Creation Science?

[xirtam]

My point was that plagiarism wasn't the issue. That's why I didn't pursue that line of thought. I'm still trying to decide for myself when somebody actually owns a thought.

I kind of like the Native American idea of land. I believe that we get all too caught up in deciding "this is my piece of land," which follows, "cross this line, and I'll shoot you." That's stupid. Land's there for everyone. Enjoy it. Share it.

I think thoughts should be the same way. Should I give my mother credit for all my thoughts in every post, since without her part in the grand scheme of things, my thoughts would not have been possible? She taught me how to read. Others taught me how to think. I'm not alone in this situation. Where did all come from -- this intellect?

God, I guess. To Him be the glory for all truth. All of His truth is plagiarized every day... whenever anyone takes credit for ANY thought. Do you think it bothers Him?

And if you disagree with my version... that there is no God, that all possible kinds of thought is just a random, chaotic production resulting from a bunch of random happenings in the universe... why does thought mean anything? What value can you assign to thoughts that could have -- and did, in the grand scheme of things, according to the "scientific" view, which ironically places a ton of importance on thought, and original thought at that -- assemble from random chemical processes?

Sorry he plagiarized. I'm sure he didn't mean to offend you, but if you're really want to approach it scientifically, you'll be more concerned with the thought and less concerned with the fact that the thought was "stolen." For all you know, he's got permission. Maybe he even works for ICR. Does it matter?

Deal with thoughts, don't just hammer on sources... does it matter whether or not a thought is original if all you're really seeking is truth? Because I've got a newsflash for you... you're not going to come up with an original thought that is true. Because if something is true, then it's always been true.

 

[exp]

I'm still trying to decide for myself when somebody actually owns a thought.

So you *were* suggesting that plagiarism may be justifiable. I thought as much.

Taking credit for an idea that was conceived by someone else is deceitful. You are capitalizing on the accomplishments of others without doing any actual work yourself. It's fraud, theft, prevarication, laziness, and disrespect all rolled into one unethical act. :| I can see you feel differently, though, and since I don't feel like arguing that "plagiarism is bad" (that's as pointless as arguing that "murder is bad" AFAIC) I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for clarifying your post.

 

[xirtam]

It's not the act itself, but the motive behind the act. If he's just trying to capitalize on someone else's accomplishments... yeah, that's stupid and wrong. I don't think that's what he was doing, though. I don't think he was saying, "look at me, I'm cool for posting all this stuff."

I think he just realized that since you all like to hammer people for where they get their information rather than for the quality of the information itself, he shouldn't reveal his sources right away. And he did finally reveal his source.

So yeah. I think plagiarism is justifiable under certain circumstances. I think killing is also justifiable under certain situations.

On the other hand, if plagiarism is wrong in every situation, then I think almost all of us are guilty of it in some form or another every day. So why go pointing fingers?

 

[PlatinumGold]

This:
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually stating that people who only plagiarize material should be easy to hammer with logical arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

clearly follows from most of your post but it does not follow from this:
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should start a thread on intellectual property. Who actually "owns" a thought?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The implication of this second statement of yours (actually first chronologically) is that plagiarism is no big deal. This is reinforced by your cursory dismissal of monotony's transgression with the phrase "So he plagiarized."

What exactly was the point of your comment on intellectual property, if not to suggest that plagiarism can be justified? I seek clarification of your intent, that is all.

First of all, this is NOT AN ACADEMIC SETTING. He is in no way trying to benefit financially or academically by "Plagarizing". Plagarizing is a LEGAL term it isn't an absolute situation.

 

[exp]

First of all, this is NOT AN ACADEMIC SETTING.

Irrelevant.

He is in no way trying to benefit financially or academically by "Plagarizing". Plagarizing is a LEGAL term it isn't an absolute situation.

This was never about legality. Plagiarizing is also an ETHICAL violation. It doesn't take a genius to realize that passing someone else's work off as your own is dishonest, regardless of whether you intend to "benefit financially or academically" from it.

I see that some Christians are once again displaying their willingness to ignore and/or marginalize the transgressions of their colleagues in order to present a united front. We saw it with their circling the wagons in the case of pedophile priests and now we see it on a smaller scale in this thread. Not surprising, I suppose...the record of CvE threads on ATOT is proof enough that they certainly are not interested in the truth about evolution. Now apparently they are not interested in the truth at all.

