The Ignorance of Creationists

reply to post by redoubt

What do you think ATS exists for?

Why do you think the Origins & Creationism forum was created?

Take your holier-than-thou attitude somewhere else. It is not relevant to the topic, the forum or the board.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
What's even more concerning than that is that the willful ignorance seems to extend to direct explanations of the scientific concepts, particularly the refusal to accept that evolution and abiogenesis are entirely different theories and that evolution deals solely with biodiversity.

I have to say that there's a built in 'arrogance of knowledge' in the above statement, at least insofar as it is fallaciously based on the premise that science is armed with knowledge of creation.

It is based on no such premise. It is based on this post by a creationist, and several others like it in the same thread.

Madness is merely stating facts.

Let it be.

Shall we trash the Origins & Creationism forum, then? Trash the whole board while we're at it?

Come on, SD, you know better than that. People come here to argue. It's what ATS is for.

reply to post by oozyism

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Evolution and Creationism is synonymous
that is your worst nightmare

Actually...um...no...not even close to my worst nightmare. It seems I have a much greater imagination than you give me credit for.

An no, evolution and creationism aren't synonymous, evolution is a biological scientific theory that describes the diversity of life (a more precise definition is found in my sig), while creationism is the non-scientific conjecture that contradicts many fields of scientific understanding that everything was just sort of 'magiced' into being.

reply to post by Astyanax


Actually, it's based on the years of posts like those that you and I and several others have encountered so often.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

\

Actually...um...no...not even close to my worst nightmare. It seems I have a much greater imagination than you give me credit for.

An no, evolution and creationism aren't synonymous, evolution is a biological scientific theory that describes the diversity of life (a more precise definition is found in my sig), while creationism is the non-scientific conjecture that contradicts many fields of scientific understanding that everything was just sort of 'magiced' into being.

Evolution is a biological scientific theory that describes creation

Second line.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

\

Actually...um...no...not even close to my worst nightmare. It seems I have a much greater imagination than you give me credit for.

An no, evolution and creationism aren't synonymous, evolution is a biological scientific theory that describes the diversity of life (a more precise definition is found in my sig), while creationism is the non-scientific conjecture that contradicts many fields of scientific understanding that everything was just sort of 'magiced' into being.

Evolution is a biological scientific theory that describes creation

Second line.

No it doesn't, that would be ABIOGENESIS!! Evolution only gives the reason for biodiversity, it does NOT talk about how life started in the first place.

reply to post by oozyism


1: What MrXYZ said, evolution explains biodiversity, not the beginnings of life.
2: Creationism seeks to explain a lot more than the biodiversity of life and its origin. It seeks to explain the origins of the universe, the planets, the moons, the stars, and everything else.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

1: What MrXYZ said, evolution explains biodiversity, not the beginnings of life.
2: Creationism seeks to explain a lot more than the biodiversity of life and its origin. It seeks to explain the origins of the universe, the planets, the moons, the stars, and everything else.

Nope, evolution is the explanation behind creation. How did we come to what we are today, how did the biological beings evolve, how did they adapt etc etc..

That is all part of creation.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

1: What MrXYZ said, evolution explains biodiversity, not the beginnings of life.
2: Creationism seeks to explain a lot more than the biodiversity of life and its origin. It seeks to explain the origins of the universe, the planets, the moons, the stars, and everything else.

Nope, evolution is the explanation behind creation. How did we come to what we are today, how did the biological beings evolve, how did they adapt etc etc..

That is all part of creation.

Again, evolution makes no statements about how life started in the first place...not a single claim!

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Again, evolution makes no statements about how life started in the first place...not a single claim!

And when did I say evolution explains how life started?

I said it is explanation behind creation.

Creation doesn't mean the beginning, everything is part of the creation, evolution is a very small part of that creation explained.

reply to post by oozyism


Well, we know how evolution works...there's no one "creating" anything, it's nothing but biological processes. So I disagree, evolution has nothing to do with creation, at least not when it comes to creation in the religion sense.

Anyway, happy thanksgiving

reply to post by oozyism


No, as 'creation' requires a 'creator', hence evolution makes no claims to it. Evolution is simply a consequence of life which contains genetic coding.

reply to post by Astyanax


Mmm, not sure what you are taking exception to asty, as you know and as I posted in this thread my stance on the evolutionary process is clear ... I remember when first joining many a thread in which you, me, and mel, would defend its virtues. My comment, as I hope I made clear, was in fact to the issue of 'origin/creation' which to my knowledge no one can make claim.

