The dishonesty of creationists.

[waitasec]

Sometimes I fall back into my old Christian way of thinking and wonder if Satan, the Father of Lies, is behind these Creationist lies.

we just have to realize the dishonesty creationists display stems from insecurity...and fear...

the fact that the scientific method is applied goes to show science is not afraid to sus all biases out...
the evidence speaks for it self. easy.

 

[fantome profane]

This link was posted in another thread, but I think it is a prime example of the kind of dishonest tactics often used by creationists so I thought I would post it here for discussion.


Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal | NCSE

It seems that in an attempt to get an article published in a legitimate peer reviewed publication a couple Creationists put together an article that consisted basically of plagiarized bits cobbled together, they then inserted a bizarre paragraph in the middle about the “mighty creator”.

They actually provide no evidence, or even any coherent arguments supporting creationism, just an unsubstantiated non-sequitur assertion placed in the middle of the (largely plagiarized) article.

Alternatively, instead of sinking into a swamp of endless debates about the evolution of mitochondria, it is better to come up with a unified assumption. ... More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life.

Aside from the fact that this sentence is so badly written as to be nearly incomprehensible, the phrase "mighty creator" sticks out like a sore thumb. Boiled down to its essence, Warda and Han are saying "God did it."

Within a few more hours, the first evidence of plagiarism was uncovered: an entire paragraph copied verbatim from another article.

From there, the evidence quickly snowballed. Within a few days there were dozens of examples, and it appeared that the majority of the text was simply copied wholesale from other sources. John MacDonald, a professor at the University of Delaware, compiled many of these into a document (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/wardahan.pdf) showing that Warda and Han stole much of their article from six different articles plus a scientific website. The examples fill eight pages. In all cases, Warda and Han copied text word-for-word without attribution.

It is unbelievable the creationist actually think that this kind of thing will accomplish anything other than to further discredit creationism.

 

[waitasec]

This link was posted in another thread, but I think it is a prime example of the kind of dishonest tactics often used by creationists so I thought I would post it here for discussion.


Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal | NCSE

It seems that in an attempt to get an article published in a legitimate peer reviewed publication a couple Creationists put together an article that consisted basically of plagiarized bits cobbled together, they then inserted a bizarre paragraph in the middle about the “mighty creator”.

They actually provide no evidence, or even any coherent arguments supporting creationism, just an unsubstantiated non-sequitur assertion placed in the middle of the (largely plagiarized) article.

It is unbelievable the creationist actually think that this kind of thing will accomplish anything other than to further discredit creationism.

let em, the truth will always be known...
the creation myth will ultimately die a slow painful death

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This link was posted in another thread, but I think it is a prime example of the kind of dishonest tactics often used by creationists so I thought I would post it here for discussion.


Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal | NCSE

It seems that in an attempt to get an article published in a legitimate peer reviewed publication a couple Creationists put together an article that consisted basically of plagiarized bits cobbled together, they then inserted a bizarre paragraph in the middle about the “mighty creator”.

They actually provide no evidence, or even any coherent arguments supporting creationism, just an unsubstantiated non-sequitur assertion placed in the middle of the (largely plagiarized) article.

It is unbelievable the creationist actually think that this kind of thing will accomplish anything other than to further discredit creationism.

WOW....!!!!.......

 

[tumbleweed41]

With thanks to Dirty Penguin, from the thread A Simple Question for Creationists.

What you did was to take a quote out of context. What I quoted Sagan as saying was not taken out of context. Your attempt to say the two are the same is both bogus and sad. Seems like a desperate try at deflecting from what Sagan said about the fossil record. Still, his words remain....the much ballyhooed fossil "evidence" for the ToE isn't quite so "evident".

You DID take it out of context. You only quoted a portion of what he said. In order to get the full context of what he said you have to read the rest of his statement. Let's try this again......

You said.......

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2634462-post96.html
"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan)

This is it...full stop with no regard or respect for the rest of what he said. This is blatant quote-mining and it's a dishonest way to debate. I gave you the rest of the quote in full context.....

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

Where is your rebuttal? You don't really have one. If you continue to use whatever bad sources you're using for quotes from scientist you will continue to inform us you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. It's very peculiar how you want to maintain this view of Sagan...seeing as though you appear to not have never read a single book by him. Unbeknownst to you I actually own a couple of his books including "Cosmos"........

 

[waitasec]

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

rusra ignores the feeling of being unsettled...
hence the willingness to rely on dishonest tactics...poof unsettling feeling gone.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

rusra ignores the feeling of being unsettled...
hence the willingness to rely on dishonest tactics...poof unsettling feeling gone.

Are you unsettled by the assertion of the sentence in there, beginning at "The fossil record implies trial and error...", that the creator he is referring to was not a competent designer?

 

[rusra02]

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

rusra ignores the feeling of being unsettled...
hence the willingness to rely on dishonest tactics...poof unsettling feeling gone.

