Subject:
|
Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:45:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
544 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > > > Taken in the right perspective, this faked fossil really bears no relevance
> > > > in the whole evolution / creationism debate.
> > > Helps establish the link between dinosaurs and birds. Evolution.
> >
> > Um, it just throws a known fabrication into the debate. I'm sure that it's
> > possible that it *could* benefit one side of the argument over the other,
> > but I fail to see how.
>
> Fakes happen. Defaking stuff is fun, as Bruce alludes to. Investigating why
> people do fakes is interesting.
Kinda throws things into confusion, but it also reminds everyone to be wary.
>
> But the question is not whether a particular observation is faked. The
> question, rather, is whether there the preponderance of evidence is faked.
> It's not.
>
> The literal creationists seize on the fakes because they think it bolsters
> their case while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which, while
> perhaps less dramatic, isn't faked and which is overwhelming.
Pretty much. If they want to seize on the small number of fakes, they'll
have to answer to the large number of fake faith healers as a disproof of
God. I don't accept either fakes as any kind of proof, myself, beyond
something to look out for.
>
> What really is *fake* in all this is the literal creationist pretense at
> understanding the scientific process, pretense at wanting to actually
> evaluate observations honestly, and pretense that literal creationism has
> equivalent scientific validity with evolution while systematically mugging
> the truth.
As I said, I don't see how lying serves God.
>
> That sort of fake "thinking" leads to travesties like the State of Oklahoma
> textbook disclaimer:
>
> http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5438_dissecting_the_disclaimer_12_7_2000.asp
>
> Note that the literal creationists prefer that it be called scientific
> creationism. I prefer to call it what it is, cause it ain't scientific.
>
> Note that I have a lot less truck with IDCers than I do with the woolyheaded
> and freedom denigrating bunch of literal creationists. By gosh, if I am
> going to be forced to pay for public schools I am darn well going to insist
> that we don't confuse kids by presenting religious beliefs as well founded
> science in them.
>
> ++Lar
Score one for the Libertarian viewpoint (on the theoritical level, at least).
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
