because all of the Atheists and evolutionists I have spoken with, take their opinion as more fact than supposed known itself. I mean people think the Bible is hard to understand, well try and read anything about evolution and making it add up, I mean sure it makes sense from a theoretical standpoint, but when you try and piece everything together it really requires more faith than any religion I know of.

I mean you can say the same thing in reply that I usually get, and that is "you don't understand evolution." and so on. Well I am starting to wonder if you guys really understand it. The Atheist and evolutionists belief in this faith based science inspires even me to work on my own faith. I mean you guys should come and preach about faith in the church sometime!

reply to post by honested3

Hey look, another dishonest tactic. Claiming that science is not just based on faith but equally or, as another thread around here suggested, even more so than religion.

Science encourages questioning and challenging the status quo. Religion has a special label for those with questions.