Which brings us to:

Shall we trash the Origins & Creationism forum, then? Trash the whole board while we're at it?

Not at all, but I have come to understand that speaking of evolution in the "Origins/Creation" forum is actually counterproductive and flawed ... the discussion in fact belongs in the Science forum for that's what it is. Imho discussing it here in fact furthers the false premise that evolution is in any way related to the topics of origin and creation.

I understand that many creationists/IDers believe in neither atheistic origins nor in the evolutionary process, but that doesn't mean we should further entrench the false association by arguing it here. Evolution is science, origins and creation, and any conspiracy associated with them (as per this forum) is a matter of competing beliefs and hypotheses ... some scientifically based and some spiritually, but as I stated none to date have been verified.

Come on, SD, you know better than that. People come here to argue. It's what ATS is for.

I'm not sure where I have indicated anything other that support for the virtues of discourse?

But if one is going to be true and honest one would realize that the difference in knowledge between our greatest scientists/thinkers and a newborn child relative to the knowledge available in the universe is practically and effectively nil. As such starting a thread with the premise that others are ignorant is as I stated an act of intellectual superiority and flawed arrogance ... for we are surely all ignorant.

Cheers!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Have you ever listened--really listened--to the sound that a rooster makes?

That sound is the reality of the situation; I would liken that sound to the Creation.

Now, along comes someone who speaks English, and he attempts to represent what that sound sounds like with the words: "Cock-a-doodle-doo"; which is not what the rooster really sounds like at all, but is merely a representation of what the rooster sounds like.

Then, along comes someone who speaks Italian, hearing precisely the same sound; but choosing to represent that sound by the words: "Corri-co-co-ro"; which, similarly, is not at all what the rooster sounds like.

So, the English representation of the sound of the rooster is similar to the creationist representation of Creation; whereas the Italian representation of the sound of the rooster is similar to the evolutionist representation of Creation; both of which originate in human thought. That is, both science and theology originate in the consciousness of the 'thinker'; both of which are attempts by the 'thinker' to represent the reality

So, what was the Creation really like?

That Knowledge is conveyed through the Vision of the "Son of man", or the "Tree of Life" and the Revelation of the Memory of Creation; Knowledge which is as different from the perspective of the creationists on Creation as the sound of the rooster is from its English representation in "Cock-a-doodle-doo".

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Have you ever listened--really listened--to the sound that a rooster makes?

That sound is the reality of the situation; I would liken that sound to the Creation.

Now, along comes someone who speaks English, and he attempts to represent what that sound sounds like with the words: "Cock-a-doodle-doo"; which is not what the rooster really sounds like at all, but is merely a representation of what the rooster sounds like.

Then, along comes someone who speaks Italian, hearing precisely the same sound; but choosing to represent that sound by the words: "Corri-co-co-ro"; which, similarly, is not at all what the rooster sounds like.

So, the English representation of the sound of the rooster is similar to the creationist representation of Creation; whereas the Italian representation of the sound of the rooster is similar to the evolutionist representation of Creation; both of which originate in human thought. That is, both science and theology originate in the consciousness of the 'thinker'; both of which are attempts by the 'thinker' to represent the reality

So, what was the Creation really like?

That Knowledge is conveyed through the Vision of the "Son of man", or the "Tree of Life" and the Revelation of the Memory of Creation; Knowledge which is as different from the perspective of the creationists on Creation as the sound of the rooster is from its English representation in "Cock-a-doodle-doo".

Mi cha el

Well, all that makes only sense if you assume there's a rooster in the first place. Given that we have no proof of a rooster (yeah, I get you mean creator) I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nice philosophical analogy though, even though it doesn't hold up given that it is based around the premise there's a rooster...and we have ZERO proof of its existence.

I don't believe in gravity.. It's just a "theory". My own experiences show me that what "scientists" call gravity is nothing more then the invisible hand of Cthulhu holding us all down in our place. You can't "show" me gravity, so it must not exist. I don't quite understand all the "math" nor can you show this supposed gravity to me. I won't accept things most scientific communities agree shows proof of gravity. I declare that unless you can show me the gravity waves that are holding the heavens into place, then it is not true. It does not matter that I truly don't understand the subject, my friend Bobby gave me the ancient book of Cthulhu, which explains it all in a manner I can understand, so therefore, you are wrong. Why should I believe "science" when we all know that the great Cthulhu created science in order to confuse, and drive us mere mortals into insanity?

