- Aug 26, 2005
- 2,454
- 106
- 41
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Too bad it is labeled "bad logic". Do you have anything relevant to the OP?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Bad Logic
- Thread starter BananaSlug
- Start date
Too bad it is labeled "bad logic". Do you have anything relevant to the OP?
ReverendDG
Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET
well this thread appears to be about how illogical creationists arguments are and how they ignore how illogical they are when pointed out
as i said, where is anyone saying creationists are idiots? i don't see anyone saying that.
oh yeah.. because its nothing but a straw-man and false outrage
Upvote
0
OK, so I ask moonlancer a question, and I get responses from two other people. Whatever...
Posted by BannanaSlug:
"Do you have anything relevant to the OP?"
Yes, and I have already stated it.
Posted by ReverendDG:
"where is anyone saying creationists are idiots?"
If your defense is the literal use of the word "idiot", then give me enough time and I am sure I will find it here on this forum. But I am speaking to theme and intent. You tell me, how do you interpret the following comment concerning creationist found on another thread on this forum?
Quote:
"And this is why such people not only come off as misinformed (putting it as politely as possible) but as outright dishonest."
My interpretation: Creationist are ignorant liars.
Further, your claim of false outrage makes no sense. I simply stated that if someone started a thread the intent of which was to belittle atheist, I would speak out against that as well. The only incongruity here was in your answer.
Posted by BannanaSlug:
"Do you have anything relevant to the OP?"
Yes, and I have already stated it.
Posted by ReverendDG:
"where is anyone saying creationists are idiots?"
If your defense is the literal use of the word "idiot", then give me enough time and I am sure I will find it here on this forum. But I am speaking to theme and intent. You tell me, how do you interpret the following comment concerning creationist found on another thread on this forum?
Quote:
"And this is why such people not only come off as misinformed (putting it as politely as possible) but as outright dishonest."
My interpretation: Creationist are ignorant liars.
Further, your claim of false outrage makes no sense. I simply stated that if someone started a thread the intent of which was to belittle atheist, I would speak out against that as well. The only incongruity here was in your answer.
Upvote
0
I invite you to consider the following linked examples.
1. Phony Ph.D.'s
2. Either incrediably ignorant or . . . .
3. You tell me!
and ---------------------------->
YouTube - List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?
Upvote
0
Gawron sez....
My interpretation: Creationist are ignorant liars. QUOTE//////////////////////
Hespera sez.... there are always more tactful ways to say things. And that is overgeneralizing.
however.... I have yet to read anything by a creo that was not fundamentally ignorant or misinformed, if they were talking about evolution or geology.
I have observed that the level of English usage among creos tends to be quite low; this often indicates a lack of formal education. This lack of education and the lack of education in biological and geological matters adds up to "ignorant". Kind of like i am about catching catfish. Im ignorant; i have no idea how to go get a catfish or fis a motorcycle, for that matter.
I have seen many false statements from creos, concerning evolution and geology. In fact, no argument that they make against evolution or geology... that I have seen... has ever been anything but either ignorant or a deliberate lie.
To date nobody has ever anywhere advanced a credible argument that would falsify evolution; many claim to be able to do so; they are either lying, or they are self deluded, another form of lying. They sure are not picking up Nobel prizes for their amazing discoveries.
Finally on this: science advances by people finding exceptions to the rules, flaws in theories, ways to improve them, or discoveries that outright falsify an old theory.
The people working in their fields would be the ones most interested in any work, profesisonal or amateur that would advance the knowledge in that field.
Let us know when a person finds something that would falsify evolution. Meantime the ideas so far advanced, and springing ever forth anew are, sorry, ignorant or deliverate falsehoods.
My interpretation: Creationist are ignorant liars. QUOTE//////////////////////
Hespera sez.... there are always more tactful ways to say things. And that is overgeneralizing.
however.... I have yet to read anything by a creo that was not fundamentally ignorant or misinformed, if they were talking about evolution or geology.
I have observed that the level of English usage among creos tends to be quite low; this often indicates a lack of formal education. This lack of education and the lack of education in biological and geological matters adds up to "ignorant". Kind of like i am about catching catfish. Im ignorant; i have no idea how to go get a catfish or fis a motorcycle, for that matter.
I have seen many false statements from creos, concerning evolution and geology. In fact, no argument that they make against evolution or geology... that I have seen... has ever been anything but either ignorant or a deliberate lie.
To date nobody has ever anywhere advanced a credible argument that would falsify evolution; many claim to be able to do so; they are either lying, or they are self deluded, another form of lying. They sure are not picking up Nobel prizes for their amazing discoveries.
