Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

Maybe they aren't the only examples of dishonesty to be found in Creationist propaganda?

Probably not.
Both sides are guilty of such though, but that doesn't make it right.

Blindly accepting what anyone says is not a good idea, even it seems agreeable to your ideas.... It's been demonstrated here and it was demonstrated with your Lucy hoax claims.

It hurts 'my case' indeed.
But it doesn't mean all quotes are wrong at all.
It does mean i was sloppy on verifying the quotes.

About Lucy, the artist rendering of the fossil interpretation is ambiguous at best.
I said i wouldn't call it a hoax anymore because it's not clear if it is deliberately misleading. (or something to that effect)
But that's a different topic.

 

[The Cadet]

It seems a couple of them turn out to be rather ambiguous.
That's a shame and i should have checked out more myself before posting.

Wait, you mean you didn't actually get these quotes from the primary literature? I was under the impression you had at least read the passages you picked these quotes from. No wonder so many of them are misleading or flat-out wrong. Seriously, when quoting people, the least you can do is actually quote from the original source. Aren't you aware that quote-mining and fabrications are a fairly common issue among creationist sources?

 

[Jimmy D]

Both sides are guilty of such though, but that doesn't make it right.

Really, are you suggesting scientists are lying to us? Can you substantiate that accusation?

But it doesn't mean all quotes are wrong at all.
It does mean i was sloppy on verifying the quotes.

There were so many I doubt anyone's got the time or inclination to go through all of them, it seems that all the ones that have been discussed so far were wrong though. Saying you were sloppy implies that you have done some checking, which ones did you check?

About Lucy, the artist rendering of the fossil interpretation is ambiguous at best.
I said i wouldn't call it a hoax anymore because it's not clear if it is deliberately misleading. (or something to that effect)
But that's a different topic.

I see you are still trying to imply that we were somehow mislead about A. Afarensis. None of the study presented in the scientific literature is misleading, an artist's impression is just that - an impression. You are right that it's a different topic though.

 

[Hieronymus]

You see, education is the kryptonite for fundy types of beliefs.

Of course, because we get taught naturalism through 'education' (as in the established view and its models).

When people get educated, they typically get driven away, when denial of well evidenced reality, is asked of them.

But it is not well evidenced, they're naturalistic models with their own problems.
This is fine of course for understanding 'natural reality', but not for the origins of 'natural reality'.
Simply because our reality, which is the universe, has no mechanism to create and fine tune itself.
Moreover, thing can not create themselves.
(because it would have had to have existed before it existed, a logical fallacy).
So, if you get educated that dead unconscious things performed miracles without a purpose, and you're not taught the reasons to doubt this, obviously you will lose faith in (special) creation.

 

[The Cadet]

So, if you get educated that dead unconscious things performed miracles without a purpose

You know, you keep saying this, but nobody has ever proposed this. This is a complete straw man of the position you disagree with. It's about as accurate as claiming that young earth creationists believe an aardvark's sneeze created the universe 400 years ago.

 

[Jimmy D]

Moreover, thing can not create themselves*.
(because it would have had to have existed before it existed, a logical fallacy).

* Except God

Special pleading

a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

(wikipedia)

So, if you get educated that dead unconscious things performed miracles without a purpose,

Strawman

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

(wikipedia)

Simply because our reality, which is the universe, has no mechanism to create and fine tune itself.
Moreover, thing can not create themselves.

Argument from ignorance

a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

(wikipedia)

 

[Hieronymus]

Really, are you suggesting scientists are lying to us?

I'm suggesting dishonesty on their part, yes.
It's due to the a priori subscription to naturalism and not allowing "a divine foot in the door."

Can you substantiate that accusation?

The fact that atheistic science claims to know the origins of our existence leaves little room for an open mind in approaching the origins questions.
It's simply disingenuous to ignore creation or ID when things appear (when analysing the evidence) designed.

And still they teach us evolution with debunked evidence, like the peppered moth, like Australopithecenes, like Archaeopterix...

There were so many I doubt anyone's got the time or inclination to go through all of them, it seems that all the ones that have been discussed so far were wrong though.

Only a few were discussed by the defenders of naturalism here.

Saying you were sloppy implies that you have done some checking, which ones did you check?

Too few apparently...
The ones that have clear sources mentioned checked out.

I guess i messed up a little...

I see you are still trying to imply that we were somehow mislead about A. Afarensis. None of the study presented in the scientific literature is misleading, an artist's impression is just that - an impression.

They can't even prove all bones are from the same organism.

You are right that it's a different topic though.

It is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm suggesting dishonesty on their part, yes.
It's due to the a priori subscription to naturalism and not allowing "a divine foot in the door."

I really have to ask: how on Earth, are scientists supposed to factor God in to their hypotheses? How?

 

[Hieronymus]

Wait, you mean you didn't actually get these quotes from the primary literature?

Correct.
I checked a few to be certain enough, but it seems this was not enough...
I can appreciate you're inclined to dismiss the lot of it because of that.
However it doesn't really change too much.
The scientific community chooses to subscribe to naturalism concerning the origins question,
even if it lacks the explanatory power,
even if the evidence strongly suggests creation.
Even if it means things have had to create themselves, which is a logical fallacy.

