Sayonara Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 So from you experience all creastionalists are incapable of reason. That would mean that all creationalists are creationalist becuase they are incapable of reason No it wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Creationists may behave reasonable enough, but we are talking about their debate tactics and mindset here. Most creationist arguments sound very reasonable, probably to adapt to increased awareness to the fact that they are usually lying and have no solid evidence to support their claims. A lot of creationist "evidence" contains a lot of big words and numbers to satisy the layperson that they know what they are talking about. (I can give examples) I am not saying all creationists are bad people. No one said that. Its just that most of them don't have a good grip on the rules of debate and scientific reason. Thank you. Sayo: yeah I saw that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 No it wouldn't. You're right. Seeing all creationalists as unreasonable would be a little bit short sighted, agreed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 8, 2005 Author Share Posted February 8, 2005 You're right. Seeing all[/i'] creationalists as unreasonable would be a little bit short sighted, agreed? like I said before, unreasonable in terms of knowledge of proper scientific debate: definitely. Universally unreasonable in character: maybe, even likely, but not definitely. Creationists are people who feel their very beliefs that they held true for a long time under attack by evolution. These are also people who are conscious of the fact that evolution theory negates the Genesis creation story, and think this is an indication of science overshadowing the entire bible. These are people who try to make aspects of their religious beliefs sound scientific in order to get equal time in classrooms simply to indoctrinate students. Their arguments are often negated a long time ago, yet they still continue copy-and-paste them, still consider any flaw in paleontology, geology, evolutionary biology, etc. complete proof of their religion's versoin of creation. These behaviors are annoying at best, hopelessy desperate at worst. But it does not necessarily mean their characters are wrong, misguided maybe, but they feel that they must make an argument, no matter how erroneous, and they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 8, 2005 Author Share Posted February 8, 2005 uh yeah so it is short-sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnieus Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You're right. Seeing all[/i'] creationalists as unreasonable would be a little bit short sighted, agreed? Depends on the definition of creationist. As for Bible Bashers [aka God 7 days types]... all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You're right. Seeing all[/i'] creationalists as unreasonable would be a little bit short sighted, agreed? Not so much unreasonable as mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Creationists are people who feel their very beliefs that they held true for a long time under attack by evolution. These are also people who are conscious of the fact that evolution theory negates the Genesis creation story.These are people who try to make aspects of their religious beliefs sound scientific in order to get equal time in classrooms simply to indoctrinate students. Consider any flaw in paleontology' date=' geology, evolutionary biology, etc. complete proof of their religion's versoin of creation.[/quote'] A question,Ive noticed particularly when discussing evolution .Why are people,who take issue and point out some absurdity,or better inconsistancy in paleon/geology/ ect are they labelled and dismissed as creationists.Surely we should adhere to the scientific method,on all subject matter.Now people can be wrong(lack of understanding)or they could be correct.Simply dismissing a valid problem within a science,with 'CREATIONIST' isnt logical or scientific.It demeans the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 A question,Ive noticed particularly when discussing evolution .Why are people,who take issue and point out some absurdity,or better inconsistancy in paleon/geology/ ect are they labelled and dismissed as creationists.Surely we should adhere to the scientific method,on all subject matter.Now people can be wrong(lack of understanding)or they could be correct.Simply dismissing a valid problem within a science,with 'CREATIONIST' isnt logical or scientific.It demeans the forum. I don't think that's universally true, or even close. Often the "absurdity" is nothing of the sort, if they only understood some science, and in fact is argument from incredulity. The myriad "probability of life" arguments leap to mind. The thing that triggers attitude is attitude. People that approach an issue with an "I don't understand this, please help me" attitude will generally be treated better than the "You people are so stupid, because there's this obvious flaw" attitude, that generally goes hand-in-hand with cluelessness about the topic at hand. Maybe people are just gunshy, but the latter attitude seems to correlate strongly with a religious/political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 There's a difference between raising an issue with a flaw in evidence, and lauding that flaw as damning proof against an entire discipline. The difference is so great that it makes identifying either case quite easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Thanks both of you,I can understand now.I guess if i bring a subject up i should be cautious in my wording. Its only the way i view it,but i personally believe someone's post should be argued away with factual data.I dont think the majority of posters here have a motive or agenda,i may be wrong(i dont think many creationary scientists would find the interlectual stimuli here). I dont have fixed opinion,i like to research evidence myself.If i cannot comprehend the subject i dont discuss it. There are many subjects im interested in,and would enjoy debating the factual issues i have.So please realise my motive is not to rubbish a whole discipline,just make known actual fact. I can read or google for facts,my purpose here is to discuss topics,especially with those posters whom are so indoctrined(perhaps not the correct word)and take on face value a claim as fact,when in reality its a documented best guess assumption.And debated by many in the science community. I do not see it as us against them (creationist Vs science),regardless of an individuals stance.I see it as what are the facts,does it stand up to the scientific method.And when it doesnt I want to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I can read or google for facts Note that in especially in topics like this, that attract "fringe" viewpoints, (e.g. evolution, relativity) that Sturgeon's Law applies: 90% of everything is crud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Not so much unreasonable as mentally ill. Haha, now can we be serious? Can a man that believes in God not acctept the proof of evolution, can he not be capable of reason. There are problems with labeling people and assuming everything about them becuause of that label. That problem is a part of a world were we don't judge people on their character but on their labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I'm not sure that all creationists strictly believe in god, despite the obvious contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 How so? Do you mean "creationalist" as in everyone who doesn't accept evolution or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I mean actual creationists. From the viewpoint of some creationists the attribution of creation to god may seem just as valid as the attribution of change to evolution, regardless of whether they believe in god or not. So I'm pretty sure it's an aesthetic decision (plus you get to flame nerds) in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Now people can be wrong(lack of understanding)or they could be correct.Simply dismissing a valid problem within a science,with 'CREATIONIST' isnt logical or scientific.It demeans the forum. you have go to remember, a lot of us are accustomed to dealing with biblical creationists. AS you might know, a common tactic with these people is to take one flaw or uncertainty within science and twist it into "proof" that all of science is wrong, and by default, the bible is correct. When we see someone questioning science, even though it is not a bad thing to do, the red creationist flag immediately goes up. I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 You dont have anything to apoligise to me for Hellbender.I was only pointing out what ive read in threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 I was apologizing for the apparent confusion it caused you, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now