Finally on this: science advances by people finding exceptions to the rules, flaws in theories, ways to improve them, or discoveries that outright falsify an old theory.
The people working in their fields would be the ones most interested in any work, profesisonal or amateur that would advance the knowledge in that field.
Let us know when a person finds something that would falsify evolution. Meantime the ideas so far advanced, and springing ever forth anew are, sorry, ignorant or deliverate falsehoods.
Upvote
0
Posted by Hespera:
“there are always more tactful ways to say things”
But that doesn’t change the intent, which is the point of my comments. Do you not understand this?
“I have observed that the level of English usage among creos tends to be quite low”
Hmm…
“i have no idea how to go get a catfish or fis a motorcycle”
One can “get” catfish from a supermarket. And you “fix” motorcycles. Or perhaps "repair" would be a more appropriate term.
“sorry, ignorant or deliverate falsehoods.”
But then maybe you simply made a mistake.
“science advances by people finding exceptions to the rules, flaws in theories”
If science advances by people finding flaws in a theory, why then are you so vile toward someone attempting to find a flaw in evolutionary theory? Oh, right, it is based on the intent of the person attempting to find the flaw. And, of course, because no-one who believes in god could ever advance science. Incidentally, Yassar Arafat and Al Gore have won Nobel prizes, so I wouldn’t be overly impressed.
However, speaking of tact, you made this comment concerning me on another thread:
Posted by Hespera, in the Women are getting more beautiful thread, post number six:
“Im sure you love your children very much.”
Do you have any idea how elitist and condescending this comment is?
“there are always more tactful ways to say things”
But that doesn’t change the intent, which is the point of my comments. Do you not understand this?
“I have observed that the level of English usage among creos tends to be quite low”
Hmm…
“i have no idea how to go get a catfish or fis a motorcycle”
One can “get” catfish from a supermarket. And you “fix” motorcycles. Or perhaps "repair" would be a more appropriate term.
“sorry, ignorant or deliverate falsehoods.”
But then maybe you simply made a mistake.
“science advances by people finding exceptions to the rules, flaws in theories”
If science advances by people finding flaws in a theory, why then are you so vile toward someone attempting to find a flaw in evolutionary theory? Oh, right, it is based on the intent of the person attempting to find the flaw. And, of course, because no-one who believes in god could ever advance science. Incidentally, Yassar Arafat and Al Gore have won Nobel prizes, so I wouldn’t be overly impressed.
However, speaking of tact, you made this comment concerning me on another thread:
Posted by Hespera, in the Women are getting more beautiful thread, post number six:
“Im sure you love your children very much.”
Do you have any idea how elitist and condescending this comment is?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
S
Steezie
Guest
There ARE flaws in Evolutionary theory, we know this, the entire scientific community is shaking hands on this point. I think you need to look up the definition of theory because it doesnt mean what you seem to think it does.
A lot of Creationists do this, they assume something, assume wrong, then get outraged when people point this out. A theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena," we use theory in our colloquial speech to mean a hypothesis but the two ideas are not interchangeable.
Do you have any idea how off-topic that is? Stick to the subject at hand; if your battlements are running dry, dont try to suck in reinforcements from elsewhere.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, I had to chime in.
The thing is, if someone wants to go find a flaw in the theory, it is expected that something resembling the following process will occur:
Person gets education on theory.
Person learns what theory states.
Person looks for flaw in theory.
Person thinks they find flaw in theory.
Person correctly represents what theory says.
Person indicates exact point or points of error.
Person introduces evidence confirming error(s) exist.
Person introduces new hypothesis that better explains said errors.
Person designs test(s) for new hypothesis.
Person gathers data from said test(s).
Person shows new hypothesis correct.
New hypothesis eventually gets accepted into mainstream science.
This is what the theocreologists tend to do:
1.Person looks at Bible.
2.Person looks at Theory of Evolution, without getting a formal education in it.
3.Person has severe flaws in understanding of ToE.
4.Person attacks ToE with terms that are vague, undefined, unevidenced, downright wrong, or something combination thereof.
5.Person has no evidence save a holy book.
6.Person has no tests.
7.Person has no new data.
8.Person ignores when the flaws in their understanding of the ToE are pointed out.
9.Repeat from 3.
And do I need to pull up a list of all the religious people, their religions, and their fields to knock down this strawman? Or maybe I can just go find the list of creationists that were alive before the ToE was formulated usually paraded around in a different strawman to knock this one down...
Metherion
The thing is, if someone wants to go find a flaw in the theory, it is expected that something resembling the following process will occur:
Person gets education on theory.
Person learns what theory states.
