ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a big difference between pointing out a flaw as part of a debate concerning worldviews, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“LordingÃ¢â‚¬Â something over someone.
I agree there is a big difference. So I wonder why you are debating matters of worldview, in a debate concerning the practices of science.
If you go back to post #102, I asked... "even if "evolutionists" did what you say, how does their bad practices justify creationisms bad practices?"
You then made broad and irrelevant statements about evolution being a religion, which FrankH objected too. In making your broad and irrelevant statement you jumped ship on my question and changed the debate to one concerning worldviews, and now acting as if you've done nothing wrong.
So before you accuse anyone of pretensions, you need to take a good hard look at yourself.
Why does an atheist even attempt to argue morality?
I'm not. I noticed you were trying trump the debate by taking the moral high ground, which is a political tactic. It screams of intellectual dishonesty.
Denial is NEVER Ã¢â‚¬Å“irrelevantÃ¢â‚¬Â Lounge, and to even say so show a logical and philosophical issue. You seem to be the one avoiding issues here.
That's rich coming from someone, who just twisted my comment about denial. The point I was making was denial of evolution/creationism/christianity ..whatever... as a religion has nothing to do with the bad practices of evolution being used to justify the bad practices of creationism. As an advocate of creationism, I do not want to see creationism being done as poorly as evolutionism. I'm not avoiding the issue. Instead you are unable to follow the discussion.
Yes, we make assumptions and take things on faith ALL THE TIME. But when we construct our hypotheses, we are attempting to find facts and truth, or disprove and move on. But, if we base our philosophies in life on unproven theories and hypotheses, that is a religious faith, not a faith in a peers work. There is a difference, you do understand that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you?
Natural selection has been proven in micro-evolution, so is fact. While I think it is a mistake for evolutionists to extend natural selection to macro-evolution, I can see why they would make that mistake. Where as, you treat their ideas like they are completely irrational, when they actually rational to some degree, although ill-informed.
You said scheme (just kidding, I know what you meant). No, Lounge, your philosophical attitudes play into your scientific endeavors. And, if you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t come to grips with this fact, then you have more denial issues.
I'm getting tired of your false accusations. It's becoming insulting. At least demonstrate the denial, i.e. show that I cannot come to grips with the facts. You fling denial accusations around like a school boy who just got a new toy.
A genuine case of denial would be Ted Haggard's same-s@x inclinations. He used to be in denial of his inclination as being part of who he is. Now he accepts them as part of who he is, so is no longer in denial. Your accusations of denial do not qualify in this way, because you don't explain what it is the is I am supposedly in denied of in relation to the issue. Instead you create a whole new discussion to make the claim, so you can take the high ground, with the pretension of you being honest. When in fact you just use the accusation as a default tactic to commit to your own denials. For example, you deny the issue of denial has no relevance to whether evolutionism bad practices justify creationisms bad practices.