You can somehow know what I feel.. you must be an empathetic person. I get the feeling (but you know that already, don't you) that you are feeling a litte unsettled about Sagan's statement about the fossil evidence. Sagan's statement about what the fossil record implies or about how the Great Designer proceeded with creation is tantamount to a 3 year old correcting his grandfather who has just informed the toddler that babies are not delivered by storks.
"The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: "He did not make me"? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: "He showed no understanding"? (Isaiah 29:16)

​

​

 

[McBell]

You can somehow know what I feel.. you must be an empathetic person. I get the feeling (but you know that already, don't you) that you are feeling a litte unsettled about Sagan's statement about the fossil evidence. Sagan's statement about what the fossil record implies or about how the Great Designer proceeded with creation is tantamount to a 3 year old correcting his grandfather who has just informed the toddler that babies are not delivered by storks.
"The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: "He did not make me"? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: "He showed no understanding"? (Isaiah 29:16)

Really?
It matters not one bit to you that he Sagan is saying that the fossil record indicates that your "great Designer" is incompetent?
that your "great designer" had to scrap several hundred, if not thousands, of design flaws before he got it right?

I mean, he did mention a designer, right?
Is that all that matters to you?
That Some big name atheist mentioned a designer?
The fact that he is pretty much saying that this designer cannot be the all knowing all powerful thing you claim based on the fossil records doesn't matter?


Wow.
You really are desperate, aren't you?

 

[painted wolf]

Wow.. trial and error, sounds like the designer evolved to me.

wa:do

 

[waitasec]

Are you unsettled by the assertion of the sentence in there, beginning at "The fossil record implies trial and error...", that the creator he is referring to was not a competent designer?

no not at all...
why should that be unsettling?


you either accept that life as we know it is the result of random indifference
or the "creator" set up a system of trial and error... thereby defeating the notion of an benevolent god....

 

[waitasec]

You can somehow know what I feel.. you must be an empathetic person. I get the feeling (but you know that already, don't you) that you are feeling a litte unsettled about Sagan's statement about the fossil evidence. Sagan's statement about what the fossil record implies or about how the Great Designer proceeded with creation is tantamount to a 3 year old correcting his grandfather who has just informed the toddler that babies are not delivered by storks.
"The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: "He did not make me"? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: "He showed no understanding"? (Isaiah 29:16)

​

​

so you accept that your creator is an incompetent designer?

 

[McBell]

Wow.. trial and error, sounds like the designer evolved to me.

wa:do

Yes, except for the claim that God is never changing.
The claim that god is all knowing.

Sorta throws those claims out the window...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

that you are feeling a litte unsettled about Sagan's statement about the fossil evidence.

No one but you should be unsettled about what Sagan actually said. He called your "creator" incompetent and you continue to fight tooth and nail to hold on to the beginning of his statement as if it is some sort of declaration in your benefit. Around here we call that being delusional.

Sagan's statement about what the fossil record implies or about how the Great Designer proceeded with creation is tantamount to a 3 year old correcting his grandfather who has just informed the toddler that babies are not delivered by storks.

The fact of the matter is you got caught quote-mining a quote-mine and are too embarrassed to admit it. Sagan was very clear in his statement. Because you you believe that swings in your favor is hilarious.

 

[Majikthise]

I can't believe this Sagan horse isn't dead yet.

rusra02,
Please, google Sagan's "The God Hypothosis". It's not super long and it will clear up everything for you.

 

[rusra02]

so you accept that your creator is an incompetent designer?

No, the Creator's handiwork speaks for itself. If you had read my post you would understand that I said what men say about God's abilities is both wrong and unspeakably arrogant.

 

[rusra02]

No one but you should be unsettled about what Sagan actually said. He called your "creator" incompetent and you continue to fight tooth and nail to hold on to the beginning of his statement as if it is some sort of declaration in your benefit. Around here we call that being delusional.



The fact of the matter is you got caught quote-mining a quote-mine and are too embarrassed to admit it. Sagan was very clear in his statement. Because you you believe that swings in your favor is hilarious.

Sagan speaks of the fossil evidence being consistent with creation. I am well aware Sagan is an evolutionist, which makes his statement all the more telling. What he says about God's competence is his opinion and he is entitled to it. Evolutionists who claim the existence of vestigial organs or junk DNA have been proven wrong, and Sagan's statement about trial and error is equally wrong.

As to your assertion that I was quote-mining, that's patent nonsense and you know it. But you have to do something to divert attention to what Sagan admitted. It is you that should be embarrassed, not I.

 

[rusra02]

I can't believe this Sagan horse isn't dead yet.

rusra02,
Please, google Sagan's "The God Hypothosis". It's not super long and it will clear up everything for you.

Majikthise,
Please, read Genesis chapters 1 and 2. It's not super long and it will clear up everything for you. Or is that being presumptuous and condescending?

 

[waitasec]

No, the Creator's handiwork speaks for itself.

trial and error...
in other words..evolution.

If you had read my post you would understand that I said what men say about God's abilities is both wrong and unspeakably arrogant.

you are talking about the bible...right?

 

[waitasec]

Sagan speaks of the fossil evidence being consistent with creation. I am well aware Sagan is an evolutionist, which makes his statement all the more telling.

that the creator is incompetent?