This is great; Jerry starts a thread about how unfair it is Creationists have such a bad press. He then shows one occasion where this seem to be unfair.
I respond to this with examples of why some Creationists have fully deserved the reputation they have - and it is Jerry that said Creationists have this reputation.
When he responds, it is with a book review.... which does not support Creationism in any way, even if the author's speculation regarding the variability of c IS true.
After I posted yesterday, on the train home I realised this was rather funny. If you want to be picky, Jerry posting that review is either;
a) An honest mistake
b) Scientific ignorance; thinking that any theory of variability of c would support Creationism
c) A Red Herring; presenting a theory about variability of c in the hope it will make people think a criticism has been addressed AND KNOWING IT DOESN'T
There is a grey area between a) and b) where someone can honestly think they are countering a point, but where if they knew more about the subject better or looked at the material they were referencing more diligently they would realise it did not.
I am not saying which one it is as I cannot know Jerry's mind, but it's ironic that 2/3rds of the possibilities are EXACTLY the kind of reasons that give Creationists the reputation they have, as I demonstrated previously.
Not one of the examples I gave has been addressed.
And then, to make it even funnier, hooberus comes along complaining about me saying he's lost credibility due to abandoning Biblical chronology... we'll wait and see how he explains it on the thread referenced. In that thread, despite the evidence presented that shows bristlecone pines would of had to be alive and standing during and after the Flood WITH ANY POSSIBLE DATE FOR THE FLOOD, he states he believes all bristlecone pines are post-Flood without providing any evidence for this other than his assertion.
And then he complains about the term "intellectually dishonest" being applied to Creationists!
And STILL not one of the examples I gave has been addressed.
Rather than dealing with the issues raised, Jerry posts this;
As once said, even is there is no Christian God, one is usually better off believing in him (as is society).
Yes? I disagree. Christian society might give people the illusion at the micro level of being better, but if you look at the macro level you have corruption, crime, war, hypocricy, greed, bigotry, etc. displayed just as in non-Christian societies. And at various point being a different religion, or female with no realtives and land was very often a terminal experience in Christian Society. Quite how Jerry can state this without a specific defense of the examples I've given above (where Christians are shown to be just as liable to error and deceit as the next man), I don't know.
Do you know what is involved in earning a Ph.D. in biology?
Pretty much. I'm a humble BA(Hons), but my degree classification could equally have been BSc due to it's make-up, so I only have observation to go on. I have one friend with a Ph.D in Biology and I know how long it took her to get it. I have another aquaintence with a Ph.D; after being involved with the Lucky Strike Motorbike Team as a design engineer of some sort, he went to University, did his BSc in two years, finished his MSc in a year, and took his Ph.D in some equally truncated time period... whilst making a racing Harley at home, making crossbows out of titanium from stock he had left over, rebuilding a Ferrari 308GTB, and editing several books on cars and bikes... in his 'spare time'. Bad example though, as he's one of two people I've met and maybe three or four I know who I would describe as scarily intelligent (with the virtually compulsory social skills of a tree sloth).
How do you know what my course work and research at CPU involved? Of course you don't.
Jerry, you are STILL talking about the 'rubber stamp' of educational qualification you have. I am talking about what you try to put that stamp on. I don't care if you have a Ph.D or not, I care about the accuracy of the arguements you make, and give bonus points for elegence and wit. Stop talking about your qualification and use it to defend your viewpoints.
Why do atheists and agnostics focus on mocking and attacking the person of others?
With some of the examples given I don't have to explain this, do I? Bar rules; a dumb arguement is a dumb arguement, whether it's made in a bar or online, whether it's made by a mechanic or a Ph.D. Bad arguements get laughed at, really dumb ones get ridiculed. You don't like it, make good arguements OR show why your arguement IS good. Just complaining you're arguement is being laughed at will not help, you have to DEFEND your argument.
If you make a good arguement you are unlikely to be laughed at even if you turn out to be wrong. It's the acme of 'discussion' when this happens. To me, what some Creationists do is like answering the question; "Is there a Trinity" with the answer "kipper". You'd laugh at me if I did that, I'm sure. And unless I could show you "kipper" was a reasonable answer, you'd have every right.
I am now working on a paper about CPU (which is not defunct but operates in another state) , and when I put it online your response will be, "well OK but I found another area to put you down".
You miss the point, again. If you put up a paper that can stand up, it can't be laughed at. It you put up a paper that vindicates yourself in one instance of a perception you yourself admit that people have, and then don't address ONE example I've given of where the perceptions are true, then people are unlikely to have any interest in your self-vindication and a lot of amusement in your avoidance. Ph.D doesn't stand for "Don't laugh at me".
And you started this topic, your paper is entitled " Are All Creationists Liars?"
So far, you've not really defended your viewpoint, as there are numerous examples given where they have lied or have authored supposedly scholastic work without the competence to do it, which is a form of deceit in my books. Kind of funny, the amoral lawless athiest bring Creationists to task for deceit...
So, address the examples I gave to counter the tread you started. You want respect, that's the way to get it.