I don't care if I actually don't understand the definition of gravity, nor that I probably changed the definition in order to fit my narrow life views. Gravity is just an opinion. Same with physics, its just a "theory", therefore it's just your opinion, and my "theory" that we're all just the insane imaginings of our Dark Lord holds as much weight as those pesky scientists' "theories" do. We should teach both sides of the argument in schools, you know, in order to fuel healthy debates. You can try to throw as much "proof" as you want, you can even show me the very proof I demanded, and I will simply explain it away through the mystical powers of the Old Ones.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Have you ever listened--really listened--to the sound that a rooster makes?

That sound is the reality of the situation; I would liken that sound to the Creation.

Now, along comes someone who speaks English, and he attempts to represent what that sound sounds like with the words: "Cock-a-doodle-doo"; which is not what the rooster really sounds like at all, but is merely a representation of what the rooster sounds like.

Then, along comes someone who speaks Italian, hearing precisely the same sound; but choosing to represent that sound by the words: "Corri-co-co-ro"; which, similarly, is not at all what the rooster sounds like.

So, the English representation of the sound of the rooster is similar to the creationist representation of Creation; whereas the Italian representation of the sound of the rooster is similar to the evolutionist representation of Creation; both of which originate in human thought. That is, both science and theology originate in the consciousness of the 'thinker'; both of which are attempts by the 'thinker' to represent the reality

So, what was the Creation really like?

That Knowledge is conveyed through the Vision of the "Son of man", or the "Tree of Life" and the Revelation of the Memory of Creation; Knowledge which is as different from the perspective of the creationists on Creation as the sound of the rooster is from its English representation in "Cock-a-doodle-doo".

Mi cha el

Well, all that makes only sense if you assume there's a rooster in the first place. Given that we have no proof of a rooster (yeah, I get you mean creator) I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nice philosophical analogy though, even though it doesn't hold up given that it is based around the premise there's a rooster...and we have ZERO proof of its existence.

OK. OK.

Then I won't equate the sound of the rooster to the Creation at all; but, instead, to the reality of the existence of man himself.There is a reality to the existence of man, is there not? Or will you deny that as well?

In any case, the issue here is the inability of the consciousness of the 'thinker' to apprehend reality itself except through representation.

Who's to say that the descriptions of the poets are not a more accurate description of reality than the science of the 'thinker'-scientists?

And don't try pulling any "infinite regress" shennanigans.

There are thoughts of the 'thinker'-evolutionists about the origin of man; and there are thoughts of the 'thinker'-theologians about the origin of man.

I am saying that neither of these approaches is more ignorant than the other. Both of them rely on the assumption that reality can be 100% accurately represented in the words that they use.

This would be like a person who speaks English categorically denying that the sound of the rooster can be represented by the words: "Corri-co-co-ro"; but insisting that the ONLY representation of the sound of the rooster can be found in the words: "Cock-a-doodle-doo". (And I don't doubt that there is an Arabic, a Hebrew, a Farsi, a Russian and a Chinese representation of the sound of a rooster as well.)

Now, does that not sound hilariously ridiculous...

Rather than something to argue about over who is the more ignorant?

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


The difference is you can actually test science claims and use to predict things based on science.

The same isn't true for religion. Religion won't allow tests and isn't based on evidence, but static doctrine.

As far as I'm concerned, reality is what you perceive with your senses. If you disagree with that, you can pretty much throw all science out of the window and make up whatever you want...unicorns, elves, giant dragons, whole worlds floating on turtles, anything. That's PHILOSOPHY!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I for one think the real problem lies in the fact that Christians of all flavors are taught from early childhood not to research the Bible, that is, "question the word of God," as if a true God would write, or even inspire a book that could easily be changed at will. They are also taught that Satan writes books, and not to read anything not of a Christian flavor. I know people who refuse to read any book not written my a Christian, or written about a Christian. Sad.
This effect produces things like this:

Originally posted by Nightfury I for one do believe God created the heaven and the earth. I do believe that evolution exist, BUT I believe in micro-evolution, That animals and humans adapt/evolve to better survive in their inviroment. We get a dog that came from a wolf for instance, same "family", not new species. I DO NOT belive in macro evolution where a human came from a monkey. Just because we are like 98% the same, doen't mean we are monkeys (although we act that way sometimes

) A Watermelon consists of 98% Water and we humans of 97%, does that mean I'm only 1% away from being a watermelon? Ofcourse not, so even though we might only differ 1% or 2%, doen not make us the same. Micro- evolution does exist, Macro- evolution..... not so much.. Mutations.... yes,,, but if it's not suitable to survive, it will die shortly after birth and will not be able to multiply, If it does survive, we might come across it as a "new species", but that is not evolution.

