"Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At?"

Both sides do it.

Let me make this clear here.. It's not acceptable in general context for any side.. And this isn't an argument to excuse its usage. Right now the creationist movement is largely similar to that which happened in Afghanistan regarding the destruction of the education system. And it's also an arm of the movement to install a religious theocracy here in the United states. Yes the very same type of arguments and dishonesty to distort American history to appear to be founded on Christianity and how the US is a Christian nation to where freedom of religion only applies to their religion.. Do please tell us why I should respect that kind dishonesty to support an ideology that is growing to become a very destructive element of this country?

note: this isn't a generalizing statement.. it's addressing those who are, not those who aren't..

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

...and this is why creationists get laughed at.

Again... nothing.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

There are those who accept science and those who don't accept science because it conflicts with their personal religious/spiritual views. That's it. One side has the deck of cards and is ready to play, the other doesn't. The notion that there are two "sides" to the "debate" is a false dichotomy put forth by creationists and other ideologically driven people who have an agenda. There is no middle ground: you either understand the theory of evolution or you don't/won't.

edit on 2-8-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Science is not about ignoring someone else because you assume they are wrong.

If you assume that you know everything, and those who disagree don't know anything, than you are promoting the exact same ideology you claim to oppose.

Religious organizations for centuries refused to listen to dissenting or conflicting voices.
And that is exactly what you are promoting.

How can I possibly consider your point of view when it is limited entirely to one side? I cannot.

Look I don't take the other side very seriously when it comes to specific details, however, I cannot and will not take anyone seriously who claims the other side is intellectually inferior, and doesn't even deserve the benefit of a proper and legitimate debate.

reply to post by TheGreatDivider

The ignorance is strong in this one. "Ignorance? From a creationist? Never!

Transitional Fossils
More Transitional Fossils
And Some More Transitional Fossils
Even More Transitional Fossils

BTW nothing in science is "proven", the fact you can't even get the most basic terminology right only serves to make you look even more ignorant.

If you're going to attack science, at least bother to educate yourself before hand.

Well mister Evolutionist please explain how life came to be on this earth . With the discovery of RNA and DNA in every living cell in every living plant and animal and the fact that DNA does not randomly occur in any environment , how did it come to be and in a living cell . Both do not occur in any form in any condition much less together . Then this rock we live on was red hot and as steril as the space that surrounds it with extremes in radiation and temperatures as well as no oxygen . How about enlightening us on how something was there to evolve . reply to post by miniatus

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Science is not about ignoring someone else because you assume they are wrong.

Actually, it is. If an idea is demonstrably wrong, it is ignored. Creationism is demonstrably wrong.

If you assume that you know everything, and those who disagree don't know anything, than you are promoting the exact same ideology you claim to oppose.

The "opposing side" is demonstrably wrong.

Religious organizations for centuries refused to listen to dissenting or conflicting voices.
And that is exactly what you are promoting.

The "dissenting voices" are demonstrably wrong.

How can I possibly consider your point of view when it is limited entirely to one side? I cannot.

Because that "side" has a mountain of objective evidence, practical applications and accurate predictions behind it. Creationism has none.

Look I don't take the other side very seriously when it comes to specific details, however, I cannot and will not take anyone seriously who claims the other side is intellectually inferior, and doesn't even deserve the benefit of a proper and legitimate debate.

How can you sit on the fence when one side has a mountain of evidence behind it whilst the other is demonstrably wrong?

reply to post by muzzleflash


I wouldn't say someone is intellectually inferior, as in not having the "ability" to be intellectual. The problem lies when someone is intentionally doing so. Promoting dishonesty and lack of regard for intellectual integrity is often what religions do, or what I would say most religions do. They simply by intention cease to care about intellectual integrity entirely to support their faith based position, and often it doesn't matter how ridiculous they become in regards to that since it's done at all costs to which even often results in getting people killed. If someone has to turn that feature off to support themselves, there is fundamental problem with their position.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

The ignorance is strong in this one. "Ignorance? From a creationist? Never!

Transitional Fossils
More Transitional Fossils
And Some More Transitional Fossils
Even More Transitional Fossils

BTW nothing in science is "proven", the fact you can't even get the most basic terminology right only serves to make you look even more ignorant.

If you're going to attack science, at least bother to educate yourself before hand.

Does my ignorance make you angry? Or your lack of any concrete evidence?

reply to post by TheGreatDivider


Ah, the ol' "the evidence is wrong!" argument Good night, I've had enough laughs for the evening.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Both sides do it.

Let me make this clear here.. It's not acceptable in general context for any side.. And this isn't an argument to excuse its usage. Right now the creationist movement is largely similar to that which happened in Afghanistan regarding the destruction of the education system. And it's also an arm of the movement to install a religious theocracy here in the United states. Yes the very same type of arguments and dishonesty to distort American history to appear to be founded on Christianity and how the US is a Christian nation to where freedom of religion only applies to their religion.. Do please tell us why I should respect that kind dishonesty to support an ideology that is growing to become a very destructive element of this country?

note: this isn't a generalizing statement.. it's addressing those who are, not those who aren't..

edit on 2-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

My point is that I feel both sides are the same.

