Re: The Reasonable Minority

On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 28, 6:45 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

(snip)

In case you missed it, here it is again:http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php

Are you prepared to address fact that creationist sources can be
demonstrated to be riddled with falsehoods?

A falsehood is the predetermined and knowing attempt to mislead
someone with false statements which the speaker knows to be false.

Do you claim to know the mind of every such author?

Did he say "every"? Evidence of lying is found in the physical,
written record of creationists. It requires no claim of mind
reading. It is only your own ignorance of creationism's history and
personalities that is demonstrated here.

Your lame attempt at using linguistic distraction to avoid the
substance of the question is noted, however.

Speaking of things about which you are ignorant, this kind of brings
us back to your original claim that Dembski supports open inquiry,
doesn't it. What do you call the willful avoidance of peer review and
debate on the part of someone claiming to do science. Isn't that a
kind of falsehood? Why haven't you answered repeated questions about
his banning of dissenting voices from his blog?


Would you agree to meet with the amazing Randy??



It's "Randi", not that accuracy interests you.

Since you are the one making supernatural claims, a category of claims
Randi considers unproven and to which his challenge is extended,
shouldn't you be the one meeting with him? In his own words:

"Randi comments: Creationism = Crackpot Science = Intelligent Design.
And don't you forget it."

"Evolution is a theory which has a huge amount of evidence to support
it. A massive amount of evidence; Darwin's books alone have a huge
amount of evidence in them and every year that goes by we add more to
that database. On the other hand, Intelligent Design has NO theory, it
has NO evidence. It's not a science, by definition its not a science
so it should be taught as part of Religious Studies, I thoroughly
agree with that, along with Voodoo and Casting of Runes and Ouija
Boards and such like. That should all be taught as part of Religious
or Supernatural Studies, yes, but as part of that kind of study, not
as a science, it is NOT a science."

" At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show,
under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal,
supernatural, or occult power or event."

But thank you anyway. Watching a creationist invoking James Randi
provides even more insight into your intellectual shallowness and
dishonesty.


KP

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... demonstrated to be riddled with falsehoods? ... someone with false statements which the speaker knows to be false. ... debate on the part of someone claiming to do science. ... "Evolution is a theory which has a huge amount of evidence to support ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... in science and rarely in religion. ... evidence may always change the explanation. ... No it could be included in science class. ... No, Calvin ball is an endeavour without rules, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... > "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. ... The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... > design and creationism, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... ID is more logical than evolution ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)