A few days ago my family went to an ancient Native American Petrograph site here in Ohio. We were reading the many signs there, and one spoke about how a little earth got on the rock, and then some seeds travelled there, and then fauna and trees grew where there were none before. This is Evolution. I was born a child, I Evolved into a man over time. My appearance changed, along with everything else. I Evolved. Another thing is, Earth has been destroyed before, this is evident in cities beneath the seas, and sea shells on mountain tops.

I am not saying that an Ultimate Creator did not make all of this, in fact, I believe just that. I also know that this Creator is not a man, but a vast, intelligent source of pure energy. Some of that energy is within us all, it is our Spirit, or Soul.

Originally posted by MrXYZ The difference is you can actually test science claims and use to predict things based on science.

But the only thing that you are really saying here is that there is some logical reason why you have chosen the phonetic tones of "cock-a-doodle-doo" RATHER than the phonetic tones of "corri-co-co-ro" to explain the SOUND that a rooster makes. But NONE of those phonetic tones sound in ANY way like what a rooster sounds like.

And there isn't any such logical reason.

You have chosen to believe the definitional system of science; and someone else has chosen to believe the definitional system of theology.

And, as Karl Popper observed, the fundamental a prioris of any definitional system--whether religion or science--CANNOT be proven. They can ONLY be accepted upon faith.

I am attempting to resolve this conflict by pointing out that neither paradigm can claim to be an inertial frame of reference for the description of reality since both originate in thought.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

I've never attacked a lack of knowledge, on the contrary, I always posted sources for whatever claims I made in order to help people better understand. Last night someone asked where he can "learn more" and I made a long post giving him a ton of sources.

I'm not even angry at you not knowing anything about evolution, what I think sad is that you are too ignorant to accept evidence if it contradicts your belief. You're totally going against the mantra of this site...and 99% of your posts are troll posts that add ZERO value to threads. Hell, you even admit yourself you're a troll...and what's even sadder, you believe that makes you cool

But I know why you're angry at science and insulting people rather than adding to the discussion. Year after year science makes new discoveries, and the fantasy world you built up in your mind (aka your interpretation of the bible) is slowly being dismantled as more and more evidence contradicts it. And that thought scares you. You might not wanna admit it, but subconsciously it's scaring you...just like it worries a lot of other people. And that's imo one of the key issues why the creationist debates won't have a peaceful outcome in general. You and others scream and kick as your entire fantasy world slowly falls apart. I can tell you though, reality's pretty amazing and you don't need a fantasy world to be happy....

edit on 24-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Sarcasm - look up what it means.

And I'll look up the definitin of theory. (hint - that's sarcasm).



Cool? Come on - I'm 44 - being cool isn't one of my goals of life - especially on some random web site.

Pointing out obvious lies here is a lot of fun though.

Since you've attacked me personally for the second time in this thread, let me point out some facts.

You've lied about "every" scientist 'believing' in evolution. An obvious blatant lie I tried to let you out of easily but you chose to try to defend the remark till the bitter end.

You've lied about the big bang being a fact. A completely ERRONEOUS statement. Everyone here knows that, even madnessinmysoul -

"There isn't frankly any proper scientific backing for rejection of the Big Bang. It's the only workable model that explains the homogeneity, acceleration, and directional movement of the universe."

"If it's not correct, it's a damn good guess."

Did you get that direct quote from him? It's not just a guess, it' a 'damn' good one.

That's what makes it a fact, hunh?

Definition time - (merriam-webster):

fact: something that actually exists.


Hmmm...let's see, does saying something is a guess equal a fact? hmmm...I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and say no.

Of course the big bang is a decent theory, but is it a proven fact? No. It is not.

Now as far as the rest of your post goes when you start fantasizing about me, have you ever heard of projecting your own faults on someone?

You know, you start seeing your problems in someone else. For instance, you saying I'm scared, most likely means you are the one scared. Calling me angry..now that's really the pot calling the kettle black. Here's another one, you say I'm kicking and screaming, and well, you get the point by now right?

Reality is God - so yes He is pretty amazing isn't He? We finally agree on something.



ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IF YOU CAN:

Oh...and does this time of year just completely get under your skin?

I mean Who are you giving Thanks to today? God or yourself?

Who are millions/billions of people giving thanks to today? A Super Natural Being or darwin?

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Why is it called Christmas? Christ - mas...

Where is evolution day?

And you call us the ignorant ones?