Laughing at someone is not proper or fair debate, and does not grant your side of the argument any favors or benefits.
No this is laughing at the need of dishonesty to project ones ideology... These people know they are being dishonest. I don't have a problem with
ignorance, I have a problem with ignorance that is intentional.. There's a difference. The ignorant are just in position of not knowing and are open
to learning. The intentional ignorant is not and rides their entire beliefs on such subjects through dishonesty.. Granted the videos are a bit harsh,
but they do a good job of demonstrating what I am referring to.
There are many valid points and questions raised by all sides of this issue, but far too often many are rejected by members of one side or another
simply because it goes against their beliefs.
Except one side rests its position on empirical evidence and what the facts are. Hence they don't form their reasoning based on what they want to
believe while intentionally ignoring all evidence contrary... There is a huge difference between the two sides of those videos and the creationist
movement vs science..
And yes, I am convinced that creationists, evolutionists, etc, are highly religious in their preconceived notions and convince themselves they are
totally right about things that happened millions of years ago which we have no way of knowing for sure.
There is no cult or group called evolutionists.., and religion is based on faith and not empirical based system or reasoning. But it you want to call
a strong devotion to intellectual integrity, empirically supported and fact based belief a religion, feel free to do so. It would at least have actual
relevance to the real world. Would you make the same argument regarding us vs a dishonest Flat Earther whom would tell you the sun is a spotlight
3,000 miles above? That's the type of claims and dishonesty we are addressing here.
A fossil is only proof that a fossil exists.
How it got there, how it was formed, and 'what it means', are entirely up to interpretation and many people will see different aspects of it.
sorry, there is a lot of actual science on how fossils form... And Creationists often rely on the dishonest trickster GOD as an appeal to ignorance as
an argument against the fossil record. Hence, they are self-inventing and none of it is empirically based. To use your own argument, Creationists
can't point to anything and claim "GOD DONE IT" since existence is only evidence of existence itself, or that a rabbit is only evidence of a rabbit
according to the logic you just used. So where is the evidence of a GOD? Well, there isn't any what-so-ever..It's as relevant as an invincible
dragon in my garage.
What we really need to do, is stop ridiculing the people who think differently than we do, and start taking all suggestions into consideration so that
we may have a broader view of the possible interpretations. By being open to all possibilities, we can actually have a chance to find the
No, dishonesty does a lot of damage to society, especially on the education level. We should not be respecting intentional dishonesty, intentional
lack of intellectual integrity. That stuff often gets people killed.. Would you think Fraud would then become morally just and something to respect
since it's just a different interpretation or morality? Truth is established by validation, research, application of, and verification within an
empirical based system.
If you close yourself off to any possibility, finding the truth will begin to become near to impossible.
Any truth is going to be found through the study of existence itself as it's the only actual origin of anything to begin with. Science studies it
everyday to which includes ourselves. And I don't close my mind to the possibility of the plausibility of perhaps entities capable of inducing big
bangs either. This thread isn't about being close minded, it about addressing the dishonesty of the creationist movement to which is also based on a
false idea of a conscious entity being first cause when it can not be giving a conscious state can not exist without cause. They often use the
complexity argument to say complexity can't just appear on it's own as proof of GOD..All while at the same time ignoring the complexity of a
cognitive system and what is required to support it. Hence, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. So no, a conscious entity can not solve
infinite regress, and even a rock in itself demonstrates why that is.
By the way, Ben Stein raises excellent points in his documentary. I am not usually a fan of Stein but his film was very eye opening and I support his
statements that Intellectual Freedom is paramount to ever hoping to advance towards a more civilized society.
which were those? he was dishonest.