tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294141728297871688.post1674339142234115149..comments2024-03-26T07:09:21.701+00:00Comments on linguistlaura: Astonishingly bad scholarship from CreationistsLaurahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15599735346062899537noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294141728297871688.post-4738053132549197682012-01-04T08:18:46.246+00:002012-01-04T08:18:46.246+00:00Indeed. They would claim a cricket is in fact an a...Indeed. They would claim a cricket is in fact an ant if it suited their purposes.valdemarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829872956512652469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294141728297871688.post-6089311822621081722012-01-03T10:42:37.825+00:002012-01-03T10:42:37.825+00:00Yeah, I know, but it makes me cross. At least some...Yeah, I know, but it makes me cross. At least some of these people do say that they're presenting proper counter-arguments and give the impression that it's just as valid a theory, which is clearly wrong. Just not cricket.Laurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15599735346062899537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294141728297871688.post-36657518704535649942012-01-03T09:24:53.983+00:002012-01-03T09:24:53.983+00:00I think you're confusing an ideological battle...I think you're confusing an ideological battle with doing proper scholarship. After all, creationists want to win political support, not engage in debate. Misrepresenting what people say by selective quotation ('quote mining') is standard practice. In America it's a tactic that seems to be working, not just for creationism but also global warming denial.valdemarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829872956512652469noreply@blogger.com