![gregg braden debunked gregg braden debunked](http://whitecrowbooks.com/images/whitecrow_pics/features/scole.jpg)
Try doing some research before categorically claiming that something isn't science. There is NO proof-except for all the proof. You obviously haven't done any reading on ID or evolution. So scientists say "maybe" and "probably" because although they are basing their claims on current facts, the set of facts is always changing. As new facts become available, the theories change. Science is a process, in which theories are based on the available facts. Yes, absolutely scientists use terms like "may" and "maybe" and "probably"-science doesn't pretend to absolute certainty. PS: Even with "allow ", NoScript does not like your preview or CAPTCHA pages.īut I do know that evolution is nothing more than an unscientific story about how something MAY have happened. The central square could be used for "Projection", or for "La La La, I'm not listening!" "Falsifying the record" (including quote-mining, claiming fossil evidence for the Flood, denying transitional fossils, et al.). "Ad hominem": Newton good, Hitler bad, "you fools at the institute", etc.
![gregg braden debunked gregg braden debunked](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a4/39/21/a43921aef376c642c93551ba62bbbcdb.jpg)
"Abuse of science": Paley's watch, thermodynamics, "no new information", anthropicism, etc "Faith uber alles": includes claiming ID as "just a theory like Darwinism"), claiming science as "just another religion", "God will punish you for your disbelief", etc/ If you want to make the large board easier, you could reserve the corner and/or cardinal spots for the most general categories: Likewise, the "no morality without god", "Newton was religious", and "Darwinism is a faith" could be extended with "God will show you/you'll never win", and "only believers can see the truth". Arguably, "let the children decide" could fall into this group too.
![gregg braden debunked gregg braden debunked](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDYxN3qVEAM3W42.jpg)
Related squares would be "ID is science" and "the truth is out there". This would fit nicely alongside "just a theory", "theory in crisis" and "no evidence for evolution". Likewise, Matteo offers at least one new square, call it "evolution has already been debunked" (but the debunking won't fit into this square/ show/ message /margin -) ). Indeed, the Paley's Watch variations fit together with the abuses of thermodynamics and information theory to form a category. It seems to me your could use a couple of additional rows & columns! Going to 7x7 would nearly double the number of squares, but I doubt you'd have trouble filling them.įor example, The "tornado in a junkyard != 747" could fit under "watch etc", but really, it's common enough to warrant its own square.
#GREGG BRADEN DEBUNKED HOW TO#
If you don't know how to debunk any of them you could go to Talk.Origins Arguments against Creationism and their 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, read what Steven Novella has to say or browse Pharyngula. If you don't know what all these creationist arguments are then you haven't spent much time talking to creationists on the web.
#GREGG BRADEN DEBUNKED FREE#
The "JOKER" square can either be a free square, or you can reserve it for any new ludicrous argument presented (as long as it is presented with total sincerity), or any argument I've missed. You win when you have a straight line of five - horizontally, vertically or diagonally. You check off a square every time the relevant dopey argument is presented. Anyway, I've had some fun recently playing ID Creationist Bingo. The only remarkable thing about the creationists' arguments is it's remarkable how they continue to parrot the same arguments after they have been debunked years ago. This post was inspired by the continued poor and already debunked arguments put forward by creationists - notably on the comments to this post by me, and to a post on Neurologica blog - but also elsewhere.