Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Atheist said:
She's clearly one of those people who have difficulty thinking and tries to cover it by writing screeds of impenetrable rubbish.

She is, without doubt, a True SkepticTM
Thanks christ she now has us on ignore, that'll cut the size of the pages by about 2/3!
Click to expand...
Yes, accusing you of being deeply religious is a real exercise in standing facts on their heads. I think that Articulett, herself, just doesn't seem very bright but the real tragedy of science is that the manner in which she behaves is representative of a great deal of scientific behaviour.

It isn't by any means everyone, of course, but a significant minority of scientists do behave in much the way that Articulett does - trotting out claims into the teeth of reality, obstinately contradicting even the most trivially valid arguments and making enless personal attacks against those individuals who happen to incur their wrath.
 
John Hewitt said:
Yes, accusing you of being deeply religious is a real exercise in standing facts on their heads. I think that Articulett, herself, just doesn't seem very bright but the real tragedy of science is that the manner in which she behaves is representative of a great deal of scientific behaviour.

It isn't by any means everyone, of course, but a significant minority of scientists do behave in much the way that Articulett does - trotting out claims into the teeth of reality, obstinately contradicting even the most trivially valid arguments and making enless personal attacks against those individuals who happen to incur their wrath.
Click to expand...
So, nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts?


Why am I not surprised?
 
Hewitt said:
It isn't by any means everyone, of course, but a significant minority of scientists do behave in much the way that Articulett does - trotting out claims into the teeth of reality, obstinately contradicting even the most trivially valid arguments and making enless personal attacks against those individuals who happen to incur their wrath.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see some specific examples of this.

~~ Paul
 
The Atheist said:
Originally Posted by cyborg:
Now state the mathematics of Jesus.

12 disciples - 1 traitor + 3 nails^cross = corpse.
Click to expand...

12 disciples - 1 traitor + 3 nails^cross = corpse +~1-200 years = new religion based on new myths -> joins existing religions grows exponentially.

Old myth religions remain.
Parallel old myth religions remain in alternate geographic areas.
Parallel new myth religions emerge in alternate geographic areas.

2,000 years later new myth religions continue to emerge (Mormonism and Scientology to name 2).

But in the future world, better skills and tools for observing and interpreting data/evidence lead to all religions being understood for their mythological basis. People find new ways to satisfy whatever needs religion previously satisfied.

But, alas, human nature being what it is, people continue to identify themselves by groups, and continue to wage wars over scarce resources.

Oh well.

;)
 
John Hewitt said:
Perhaps if you[, Dr Adequate] made your point, rather than just hinting at it, I would know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Articulett: "John--no one takes your ideas seriously because you are verbose and unclear..."


I have to agree with Articulett here at least. I have a Master's in Nursing Science. I consider myself literate enough to understand many medical research articles despite their being heavily dosed with terminology I am not familiar with. The same is true reading most cosmology papers. I have a harder time with advanced computer research discussions but there is just so much vocabulary unknown to me in that field. I read research abstracts in many fields on a regular basis because I enjoy learning about everything.

But when I made an effort to read your work, John, on both papers, were I an editor I would be filling the pages with red.

I found the papers so verbose as to be almost impossible to follow. The terminology wasn't difficult. The concepts weren't difficult. But the points you seemed to be making were buried in redundancy.

Don't take my word for it. Take it to an editor and see if my observation is valid.
 
skeptigirl said:
Articulett: "John--no one takes your ideas seriously because you are verbose and unclear..."


I have to agree with Articulett here at least. I have a Master's in Nursing Science. I consider myself literate enough to understand many medical research articles despite their being heavily dosed with terminology I am not familiar with. The same is true reading most cosmology papers. I have a harder time with advanced computer research discussions but there is just so much vocabulary unknown to me in that field. I read research abstracts in many fields on a regular basis because I enjoy learning about everything.

But when I made an effort to read your work, John, on both papers, were I an editor I would be filling the pages with red.

I found the papers so verbose as to be almost impossible to follow. The terminology wasn't difficult. The concepts weren't difficult. But the points you seemed to be making were buried in redundancy.

Don't take my word for it. Take it to an editor and see if my observation is valid.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he won't do that--he'll just shop it around until someone buys it...telling himself that everyone else is stupid. I posted this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm
This is about abiogenesis, and it's so much clearer than John. He dismissed it as trivial without explaining why, but my 10th graders could sum it up pretty easily. A good theory or scientific explanation should clarify not confuse people further. Compare the above to his data stream explanation.

