| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Stupid question, but has anyone seen my groups?Question: Stupid question, but has anyone seen my groups!? http://groups!.yahoo!.com/group/Nightmares!.!.!.
And http://tech!.groups!.yahoo!.com/group/Panga!.!.!. Please, weather you like them or think they are stupid and/or dubious, let me know in a reply!. I am seeking members for both, nonetheless!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: The nightmare one's rather odd, but I think the science one is really cool!.Www@QuestionHome@Com koolWww@QuestionHome@Com I'm not interested in a fiction blog, and the second is just yet another creationist blog!. No thanks!. Watching people falling for pseudoscience depresses me!. Funny thing is, you say you will "discuss scientific studies", but I bet there won't be one peer reviewed study published in a real science journal (as opposed to a creationist vanity press) supporting creationism that you discuss!. Why!? There aren't any!. Creationists don't do science!. No, you'll probably simply do what all creationists do, which is attack inaccurate caricatures of evolution and pretend that creationism is the only alternative!. Any instance where science says "I don't know" you'll probably interpret that as "I _do_ know, goddidit", when that's just your baseless assertion!. "God of the gaps", "straw man argument", "false dichotomy", and "argument from failure of imagination" are the logical fallacies I frequently see creationists take refuge in!. This is already demonstrated by how the site says "those theories are made by Evolutionists who don't want there to be a god"!. That's simply not true!. For example, Gregor Johann Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was an Augustinian priest! There are many evolutionists who also believe in God as well!. See, for example, the Clergy Letters Project, where over 11,000 members of the clergy so far have endorsed evolution: http://www!.butler!.edu/clergyproject/reli!.!.!. You also claim that "life, theories and dates have been diluded" [sic!.] because of the supposed bias (which doesn't actually exist)!. Since "diluded" isn't a word, I don't even know what that means!. If you meant "deluded" then that makes no sense, because only people can be deluded, not "life", etc!.!. If you meant "diluted", I don't see how that makes sense either, because dates can't be made thinner or reduced in strength!. You also claim that in Darwin's "last book he stated that there is no evolution, but what he found was, indeed, adaptation!. Higher powers wanted an alternative to Creationism so they banned the book and his last work was never to be seen!." LOL!. I love it when people describe the contents of books that were never seen and can't be checked!. Got any evidence this ever occurred!? Care to name the title of this work!? No, of course not!. BTW - his complete works are online here: http://darwin-online!.org!.uk/ It looks like if anyone is going to be presenting "fake scientific theories" there, it's going to be you!. Creationism is pure pseudoscience, and that's what a "fake scientific theory" is!. Creationism has no scientific basis, it is based in religion, not objective testable claims, thus it is not science, even if it pretends to be scientific in nature!. You're free to discuss whatever you want, but you're lying to yourself and others by calling it science, when it's just religion wearing a cheap suit!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |