Re: Those crass Creationists

On 28 May, 08:53, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <tndj53t3ju1nbkn5v15q6t9h1s3vtuu...@xxxxxxx>
Nick Milton <nick.spamtrap_mil...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think you have misread the article.
The transgression is that they present their nonsense as scientific.

Allow me to quote:

"An intellectually honest approach would then be to denounce modern science
as flawed and not make use of the technological devices that depend upon
science for their development. Indeed, you could argue that those who
support a 6,000 year old Earth are hypocritical every time they get on a
plane, use a car or watch TV. ... In doing so [allegedly misrepresenting
science] the museum repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of
science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes
advantage of the technical wizadry of science to get its point across, with
a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations." (New Scientist
26-05-07 p. 24)

The author, Lawrence Krauss...

.... made a crass, unreflected, thoughtless comment. So what have you
proved? Evolutionists sometimes speak without thinking, and should
avoid speaking to jouralists. So what? Even though they are very
clever people (and Krauss is!) they sometimes make mistakes -- they
are only human. Instead of reading bad journalism, why not read some
serious books -- Dawkin's Selfish Gene, say -- and see if you can take
them on.

Creationists are not anti-science: we are opposed to one particular theory
held by scientists. We are, therefore, doing the intellectually honest thing
and studying science for ourselves in order to find the evidence that most
scientists have overlooked.

Like the fossil record of pre-human skulls reveals that they must have
come form Times Square, cause drug addicts look equally weird :-) (OK
that's unfair, this time a Creationist made the flip comment to a
journalist - don't talk to journalists!)

It would be the equivalent of putting forward a musuem to atheism,
with the main arguments being derived from Bible verses.

That would work very well.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... Because the line between life and non-life is blurred, ... deduction from the evidence is deduction from the evidence - i.e. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WHICH SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS CAN YOU TRUST?
    ... Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust? ... convinced they were poisoned; but two Government enquiries ... Industry and British Nuclear Fuels think it is ...
    (sci.chem)
Loading