I should make clear that I am not generalizing here. I assume that there are plenty of Christians who think that what monotony did was wrong...I just find it amusing that none of them have voiced their opinions here or via PM. And so, yet again their religion is seen as whole-heartedly endorsing morally questionable behavior. Is that actually the case? I don't know but that is certainly the way it comes off and unfortunately perception is reality for many people. If an "evolutionist" had done the same thing as monotony he would have been roasted by his peers, not defended.

Also, I want to assure monotony that I am not picking on him. Although I understand Valsalva's position I am willing to give monotony the benefit of the doubt -- that he made a stupid, one-time mistake. It's already forgotten as far as I am concerned. Monotony: Please feel free to bring up any more concerns you have about evolution, preferably via PM or in a new thread since this particular edition died a long time ago.

 

[xirtam]

I see that some Christians are once again displaying their willingness to ignore and/or marginalize the transgressions of their colleagues in order to present a united front. We saw it with their circling the wagons in the case of pedophile priests and now we see it on a smaller scale in this thread. Not surprising, I suppose...the record of CvE threads on ATOT is proof enough that they certainly are not interested in the truth about evolution. Now apparently they are not interested in the truth at all.

I should make clear that I am not generalizing here. I assume that there are plenty of Christians who think that what monotony did was wrong...I just find it amusing that none of them have voiced their opinions here or via PM. And so, yet again their religion is seen as whole-heartedly endorsing morally questionable behavior. Is that actually the case? I don't know but that is certainly the way it comes off and unfortunately perception is reality for many people. If an "evolutionist" had done the same thing as monotony he would have been roasted by his peers, not defended.

Christians see morality as coming not from the actions, but from the underlying motivations. If the motivation for the plagiarism was as you say -- to pass off a work as one's own and to reap all the egoistic intangible benefits associated with making an intellectual statement -- then I'd call it wrong. If the motivation behind it was to share knowledge -- and I believe it was -- then I don't see it as a huge problem. That's the difference. It's not that I'm marginalizing or ignoring. And I would never marginalize a pedophile priest.

Am I interested in truth? You bet. The problem comes when the speaker of truth becomes the center of attention, rather than the truth itself.

And I don't care if evolutionists plagiarize either, particularly if they think it supports the argument at hand. If an argument is brought up, either plagiarized or unplagiarized, I'd like to look at the argument for the sake of the argument. The source is secondary -- it can shed some light on credibility, but most of the time it becomes the main focal point of the discussion. Like in this one.

In an academic setting, I bet the plagiarism brought forth here would never have happened. The motivation wouldn't be there. In the future, just present the source with the information, and if people have a problem with the source, at least they'll be attacking a different object. Still just as wrong of an object, but perhaps the ad hominem nature of the argument will become more apparent. Why do appeals to authority carry so much weight on these boards?

 

[Babbles]

Christians see morality . . .

and

And I don't care if evolutionists plagiarize either . . .

You clearly seperated 'Christians' and evolutionists (whatever that is, I think you just invented a word but I get the point).
So, therefore, people who understand evolution (not believe because contrary to what many of you think it is not a belief system) can not be Christian?
Nice of you to set the absolutes for the rest of us.

And, by the way, if somebody quotes somebody and they don't give credit to the perosn whom originated it, that is plagerism and just pretty lame if you get down to it.
Heck, if you go thru your life saying yourself what others have said, I would be suprised if you had any friends.
For example, ever have an incident where you made a joke and turn around and somebody else said/did the same joke yet didn't admite where it came from? I know I have been in the position where I said/did something both serious and in jest, and other people took claim for it. Pisses me the heck off when that happens.

It is a matter of ethics, if you don't have a problem repeating something and not citing where it came from then that is pretty shallow and a sign of a weak spirit.
You don't have to even cite details, heck just a 'Soandso said this .. . ' is a whole lot better than 'I say/think this. . .'

 

[Orsorum]

To disagree slightly, I do see plagiarism as an issue, and I don't think it's right. While I think that Monotony may have been trying to prove a valid point, I don't think he went about it in the right way.

Here's one Christian who is saying it was wrong.