Person looks for flaw in theory.
Person thinks they find flaw in theory.
Person correctly represents what theory says.
Person indicates exact point or points of error.
Person introduces evidence confirming error(s) exist.
Person introduces new hypothesis that better explains said errors.
Person designs test(s) for new hypothesis.
Person gathers data from said test(s).
Person shows new hypothesis correct.
New hypothesis eventually gets accepted into mainstream science.
This is what the theocreologists tend to do:
1.Person looks at Bible.
2.Person looks at Theory of Evolution, without getting a formal education in it.
3.Person has severe flaws in understanding of ToE.
4.Person attacks ToE with terms that are vague, undefined, unevidenced, downright wrong, or something combination thereof.
5.Person has no evidence save a holy book.
6.Person has no tests.
7.Person has no new data.
8.Person ignores when the flaws in their understanding of the ToE are pointed out.
9.Repeat from 3.

Nope. More the methodology they use.
And do I need to pull up a list of all the religious people, their religions, and their fields to knock down this strawman? Or maybe I can just go find the list of creationists that were alive before the ToE was formulated usually paraded around in a different strawman to knock this one down...
Metherion
Upvote
0
You two should have directed your comments to Hespera, not me, as I was only responding to her comment, and the context in which she used the word. Instead, as usual, you took my comments out of context and responded to an argument I didn't make.
Or perhaps you could let her respond for herself.
Or perhaps you could let her respond for herself.
Upvote
0
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
my mistake then Gawron. Many people speak out against creationists because those who propagate do so out of dishonestly and lies.
Upvote
0
Wait a second. You responded to a comment made by her. True. In that comment, you asked a question (which I answered from my POV, which is what forums are for), and made two claims. Both claims were made using sarcasm. I responded to those as well. The claims were made on a public forum, they can be answered the same way. And Hespera didnt make either one.
Claiming you didn't make the argument that you clearly did doesn't make a lot of sense. *headscratch*
Metherion
Upvote
0
corvus_corax
Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Upvote
0
Of course I understand that it doesnt change the intent. Just saying it doesnt have to be stated in the harshest terms.
Jumping on typos. Honestly. There is a big difference between bad English usage and typos. Jumping on a typo that I make hardly changes the fact that we see a lot of uneducated looking English coming from the creos.
You want to see who speaks better English, you, me, or any creo on this forum?
Fundamentalism and crationism does correlate with low level of formal education. Just an observation.
As for people being vile toward those attempting to find flaws in ToE...
"vile" is kind of overgeneralizing and over characterizing dont you think?
You show me someone who is actually doing good work, and looking for real flaws, and I will show you someone who deserves respect. And who will get attention if he succeeds.
As long as creos keep churning out ignorant lying nonsense, they will get the credit that deserves.
Nobel doesnt NECESSARILY impress me either, tho its a kind of reverse-elitist to just dismiss the whole idea of a Nobel.
In any case, its not about the prize, but that if anyone ever did find a way to discredit evolution, he would be recognized, and his discovery would rate among the greatest of all time.
As for how you chose to take what i said about loving children. Thats really too bad. Nothing like that intended, just a sincere thought from a mother to be. I dont agree with your ideas but it doesnt mean I think Im a better human being, or would involve someone's children in a way to be snarky. You misread me on that.
Upvote
0
- Aug 26, 2005
- 2,454
- 106
- 41
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
More creationist logic- blame the evil atheists for "picking" on God-fearin' creationists, i.e., instead of replying to the argument, claim persecution because of your beliefs.
Upvote
0
Posted by Terrancel:
This thread is about creationist... are you suggesting that creationists are god?
What was the title of this thread again? Seems like the above is a perfect example.
Posted by BananaSlug:
More creationist logic- blame the evil atheists for "picking" on God-fearin' creationists
Do you deny that there are an abundance of threads on this forum targeted at creationist, about creationist, belittling their beliefs? Do you deny that creationist, or some derivative of the term, is usually the first knee-jerk response label applied to anyone who comes on these forums and questions evolution? I have seen it numerous times, and the term carries with it this automatic stigma:
Posted by Hespera:
Fundamentalism and crationism (sic) does correlate with low level of formal education.
As for playing the victim card, I see this claim as a weak attempt to dodge the point. I make no claim to be a victim, especially of words on a blog. What I do see is a group of usual suspects continually posting here concerning a topic which has been beaten to death. We know how you feel about creationist. So by posting thread after multiple thread with the same underlying theme, who are you really talking to? So, if you guys are allowed to keep posting these theme threads, I am allowed to comment on it. Judging from the responses to date, I am not the one who needs thicker skin.
