skeptictimes errorson the following page

[Jet Black]

on the following page

http://www.skeptictimes.com/evolution101.html

the author suggests:

Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.
​

This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Evolution.
​

ironically the claim that the argument is a lie is itself a lie.

The writer of the study, Professor George Bishop pointed out that, "Nearly a third of college graduates in recent Gallup polls still believe in the biblical account of creation," and that about 45% believe that God created human beings "pretty much in (their) present form at one time or another within the last 10,000.....

Scientists are far more likely to reject the notion that a deity was involved in any scenario for explaining how human and life originated. Only 5% subscribe to a literalist, biblical explanation, 40% accept some kind of theistic evolution, and 55% hold to a strict evolutionary explanation without any participation for a deity.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I am sure it was just an honest mistake and he will correct it shortly. We won't need to bring this up again. Oh no.

 

[Dal M.]

Good one, Jet Black. I was wondering how Mister Smith came up with that figure. And since he's a self-proclaimed skeptic who's dedicated to the pursuit of truth regardless of his personal investments in comforting illusions and so forth, no doubt he'll fix it immediately as PL says. Plus, he'll issue a public apology for his carelessness and failure to cite his sources to boot.

While we're on the subject of errors:

...a professor at my university, Dr. Michael Dini, declared that evolution was a fact and that he would not write a letter of recommendation to those who believe in evolution...

Shouldn't that be "those who don't believe in evolution"?

 

[Arikay]

Dishonest creationist tip #613: When lying about and misrepresenting data, do not give any kind of source for this data, to make it harder for people to discover the error.

Note: See Hovind's "Universe Is Not Billions of Years old" for examples of how to present false data without sources.

 

[Jet Black]

I think the author is engaged in deception to be honest, either that or he interviewed the worlds biggest idiot, just look at Matt here (tk takes on an evolutionist), he basically trots off every creationist fallacy going, and obviously has no clue about what evolutionary theory actually is

http://www.skeptictimes.com/skeptic4.html

 

[PhantomLlama]

'Matt' reads like a bad caricature.

 

[notto]

Mike is proving to be a bit more challenging and is doing a good job of exposing tk's poor understanding of science in general.

http://skeptictimes.golivewire.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You'd think that tk would understand the difference between falsifying evidence and current unknowns, wouldn't you?

 

[Jet Black]

You'd think that tk would understand the difference between falsifying evidence and current unknowns, wouldn't you?

well you'd think so, but this is the fundamental creationist argument... "look, there is a gap, how do you fill it" and pretend that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I fail to see how lack of evidence causes trouble for a theory. trouble is caused by contradictory evidence that does not fit within the body of a theory. (note that is is important in a scientific theory to ensure that a theory is potentially falsifiable)

rather interestingly though, gender is a pretty easy one to explain. so are symbiotic relationships.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Mike is very sensibly not giving a hypothetical scenario because what always happens is the creationist points out there's no actual supporting evidence for this specific scenario.

There's a subtle shell game going on here.

Creationist says "Explain X. If evolution cannot possibly explain X, then evolution is falsified". This is fair enough - the point of the "possibly" is that X is indeed falsifying evidence if it cannot possibly be explained.

Evolutionist gives a possible way in which X could have occurred

Creationist points out that this is purely hypothetical and not evidence based.

This is where the swap comes in. Suddenly, not having an evidence based explanation is equated with it not being possible to conceive of an explanation at all.

The creationist at this point claims victory. He refuses to acknowledge the swap, and all the other creationists clap their flippers, hoot and are all fed a fish by Kent Hovind.

Mike is very sensibly making sure that tk understands that inability to explain a particular thing is not in itself a demonstration that a theory is flawed. He is not going to let that point past and blunder straight in with a possible explanation and let tk play the swap.

In other words, he's making sure he's castled before he opens up his King's bishop and knight.

 

[Jet Black]

aah, debaty stuff. cunning.

 

[Arikay]

bump for Smith, will you correct your error?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

He doesn't happen to give out some kind of prize to people that point out his errors, does he?

If they turn out to be right?

 

[Arikay]

Since I see Tkster viewing the forum, I thought I would bump this again.

 

[tkster]

Since I see Tkster viewing the forum, I thought I would bump this again.

It's "tkster" not "Tkster" or "TKster."

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I guess tkster's unwillingness to address the OP indicates his intention to pull a Hovind and pretend like it doesn't exist they way Hovind ignores refutations of his obviously false claims when they are brought to his attention.

 

[tkster]

I guess tkster's unwillingness to address the OP indicates his intention to pull a Hovind and pretend like it doesn't exist they way Hovind ignores refutations of his obviously false claims when they are brought to his attention.

Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[slayer-2004]

Now Im skeptical about being skeptic

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

Uh, I did look before I made my post. I even refreshed the page.

I did it again, and still I see the claim in question:

Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.
​

This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution. ​

​

 

[pureone]

Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

I looked. The Lies and strawmen are still there.