Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on July 7, 2011 at 4:58pm

I have this rather big blog I was about to post debunking 'Mysterious Origins of Man', a 'documentary' that attempts to show a lot of scientific bias.  The actual evidence they use is all very well debunked already, so it's just a matter of collating all that information as a case against the tv program - except for Hueyatlaco, but they greatly misrepresented what went on there so I can work with that.

 

I need to rewrite a big part of the intro now, however.  I had 'discredited' Michael Cremo and Robert Taylor purely on the grounds that they were Hindu Creationists.  Seeing how fallacious it truly is to discount someone's research based on a single aspect of their personal philosophy I need to get out of the habit of doing that.  I'm amazed at how quickly everything Senter had done was discredited here based exclusively on the premise he was a creationist - even though he was proving evolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on July 7, 2011 at 6:12pm

Wow - so exact same data, methodology, and publication with identical peer reviews but you would find out one author was creationist and discount his work while accepting identical work by a person not known to be a creationist?  What's the point of even using science then?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on July 7, 2011 at 7:08pm

You said:

If anyone used scientific methodology, with valid data and was published in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication, I would seriously take it under consideration.

 

But that isn't true.  This scientist used scientific methodology with valid data and published his findings in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication and you 100% rejected any validity of his study because you thought he was a creationist.  Sorry to say, but your claims do not hold up to the evidence at hand.

 

Now you go on with an unwavering definition of how creationists go about their work, but you've already proven you are too bigoted to even read the findings of someone you think might be a creationist - so I must ask, is your definition formed on evidence or just dogmatic opinion?  I'm sorry, that question was already answered in the previous paragraph.

 

So I guess I have no more questions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on July 7, 2011 at 7:39pm

Now we are going in circles as you deny the actual course you took in place of a course you suggest you would take.  That's where the discussion ends, I'm pulling out of the traffic circle.

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on July 7, 2011 at 10:36pm

I don't believe in "if" anymore.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on October 30, 2011 at 12:26am

Well all I ever hear about it is that they totally fabricate everything.  I was amazed to find that they were actually using valid statistical methods for analyzing evidence.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page