The Discovery Institute is a Christian organization that routinely uses fraud to promote its agenda. But I guess creationists are too biased and dishonest to admit that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
Creationists are buried in a cocoon of ignorance and science denial. They cannot bring themselves to accept science. They do not possess the ability to understand science. They go through life with blinders on. Thriving on projection and logical fallacies in place of evidence and understanding.
I am firmly convinced that they can neither be academically honest nor honest in general. It is just sad, considering they claim to be part of Christianity that prohibits dishonesty as one of its foundational principles.
I am firmly convinced that they can neither be academically honest nor honest in general. It is just sad, considering they claim to be part of Christianity that prohibits dishonesty as one of its foundational principles.
ecco
Veteran Member
Yesterday, David Klinghoffer, a fellow at the creationist “think tank” the Discovery Institute and the author of the absurdly titled book How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative, forcefully demonstrated the ways in which he and the Discovery Institute engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty.
For those familiar with the tactics of the Discovery Institute, it’s probably unsurprising that Klinghoffer “quote-mined”
The Discovery Institute Is A Con-Profit Scam
For those familiar with the tactics of the Discovery Institute, it’s probably unsurprising that Klinghoffer “quote-mined”
The Discovery Institute Is A Con-Profit Scam
More creationist fraud.
Kent Hovind is facing another trial in the federal court in Pensacola on May 18th. In 2006 Hovind was convicted on a 58 count indictment - interfering with the administration of the Internal Revenue laws, failure to pay payroll taxes on the employees, or as he refers to them "missionaries", working for Creation Science Evangelism and structuring, the systematic withdrawal of cash in amounts somewhat less than $10,000 in order to avoid currency reporting requirements. Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison, three years of supervised release and forfeiture of over $400,000 in structured funds.
The Trials Of Kent Hovind - An American Tragedy
Kent Hovind is facing another trial in the federal court in Pensacola on May 18th. In 2006 Hovind was convicted on a 58 count indictment - interfering with the administration of the Internal Revenue laws, failure to pay payroll taxes on the employees, or as he refers to them "missionaries", working for Creation Science Evangelism and structuring, the systematic withdrawal of cash in amounts somewhat less than $10,000 in order to avoid currency reporting requirements. Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison, three years of supervised release and forfeiture of over $400,000 in structured funds.
The Trials Of Kent Hovind - An American Tragedy
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hard to say, it is a free for all. At this point the OP is pretty much spamming and trolling. Hmm, I wonder if it should be reported. Nah . . . the mods know what is going on.
I almost did not respond, because your post was directly to me and it confused me. LOL!
He has been pretty much spamming since he started here, but that is the New Creationism for you.
I think they know. Since, it is fairly benign and most people recognize it for what it is. Answering nonsense with some contrived nonsense seems appropriate, but I think I have made my point and continuing it would trend towards eliminating the implied humor and diminishing the point. Still, I see no need to respond to this other person directly as long as they are maintaining this same disrespectful and discourteous methodology.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Evolution explains the diversity of life and nothing more. It is not supposed to explain the origin of matter and energy, the origin of this universe, or the origin of life. You need to go back and read the theory and understand what it was meant to do. It is absurd for you to claim it should explain anything else than what it does. That's like complaining that the theory of gravity does not explain the speed of light.
Please educate yourself on the topic and then, if you can, explain how a theory explaining the diversity of life based upon genetics, paleontology, biology, and chemistry, to name a few, is in any way based upon belief in the supernatural.
Here is a video of alleged encounters with Sasquatch.is Squatch...
...related to Sasquatch?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Well we know Sasquatch is real because he starred in his own movie. (Harry). LOL
Astrophile
Active Member
Perhaps you should read Icons of Evolution - Wikipedia, 'Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong by Alan D. Gishlick - "Icons" Critique — pdf versions - and Icon of Obfuscation by Nick Matzke in www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html . Reading these websites would give you another view of Wells's book and might help you to understand why professional biologists reject his assertions.
