Bad Logic

[gaara4158]

But that doesn’t change the intent, which is the point of my comments. Do you not understand this?

In conveying a message tactfully, you communicate that your intent is not to belittle your opponent, but to point out discrepancies in their logic. Without tact, we'd be no better than preschoolers throwing woodchips at each other. Do you not understand this?

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.

It's not the intent that irks us, it's the fact the people lacking even an elementary understanding of the theory claim to have found fatal flaws in it. I would delight in someone pointing out a valid problem with it, regardless of who it was... but alas, all I see are the same tired old arguments forced by condescending fundamentalists.

 

[uke2se]

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:

Wow, how odd given the fact that the subforum is called Creation & Evolution.

There isn't much else to do for someone who lives in the real world but mock the ideas of creationists. The ideas are so out of touch with observable reality that there's just no helping it. Yes, we mock them. We mock them because they are funny, and because, deep down inside, we fear what the world would be like if they actually got their wish and could teach their crap in science class. I sort of enjoy modern science and what it gives me, like medicine, a heated dwelling, transportation, economic security, hope for the future. Creationist dogma threatens to disrupt this, taking us back to the dark ages with all that that entails.

That's why we mock creationists.

 

[plindboe]

As for playing the “victim” card, I see this claim as a weak attempt to dodge the point.

It wasn't though.

In a way I agree with your point, that this forum has become too one-sided. There are too few from the anti-evolution crowd, and as a result the pro-evolution crowd has become more vocal and critical. It's what automatically happens on forums when one side becomes too dominant, i.e. human nature. What this forum desperately needs are some intelligent anti-evolutionists willing to argue their case.

This is why I think it's a shame that you seem to refuse to supply some much needed counterbalance. I know you can defend your case intelligently when you want, yet you seem to waste your potential on kneejerk responses about persecution and the pointless bickering that inevitably follows. By this behaviour you're contributing to the belief that the anti-evolution crowd has nothing serious to offer, i.e. you're essentially sabotaging your own goal.

Peter

 

[BananaSlug]

In a way I agree with your point, that this forum has become too one-sided. There are too few from the anti-evolution crowd, and as a result the pro-evolution crowd has become more vocal and critical. It's what automatically happens on forums when one side becomes too dominant, i.e. human nature. What this forum desperately needs are some intelligent anti-evolutionists willing to argue their case.

I agree as well. It would be nice to have some creationists who are able to talk their point in an intelligent manner and be more open to other ideas. Of course an open mind could lead to an acceptance of evolution...

This is why I think it's a shame that you seem to refuse to supply some much needed counterbalance. I know you can defend your case intelligently when you want, yet you seem to waste your potential on kneejerk responses about persecution and the pointless bickering that inevitably follows. By this behaviour you're contributing to the belief that the anti-evolution crowd has nothing serious to offer, i.e. you're essentially sabotaging your own goal.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree as well. It would be nice to have some creationists who are able to talk their point in an intelligent manner and be more open to other ideas.

Ya --- agreeing with your conclusions only 95% of the time isn't good enough, is it?

It's 100% or the highway --- right?

 

[BananaSlug]

Ya --- agreeing with your conclusions only 95% of the time isn't good enough, is it?

It's 100% or the highway --- right?

No. It would be nice to have someone who can actually understand the basic principles of science, be able to provide scientific evidence is support of creationism, and understand the scientific rigors that come with critiquing their methods and conclusions without resorting to "you don't want to believe in God, that's why you won't accept any evidence".

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be nice to have someone who can actually understand the basic principles of science...

When you guys aren't willing to understand basic doctrine?

It's a one-way street with you guys, isn't it?

... be able to provide scientific evidence is support of creationism...

I'll bet you would --- so you can falsify it.

That's what you guys would so love --- we to present scientific evidence so you guys can pwn it.

But God is much wiser than that --- He threw you guys a curve ball.

He created this universe sans evidence, in the "wrong" order, and in much, much shorter a period of time.

Then, anticipating a charge of "deception", He confessed to what He did --- in Writing.

Then, on top of that --- He preserves that Writing from [information] entropy, and even commissions us to take that "confession" to the whole world.

... and understand the scientific rigors that come with critiquing their methods and conclusions...

QED to the above

... without resorting to "you don't want to believe in God, that's why you won't accept any evidence".

I don't know who does that --- but I sure don't.

I know you guys don't want to believe in God, but it doesn't lead to 'not accepting any evidence.'

There is no evidence to accept.

 

[BananaSlug]

When you guys aren't willing to understand basic doctrine?

Which basic doctrine? Christianity has several denominations each with a basic doctrine that is different from the other. Calvinist, Armenian, Predestination, Freewill, etc. I understand basic doctrine just fine it just seems funny God let so many followers develop their own ideas of what the Bible says.