This thread is about creationist... are you suggesting that creationists are god?
What was the title of this thread again? Seems like the above is a perfect example.
Posted by BananaSlug:
More creationist logic- blame the evil atheists for "picking" on God-fearin' creationists
Do you deny that there are an abundance of threads on this forum targeted at creationist, about creationist, belittling their beliefs? Do you deny that creationist, or some derivative of the term, is usually the first knee-jerk response label applied to anyone who comes on these forums and questions evolution? I have seen it numerous times, and the term carries with it this automatic stigma:
Posted by Hespera:
Fundamentalism and crationism (sic) does correlate with low level of formal education.
As for playing the victim card, I see this claim as a weak attempt to dodge the point. I make no claim to be a victim, especially of words on a blog. What I do see is a group of usual suspects continually posting here concerning a topic which has been beaten to death. We know how you feel about creationist. So by posting thread after multiple thread with the same underlying theme, who are you really talking to? So, if you guys are allowed to keep posting these theme threads, I am allowed to comment on it. Judging from the responses to date, I am not the one who needs thicker skin.
Upvote
0
Gawron sez...As for playing the “victim” card, I see this claim as a weak attempt to dodge the point. I make no claim to be a victim, especially of words on a blog. What I do see is a group of usual suspects continually posting here concerning a topic which has been beaten to death. We know how you feel about creationist. So by posting thread after multiple thread with the same underlying theme, who are you really talking to? So, if you guys are allowed to keep posting these theme threads, I am allowed to comment on it. Judging from the responses to date, I am not the one who needs thicker skin.QUOTE/////////
nobody ever said you were not allowed to post.
With regard to your interpretation of what i said about kids, at the time I said it, you responded in kind, gave their ages, and and we had what seemed to me like a pleasant exchange, all away and aside from talking about forum debate. A bit of human contact was all I had in mind. Kids are the best thing there is; Im sure you do love them very much.
i found it weird and troubling that days later, you went back and decided that i was being elitist and condescending.
Of course, the complaint about someone being "elitist" is so obviously symptomatic of someone taking on the victim role, its no wonder that someone picked up on it as they did.
"Im sure you love your kids very much" is a simple statement. No tone of voice, no sneaked in double entedre words. As was obvious from the context in which it was written, there was no hidden agenda.
That you would later reconsider and try to use it against me, proclaim my intend to have been to act elitist and condescending says something unfortuante about you. it says nothing at all about me.
And likewise that you would ignore my effort earlier to straighten it out for you.
Finally, on the beaten to death bit. If it bores you, go away. The last moldy scraps of integrity that creationism might ever have had were gnawed by the dump dogs and converted, long ago. it really is not a serious topic.
If a person just feels like arguing, as i do sometimes, its will do as a topic. i think I do it more to see what kind of people they are, how far out past the limits or reason they will go, the people who support creationism.
Its been interesting. I never would have imagined people would straight face talk about things like water canopies, live thundergirds, embedded age, dinos in the angel's coal bins, hyperevolution, the Split, entropy starting when someone chomped the fruit, etc. I send some of this back to China.
nobody ever said you were not allowed to post.
With regard to your interpretation of what i said about kids, at the time I said it, you responded in kind, gave their ages, and and we had what seemed to me like a pleasant exchange, all away and aside from talking about forum debate. A bit of human contact was all I had in mind. Kids are the best thing there is; Im sure you do love them very much.
i found it weird and troubling that days later, you went back and decided that i was being elitist and condescending.
Of course, the complaint about someone being "elitist" is so obviously symptomatic of someone taking on the victim role, its no wonder that someone picked up on it as they did.
"Im sure you love your kids very much" is a simple statement. No tone of voice, no sneaked in double entedre words. As was obvious from the context in which it was written, there was no hidden agenda.
That you would later reconsider and try to use it against me, proclaim my intend to have been to act elitist and condescending says something unfortuante about you. it says nothing at all about me.
And likewise that you would ignore my effort earlier to straighten it out for you.
Finally, on the beaten to death bit. If it bores you, go away. The last moldy scraps of integrity that creationism might ever have had were gnawed by the dump dogs and converted, long ago. it really is not a serious topic.
If a person just feels like arguing, as i do sometimes, its will do as a topic. i think I do it more to see what kind of people they are, how far out past the limits or reason they will go, the people who support creationism.
Its been interesting. I never would have imagined people would straight face talk about things like water canopies, live thundergirds, embedded age, dinos in the angel's coal bins, hyperevolution, the Split, entropy starting when someone chomped the fruit, etc. I send some of this back to China.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
