razzelflabben said:
And yet it is the result of this comment that you challenge me to find a credible creationist source?
No, the result of this comment shows
you believe there are credible Creationists.
Here's a brief summary of this topic...
You disagreed with my statement that "
there are no credible creationists" to which you replied ."
A quick web search shows us reputable, well educated scientists that hold to the toc or id". So I said:
"
Like I said, there are no credible Creationists that do not...
1. ... pretend they are qualified to comment or know what they are talking about.
2. ... intentionally distort, mislead or misrepresent anyone or anything.
3. ... ignorantly distort, mislead or misrepresent anyone or anything.
4. ... have wild paranoid conspiracy theories."
Note that the criteria for the above is exactly the same as the later one asking for a credible scientific Creationist source. You then replied to the above with: "
I guess that would beg the question what do you mean by credible creationist?" And thus began the long semantical drivel of an argument as to what credible means. For more than a few exchanges I gave you the link to my other topic which was asking for a credible
scientific Creationist
source which you must have ignored, since it was only when I directly copy and pasted it in a separate post did you actually acknowledge it and reply to it properly
(page 19, post #190). You then claimed my challenge was totally unfair, and again continued to fight me on what credible means.
Later, in reply to the above post, we see you are complaining about a point in that above challenge
(page 20, post 199) After I explain what I meant by point 1 of the criteria, and show how it isnt actually unfair, you cite Louis Pasteur.
"Would you say the same of Louis Pasteur?". I then told you why Louis Pasteur couldnt be a Creationist source. I also had reminded you at various points previously that when I said there are no credible Creationists I meant modern ones, as scientists in Darwins time werent the antiscientific self deceptive variety around today - so Louis Pasteur didnt fit that either.
You then must have got desperate and threw ICRs list at me claiming victory, and also warning me, "
you must discredit every scientist listed" as presumably that was the only way you considered it possible for me to prove you wrong. You were also still fighting me on Pasteur in the same post. I reminded you that you were being lazy to throw ICRs list at me, when I was saying. "
you know as well as I do that even if I did refute them all here you could just throw another list at me." I also reminded you that ICR are inherently unscientific, and in that list they have their own fake-scientists, so of course the rest were extremly dubious. But I told you if you truly believed ICR to be a valid source you were free to do this properly by choosing any 1 or 2 of the individuals on that list, and allow us to look at what they have said by presenting it here. You also completely ignored that, twice. (page 28+30, post #280+300)
You also misrepresented my challenge by saying things like "
You challenged me to find a credible creationist site" which of course I didnt, since a source doesnt have to be a website in itself. And despite giving you all kinds of examples of what would discredit them, and the degree of ignorence and dishonesty I was talking about, you still insisted on misrepresenting it as a totally unfair impossibility. In the same post you also say
"I never claimed a credible source, ... I claimed a credible scientist". Now it was probably due to your own ineptitude through not paying attention that you had actually cited Pasteur in a direct responce to the posts about the 'credible
scientific Creationist
source challenge', but then instead of admitting that when it must have became apparent, you instead argued through it blaming it all on me claiming I wasnt listening to you.
Unfortunately, Pasteur didnt count for either point anyway. He did not fulfill what I asked for in a credible Creationist, as barring every other reason which I had already told you about, I already had said previously that I was talking about
modern Creationists. So no match there then. In regards to your ICR list you have totally ignored both times where I have told you to cite someone properly
(even from that list if you want), and not be such an intellecual coward about it by presenting it in the way that you did. So what we are waiting for now is again for you to either show me a credible Creationist, or a credible scientific Creationist source. Like I said this should be quite simple if there were such individuals, as there are a lot of Creationists on the internet
What's up? I have shown you many scientists that believe the toc that have creditials much longer and more impressive than yours I am sure, but you ignore them (as I predicted you would do) so as to continue argueing with me.
The thing is Razzel, I didnt actually ask for credentials. What I did say about them was
, "....I would also add that it is not necessary that they be qualified in a relevant field, though that would of course elevate their credibility far higher than someone without, but then they run the risk of knowingly stating flasehoods because they are already aware they are." -- (page 26, post 254)
And be carefull, you wouldnt want to make the appeal to authority fallacy.
Apart from correct your misrepresentations of me, the subject is closed, not only did I meet the challenge in light of my claims,
See above for everything else you say in this post. And you didnt meet the challenge. Pasteur didnt count for either point, and your list was a dishonest and cowardly cop out. I said if you wanted to use that list you could, but I told you to pick 1 or 2 of those individuals who you feel are the best examples and present them here along with a link to something they have written. I told you that twice which was totally ignored both times..