It's a one-way street with you guys, isn't it?

Same goes for you!

I'll bet you would --- so you can falsify it.

That is part of scientific study. Darwin falsified Lamarkian evolution. Pasteur falsified spontaneous generation.

That's what you guys would so love --- we to present scientific evidence so you guys can pwn it.

Again, that is the point of scientific study!

But God is much wiser than that --- He threw you guys a curve ball.

According to you he did. According to other Christians he didn't.

He created this universe sans evidence, in the "wrong" order, and in much, much shorter a period of time.

So are you saying Romans 1:20 is wrong?

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

According to the Bible creation is proof of his invisible qualities. According to you he erased all the evidence of his creation. Which is right, the Bible or you?

Then, anticipating a charge of "deception", He confessed to what He did --- in Writing.

According to Romans, his invisble qualities are evident in creation. If he erased the evidence of his creation it seems pretty deceptive.

Then, on top of that --- He preserves that Writing from [information] entropy, and even commissions us to take that "confession" to the whole world.

Considering the books that are missing from the Bible he didn't do a very good job.

I know you guys don't want to believe in God, but it doesn't lead to 'not accepting any evidence.'

There is no evidence to accept.

According to Romans 1:20 there is evidence in creation. Are you saying the Bible is wrong? We have a literal interpretation that says God made the world in one way, we have evidence that the world was made a different way, and we have a verse that says the evidence in creation shows his invisible qualities. According to you there is no evidence, according to the Bible there is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which basic doctrine?

It doesn't matter --- all things sacred = all things shunned to you guys.

There is not one sacred thing in existence you guys will accept as valid.

I believe it was Donald Wildmon who pointed out that even the Amish are being targed by Hollywood to come in and spread their licentious filth around.

Back in my days, things were sacred, until science covered the shadow of the Cross with the shadow of a clipboard.

Now we're seeing a rise in people breaking into churches --- looting, stealing, and even shooting people.

People making out in the church parking lot, cigarette butts on the property --- I'm sure you get the picture.

Christianity has several denominations each with a basic doctrine that is different from the other. Calvinist, Armenian, Predestination, Freewill, etc. I understand basic doctrine just fine it just seems funny God let so many followers develop their own ideas of what the Bible says.

Ya --- and the U.S. Constitution does the same thing.

Should God even dare put 10 Commandments down in writing, all atheism would be in an uproar to make sure it's displayed "properly" --- that is: not displayed.

I can assure you that if (when) God showed up and 'set the record straight', you'd demand He leave --- again.

And the book of Revelation confirms that.

So are you saying Romans 1:20 is wrong?

No, I'm not --- Romans 1:20 is not talking about creatio ex nihilo --- it is talking about what has already been made.

 

[gaara4158]

It doesn't matter --- all things sacred = all things shunned to you guys.

There is not one sacred thing in existence you guys will accept as valid.

I believe it was Donald Wildmon who pointed out that even the Amish are being targed by Hollywood to come in and spread their licentious filth around.

Back in my days, things were sacred, until science covered the shadow of the Cross with the shadow of a clipboard.

Now we're seeing a rise in people breaking into churches --- looting, stealing, and even shooting people.

People making out in the church parking lot, cigarette butts on the property --- I'm sure you get the picture.

Oh, my... there's a lot going on here. First, you say we don't believe in anything sacred. Sure, that's correct, by a strict definition of the word, we don't believe in sacred things. However, most of us are capable of holding a great deal of respect for certain things, such as the secrets of close friends, fraternity rituals, etc. Just because we don't believe in life after death, doesn't mean we think it's funny to play with corpses.
Secondly, you seem to think that science has replaced religion somehow with your shadow analogy. While science may contradict literal interpretations of certain stories, science says nothing about theology. Science will never attempt to prove that there is no god, or that the question isn't important.
Finally, you seem to blame science for the decline of moral values in today's children. Society in America has certainly changed in the past few decades... but we've got more than science to blame for that. Blame the parents for not teaching their kids respect... or giving them so little freedom that they resort to using the church property for their acts of debauchery. Atheism =/= disrespect for the cultures of others.

Ya --- and the U.S. Constitution does the same thing.

That's the problem with putting documents whose authors are no longer living in a position of power. The power goes to those who decide what is the correct interpretation.

Should God even dare put 10 Commandments down in writing, all atheism would be in an uproar to make sure it's displayed "properly" --- that is: not displayed.

I can assure you that if (when) God showed up and 'set the record straight', you'd demand He leave --- again.

And the book of Revelation confirms that.

