Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[Jjmcubbin]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you.

Who'da thunk that somebody who understands science actually accepts it?
Seriously, I've had many arguments here and half of them boil down to this.
The other half end with the other person talking like a horoscope.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

Then by your own logic, stating: "Americans who understand how Creation works are more likely to accept it."

And again, lets change one word: This flies in the face of evo's here who claim to understand Creation, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" Creation, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it.

 

[Larniavc]

The weekend is over and I am tired of your games so I am on to something worthwhile. My point from the beginning to this point in time is and has been that people who are zealous about a topic do not take the time to listen to others that they deem wrong no matter what they believe. The discussion is so emotionally charged that no real communication can happen. In fact, that is why I refuse to speak about what I believe on the topic. My refusal to express what I know and believe is one reason I know you all are not listening because a couple of the posts on this thread presume to know what I believe when I refuse to speak about what I believe because of the emotionally charged non listening nature of many here.

The truly funny thing is that this lack of listening thus lack of communication goes for everyone who is zealous about a topic, iow's it's human nature. Many of the people here who have been doing this to me and others are the same people who accuse creationists of doing similar things....lol. Both groups do it which insures no communication or at least meaningful communication will ever happen. You all see it in others but refuse to open your eyes to you doing it yourselves.

Now to further illustrate my point, one post on this topic commented about not being able to understand my posts because there was nothing in it to argue about. See, zealots seek to argue and disagree rather than listen and exchange ideas and opinions in a meaningful way. So now you have been given two direct examples of what I am talking about being evidenced in this thread. I tried years ago to communicate on the topic of origins and it went very much like this thread has. I say something painfully benign only to be insulted and attacked for beliefs that I never said I had and quite frankly most of the "invented" beliefs are insulting to what I really do believe. Today, I will occasionally go to a thread like this with a benign comment and test the waters so to speak and see if anything has changed, see if it is possible to have meaningful communication. As you all have demonstrated, that still isn't possible on this topic which is why I am taking my leave.

So now, the floor is yours to prove me right once again by attacking me, insulting me, telling me you can't follow what I said, etc. If nothing else it has been entertaining to see you trip over yourselves to prove me right about how zealots argue on these boards. Enjoy your bashing of one another and your prideful displays of arrogance and disrespect for others.

I don’t get your point.

 

[Larniavc]

Then by your own logic, stating: "Americans who understand how Creation works are more likely to accept it."

That does not follow.

Even the dumbest atheistical can grasp the concept of ‘Goddidit’.

 

[Ancient of Days]

That does not follow.

Even the dumbest atheistical can grasp the concept of ‘Goddidit’.

That's hypocrisy. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

Then by your own logic, stating: "Americans who understand how Creation works are more likely to accept it."

And again, lets change one word: This flies in the face of evo's here who claim to understand Creation, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" Creation, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it.

That is the outcome of a study.
You have not conducted a study of people who understand creationism. Therefore you cannot say that.

 

[Speedwell]

That's hypocrisy. Thanks for proving my point.

To be fair, there is more to creationism than "Goddidit." You also have to believe something really silly about the Genesis creation stories that not even most Christians subscribe to.

 

[Larniavc]

That's hypocrisy. Thanks for proving my point.

No, they are two independent propositions.

That’s like saying Tottenham Hotspur’s don’t support me because I doesn’t support them.

If you think it does, do feel free to explain.

 

[Ancient of Days]

That is the outcome of a study.
You have not conducted a study of people who understand creationism. Therefore you cannot say that.

While that may be true it is irrelevant. This is about the application of logic.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"Larnievc, post: 72372368, member: 378863"]No, they are two independent propositions.



No, it is the exact same proposition. The same applied logic. If the logic is sound then it applies.

 

[Larniavc]

How are they the same? Creationism and ToE are two very different things.

I really don’t understand why you think they are the same.

If a study was done to test whether people were more inclined to accept creationism then you would have a valid point.

Can you present such a study?

 

[Ancient of Days]

The study is irrelevant. The basis of proving a point is the logic behind it. That's what I am addressing. So:

"So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

Then by your own logic, stating: "Americans who understand how Creation works are more likely to accept it."

And again, lets change one word: This flies in the face of evo's here who claim to understand Creation, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" Creation, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you."

So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it.

Your argument doesn't stand up.

What we do know is, from the research, that people who understand evolution are more likely to accept it. That doesn't in any way imply that the same would apply to other theories. So, unless you have actual evidence that those who understand Creation are more likely to accept it, you haven't shown anything by your post.

The study is irrelevant. The basis of proving a point is the logic behind it. That's what I am addressing. So:

"So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.

You are making a claim. Do you have any evidence for that claim? As, there is evidence for the claim about evolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

How can you state that I cannot represent my opinion as factual and then state that "You can represent the word of God..."

God's word is truth.

do you have proof that is verifiable that God exists,

Yes. Can you prove He does not?

 

[Ancient of Days]

"AnotherAtheist, post: 72372436, member: 199566"]Your argument doesn't stand up. Yes it does, I think its more along the lines of "You don't like it"

What we do know is, from the research, that people who understand evolution are more likely to accept it. That doesn't in any way imply that the same would apply to other theories. Again, that's hypocrisy as your logic is a one way street according to you.

So, unless you have actual evidence that those who understand Creation are more likely to accept it, you haven't shown anything by your post. Again its not about being for or against any evidence its about the driving logic.

 

[KWCrazy]

You also have to believe something really silly about the Genesis creation stories that not even most Christians subscribe to.

What did Jesus believe?

 

[Speedwell]

What did Jesus believe?

That the scriptures were divinely inspired--just like most Christians.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"Ancient of Days, post: 72372452, member: 404496"]"AnotherAtheist, post: 72372436, member: 199566"]Your argument doesn't stand up. Yes it does, I think its more along the lines of "You don't like it"

What we do know is, from the research, that people who understand evolution are more likely to accept it. That doesn't in any way imply that the same would apply to other theories. Again, that's hypocrisy as your logic is a one way street according to you. Which is more like indoctrination.

So, unless you have actual evidence that those who understand Creation are more likely to accept it, you haven't shown anything by your post. Again its not about being for or against any evidence its about the driving logic.

Again, "So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

While that may be true it is irrelevant. This is about the application of logic.

It is not proper application of logic. By the same logic,
A likes B
Then that means B likes A.
See?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

"Ancient of Days, post: 72372452, member: 404496"]"AnotherAtheist, post: 72372436, member: 199566"]Your argument doesn't stand up. Yes it does, I think its more along the lines of "You don't like it"

What we do know is, from the research, that people who understand evolution are more likely to accept it. That doesn't in any way imply that the same would apply to other theories. Again, that's hypocrisy as your logic is a one way street according to you. Which is more like indoctrination.

So, unless you have actual evidence that those who understand Creation are more likely to accept it, you haven't shown anything by your post. Again its not about being for or against any evidence its about the driving logic.

Again, "So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.

Your argument doesn't stand up. It's very simple, but you don't understand it.

There are two statements.

(i) Those who understand evolution are more likely to understand it.
(ii) Those who understand creation are more likely to understand it.

You are suggesting that these two statements must either both be true or both be false. But, that simply isn't true.

What we do know is that we have actual real evidence supporting (i). We don't have evidence supporting (ii). That's the difference between them. So, we can have confidence in (i) but not yet in (ii) until we get some evidence.

The difference is not in the logical structure of the sentence. The difference is whether or not we know if the statements are consistent with the real world.