That’s not a statement, that is a simple fact. Nice tryFrom the website you posted.
By your logic, we should not believe anything on this site because of that statement alone.
Why do I get the sense that your entire world view is based on someone else doing “that homework already?”
Perhaps the “someone” who “has done that homework already” has entrenched biases and his/her own stockpile of “garbage and falsehoods.” Of course, we do not need to make time or have the patience to “debunk” those “sentence by sentence” if they correspond to our own cherished set of beliefs.
Which takes me back to my general point…
Why bother posting detraction of views contrary to yours merely to muddy the water by denigrating holders of those views? Why not address the points directly?
If a creationist is making an error of logic or evidence, show the error. To answer that creationism is flawed because it is the position of creationists is completely unhelpful; worse, actually, because a false impression is left to stand in the place of the truth.
There is no use arguing with you creationists. As soon as the truth is shoved in your face, you bring up strawman arguments and/or keep changing the goalposts or change the topic.The logic that would conclude one site to be errant about everything on the basis of its claims RE: mathematics being the “spawn of Satan” (citation still not provided, however) ought to be the same logic that condemns the other site as equally errant about everything on the basis of its claims RE: Schlafly being the spawn of a "professional anti-feminist” (citation provided above.)
The “logic” is actually a weird admixture of the Fallacy of Origins and the Fallacy of Composition
It seems apparent that “professional anti-feminists” are equivalent, morally speaking, to Satan from the point of view of RationalWiki, since being the “spawn” of either would make the thing equally reprehensible.
Science must have standards. When certain Nazi scientists decided to expose their prisoners to life-threatening and fatal experiments, without their consent, that’s where the line is drawn. Experiments on human subjects requires informed consent.Thank you. But how does that answer this:Are you saying science doesn’t outweigh the morality of the test. e.g complexities inherent in human interactions
From the website you posted.
A serendipitous Scratching Post regarding Phyllis Schlafly…The site was launched on 21 November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly,[1] spawn of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,[2]
ktcatspost.blogspot.ca/2014/05/phyllis-schlafly-hits-for-cycle.html