Everything that you believe is wrong with the creationist side of the debate, may have some foundation.
However, it is true that your side of the debate is guilty of the same exact behavior.

If you cannot admit to the fact your side plays very dirty often times, and is very quick to stoop to ridicule, than you are in complete denial I am afraid.

That's why I prefer the more neutral approach, because it allows me to see clearly the unfair behavior exhibited by both sides of the argument.

I myself have tested this hypothesis and questioned directly both creationists and evolutionists, and both will respond in a hostile format at least half of the time if not more.

The details of the subject matter little at this point because the parameters of the debate have become completely improper and unprofessional. There is no fair debate very often anymore, rather we are faced with a mud-slinging fest over who is "intellectually superior" and who is not. It's all irrelevant to the terms of the debate topic itself, however it's prevalence has destroyed any real credibility that either side of the discussion may have had originally.

reply to post by TheGreatDivider


emotional appeal is irrelevant... It won't make his statement disappear and point vanish. There is no reason why anyone should respect intentional ignorance and dishonesty. :/ And yes, it gets annoying and does make people upset just as if your best friend were to lie to about not stealing your money in contrary to the overwhelming empirical evidence that he had.

My point is that I feel both sides are the same.

Sorry I disagree.. An empirical system is nothing close or near to a blind faith based system that self invents what it wants to believe. There is no comparison. Now if a theist wanted to be honest and say they believe in a possible entity that could perhaps induced a big bang and admit its a belief without evidence, then I would be more accepting of their stance. But when they assert it through dishonest discourse and all sorts of logical fallacies ect..That's where it becomes a big problem.. Especially if it has to attack the education system, appeal to ignorance, or ignore contrary evidence to support itself. I can't find any respect in that.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

Ah, the ol' "the evidence is wrong!" argument

Good night, I've had enough laughs for the evening.

Evidence is evidence.
It can be interpreted in multiple ways by multiple observers.

If you believe one interpretation is the only valid one, you have already lost any chance of finding a reasonable conclusion.

Reasonable conclusions are based on taking into consideration all interpretations, not just the one your team bats for.

I realize this concept is difficult for those with religious convictions (including evolution proponents) to handle, because they refuse they are being led by mere assumptions that "seem" reasonable to them personally.

The ridicule factor comes into play as a result of the ideology that one already knows all the answers, and becomes impatient with anyone questioning their already determined belief system.

Darwin admitted that transitional fossils prove his theory to be wrong.

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Darwin admitted that transitional fossils prove his theory to be wrong.

this would be equivalent to quote mining Darwin out of context. :/

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Darwin admitted that transitional fossils prove his theory to be wrong.

Is that the best you can do? Quote mine Darwin? Not only are you flat out wrong, but try and pick someone who hasn't been dead for 150 years.

Great thread! I always loved thunderf00t's videos especially this series. For those that aren't aware, he pretty much goes through all the creationists videos on youtube and specifically points out where and why they demonstrably wrong. Very enjoyable and humorous as well. What's even funnier is that some people have come into this thread talking the same nonsense that he debunks.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Science is not about ignoring someone else because you assume they are wrong.

If you assume that you know everything, and those who disagree don't know anything, than you are promoting the exact same ideology you claim to oppose.

No scientist can honestly claim that they know everything and it's not really about that on the creationist side. If it were, it would just be a semantics debate where the conversation won't progress beyond "I believe". The problem with the creationist side is that they constantly promote ideas that are blatantly false and laughably wrong, hence the name of the video series. People aren't assuming their beliefs are wrong, people are pointing out their false claims. We aren't talking about claims about their religion. We're talking about claims that they use to attack science. They have been fighting this war on science and knowledge for too long. It's not about intellectual superiority, it's about deception and lies. You can be very smart, but still be dishonest, and dishonesty is the root of the creationist movement right now. I have no problem with their personal beliefs, but lies are lies. Evidence is evidence, it's not open to interpretation, like stories and metaphors.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Darwin admitted that transitional fossils prove his theory to be wrong.

Is that the best you can do? Quote mine Darwin? Not only are you flat out wrong, but try and pick someone who hasn't been dead for 150 years.

If the "father" of evolution didn't buy his own theory, why would I believe you?

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

Ah, the ol' "the evidence is wrong!" argument

Good night, I've had enough laughs for the evening.

Evidence is evidence.
It can be interpreted in multiple ways by multiple observers.

He asked for transitional fossils. I gave him transitional fossils. He dismissed them as "wrong". So what, pray tell, is the "alternative interpretation" for the transitional fossil evidence, considering they tie in very well with all of the other evidence for evolution? The tactic of attempting to home in on tiny details and misrepresent them whilst ignoring all of the other supporting evidence is both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by john_bmth


Just saying someone is wrong, and that it's demonstrable, without actually demonstrating anything other than your refusal to even consider their questions or points, doesn't prove anything.

Just listing a bunch of pieces of information only demonstrates that information exists, it does nothing to demonstrate which interpretation of that information is valid and which is not.

There is a major crisis here, not about the subject of evolution per se, but about the subject of intellectual honesty and fairness.

Why do you refuse to allow alternative suggestions or hypothesis?
That is the very definition of unscientific behavior.

reply to post by TheGreatDivider

Why don't you post up the full quote for all to see? =