The Ignorance of Creationists

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

When ever an evolutionist and even a creationist at times has nothing important to say they attack intelligence.

Well, I'm not attacking intelligence, I'm attacking the amount of science education. Intelligence is reasoning capacity. I find that the majority of creationists are nor more or less reasonable than any other people, except for the crazy extremists (but you find them everywhere on every side). Creationists aren't any less intelligent, they're simply misinformed on certain basic scientific principles.

Most of them cannot even define evolution, and that's something they're rejecting.

Most of the time it comes from the evolutionist camp.

Unsupportable statement. The same amount of vitriol comes from both sides. I'm not defending my side, I'm saying we're equally prone to name calling.

Being taught the wrong thing does not make one more intelligent. As the information is wrong and therefore useless.

I'm not saying anyone is more or less intelligent. You seem to have misinterpreted my post. Ignorance is about a lack of information, not about how intelligent you are.

As for me I am self educated, I think and discover for my self, do not believe that most of public education is good as they tell you what to think, ask you questions that make you answer what they want.

Um...whatever, not the topic of this thread.

Evolution is a religion

Boom! Ignorance.
Evolution is one of the most well-established, well-supported scientific theories out there.

as it can not be tested,

Yes it can.
It has been.
Thousands of times.

repeated

Again, it has been repeated.

or has there ever been an example of species changing into something different than its parent. ( white corn into yellow corn is not evolution show me a monkey that has birthed human, a lizard that birthed a chicken)

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Evolution doesn't put forth the idea that a lizard would give birth to a chicken or that a monkey would give birth to a human.

Sure, over several thousand generations massive changes can occur, but it's not going to be from one incredibly distinct species to another.

Look at my avatar, there's a key word: "Gradual change we can believe in"

You don't even know what the theory you're arguing against states.

When you say you do not understand because you were not educated at so and so is your undoing as you claim to be smarter because of your attendance at some public facility.

The vast majority of my education on evolution has been private, I have taught myself. Genetics I learned at school (a private school), but I learned a lot more about it through personal exploration.

I'm not claiming I'm smarter than anyone (though I'm bound to be smarter than at least one person...right?), I'm simply saying that creationists repeatedly show a lack of understanding of even the most basic scientific concepts. The sorts of things that can be found by looking at wikipedia links.

Many in history never attended these places of indoctrination and they are great discovers of many things.

....they aren't really places of indoctrination...
I went to a private religious school for two of my four years of high school...came out an atheist.
I went to public school and was somewhat of a rebel...not the stereotypical hooligan or sarcastic type, the intellectual rebel.

As for me and my House we will worship the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in creation and a 6000 year old planet and universe.

Well, go ahead and do the Jesus thing. But I've actually visited man-made structures that are 7000 years old. They must have been put there by the devil to test my faith.

That through the visible evidence and the Biblical account and be shown to be true.

I'd like to see this 'visible evidence' and support for 'the Biblical account' in the following thread:
Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

May you have an excellent Thanks Giving and may the Lord Jesus bless you and yours

Thank you, I appreciate the well wishes. Have a lovely holiday yourself and may you and yours be blessed by each other.

Neil Degrasse Tyson on origins...and why it's unfair to compare findings form 2000 years ago (bible) with today's modern science. We have more evidence for the support of the big bang than any other theory...so claiming it's hogwash just shows one thing...the public education system is failing or people aren't willing to look at evidence objectively.

reply to post by randomname

Originally posted by randomname
how do you explain alligators and crocodiles. science says they have remained unchanged for over 250 million years.

...no, they've remained relatively unchanged. They are still morphologically and genetically distinct from their prehistoric ancestors.

according to the theory of evolution they should be brainiac space travelers with warp drive, not eating dead chickens at uncle jimbos alligator zoo at the 3:00 pm show.

...le sigh. This is what I'm talking about. Evolution doesn't mean an increase in intelligence.
They survive just well with what they have, so they don't change much.

evolution can't explain the laws of physics either.

Again, exactly what I'm talking about. Evolution is a field of biology, it shouldn't be expected to explain physics.

why can't an object according to einstein travel faster than the speed of light. why is there a cosmic speed limit.

I don't know, evolution is a theory that deals with a singular natural phenomenon: biodiversity.
The questions you ask should be posed to theories in physics, not biology.

if your pea brain

Man, I'm getting a lot of insults in this thread...I must be doing something right

can accept that there is something larger and greater than you,

Oh, I do.

Earth is a lot larger and greater than me, with its nearly 7 billion people and countless other organisms. The sun is a lot larger and greater than me. The solar system is too. So is the star cluster that we're in. So is the galactic arm, the galaxy, the galaxy cluster, and the universe.

They're just not supernatural things...and this has absolutely nothing to do with a deity.

them maybe you can accept the existence of God.

