Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

So in other words, if a murder happened last year, we have no way of scientifically reconstructing it and determining who the killer was?

How about millions of years,or thousands?

 

[The Cadet]

How about millions of years,or thousands?

Funny story - we were able to figure out how Ötzi died, and that was, in fact, thousands of years ago. But if we can't determine things that happened that long ago, where, exactly, is the line between that and a case that's been cold for 10 years?

 

[Hieronymus]

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.
(EC Scott, New Scientist, April 22 2000, p.46)

 

[Hieronymus]

I like honesty:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism.
Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life in this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
(Steven Pinker "How the mind works" p.162)

 

[bhsmte]

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.
(EC Scott, New Scientist, April 22 2000, p.46)

The vast majority with any type of science education, don't take the creationist argument seriously.

 

[Hieronymus]

Or is it just honesty about dishonesty?

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between [natural] science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs ... because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated [that's religious terminology].
Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of Demons," the New York Review, Januari 9, 1997,p. 31)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.
(EC Scott, New Scientist, April 22 2000, p.46)

That is because in formal debates scientists have a weakness. They have to tell the truth. Creationists in formal debates seem to have little to no reluctance to lie. They try to use the honesty of scientists as a tool against them.

And I almost forgot, one quote mine deserves another:

2 Chronicles "there is no God".

 

[Hieronymus]

The vast majority with any type of science education, don't take the creationist argument seriously.

Thatś why they fail in debates with creationists.

 

[florida2]

Resorting to just spewing out random out-of-context quotes? This is getting pretty embarrassing...

 

[Hieronymus]

That is because in formal debates scientists have a weakness. They have to tell the truth. Creationists in formal debates seem to have little to no reluctance to lie. They try to use the honesty of scientists as a tool against them.

Hahaha!
Sometimes i can laugh about desperation.
But usually i think itś rather sad.

 

[Hieronymus]

Resorting to just spewing out random out-of-context quotes? This is getting pretty embarrassing...

Yes, we've been through that already.
Good luck imagining a context in which they're just kidding.

 

[florida2]

Thatś why they fail in debates with creationists.

I've watched numerous such debates. I don't remember one where the scientists 'failed'. Can you point out one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thatś why they fail in debates with creationists.

No, the creationist always loses the debate. When a party gets caught lying in a debate they lose, and you would be hard pressed to find a creation/evolution debate where the creation side does not lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hahaha!
Sometimes i can laugh about desperation.
But usually i think itś rather sad.

What "desperation"? I am betting that you can't find a creation/evolution debate where the person on the creation side does not lie. Seriously, your side lost over 100 years ago. No one in the world of science, except for a handful of failed cranks on this subject at least, takes creationism seriously.

 

[Hieronymus]

I've watched numerous such debates. I don't remember one where the scientists 'failed'. Can you point out one?

Not by heart, but apparently EC Scott could.

 

[Hieronymus]

What "desperation"? I am betting that you can't find a creation/evolution debate where the person on the creation side does not lie. Seriously, your side lost over 100 years ago. No one in the world of science, except for a handful of failed cranks on this subject at least, takes creationism seriously.

Exactly that desperation.

 

[florida2]

Yes, we've been through that already.
Good luck imagining a context in which they're just kidding.

So you admit that you've been ripped quotes completely out of context and even cutting words from within quotes? Other members have pointed out where your quotes don't mean what you want them to when you look at what was actually said/written in context.

You think that's an honest way to carry on?

 

[florida2]

Not by heart, but apparently EC Scott could.

What are you talking about?

 

[Hieronymus]

So you admit that you've been ripped quotes completely out of context

No, we've been through that already.
Why don't you just give it up and ignore the topic?

 

[bhsmte]

Thatś why they fail in debates with creationists.

LOL!

You are a funny guy.

Here is a taste of some comedy gold: