(July 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(July 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't remember them mentioning God when they pointed out all the problems with the math, the unrealistic assumptions that were made, etc. So if an atheist had written the same exact words down on paper, what would be the difference? You are giving typical AF vague objections and attacking the source and not the content.
You're willfully ignoring the source, which is important. And no, before cling to your genetic fallacy teddy bear, its not a fallacy to to note that these people are arguing from a position that is pre-drawn and in direct contradiction to the article they're analyzing. They are starting from a point that is scientifically laughable and has zero evidence and has never been seriously proposed by any real scientist, AND they make it clear they hold these views on that same website. You want us to just ignore that while they 'analyze' a scientific article? Nope, sorry. Its like listening to an anti-vaxxer criticizing an article that says vaccines are useful. We cant ignore the lens through which these people are operating, and its a lens that's utterly deformed and corrupted through willful ignorance, manipulation of data, unscientific practices, and dogmatism.
And yes, if an atheist were to engage in this kind of huckster-like pseudoscience crap they would be called out just as much.
Ah, so evolution is true because there is no scientific information to suggest otherwise. Oh, and by the way, if you have some scientific information that suggests a problem, it won't be considered because evolution is true. Sound reasoning. You have illustrated the bias that many scientist have--thank you.