What does my personal atheism have to do with science?

the more you look at different aspects of the universe you can see the clear signs and hints that the universe was designed and created. that is proof of God.

No, the cosmological argument, though one of the oldest arguments for god, is also one of the most thoroughly debunked.

God exists whether you believe it or not.

This has nothing to do with my personal atheism and I find it insulting that you're brining it into a thread where I'm not mentioning it.

I'll be sure to troll your threads and randomly state that your deity doesn't exist. Oh wait, I have basic civility.

reply to post by Masterjaden


The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you're off by such a ridiculous factor. I've repeatedly visited human structures that are 7000 years old. I've seen tools that are even older.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


The universe is expanding. If we extrapolate the expansion back to its origin point, we find that everything started in the exact same spot.

What other explanation is there?

Also, what MrXYZ said...and what Neil Degrasse Tyson said, he's really awesome

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you're off by such a ridiculous factor. I've repeatedly visited human structures that are 7000 years old. I've seen tools that are even older.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

The universe is expanding. If we extrapolate the expansion back to its origin point, we find that everything started in the exact same spot.

What other explanation is there?

Also, what MrXYZ said...and what Neil Degrasse Tyson said, he's really awesome

Yep.

It hasn't been proven.

We all knew that here.

I was just hoping you guys would admit it.

But I guess I set my expectations too high.

Here's just a few scientists who don't the believe big bang "theory" (notice 'theory' - just like the 'theory' of evolution - hmmm...lol)

And the title of this thread is the ignorance of creationists - I think it needs to be renamed - the arrogance of over educated wanna be scientists...it seems to be a much more fitting title.


Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org

www.earthtech.org

xxx.lanl.gov...

supernova.lbl.gov...

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

How much science knows (and how much it doesn't know) about how it all started:



And before anyone says "but we haven't seen the big bang"...



We have PICTURES!!! Stop being blind and open your eyes to reality...reality's awesome!

@mkv: You seriously don't understand what a scientific theory is after all those threads??? Seriously watch Tyson's 3 part series before making ignorant statements

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Yep.

It hasn't been proven.

...it has been proven. Didn't you read MrXYZ's post? Didn't you watch the videos?
Oh wait, you couldn't have in this amount of time.

The Big Bang theory wasn't something that someone just randomly came up with and then found evidence

We all knew that here.

I was just hoping you guys would admit it.

No, we didn't. People who know science actually understand the theory. Please, listen to Neil, he is a wonderful, charming, and intelligent individual who has a very great talent for explaining science.

But I guess I set my expectations too high.

Yes, I'm not going to say that true things are false just to please you.

Here's just a few scientists who don't the believe big bang "theory" (notice 'theory' - just like the 'theory' of evolution - hmmm...lol)

(Please insert the longest, filthiest, and most creative string of profanity you can imagine here)!
Are you seriously on with that lark again?

I've already told you that a theory in science is the highest level of certainty

Circuit theory. I guess we're not so sure about the science that has been applied to the creation of all electronic devices no the planet, circuits are still 'only a theory'.

And the title of this thread is the ignorance of creationists - I think it needs to be renamed - the arrogance of over educated wanna be scientists...it seems to be a much more fitting title.

No, it really doesn't. I mean, you just demonstrated ignorance of the definition of the word 'theory'

Last thing, I snipped the list out. It's not a popularity contest. If it were, Big Bang cosmology would win by a landslide. Science is a tyranny of evidence.

Those scientists have all had chances to publish and have not put forth any compelling evidence to show that the Big Bang didn't happen.

Lerner even claims to have published 600+ articles. I'm guessing the scientific community wasn't impressed.

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.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Here's just a few scientists who don't the believe big bang "theory" (notice 'theory' - just like the 'theory' of evolution - hmmm...lol)

Please google the term "theory".
Its absolutely necessary and immanent in scientific progress that theories are doubted, tested, proven or invalidated. As long as this is done following the proper scientific methods this IS science itself.
Calling someone arrogant wont help your cause...
As the saying goes "Class only looks like arrogance from below"... dont want to feel dumb? Well, educate yourself.

Originally posted by WfknSmth
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

Here's just a few scientists who don't the believe big bang "theory" (notice 'theory' - just like the 'theory' of evolution - hmmm...lol)

Please google the term "theory".
Its absolutely necessary and immanent in scientific progress that theories are doubted, tested, proven or invalidated. As long as this is done following the proper scientific methods this IS science itself.
Calling someone arrogant wont help your cause...
As the saying goes "Class only looks like arrogance from below"... dont want to feel dumb? Well, educate yourself.