He also contends that "memes don't exist"-- a meaningless and obfuscating statement. And yet, to me it's a much better tool than his rival "sex and humor theory" which I also can't fathom (nor has anyone else been able to sum it up)--but it mentions "free will" and an "infinite egress" and "unfair scientists", so that pretty much sealed his creationist leanings to me. Then there was is arguing for Behe and ID.

I wouldn't engage him except for amusement. It's probably like engaging Claus. Remember, the least socially competent, are the most likely to overestimate their competency. When you feel a particular way about a particular poster, chances are, a lot of other people feel similarly. The more socially competent people will wonder if it's something they said--but the incompetent will never wonder if it's them who has the problem. Some people can get pretty far on BS. Check out peoples' prior posts--especially older posts to see if their thinking has evolved and whether they have problematic conversations with others before wondering if it might be you. It can be very telling.

Kleinman's just straight out batty. Hewitt hides his "intelligent design" leanings under a cloak of obfuscation. If you ever run across Von Neumann, he is the same...and don't even try with Hammy. You'll wade through their crap for meaning, and the whole time, they will talk down to you as though you are too stupid to understand them... The fact is, there are a lot of smart people in this world and on this forum and none of them understand what the heck these guys are saying. They are all "intelligent design" proponents with their own personal version of "the wedge"--the funny thing is, none of them really even understands each other. They all secretly think they have the true revolutionary theory that will reveal evolution as a lie. Really. Michael Behe clones.
 
skeptigirl said:
(John ... ) when I made an effort to read your work, John, on both papers, were I an editor I would be filling the pages with red.

I found the papers so verbose as to be almost impossible to follow. The terminology wasn't difficult. The concepts weren't difficult. But the points you seemed to be making were buried in redundancy.
Click to expand...
If you have specific critiques, I would be very interested in reading them.
 
John Hewitt said:
If you have specific critiques, I would be very interested in reading them.
Click to expand...
I started to take a paragraph out of the page the link opened to but found every paragraph the same and decided maybe it was best not to be specific.

However, since you ask, and if you won't take it wrong (I just got done griping about someone else being condescending over a minor correction and I don't want to come across that way mysefl), I will tackle a page or so tomorrow. I'll PM you I guess.
 
skeptigirl said:
I started to take a paragraph out of the page the link opened to but found every paragraph the same and decided maybe it was best not to be specific.

However, since you ask, and if you won't take it wrong (I just got done griping about someone else being condescending over a minor correction and I don't want to come across that way mysefl), I will tackle a page or so tomorrow. I'll PM you I guess.
Click to expand...
That's great. Any piece of writing can be improved with criticism and, at the end of tha day, I don't have to agree with you.
 
John Hewitt said:
Perhaps if you made your point, rather than just hinting at it, I would know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Um ... my point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which is exactly what I said.

This was not a "hint", this was not obscure, and I made my point. My point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which part of that did you not understand?
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
Um ... my point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which is exactly what I said.

This was not a "hint", this was not obscure, and I made my point. My point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which part of that did you not understand?
Click to expand...
My post was a commentary about Articulett's rudeness and repetitively ad hominem behaviour. As such it was not a commentary directed to science as such and did not address scientific facts. Would you expect it to?
 
Hewitt said:
In your fantasies, perhaps. The reality is that science has repeatedly shown itself wide open to fraud - especially frauds perpetrated by its senior figures.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but Dr. A said that science triumphs over the fraud nonetheless. In the long run, the fraud is exposed because some young turk forgets to play along and does the science instead.

There no magic fraud-free human endeavor. There's just dogged pursuit of better explanations.

~~ Paul
 
Has this thread :jshark ?

Kleinman's claim lived by the computer model, died by the computer model. And I really haven't been able to get too excited or concerned one way or another about John Hewett's theory or beliefs. Creationism and ID are important because they're politically significant in a way that can affect science education. The main reason Behe matters is that his claim can be easily conveyed to, believed by, and repeated by, local school board members: "If something is irreducibly complex it cannot have evolved." Somehow I don't see them getting any comparable political traction with "Data, not genes, is the replicator."

So... anything else to say about annoying creationists?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom