One hoax does not undermine the entire weight of evidence for evolution. If that were true, then I can point to any fraudster who uses the Bible in his schemes (re:
Jim Bakker), and then imply that the Bible is completely wrong.
And, you do realize that it was, uh,
other scientists who discovered the forgery, right? Instead of blindly citing a source to try to make a point, why don't you, er, try to understand it completely first before using it? What a concept!
|
Folks we eat sleep & breath agendas please spare me of all the judgments.
Without knowing more about the basic intent of this place I can only conclude that it is built to manipulate people. Nothing new, we can go anywhere else and say the same thing.
|
No. No, no and no.
You're simply assuming that
all people have agendas, and
all institutions are manipulating emotions in the same naked, ham-fisted way the Creation Museum is doing. You don't seem to understand the simple difference between
emotional manipulation and
persuasive argument based on evidence. That is either sheer ignorance or sheer cynicism, and good science doesn't have either.
You can walk into any respectable museum of natural history that discusses evolution, and you won't find exhibits accusing creationists of
anything, let alone Naziism and bestiality. Tell me this, then - why is it, then, for a institution that purports to promote
Biblical philosophy, why do they spend all that effort slandering the people who disagree with them? Yessirree, that's a real paragon of Christian values there, golly-gumdrops!
My point is, if you walked into any museum, it'll stand in stark contrast to how utterly manipulative that Creation museum is. If the evidence in the Creation museum were really that strong (and if LeHah's post is anything to go by, it's, uh, not), there wouldn't even be a need for this kind of appeal to the emotion.
Also, I stand by my point that good science is agenda-free : the point of science is to draw conclusions based on observed evidence. Creation "science" seems to be backwards - starting from the conclusion, and then trying to find something -
anything to fit it.
That is not science.
Implying that everyone has an agenda just shows how ignorant you are. If you actually knew a lot of scientists, you'll know that they're like any other group of people - there are good scientists, and bad scientists. But by no means are ALL of them carrying some kind of SIKRIT AGENDA deep in their hearts or something stupid like that.
ETA:
|
Originally Posted by LordsSword
Who told you about the millions of dollars & research? Do you really know where your answers come from?
|
Again, this shows your ignorance. Scientists in academia have to work their asses off to win money for their research through government, institutional and corporate grants. Anyone's who in the sciences knows this. You really need to get yourself educated in this before mouthing off like that.
How ya doing, buddy?