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

Originally posted by WfknSmth
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

Here's just a few scientists who don't the believe big bang "theory" (notice 'theory' - just like the 'theory' of evolution - hmmm...lol)

Please google the term "theory".
Its absolutely necessary and immanent in scientific progress that theories are doubted, tested, proven or invalidated. As long as this is done following the proper scientific methods this IS science itself.
Calling someone arrogant wont help your cause...
As the saying goes "Class only looks like arrogance from below"... dont want to feel dumb? Well, educate yourself.

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

You're a little late to the party brother.

We've been going back and forth over evolution for weeks now.

My theory remark was more of an inside thing.

But since you decided to 'butt' in, and I'm such a nice guy, and I don't want you to look bad, here goes: In a nutshell some members here present evolution as a fact. Just as they did the big bang. Of course, we know for a 'fact' neither of these are indeed factual. I just like fng with them over the theory thing - it really pisses them off - so I keep doing it. It's funny as heck from my 'perspective'.

Now, as far as the offensive display of superiority/self-importance shown by some of the members here goes, well I'm offended by the title of this thread & their pompous attitudes.

So, if you think I'm looking up at some of these arrogant members here, you must really have the wrong 'perspective' because from where I'm looking - some of you are looking like chemoautotrophs, or is it prokaryotes?

Well, you get the idea, something really tiny and simple.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I just like fng with them over the theory thing - it really pisses them off - so I keep doing it. It's funny as heck from my 'perspective'.

So basically you're admitting to be a troll, and laugh about your own ignorance. You seem like a very mature version of homo sapiens

People have told you numerous times that "theory" in science is the highest degree of certainty. It's not what you mean when you use the words in slang. Not that I expect you to accept that, you've shown multiple times to completely ignore everything that contradicts your belief.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

In a nutshell some members here present evolution as a fact. Just as they did the big bang. Of course, we know for a 'fact' neither of these are indeed factual.

Actually, as I linked in this post evolution is a fact that has been observed and reproduced in a lab environment. Though I'm ready for the 'this proves nothing, insert God in gap' response.

However as I also mentioned The Big Bang is only one of many competing hypotheses, scientific and otherwise, regarding the start of our universe. Last, the two are wholly unrelated ... the evolutionary process doesn't preclude an intelligent creating force nor does it confirm it.

Why is it so difficult for everyone to concede that they simply don't know ... it stands to reason for if we knew, belief would not be required.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Yeah..that's it. That's it exactly.

Or you could have 'ass'umed the whole time that I did not know what a 'theory' meant.

Much like a lot of you do here.

Assuming so many, many things.

I guess you assume that all creationists are ignorant.

You'all assume we don''t get 'k'now educa's'ion, don't ya?

You assume that none of us could have possibly gone to college or God forbid, graduate school, or maybe even became a doctor, or even a Holier than though - biologist or something mighty like that?

You assume some of us might have done that? hmm? just maybe?

Nah...don't believe nothin like that for a second...you'all just keep assuming things and talkin down to us...and callin us names...and tellin us we don't know what big words like theory mean...it's workin out really well for you'all..it really is...

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....

Originally posted by Nightfury
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.

There's a little bit of difference between comparing the DNA of two subjects and the water content of two subjects. Just a little bit.

By your logic ... a watermelon differs from humans by 1-2% (water content), and a monkey differs from us by 2-3% (DNA) ... so people are more like watermelons than monkeys.

... Actually, on second thought, I think you might be right.

reply to post by area6


Hehe i was gonna initially reply to that post but you did it before me.

Anyway, to the OP:
Creationists will mostly just keep on coming here with no evidence at all for their God and state simply: "IT IS YOUR ARROGANCE THAT DENIES YOU THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT THAT GOD EXISTS" or they will outright attack the OP's intentions, intelligence or background. When providing "evidence" such as miracles and etc, the rebuttals will be dismissed as "OH YOU ARE JUST TOO BLIND TO SEE THE TRUTH". I see it all the time, they have absolutely no argument, just blind faith.

This thread is pointless, if these people believed water was a solid, they would deny any rebuttal as ignorance, even when you begin to swim in water and drink it.

Very informative and entertaining thread. I would like to add a little something from a wise man named George.

I believe evolution is a part of creation. I believe it took the Earth a long time to evolve, millions of years and that it was part of creation. I believe that a supreme being manipulated things so that creation would play out over a long period of time, some call it evolution.

I believe evolution is a part of creation. I believe it took the Earth a long time to evolve, millions of years and that it was part of creation. I believe that a supreme being manipulated things so that creation would play out over a long period of time, some call it evolution.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Evolution and Creationism is synonymous
that is your worst nightmare

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Here's just a few scientists who don't the believe big bang "theory" (notice 'theory' - just like the 'theory' of evolution - hmmm...lol)

if you are going to make lists - now a list of all the scientists who do not believe in creationism