nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + + + + + + +
Talk:Transitional form (view source)
Revision as of 10:47, January 27, 2008
, 10:47, January 27, 2008→Recent quote: Still not conspiracy, and more
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:22, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:22, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I said they look like outdated ramblings, not nessecarily that they are outdated. You're accusing scientists of hiding information because it would be helpful to your cause-- That ''is'' accusing them of conspiracy. But I know you're just going to dismiss that with "Standard darwinist tactic, ha ha!" so I ask you this: If Creatinionism has been "gaining ground" as you so claim, surely the number of scientists speaking out against it '''must''' be going up? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I said they look like outdated ramblings, not nessecarily that they are outdated. You're accusing scientists of hiding information because it would be helpful to your cause-- That ''is'' accusing them of conspiracy. But I know you're just going to dismiss that with "Standard darwinist tactic, ha ha!" so I ask you this: If Creatinionism has been "gaining ground" as you so claim, surely the number of scientists speaking out against it '''must''' be going up? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Okay, so I guess I should have asked how the existing quotes ''look'' "outdated", and "rambling".
::::::::::::: No, it's still not conspiracy. I defined conspiracy as "a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true". I'm making no accusations of any sort of ''group'', i.e. ''organisation'' of individuals, plotting, i.e. planning this together. And when I said "suppress something they know to be true", I was talking about them suppressing creation knowing it to be true. They don't believe creation to be true, so their suppression of it is not fitting that definition.
::::::::::::: I would say that the number of scientists speaking against it ''is'' going up, although I would qualify that with several points:
::::::::::::: * Scientists tend to not like getting involved in this sort of thing, thinking that it gives creation some legitimacy. So they tend to leave it to non-scientists to comment on (including the mass media and the science magazines).
::::::::::::: * They have reduced their involvement in live public debates, ostensibly because it gives creation publicity and legitimacy, but likely because they tend to lose the debates.
::::::::::::: * They consider Intelligent Design to be a form of creationism, and their efforts in recent times have been more directed to that, with not so much effort directed against creationism itself.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)