When I read the original "Creationist" post I knew he was being satirical.
Yet more proof that evolutionists rely more on faith than Creationists. Seriously, if someone cannot even see such obvious satire, how do we trust them to interpret experimental evidence without bias?
And doesn't this remind you of how all the Darwinists fell for the Dawkins video that the guys from Expelled did. They thought it was praising them. Then they got pwned.
But, yet at the same time he seems to be broad brushing all stripes of creationists "by stating their beliefs accurately," but only stating accurately the beliefs of the most fundamentalist type of creationist.
So... I'm suspicious that there is an ulterior agenda.
Actually, he didn't even state those accurately. That's part of how I could tell it was a spoof.
Ebert didn't write like a fundamentalist. He wrote like an atheist pretending to be a fundamentalist.
In other words, he had the understanding of someone who has dismissed a claim as being false without having understood what the claim was, who then attempts to restate that claim.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure if I did a spoof on, say, Scientology, it would sound about the same to Tom Cruise as Ebert's piece did to me. I don't believe in Scientology, and I really don't care that much about it, so that means I would be unable to articulate their claims accurately and with proper nuance, even though I've heard of Thetans and such.
If you are someone like Roger Ebert and you are coming out of the closet as a creationist this is not the sort of ho-hum matter-of-fact article you would publish lacking any rationale for the decision. On that count, it is a pathetic attempt at satire.
When I read the original "Creationist" post I knew he was being satirical.
ReplyDeleteYet more proof that evolutionists rely more on faith than Creationists. Seriously, if someone cannot even see such obvious satire, how do we trust them to interpret experimental evidence without bias?
And doesn't this remind you of how all the Darwinists fell for the Dawkins video that the guys from Expelled did. They thought it was praising them. Then they got pwned.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be a pattern here....
But, yet at the same time he seems to be broad brushing all stripes of creationists "by stating their beliefs accurately," but only stating accurately the beliefs of the most fundamentalist type of creationist.
ReplyDeleteSo... I'm suspicious that there is an ulterior agenda.
Actually, he didn't even state those accurately. That's part of how I could tell it was a spoof.
ReplyDeleteEbert didn't write like a fundamentalist. He wrote like an atheist pretending to be a fundamentalist.
In other words, he had the understanding of someone who has dismissed a claim as being false without having understood what the claim was, who then attempts to restate that claim.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure if I did a spoof on, say, Scientology, it would sound about the same to Tom Cruise as Ebert's piece did to me. I don't believe in Scientology, and I really don't care that much about it, so that means I would be unable to articulate their claims accurately and with proper nuance, even though I've heard of Thetans and such.
ReplyDeleteIf you are someone like Roger Ebert and you are coming out of the closet as a creationist this is not the sort of ho-hum matter-of-fact article you would publish lacking any rationale for the decision. On that count, it is a pathetic attempt at satire.
ReplyDelete