Skip to main content

apljdi 's Library tagged creationism →  View Popular

18 Jul 07

The creationist follies | hell's handmaiden

  • Luskin’s argument is yet another incarnation of the somewhat silly, but very popular among creationists, argument that “scientists have been wrong before so they must be wrong now about… um… stuff we don’t like.”
12 Jul 07

But... the Wedge, guys! Think about the Wedge! | hell's handmaiden

  • Scordova– Salvador Cordova, perhaps?– has written a response to John Morris, president of ICR. Morris has written that the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) is an “unashamedly Christian/creationist organization… concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him”. However, “ID is strictly a non-Christian movement” and consequently “while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them”.
30 May 07

Radiometric dates don't match, oh my! | hell's handmaiden

  • It is very common for creationists to complain that various radiometric dating methods– radio-carbon, potassium-argon, etc– don’t give the same dates. Thus, the misguided argument goes, radiometric dates can’t be trusted and let’s just scrap ‘em all.
29 May 07

O'Leary asks another dumb question | hell's handmaiden

  • The problem isn’t in suggesting it. Scientists suggest all kinds of bizarre things. No one censors suggestion, though it is standard creationist rhetoric to suggest that good wholesome creationist science is quashed by the bad scientific cabal. Nonsense.
27 Apr 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » O’Leary: Prophetess of Misdirection

  • And yes this does scare me. It scares me every bit as much as it would scare me if doctors were trained to treat patients based upon the humors. It scares me as much as it would scare me to know that the engineer building the city had been well seasoned with the convoluted ‘reasoning’ required to defend such nonsense as the biblical Flood.
21 Apr 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Religious robot? Or religious freak?

  • I think she’s going for something like this: “People base their decisions on emotions. Materialists think the world world proceeds in lockstep mechanical order. Emotions aren’t mechanical, therefore materialists can’t explain the behavior we see around us. Therefore non-materialism wins.” Never mind the rather extended series of problems with that chain of reasoning– problems starting right from the get-go with ‘materialism’.
20 Apr 07

Intelligent Design the Misdirection

  • Evolution should be taught because the evidence against it is magnificiently bad.


    ID should not be taught because the evidence in its favor is equally bad.

19 Apr 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Evolution News & Reverse Engineering

  • Reverse engineering does not imply design. That some item or some process can be replicated does not infer that the original item was conceived and constructed by an intelligent agency or even by any agency at all.
15 Apr 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Blogs for Something Non-Controversial

  • Mark then quotes the Pope, an obvious and reasonable first choice when seeking information about scientific matters. To be fair, the content was generated not just by the Pope but by “Pope Benedict and his former theology students“. I’ll return to the Pope in a moment, but let me ask my own set of questions…
25 Mar 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Is ID an emergent discipline?

  • So, the connection?


    There isn’t one really, except in the negative sense. The creationists are just trying to co-opt some credibility from a real scientist.

17 Mar 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » The Raw Story Whackjob

  • I hate this oft repeated claim that belief in ‘God’ and disbelief in ‘God’ are beliefs standing on a level playing field. The claim is absurd, and one only has to substitute a few nouns to see why. Try ‘unicorn’, or ‘water sprite’. Try ‘Galactic Overlord’. Try ‘my five year old’s invisible friend’.
12 Mar 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Evolution News & “My Doctor is No Evilutionist’

  • The first is to note that not very long ago doctors didn’t use antiseptic either. Is evolutionary biology going to revolutionize medicine the way antiseptic did? Some people think so, some, like Egnor I assume, do not. The point, though, is that what we use right now does necessarily indicate what good medicine will be in the future.

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Collapsed Apostle tells a story… Are you kidding guys?

  • “Gee, some rocks fell down and some people were surprised; therefore the Earth is 4000 and some odd years old.”
07 Mar 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Think about creation.

  • When a child asks “why?”, tell that child “its magic” and you end the conversation. Evolution requires explaination. It doesn’t work as an explaination until you understand it. That means, those who accept it, for the most part, have had to think about it. Creationism, on the other hand, is just the sort of answer one does not have to think about. “Why do I have to go to bed now, mommie?” “Because I said so!” “Okay. Good night.” Creationism requires no explaination, no understanding. It is an appeal to magic and to the bed time stories told to two year olds. It is the definition of mindless explainations.

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Evolution News & Confabulating Legal Terms and Scientific Terms

  • ID pseudo-science propaganda has succeeded in distorting the public perception of the idea of a scientific “theory” enough that some folks have suggested changing the term to something less confusing. “Oh… Yay!”, say the creationists. “Victory. See! See! The scientists are just dictating evolution. What dogmatists!”
05 Mar 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Intelligent Design: BS vs. BA

  • There is a reason that the scientific community does not take ID seriously, apart from its being built upon the flawed science of handful of discredited scientists. Part of that reason is that ID supporters spend tremendous amounts of time and energy selling the product to the masses, to “who might never crack a science book”, and very little time constructing anything resembling a consistent and testable theory. I’m tempted to call it “vapor-ware” but I think even vapor-ware gets more research dollars.
25 Feb 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Conservapedia: Correcting the Wrongs

  • I learned about about kangaroos on Noah’s Ark. I learned that “The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times, which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.”
18 Feb 07

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Evolution News & Buckley Misses the Point too

  • Non-materialistic science would then be what? Science that does not take as evidence things that we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell? Science that takes as evidence things that we cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell? I hope the foolishness of that suggestion does not require too much elaboration.

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Is evolution as scientific as the Earth revolving around the sun?

  • science is biased toward things, explanations, for which we have evidence and against explanations for which there is no possible way we can have evidence– that is, against explanations, or components of explanations, we cannot see, feel, taste, hear, or smell. Remove this restriction, remove this ‘naturalistic’ bias, and anything that anyone can imagine becomes a viable explanation
1 - 20 of 63 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Ads by Google

Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »

Join Diigo