Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[AV1611VET]

OK, That's enough.

The term IGNORANT means that someone doesn't know anything about a topic. If someone has studied the topic in college then they are no longer ignorant. I never, ever claimed to be an expert. But the FACT is that I am not ignorant about the topic.

My only claim, and it is a small one, is that I am not ignorant about evolution. So you people can stop being jerks about this OK?

Enough is enough.

Don't get too riled up over this, Tim.

These guys use terms so loosely, they lose their effectiveness.

 

[cubinity]

Don't get too riled up over this, Tim.

These guys use terms so loosely, they loose their effectiveness.

He said "loose" their effectiveness. lol.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, aren't you just a bright ray of sunshine on a cloudy day.
You don't know what you are talking about.

And you do?

 

[mzungu]

What creationists do not know is that the Theory of Evolution has moved beyond Darwin's Origin of the Species. Genetics alone has pretty much set in rock ToE and only refinements can happen. This theory has been so scrutinised and peer reviewed and yet has passed unscathed that dismissing it without knowing about it or without having a counter theory with evidences more compelling is folly to say the least!

 

[mzungu]

OK, That's enough.

The term IGNORANT means that someone doesn't know anything about a topic. If someone has studied the topic in college then they are no longer ignorant. I never, ever claimed to be an expert. But the FACT is that I am not ignorant about the topic.

My only claim, and it is a small one, is that I am not ignorant about evolution. So you people can stop being jerks about this OK?

Enough is enough.

Please explain this:

 

[AV1611VET]

What creationists do not know is that the Theory of Evolution has moved beyond Darwin's Origin of the Species. Genetics alone has pretty much set in rock ToE and only refinements can happen. This theory has been so scrutinised and peer reviewed and yet has passed unscathed that dismissing it without knowing about it or without having a counter theory with evidences more compelling is folly to say the least!

I'll bet they said the same thing about Thalidomide at one time as well.

 

[USincognito]

You don't know what you are talking about.

As if the responses pointing out your clear lack of knowledge when it comes to evolution along with your evasive and frankly childish responses to sfs weren't enough, it's more than a bit ironic that after I actually demonstrated you don't know what you are talking about in posts 596-599, you respond as you do.

If you really want to show is your knowledge, actually respond to the content of posts (like Haeckel and textbooks, EvoDevo, ERVs, etc.) rather than repeating the same thing ad nauseum.

 

[Timothew]

You people aren't using language correctly.

SFS said that I was ignorant about evolution. Someone who is ignorant about evolution doesn't know anything about evolution. Someone who has studied evolution in college is no longer ignorant about evolution. Someone doesn't have to be an EXPERT in evolution in order to not be IGNORANT about evolution.

So Mzungu, your complex chart is irrelevant, since a person doesn't have to know every specific detail about evolution to not be IGNORANT about evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

You people aren't using language correctly.

SFS said that I was ignorant about evolution. Someone who is ignorant about evolution doesn't know anything about evolution. Someone who has studied evolution in college is no longer ignorant about evolution. Someone doesn't have to be an EXPERT in evolution in order to not be IGNORANT about evolution.

So Mzungu, your complex chart is irrelevant, since a person doesn't have to know every specific detail about evolution to not be IGNORANT about evolution.

"Ignorant" means you disagree with them.

 

[mzungu]

"Ignorant" means you disagree with them.

Ignorant means one who thinks he knows all because he knows only a part. Anyone who has STUDIED and understood ToE would not have any reason to dismiss the theory.

Just because one took courses in ToE does not by any standards mean that one understands what ToE is.

Would you accept me to be knowledgeable in the Bible if I had taken some courses on Peters writings only?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ignorant means one who thinks he knows all because he knows only a part. Anyone who has STUDIED and understood ToE would not have any reason to dismiss the theory.

Just because one took courses in ToE does not by any standards mean that one understands what ToE is.

Would you accept me to be knowledgeable in the Bible if I had taken some courses on Peters writings only?

"Ignorant" means we disagree with you guys.

 

[Freodin]

"Ignorant" means we disagree with you guys.

No, ignorant means you don't know what you are talking about. And by the way your disagreement is presented you make clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Timothew]

Ignorant means one who thinks he knows all because he knows only a part. Anyone who has STUDIED and understood ToE would not have any reason to dismiss the theory.

Just because one took courses in ToE does not by any standards mean that one understands what ToE is.

Would you accept me to be knowledgeable in the Bible if I had taken some courses on Peters writings only?

Thank you. I said I didn't "know all". I said I wasn't an expert. My only claim was that I am not "ignorant". Also by your definition, I am not ignorant.

If you read Peter's Letters, you would not be ignorant of Peter's Letters. (By the definition of ignorant)

Tim

 

[mzungu]

Thank you. I said I didn't "know all". I said I wasn't an expert. My only claim was that I am not "ignorant". Also by your definition, I am not ignorant.

If you read Peter's Letters, you would not be ignorant of Peter's Letters. (By the definition of ignorant)

Tim

No you would not be ignorant of Peters letters but ignorant of the rest of the Bible. You are in no position to dismiss evolution because you took some courses on it! This Theory has withstood the test of time and scrutiny by all the worlds biologists and has passed unscathed and yet your vanity allows you to dismiss it out of a whim

 

[Doveaman]

Why doesnt creationism need any data?

“We do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen...For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor 4:18, 5:7).

 

[USincognito]

You people aren't using language correctly.

SFS said that I was ignorant about evolution.

He was, and remains correct. As he, I and others have pointed out, you are ignorant of what actually constitutes science, what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim, and what actually appears in science text books when it comes to evolution. If that were not the case you wouldn't keep whining about "people talking mean to you" and just present evidence of your experience, knowledge and/or expertise on the subject.

Look, let me give you some advice on several levels. If you have to make claims about something then can't back up those claims. If you gripe about rudeness or bullying or whatever when people challange your assertions instead of defending them. If you claim to have a deep understanding of a subject, but exhibit a complete lack of or misunderstanding of a subject... the problem is not with everybody else... it's with you.

Sfs doesn't pull out his handfull of trump cards very often, so if he does, the average reader of this forum can understand that the person he's responding to is in way over their heads when it comes to claims of understanding of evolution and specifically genetics.

The fact that you continue to make yourself the subject of discussion and not the evidences that have been presented only make it all the more obvious that you're in way over your head and it's time to acknowledge that or bow out of the discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, ignorant means you don't know what you are talking about.

But for those of us who do, ignorant means they disagree with you.

That's why the late Henry Morris is "ignorant", as well as the staff at I.C.R, and Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, and on and on...

And by the way your disagreement is presented you make clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Eyes ignit.

 

[cubinity]

Is this a thread about creationism, or ignorance?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this a thread about creationism, or ignorance?

Both -- and we're taking care of the creationism.

 

[Belk]

You people aren't using language correctly.

SFS said that I was ignorant about evolution. Someone who is ignorant about evolution doesn't know anything about evolution. Someone who has studied evolution in college is no longer ignorant about evolution. Someone doesn't have to be an EXPERT in evolution in order to not be IGNORANT about evolution.

So Mzungu, your complex chart is irrelevant, since a person doesn't have to know every specific detail about evolution to not be IGNORANT about evolution.

Looks like you are ignorant of the definition of ignorant.

Definition of IGNORANT
1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2: unaware, uninformed
— ig·no·rant·ly adverb

As you can clearly see it is quite possible to study something yet still be ignorant of it since you lack comprehension. Given some of your statements in regards to evolution it would indeed appear that you lack comprehension of exactly what evolution is and what it states.
Ignorance is not an insult, it is simply a lack of specific knowledge.