From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: I reinterate my blender request
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:08:23 GMT

In <7632@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:

[ ... discussion between L. Tun and C. Colby about mistake in computer program
and game ...]

>I remember reading once of a study in which people were asked to identify
>objects as pictures of them were slowly brough into focus.  Those who made an
>incorrect identification early did not get the object correct until later
>(with the object more in focus) than those who didn't.  Similarly, isn't it
>possible that a description that conflicted with that of the game might not
>have been enough to dislodge the wrong identific.  Could it be that Lionel
>is not familiar enough with the details of the game that the description
>sounded wrong?  Could it be some other possibilty which would allow an
>honest person to be honestly confused?

>>Thank you for once again demonstrating how entirely morally and
>>intellectually bankrupt you creationists are.

>"I'm sorry sir, but we're going to deny you a security clearance"

>"Why?

>"Our information is that you are morally bankrupt."

>"WHAT??!"

>"Yes.  It seems that back in 1992, you confused the names of two computer
>programs."

>It seems on the net  that creationists are not able to be confused, make a
>mistake, see things differently, or draw different conclusions from the
>evidence.  Stupid and unlearned though we are, it seems that we are held to
>be immune from such common failings.  Since we obviously see immediately the
>absolute truth of what is told us in this group, if we offer a differing
>opinion, it *must* be due to our hidden adgendas, bigotry, lying natures, and
>moral and intellecual bankruptcy. :-) :-) :-)

	Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The creationists
claims imply that all (or most) modern understanding of physics, astro-
phyics, biology and chemistry (to name a few) is somehow awry.  All that we
ask is a consistent theory that provides explanation of where what we think
we know is wrong, and how to do it right.
	Instead, all we get is repitition of long-refuted arguements, backed
by evasion, ad-hoc attacks ("evilution"), misunderstanting of the theories
they claim to contest, irrelevant theological and philosophical digressions, 
and in some cases outright lies [e.g., the ICR].
	It perhaps sad but true that many of the regular contributors to 
this group long ago got tired of trying to distinguish between honest 
stupidity and the deliberate types mentioned above.  It becomes worse when 
confronting someone who is known to use these tactics.  (I remember the 
'consequences of evolution' thread started by L. Tun a few months back.)
	Creationist, if you want to gain any respect, come up with a viable
alternative to evolution and associated thoeries.  Keep in mind, however, 
that the current theories have grown over 100's of years of research with 
millions of man-hours put in by thousands and thousands of scientists all 
over the world, with expertise in MANY areas of science.  Unless you want
to start shouting 'conspiracy', which will get you promptly flamed, you
had better move slow and carefully when confronting such a body of combined
effort.  One of the few organizations which claims to do this, the ICR, has
shown itself to be composed of "hidden agendas, bigotry, lying natures, and
moral and intellecual bankruptcy."

>>It must be a neverending source of joy to meander through your little fantasy
>>world where supernatural beings are mixed up in the affairs of humans

>Would Chris present evidence that supernatural involvement occurs only in a
>fantasy world?  It could be that the world without supernatural involvement is
>the fantsy world.

	It has been empirically determined that supernatural involvement
does not occur.  How?  Simple -- all modern theories of the physical
world predict observable quanties without the intervention of a super-
natural entities.  These observable quanties are measure to be the
expected values, thus the theory was most likely correct in not invoking
the supernatural.

>   Bob Bales

Ben
"but the powers that be will never hear your voice, because they're lost in
their own importance" -- Uriah Heep

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011