Last edited:
Patriottechsan
Member
You are really funny. Telling me I'm using fradulent material when it's quoted & other quotes from your own evolutionist esp Could admitting the fraud your side as down. Pot - Kettle
BTW for the one accusing Christianity of errors which is OT ( off topics ) from this thread. I've never made this thread about that. Just good vs bad & fraudulent science which despite admissions from key evolutionist you still won't admit what they've admitted. Truly Sad.
If you are truly interested in getting answers to what you think are contradictions etc in the Bible. I'll give just one source. Realize you have to go to this type source to get the answer. Like a trial you have to hear both sides.
This site also deals with many many topics
It's
www.apologeticpress.org
It's one of many but probably easiest to use.
I'm leaving with my wife so won't be back for awhile. Really its useless when you can't even admit to the actual words they say or write.
I hope one day you truly wake up & are truly open to hear other side which includes admitting what your side admits to which would be a great start.
BTW for the one accusing Christianity of errors which is OT ( off topics ) from this thread. I've never made this thread about that. Just good vs bad & fraudulent science which despite admissions from key evolutionist you still won't admit what they've admitted. Truly Sad.
If you are truly interested in getting answers to what you think are contradictions etc in the Bible. I'll give just one source. Realize you have to go to this type source to get the answer. Like a trial you have to hear both sides.
This site also deals with many many topics
It's
www.apologeticpress.org
It's one of many but probably easiest to use.
I'm leaving with my wife so won't be back for awhile. Really its useless when you can't even admit to the actual words they say or write.
I hope one day you truly wake up & are truly open to hear other side which includes admitting what your side admits to which would be a great start.
Astrophile
Active Member
Haeckel's embryos are discussed in the links that I have already given - see https://ncse.com/creationism.analysisicon-4-haeckels-embryos and www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#haeckel-embryo . You should read these links; they would give you a less one-sided view of the issues.
I think for myself, I look at the evidence and form my own opinions. That you cut and paste something doesn't make me believe what you are posting. You being amazed that my opinion hasn't changed means nothing. I'd never heard of Haeckel until a few years ago when he came up in a debate on another forum, he had zero influence on my opinion of evolution. The fact that someone as clever as you claim to be can't work out how to use the forum and your poor spelling and grammar gives me zero confidence in whatever your agenda is.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
Psychological projection - Wikipedia
Another example is an incredibly biased science-denier who makes assertions without substantial support, refuses to listen, refuses to learn, routinely exercises logical fallacies, is dogmatic, closed-minded, behaves dishonestly, is discourteous, dehumanizes others and pretends understanding and expertise all while claiming his betters are that way.
You live it. You might as well learn the definition.
Guess who I am talking to.
Psychological projection - Wikipedia
Another example is an incredibly biased science-denier who makes assertions without substantial support, refuses to listen, refuses to learn, routinely exercises logical fallacies, is dogmatic, closed-minded, behaves dishonestly, is discourteous, dehumanizes others and pretends understanding and expertise all while claiming his betters are that way.
You live it. You might as well learn the definition.
Guess who I am talking to.
I remember from my high school and college days, years ago, learning about his drawings in the honest context and not as examples supporting evolution.
Creationists routinely parade Haeckel out as an example for rejecting evolution, but what it really is an example of is Haeckel's arrogance and taking his understanding too far. The fact is, even if it were not recognized by science and educated people, it would do zero in leading a person to reject the theory. The theory is not based on what Haeckel did, good or bad or overzealous. That is the honest truth and if he were honest, he would admit that, but he cannot.
He will not read it or review it objectively. He has already made up his mind. He is just here to find people that do not reject science on a belief-basis, so that he can ridicule them and feel good about himself.
With all his talk about seeing both sides, one would expect that his propaganda would include what critics of his belief or saying, along with his responses to those critics. Recognizing his work as the propaganda it is and recognizing his tactics, I have given answer to my own points as to why that approach is not seen.
I didn't finish high school, I was needed as cheap labour on the family dairy farm so I'm not sure if I didn't make it far enough to hear about Haeckel or perhaps he isn't in the Australian curriculum. Even so I'm unsurprised that someone who died in 1919 got something wrong. What does surprise me is that someone complains about evolutionists not being honest or owning their mistakes then uses an example of an evolutionist reporting an error to prove his point. If Gould was jumping up and down defending Haeckel then he might have a point....