I also predicted that you would discard the evidence because it didn't fit your agenda. The same problems you have with creationists. You claim that they can't admit when they are wrong even when it is right in front of thier face, and yet you do the same thing. I wonder
I have no agenda. You have shown me only one person that might fit the challenge, Louis Pasteur. Someone we cant even be absolutely sure was a Creationist anyway, let alone a source for it. Thats how little Pasteur fits. I also told you many times that scientists that had Creationist beliefs back then were not like the anti-scientific variety around today, so you knew I was talking about modern Creationists. Pasteur doesnt fit either point. Your ICR list is a cop out.
If you remember, what I said about bias is that if the peer review is also biased, then we still don't know fact, what we know is what the biased peers will say. This is commonly understood and evidenced with jurer selections.
Why on earth do you keep bringing up this court room nonsense! I keep telling you that a court room is not relevant in any way to this discussion, and that it has no resemblance to the scientific method. Ive told you this over and over again, and yet you continue to use it for an analogy. This is also the second time you have said that peer review is like a jury. Its unfortunate, I know, that it doesnt fit your argument that Creationist sources are comparable, but Im afraid peer review doesnt work anything like a jury, Razzel, so Im afraid you just have to deal with it.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pe/peer_review.htm
Let's be honest okay? I came here asking for communication, soon it became obvious that that wasn't likely to happen,
I dont know what you were really after, but it wasnt communication. Apparently this isnt the first time you have acted this way either. If it isnt intentional, why do you think you get into these arguments every single time and with every single person? Why is it that it always everyone elses fault that they cant communicate with you? We gave you answers to your questions but very soon it became clear that you werent interested in learning, only arguing in endless subjective semantical circles. You dont admit you are wrong, use your own definitions of words, and you pretend things you say really meant something different when it suits you (for example see end)
so I made predictions based on my theory as to why that is and then I tested those predictions on you. Every one of those predictions was evidenced, so I wonder if you are now ready to accept the theory as fact? Why or why not? It was a blind study and every test evidenced the predictions.
Is this you being patronizing again?
Okay, I have tried this about a hundred difference ways, so let's use an example. You have claimed that there are no credible creation scientists today, so I challenge you to find one. Now isn't that a rediculous challenge?
Of course it is.
That is the kind of challenge you gave me! I claimed that there were credible scientists that believe in the toc and you challenged me to find a credible creationist source.
Both, actually. I asked you to show me a credible Creationist, and then later I asked you to show me a credible
scientific Creationist
source. You havent shown me anything that fits either.
I have spent many pages, posts, and time in explaining to you that I find all sources to be biased and therefore not credible, only to have you come back here and accuse me of all kinds of nonsense.
Talk about a change of direction. First you said you only have to be
believable to be credible, and now you are saying you have to be without any bias at all in order to be credible.
And credible doesnt mean without bias, Ive been telling you that all the way through this. And even if you did want to fight me on the definition -
I - told you what -
I - meant. Everyone has a bias even if they dont know it, and that is the reason for peer review. However peer review is not a person it is a method. Bias is bad because bias can create inaccurate results. Peer review isnt perfect of course, but its the best method we have. The difference is Creationists usually make it out as if their bias is a good thing. And like I said, I can find innumerable credible sources that support evolution and various other sciences Creationists attack. You cannot do the same. All you do is continually play your semantics card.
"All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. Science is not perfect. It is often misused. It is only a tool, but it is the best tool we have"
--Carl Sagan
Actually there have been two times on this thread when I was wrong, both were admitted and both were corrected and both were met with repeated assults on my mistakes, and neither times were the admittions, appologies or corrections accepted.
Youve been wrong a lot more times than just 2! (and what were those times I would like to know)
1. You claimed that "
if anything" Evolution borrowed from Genesis
. (page26, post#255) You totally ignored your error, even when I pointed it out more than once.
2. You wrongly cited Pasteur, and continued to fight me on it. You then eventually totally ignored my responce, so you didnt have to admit you were wrong.
3. You have repeatedly misrepresented peer review and science as working like a jury and a court room, despite constant reminders that it simply does not work like that. You ignore your error, and are still at it.
4. You cited a page that didnt contain anything relevant for Louis Pasteur, even though you claimed it was. You never admitted that you were wrong and ignored it as you eventually did everything in regards to Pasteur.
5. You were wrong when you claimed I wasnt reading properly when I answered your "
why are origins important?" question, with "
because Creationists want it taught in school". In order to save face you pretended you were talking about something else, only you got hopelessly confused when you said
"the question was not ...directed at what is taught in school." and
"The question was totally unrealated to school". Which unfortunately meant you completely contradicted yourself when you said,
"why is it important enough to even teach in schools? That was the original idea behind the question". It seems you are in such a rush to put people down with arrogant patronizing claims of them not listening and of how incredibly inconsiderate they are for not understanding you, that when you make a mistake like this instead of admitting it, you just try and pretend its someone elses fault to try and cover it up.
And theres plently more.