Am 25.08.2013 00:18, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
>>> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
>>> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
>
>> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
>> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
>> interests).
>
> *sigh*
>
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)

I don't consider it a lie, nor is it a position I have taken on from 
creationists. Normally I don't believe shit of what they say.

> Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
> fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
> interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
> conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
> possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
> that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
> any sense.)

I'm not specifically talking about scientific studies related to the 
creationism-vs-science debate, but generic stuff like whether iodine is 
good for your health, whether the global warming is due to the decline 
of piracy in the caribbeans, and other some such.

Of all those studies, I'm not necessarily buying their results, but I 
see no general reason to distrust the numbers they present, as long as 
they can easily be verified.


> The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
> while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
> Christianity: Honesty.

Ho - stop right there! To say that "creationists lie all the time" is an 
oversimplification or, to put it differently, an outright lie.

/Never/ believe /anyone/ who oversimplifies things. (*)


>> As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be
>> wary of creationists than of anyone else
>
> I do because creationists are infamous for constantly cherry-picking,
> distorting, quote-mining and outright fabricating data. If you want any
> credibility for your data, don't take it from creationists. Take it from
> a reputable source. It doesn't even matter if the data is identical; just
> the fact that you are linking to a creationist website decreases the
> credibility and trustworthiness. Link to some better place.
>

Any suggestion in particular? Because if you don't have a better source 
for the particular topic at hand, I'll stick to what people have come up 
who happen to be creationists.

That applies to the numbers, mind you - not their conclusions.







(* To be applied recursively ;-))

Post a reply to this message