Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Astrid]

Ok. And your point is?
So it was Osborn, not Cook.
Still wasn't your "Tim".

By convention nobody names a fossil for themselves.

 

[Speedwell]

The point really is that religious conservatives like to regard any scientific pronouncement, however tentative or hedged around with disclaimers as an unjustified pronouncement of "absolute truth," especially of it contradicts their creation myth. They also seem to regard in the same light anything they vaguely remember as being taught in junior high school years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok. And your point is?
So it was Osborn, not Cook.
Still wasn't your "Tim".

That's right.

It wasn't my "Tim."

It was a sigh-yin-tist that did it.

And any attempts from the psi-unts realm to blame it on the news media can take a hike.

They're good at that.

Here's their triad of scapegoats:

1. Big Pharmacies did it.
2. Big Government did it.
3. Big Management did it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist sites are just another type
of tabloid, being dedicated to irresponsible journalism and cynical exploitation of ignorance.

Get in line.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point really is that religious conservatives like to regard any scientific pronouncement, however tentative or hedged around with disclaimers as an unjustified pronouncement of "absolute truth," ...

Are they in the habit of assigning scientific names to things that are "tentative or hedged around with disclaimers"?

At least Quasar got it right: "The quality goes in, before the name goes on".

 

[Astrid]

The point really is that religious conservatives like to regard any scientific pronouncement, however tentative or hedged around with disclaimers as an unjustified pronouncement of "absolute truth," especially of it contradicts their creation myth. They also seem to regard in the same light anything they vaguely remember as being taught in junior high school years ago.

Those who grow up in trailer parks probably didn't
go to good schools or remember enough to get
good grades.

But decades later they (pretend to) remember
exactly what a teacher said about evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Are they in the habit of assigning scientific names to things that are "tentative or hedged around with disclaimers"?

Yes. Science does not do "absolute truth." You just get your knickers in a twist because it contradicts what you think of as "absolute truth" and people prefer the science anyway.

 

[Mr Laurier]

That's right.

It wasn't my "Tim."

It was a sigh-yin-tist that did it.

And any attempts from the psi-unts realm to blame it on the news media can take a hike.

They're good at that.

Here's their triad of scapegoats:

1. Big Pharmacies did it.
2. Big Government did it.
3. Big Management did it.

wow.
I'm home all day, getting prepped from a big medical procedure tomorrow.
They are going to be sticking a camera up somewhere that I never want anything stick.
The prep involved consuming several packets of purgative powder, dissolved in water.
Methinkest thou needeth some of that powder.
Do yourself a favour. Eat some trail mix. And go for a walk in the park. It may help you get a sense of proportion

 

[Astrid]

An astronomer would say "given the scanty information
we have ( about this tiny distant object) we believe it
may be a planet".

Popular press- "it's a Planet!"

Then the creopress does its thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do yourself a favour. Eat some trail mix. And go for a walk in the park.

Why should I?

I'm reminded every day that we came from Jurassic Park.

 

[AV1611VET]

An astronomer would say "given the scanty information we have ( about this tiny distant object) we believe it may be a planet".

Popular press- "it's a Planet!"

Then the creopress does its thing.

Where's the press now, when you want them?

Shouldn't they be harping about "Tombaugh's Folly" or something?

No, the press is probably fueled by scientists who run to them the first time they find something they can't recognize.

Makes you wonder if the press and the laboratory have a symbiotic relationship.

That's why "discoveries" are on the front page, and their retractions are on page nine.

Look at Scientific American and Popular Science magazines.

EVERY MONTH, some new scientific discovery is made.

You'd think scientists are the busiest people in the world.

 

[renniks]

You have a habit of making the most irrelevant reponses!

The double negative about creo.org leaves me not
knowing what you are saying.

Change over time...so what are you even arguing
about ?

No one is arguing that things don't change over time. Why is that hard to understand?

That's far different from accepting the whole muck to us Evolution model.

 

[Speedwell]

No one is arguing that things don't change over time. Why is that hard to understand?

That's far different from accepting the whole muck to us Evolution model.

And why should we not accept it? It's at least plausible and there is no better explanation going and I can't see the downside in accepting provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. If it turns out to be wrong, so what? We never took if for absolute truth anyway.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Why should I?

I'm reminded every day that we came from Jurassic Park.

wow.
just, wow

 

[AV1611VET]

wow.
just, wow

I pray your test results are okay tomorrow.

 

[renniks]

I guess you gotta disbelieve Australia, the bottom of the ocean
or there beiing anything inside a rock. What the sun is made of?
Whether electricity or atoms exist?

If not then maybe work it through for yourself whether there
are reasonable, ways of determining things besides seeing
and "proving", whatever that even means.

BTW, that thing about "proof of god" is a crock for only the
idiots among us, so please don't bring that up and pretend
it's like a universal for atheists.

Putting electricity, which I can directly observe the effects of in the same category as some animal that supposedly lived 6 billion years ago is just too absurd to take seriously.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I pray your test results are okay tomorrow.

thankyou

 

[renniks]

Those who grow up in trailer parks probably didn't
go to good schools or remember enough to get
good grades.

But decades later they (pretend to) remember
exactly what a teacher said about evolution.

Wow, bigotry against por' folk. How enlightened of you.

 

[renniks]

And why should we not accept it? It's at least plausible and there is no better explanation going and I can't see the downside in accepting provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. If it turns out to be wrong, so what? We never took if for absolute truth anyway.

Why should you not accept creationism for the same reason? It's far more plausible and there's no downside.

 

[Speedwell]

Why should you not accept creationism for the same reason? It's far more plausible and there's no downside.

There's no downside to accepting evolution, either, so far as I can tell. But you certainly have not made a case for the plausibility of creationism here. In fact it seems to me that you haven't even tried to, but instead have tried to falsify evolution. And what would that get you? A falsified theory, is all, with nothing to replace it.