Paul Taylor's guide on how to educationally retard yourself

This 'Creation Byte' just came through my youtube feed and it surpasses even creation today's average stupidity.



First thing, if you have a system called 'fuzzy word analysis', you might want to just throw the towel in right there.  Anyway though, on to matters of actual substance.

Fuzzy word analysis is supposed to be useful for reading public release, article-format scientific writing. It helps people who don't know much or anything about the topic they're reading criticize it without all the bother of gaining a proper understanding of it first.

How evidence for a theory can be 'in the use of the words' confuses me, but that's not really important, on to the system itself.

With a yellow highlighter, mark every word or phrase that implies the least bit of uncertainty or implication, <sarcasm>after all, every true scientific statement is absolute and not subject to change.<sarcasm/>

With an orange highlighter, mark any statement that couldn't be directly observed by the individual.
(We can deal with radiometric dating and Paul's infantile understanding of it later.)

With a gray highlighter, mark off every paragraph which includes either yellow or orange marker.  The whole paragraph is null.

You are now qualified to intellectually criticize science that is performed by people who 1) have a working knowledge of it, 2) are trained and educated for it and 3) don't have to take turns with the family brain cell.

If you have the time, read this and do the same thing. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals

So, to Paul, Eric and the rest of Creation Today and the YEC/Fundamentalist factions;


Until next time.

Accuracy vs. Truth

Eric Hovind and his merry band of idiots are at it again (episode from October 5, 2012 - snippet released August 28, 2013), check out their video here.

So, Jackson equivocates philosophical truth with situational accuracy.  I don't see that this even requires much explanation, but hey, who wants to just be in that "puffy cloud of pretend intellectualism"?  Philosophical truth is much more complex than mere accurate information, here's Stanford's page on philosophical truth, which does a better and more complete job of explaining it than I can.  As is clear from that page, the equivocation between philosophical truth and accuracy is no small deal.  The amount of change a person should get from a clerk is a matter of accuracy.  Knowing that a bus is coming toward you is a matter of accuracy (and possibly a change of pants).

The Bible verse warning about philosophy is really a cheap out and it makes me think that the author knew as well as anyone that he had little ground to stand on, thus making a direction to avoid philosophical discussion necessary. It seems that were the Bible credible, it wouldn't have an issue with people engaging philosophically.

Thank you Eric, for unearthing an old gem of idiocy.