I was under the impression you had at least read the passages you picked these quotes from.

I have been sloppy i'm afraid...
I guess my sources have been sloppy too..
Probably too eager to adhere truth to it...
Comparable to the eagerness to adhere truth to darwinism and its assumed evidence...
But thatś no excuse.

 

[The Cadet]

It's due to the a priori subscription to naturalism and not allowing "a divine foot in the door."

Not only is this not dishonest (as it is stated upfront), but the reason behind this is extremely well-established. If you're interested, I could explain why science is predicated on methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism) (again), but only if you're actually interested in knowing the answer.

It's simply disingenuous to ignore creation or ID when things appear (when analysing the evidence) designed.

Please explain how you establish something to be "designed".

I have been sloppy i'm afraid...
I guess my sources have been sloppy too..

No, not sloppy, intentionally dishonest. This is not a new problem. In the last few decades, scientists have become increasingly careful with their statements, knowing full well that if they aren't careful, creationists will dishonestly strip it of context and present it in a dishonest light. There's a reason that TalkOrigins started the Quote Mine Project.

Look, if you're going to quote a scientist who you disagree with, the least you can do is get the quote right. Link to the original source. Don't just regurgitate unsourced crap from whatever website you like.

 

[Hieronymus]

I really have to ask: how on Earth, are scientists supposed to factor God in to their hypotheses? How?

Well, certainly not by deliberate ignorance.
But this is about historical evidence, it's about the origins.
We should be seeking the cause if we want to know the cause.
So the choice to ascribe the fine tuned universe and the overwhelmingly complex phenomenon of living nature (plus its premises) to dead unconscious things a priori is simply dishonest.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, certainly not by deliberate ignorance.
But this is about historical evidence, it's about the origins.
We should be seeking the cause if we want to know the cause.
So the choice to ascribe the fine tuned universe and the overwhelmingly complex phenomenon of living nature (plus its premises) to dead unconscious things a priori is simply dishonest.

You didn't answer my question: how are scientists supposed to factor God in to their hypotheses?
If you cannot answer this question, then your claim of scientists being dishonest is you just talking out of your rear-end.

 

[The Cadet]

We should be seeking the cause if we want to know the cause.

So how do we go about seeking a supernatural cause?

 

[Jimmy D]

And still they teach us evolution with debunked evidence, like the peppered moth, like Australopithecenes, like Archaeopterix...

Why do you post this stuff? How have they been debunked? You do know that the Australopithecenes genus includes A. afarensis (i.e Lucy), which you just admitted is not a hoax. You were shown a paper just the other day about how the Peppered Moth demonstrates natural selection and beneficial mutations. I don't know what you're claiming about Archaeopterix but I'm confident that that will be shown to be nonsense if you present your case.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not only is this not dishonest (as it is stated upfront), but the reason behind this is extremely well-established.

No.
But we've been though this many time now.

If you're interested, I could explain why science is predicated on methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism) (again), but only if you're actually interested in knowing the answer.

No need, i do understand, i even agree.
But, again, this is about historical evidence telling its tale considering our origins.

Here's good quote:

This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

We've been through this a few times now.
...it seems it doesn't register...

Please explain how you establish something to be "designed".

By looking, by analysing.
When you find things the laws of nature can not account for, and things that are purposeful and part of a complex system.

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")

So even Dawkins admits the evidence points to creation.

No, not sloppy, intentionally dishonest.

Originally probably, but sloppily copied ever since, just like me in this case...

 

[Hieronymus]

So how do we go about seeking a supernatural cause?

it's not about finding God, it's about following the evidence.
It points to a supernatural cause.
Explanatory power.

 

[Hieronymus]

You didn't answer my question: how are scientists supposed to factor God in to their hypotheses?

Who cares?
The question is about our origins.
If dead unconscious things can not explain it, but a conscious intelligent creator can, when everything points to "a mind behind it"...
There are only these two options to ascribe our origins to: chance or design.
So i give you the same answer again, i guess...

If you cannot answer this question, then your claim of scientists being dishonest is you just talking out of your rear-end.

If thatś how you want to dismiss it, fine.

 

[Derek Meyer]

It seems a couple of them turn out to be rather ambiguous. That's a shame and i should have checked out more myself before posting.

Yip. You're a creationist.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do you post this stuff? How have they been debunked? You do know that the Australopithecenes genus includes A. afarensis (i.e Lucy), which you just admitted is not a hoax.

Not a hoax, but a 'mistake' i.m.o.
"Hoax" implies foul play.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Who cares?
The question is about our origins.
If dead unconscious things can not explain it, but a conscious intelligent creator can, when everything points to "a mind behind it"...
There are only these two options to ascribe our origins to: chance or design.
So i give you the same answer again, i guess...

So you make a whole hullabaloo about scientists not factoring God in to their work, and then when asked how they should do it, you just reply with 'who cares?'?
I think that really says a lot about you, mate.