|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:04 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:10 pm
Can we also have a linklist of outside information relevant to the more common discussion topics around here?
For example, we can have a link to TalkOrigins that everyone should read before they try to argue against evolution.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:57 am
Sinner Can we also have a linklist of outside information relevant to the more common discussion topics around here? For example, we can have a link to TalkOrigins that everyone should read before they try to argue against evolution. Good suggestion. I've added four that came to mind right away. Any others you think I should link to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:15 pm
On this note, for the anti-evolution sites, could we get links to the TalkOrigins page that refutes these arguments easily available so that people know better than to try to use them? After all, the point is to give them useful sources, not ones that have already been refuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:32 pm
Sinner On this note, for the anti-evolution sites, could we get links to the TalkOrigins page that refutes these arguments easily available so that people know better than to try to use them? After all, the point is to give them useful sources, not ones that have already been refuted. Sounds like a good idea, but it's just a lot of work. sweatdrop That would require searching through many of the arguments on the sites provided, and then systematically finding the specific argument that refutes them. Yes, it is probably a good thing to do, as it's more progressive to avoid starting with an argument that has already been refutued. But to be blunt, I do not want to spend the time to do it. If someone else would volunteer, that'd be great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:41 pm
Ablazed Sounds like a good idea, but it's just a lot of work. sweatdrop That would require searching through many of the arguments on the sites provided, and then systematically finding the specific argument that refutes them. Yes, it is probably a good thing to do, as it's more progressive to avoid starting with an argument that has already been refutued. But to be blunt, I do not want to spend the time to do it. If someone else would volunteer, that'd be great. Hell, I'll do it. Or at least, some of it. And I'm sure there are others (probably M&R regulars) who can get the rest done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:49 pm
Sinner Ablazed Sounds like a good idea, but it's just a lot of work. sweatdrop That would require searching through many of the arguments on the sites provided, and then systematically finding the specific argument that refutes them. Yes, it is probably a good thing to do, as it's more progressive to avoid starting with an argument that has already been refutued. But to be blunt, I do not want to spend the time to do it. If someone else would volunteer, that'd be great. Hell, I'll do it. Or at least, some of it. And I'm sure there are others (probably M&R regulars) who can get the rest done. Alrighty, and I'll try and recruit some people from the DYBIM thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:49 pm
Also, it couldn't hurt to add this to the homosexuality section. After all, it's the American Psychological Association. Who is better qualified to talk about homosexuality than them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:55 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC130.htmlPetrified Hammer Refuted. Honestly, I would not say that EvolutionFacts examines the Theory of Evolution. It's just another site that hoists up a false Straw Man of Evolution and then proceeds to argue using discredited rehashes of popular Creationist claptrap. Saying that it examines the Theory of Evolution is not being truthful. I may sound biased, but I think it's just being objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:00 pm
Vryko Lakas I may sound biased, but I think it's just being objective. Although I totally agree, it's unlikely that the failings of the Creationist websites will cause them to be discredited. I mean, this is a Christian guild. Most people here think that being "objective" means citing Genesis. Which is why I think we should just put refutations after the incorrect sites. It's not as good as just getting rid of them, but at least it's something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:07 pm
The one time I get lazy and guess, I get it wrong. Gadmmit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
