Slashdot Mirror

It's not censorship, it's filtering.
When something new is brought up it's given it's chance looked over and accepted or discarded, if it's discarded you can rework it later in the light of new evidence but if you just keep shoving the same theory through the door over and over with some extra rambling tacked on at the end we filter you out.
If this were people having second thoughts about renting out a room to a mystery speaker after it was revealed to be Gene Ray harping on about Time Cubes again this would be a finished argument but because someone said religion it's an argument now.
I'm going to leave this here http://creationwiki.org/ you go through this and grade for yourself how much has merit and remember that taking anything in the bible as a proving fact means that therory is dead, like Canopy Therory listing supporting evidence as Noah's flood.
Anyway have fun with that link and try not to bust a gut.

I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.

This is not at all clear.

If you are referring to the tenth commandment (often translated as "Thou shalt not kill") then this doesn't seem to apply to this case; it is clearly referring to unlawful deaths, and lawful deaths are considered OK. For instance, Deuteronomy 20:12-15 is very clear about commanding the killing of people that would involve innocents of other origins (and, incidentally, it also establish women and children as spoils of war.) And before you say that "This is bypassed by the new testament", there are clearly a lot of people that call themselves Christians that disagree with this - often quoting Matthew 05:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.".

You can of course say "That's not real Christianity" - but there certainly seems to be a large number of people that believe this way and call themselves Christians.

By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-, rather than by the standard rhetorical references to what Christianity -is not-, definitionally, as representative. The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.

Agreed, people fail in remaining consistent with their claimed worldview, both theist and atheist alike. That is not the issue, nor is that a productive point for either side. The issue is what does the worldview logically support arguments -for-, and -against-. We are here to evaluate the worldviews qua worldviews, anything else is useless. Formally defining an entire society as atheistic, stating as a formal goal the elimination of religion, and ending up in mass-killings of both atheists and theists, for the objective, in actuality, of (who would have guessed) social power, and power perfectly consonant with Darwinian expectations, could not have provided us with a better test-case of the philosophy, as -actually applied-. We have that test case, as historical fact rather than Dawkins' fanciful musings, and you cannot evade the evidence.

Well there is some precedent.

the ship that carried two of each of the millions of known species that currently exists

Oh, that one's easy! Noah only took two of each animal that existed at the time, which wasn't many. There was only, like, one type of dog. After he landed, speciation occurred, and now there's all sorts of different dogs!

What do you mean a breed is not a species? Now you're just being difficult on purpose.

What is this about an ice shield? This is the first mention I have heard of this loonyness.

I wondered that too. I found this link to a Crystalline Canopy" - http://creationwiki.org/Crystalline_canopy er...which is weird.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

Thanks for the confirmation - you can argue with Climate skeptics the same way you argue with Young Earth Creationists: they will keep coming up with new "proofs" that they are right. Yes, Ladies and Gentelmen: Greenland is covered with 8000 feet of ice, and below it is the seed that God, errm, Erik the Red himself planted 800 years ago. And even the WW2 planes are used by Creationists: http://creationwiki.org/WWII_airplanes_are_now_beneath_thousands_of_%22annual%22_ice_layers.

Look at how roundly and thoroughly Alfred Wegener was attacked when he first proposed plate tectonics

I can't comment on Wegener's personal story, although I may see about tracking down a biography. Plate tectonics, however, is a perfect example of an extreme (but true) scientific inference that required extreme evidence, ie., evidence the gathering of which required not only submarines but sensitive magnetometers unavailable to Wegener: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html.

Somehow the creationists still manage to interpret this as evidence of Noah's flood: http://creationwiki.org/Geomagnetic_reversal. This slavish adherence to a single preselected position is precisely why creationism is an "ism", not "creation science".

Pffft Horseshoe crab been around for 300-450 million years, kicks old octo's ass!

While trying to figure out exactly how long the fossil record is for it I came across this:

http://creationwiki.org/Horseshoe_crab#Horseshoe_Crab_and_Evolution

I am not sure what it says about me, but I can't tell if this is supposed to be serious or just satire...

Also apparently this is not a new conversation as I also ran across this wonderful yahoo forum on the debate...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090310061347AAXFTt1

Funtimes Friday I tell you!

If you actually want to learn something about evolution, then I recommend going to http://talkorigins.org/ where there are dozens of articles dealing with all manner of evolutionary problems and explanations, with full citations so you can go to a library and check for yourself.

You might also like to see what they think in the mirror universe of "creation science". Put on your false beard and pretend to be your fundamentalist twin as you visit the creationist response to talkorigins. Then read your Bible and check for yourself! :)

Does this school district block CreationWiki?, Conservapedia?

Discuss in less than 500 words.

They link back (in the Index to Creationist Claims) to the original site that made the claim, and on the main ICC page, they link to the rebuttal at CreationWiki.