Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:37:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
406 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > That's OK, since that's the vision I have of every Literal Creationist. You
> > don't have to physically burn a book to destroy knowledge or worse, destroy
> > the very ability to think.
>
> Wow we MUST be good if we can control whether or not someone is able to
> think.
The spanish inquisition didn't "control" Galileo, but it did destroy the
ability to think in a host of lesser folk. You haven't grasped the
pernicious damage that pushing a bunkum "theory" into impressionable kids,
placing it as equally valid (or more valid) than real science, actually does.
Not surprising since you don't grasp science and how it works.
Again, by supressing one theory and placing another one, one that has no
validity, on an equal footing, you are destroying the ability to think in
young minds. That is evil and I won't stand for it.
Heck, now you have me calling literal creationism a theory. It isn't. It
doesn't fit the definition of a theory since it doesn't explain or allow for
meaningful predictions. It's an irrational belief.
Why is it that you are out to destroy rationality with this foolishness?
That is the part I just don't get.
> It's a good thing you're smarter than everyone else Larry so we
> can't exercise our super powers over YOU! You must be among the more
> evolved humans....your grandfather wasn't ape until 100 generations ago
> whereas most of us had a grandfather ape only 75 or so.
I missed the smiley there... so I will assume you still don't get that no
one is saying humans are descended from apes (or that cats are descended
from dogs), merely that there are common ancestors. Your repeating this
after it's been explained so many times is further evidence of your
inability to grasp explanations even when presented in small words and tiny
digestible bits.
> I guess you've
> now discovered my reason for participating in this debate - I just
> wanted to see if I could destroy someones ability to think!
You, personally, can't.
But some literal creationists are much better solipsists than you, and are
doing that very thing. Look at the damaging effect they had on the minds of
the Kansas School board.
> > You literal creationists, with your incessant pushing to get a theory with
> > little or no scientific validity treated the same way as theories with a
> > great deal of validity and a great deal of observational support, are worse
> > than any Fireman.
>
> Like what theory would that be that we push for that has little or no
> scientific validity?
Try Literal Creationism??? Are you not paying attention here or what? It has
(little or) no scientific validity unless you posit a malicious evidence
distorting creator.
> > I guess I wouldn't be quite so vehement in pushing back at you guys if you
> > had *some* clue as to how science worked
>
> I admit and apologize - my own personal knowledge of science in general
> is pretty minimal...that doesn't mean the hundreds of scientists out
> there who fully believe in literal creationism are equally ignorant.
True, your ignorance does not imply the ignorance of others, but they are
indeed just as ignorant nevertheless.
> > , or if you didn't try to destroy
> > the thought processes of impressionable young children by presenting bunkum
> > as valid. Either one.
>
> Hrmmm...I think you will find that textbooks have been presenting bunkum
> for quite some time (peppered moth experiment
> http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04apt16PepMoth.ram, horse
> evolution:
> http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04bptHorse.ram).....
Haven't we debunked Dr. Dino (what a lovely appelation) enough yet? Don't
bother citing from that source, please, unless you want to be ridiculed some
more. Cite from Science, or Nature, or Scientific American, some nice peer
reviewed journal, not bunkum creationist websites.
> but I guess
> if we eventually prove the bunkum wrong it's still okay that we lied for
> a long time.
No it is NOT ok that you have been lying all this time. Christian
suppression of science and thought led to a millenium long blight on the
world that you have yet to answer for. Or maybe you LIKE starving people,
books that only the rich can read because they're written in latin, kings
ruling with "divine right", and believing that the earth is the center of
the universe? There is no difference in kind between the dark ages and your
agenda, only in degree.
> Seeing that there is overwhelming evidence of intelligent
> design (see original message in this thread), why wouldn't it be a good
> idea to point this out?
If there were such evidence it would be a good idea, but a tiny minority
opinion is not overwhelming evidence.
Give it up.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) "do not, do to, do not, do to, do not...." - how many times are you going to say this Larry? (...) First of all, I never suggested that Creation should REPLACE all "Eolutionary" teaching in the textooks - I personally would like to see it (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) Wow we MUST be good if we can control whether or not someone is able to think. It's a good thing you're smarter than everyone else Larry so we can't exercise our super powers over YOU! You must be among the more evolved humans....your (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 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
|
|
|
|
