The importance of checking your sources.

[Goonie]

In debating on this site one thing that is apparent is that people need to remember to check the sources they use.
For example

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=951822338212895

I've seen this picture used a number of times by people arguing that giants existed. This is despite the fact that it is sourced from a site dedicated to holding competitions for the best digitally manipulated image! The photo is fiction, skeleton with scaled down images of archaeologist photoshopped in.

Another example is

This was a billboard put up by life savers ministries, a youth ministry. Anybody spot the problem?
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...alabama.childrens.ministry.backlash/37887.htm

So remember folks, check your sources.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may established.
(Mat 18:16, Num 35:30, Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15, 2Co 13:1, Jhn 8:17...)

 

[Goonie]

...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may established.
(Mat 18:16, Num 35:30, Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15, 2Co 13:1, Jhn 8:17...)

?

 

[AV1611VET]

In debating on this site one thing that is apparent is that people need to remember to check the sources they use.

I agree.

But let me ask you this:

Is there any site you guys will consider legitimate?

I've seen the Bible ridiculed, DI ridiculed, ICR ridiculed, AiG ridiculed, Ken Ham ridiculed, Kent Hovind ridiculed, et. al.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I agree.

But let me ask you this:

Is there any site you guys will consider legitimate?

I've seen the Bible ridiculed, DI ridiculed, ICR ridiculed, AiG ridiculed, Ken Ham ridiculed, Kent Hovind ridiculed, et. al.

They consider talk origin legitimate even though they are trying to perfect the art of the straw-man fallacy.

 

[Armoured]

They consider talk origin legitimate even though they are trying to perfect the art of the straw-man fallacy.

You don't quite understand how this works, do you? Pretty sure Talk Origins isn't a source at all, and all its claims are cited.

 

[Goonie]

I agree.

But let me ask you this:

Is there any site you guys will consider legitimate?

I've seen the Bible ridiculed, DI ridiculed, ICR ridiculed, AiG ridiculed, Ken Ham ridiculed, Kent Hovind ridiculed, et. al.

Well the Bible is not a science text, Ken Ham has dinosaurs living with humans (lol), and Kent Hovind is Kent Hovind

Apologies and it is true that when debating one should avoid ad hominem attacks, argueing against the person and not their position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well the Bible is not a science text, Ken Ham has dinosaurs living with humans (lol), and Kent Hovind is Kent Hovind

Thanks for the QED.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

?

Ahh, I was agreeing with you, it's always best to have a few reputable sources. Just using scripture to show that God thinks it's a good idea too.
btw, *gasp, shocking billboard.

 

[Goonie]

Ahh, I was agreeing with you, it's always best to have a few reputable sources. Just using scripture to show that God thinks it's a good idea too.
btw, *gasp, shocking billboard.

Thanks, and I agree the billboard is shocking. I gave it as an example of the need for people if they quote mine to give thought to the author, and the context of the quote. Initially I wondered whether it was a hoax, a photoshopped image but by all accounts a church genuinely put it up.

 

[Goonie]

Thanks for the QED.

My response was a tad flippant, but those sources are ridiculed because they have a history of distorting, misrepresenting and ignoring science.

 

[AV1611VET]

My response was a tad flippant, but those sources are ridiculed because they have a history of distorting, misrepresenting and ignoring science.

What site doesn't?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

They consider talk origin legitimate even though they are trying to perfect the art of the straw-man fallacy.

I have written, or contributed to several articles for TalkOrigins. I found their review process more strenuous (and irritating) than for professional journals. The TO Archive is focused at exposing creationist frauds, and only secondarily at promoting the positive evidence for evolutionary biology.

You will not find "cutting edge" biological research at TO. Neither will you find the uncritically accepted lies common from creationist websites.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have written, or contributed to several articles for TalkOrigins. I found their review process more strenuous (and irritating) than for professional journals. The TO Archive is focused at exposing creationist frauds, and only secondarily at promoting the positive evidence for evolutionary biology.

You will not find "cutting edge" biological research at TO. Neither will you find the uncritically accepted lies common from creationist websites.

Does the site use terminology like "magic" or "poofed"?

If so, it's not worth my time looking at it.

And I would expect it to call us "liars" and whatnot.

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree.

But let me ask you this:

Is there any site you guys will consider legitimate?

I've seen the Bible ridiculed, DI ridiculed, ICR ridiculed, AiG ridiculed, Ken Ham ridiculed, Kent Hovind ridiculed, et. al.

They all have one thing in common.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ahh, I was agreeing with you, it's always best to have a few reputable sources. Just using scripture to show that God thinks it's a good idea too.
btw, *gasp, shocking billboard.

But. Men. Wrote. The. Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

They all have one thing in common.

Yes.

Unbelievers deplore them on principle.

 

[Goonie]

Yes.

Unbelievers deplore them on principle.

The principle being, If a site presents demonstratable falsehoods as scientific evidence it is a source that deserves to be treated with the respect it deserves.

Example Kent Hovind and his decleration on
Coast-to-Coast AM radio program:

One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862.

The problem with this is that the two dates come from two separate mammoths, the paper he is using makes this clear.

 

[Goonie]

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well the Bible is not a science text, Ken Ham has dinosaurs living with humans (lol), and Kent Hovind is Kent Hovind

They have human like foot prints with dinosaur prints. Only problem is that humans and dinosaurs could not have existed together because they require a different climate. One theory is that these prints were from an angel that God assigned to look over the dinosaurs there at the time.