I can assure you that if God were to do anything proving his existence, the last thing I'd be doing is making demands. After I got over the shock of having been wrong all this time, I'd be full of questions. If he wanted to write down ten commandments for us, who would I be to object? Revelation or not, you're utterly wrong about this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Secondly, you seem to think that science has replaced religion somehow with your shadow analogy. While science may contradict literal interpretations of certain stories, science says nothing about theology. Science will never attempt to prove that there is no god, or that the question isn't important.

I'm sorry, Gaara, but I can't bring myself to believe that.

Maybe I'm wrong to blame all of science on its representatives here, but I have honestly concluded that although science doesn't put in print anti-religious sentiments, it is certainly "taught" in the classrooms that way.

Be it a Freudian slip or a roll of the eyes or smirk, kinesics says a lot.

And while, of course, you don't pick up on body language on the Internet, I find it beyond coincidence that you all use the same alternate terminology when talking about sacred things.

 

[Cabal]

I'm sorry, Gaara, but I can't bring myself to believe that.

Maybe I'm wrong to blame all of science on its representatives here, but I have honestly concluded that although science doesn't put in print anti-religious sentiments, it is certainly "taught" in the classrooms that way.

Ehhh....no, you're wrong.

Be it a Freudian slip or a roll of the eyes or smirk, kinesics says a lot.

On an internet message board?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this is nothing but prejudice.

 

[AV1611VET]

On an internet message board?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this is nothing but prejudice.

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[Cabal]

Did you read the rest of my post?

Well, unless you were referring to science lecturers, but somehow I find it hard to believe you've been in a science classroom.

Unless this was back in the good old days before they started "teaching" us anti-religious sentiment (whatever "teaching" means).

 

[gaara4158]

I'm sorry, Gaara, but I can't bring myself to believe that.

Maybe I'm wrong to blame all of science on its representatives here, but I have honestly concluded that although science doesn't put in print anti-religious sentiments, it is certainly "taught" in the classrooms that way.

Be it a Freudian slip or a roll of the eyes or smirk, kinesics says a lot.

And while, of course, you don't pick up on body language on the Internet, I find it beyond coincidence that you all use the same alternate terminology when talking about sacred things.

How would you know what's "taught" in classrooms? Have you even been in a science classroom in the past 20 years? In high school, I was taught about evolution even though at first I was a creationist. All religious creation stories were treated equally in my World Civilizations class, and when my science teachers talked about origins they mentioned the fact that some people choose to believe in religious stories, but here's what science knows so far. Sure, some teachers might let their beliefs show through from time to time, but they're not supposed to and they usually don't. You're sounding pretty paranoid, to be honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're sounding pretty paranoid, to be honest.

If asked to prove or show evidence of my "paranoia", I would present the follow "alternate terminology list", which seems to be universal --- (here, anyway):

1. poofed vs created
2. magic vs miracle
3. myths vs beliefs
4. liar/deceiver vs believer

This doosey stands out head-and-shoulders above all else:

1. ignorant, bronze-age, goat-herding nomads

They were far from ignorant; were known for their shepherding, not goat-herding; and far from being nomads.

 

[Gawron]

OK, I read a few reasoned responses to my post, and I appreciate it. When I first started here, I did engage in evolution debate for awhile, and for the most part it was enjoyable. But AV1611VET has a point, typically, if someone "labeled" as a creationist brings up a scientific point, it is an open invitation to gang warfare. Regardless of how valid that point may be.

I have never stated that I know everything or even close to everything where evolutionary science is concerned. But I do understand it. Maybe I will give it another go.

 

[BananaSlug]

It doesn't matter --- all things sacred = all things shunned to you guys.

There is not one sacred thing in existence you guys will accept as valid.

True but we feel the same way about sacred objects in other religions. Don't make it seem like we only target Christianity. On another point, do you accept the Hindu belief that cattle are sacred?

I believe it was Donald Wildmon who pointed out that even the Amish are being targed by Hollywood to come in and spread their licentious filth around.

That's Hollywood. Hollywood does what the public wants. They wouldn't do things like that if people didn't watch the movies.

Back in my days, things were sacred, until science covered the shadow of the Cross with the shadow of a clipboard.

It's easy to blame science. Back in in your day it used to be Satan.

Now we're seeing a rise in people breaking into churches --- looting, stealing, and even shooting people.

I think violence/looting has more to do with population size and economic stability than belief. 70% of the US identify themselves as Christian. Sweden has a large atheist population, I wonder what their crime rate is?
CountryTotal country
population (2004)% Atheist/
Agnostic/Number of Atheists/
AgnosticsSweden8,986,00046 - 85%4,133,560 - 7,638,100

In 2004 almost 1,249,000 offenses were reported
to the police, the customs authority or the prosecution​

service. These offenses included non-violent acts and 25% of the offences involved foreign travelers.

People making out in the church parking lot, cigarette butts on the property --- I'm sure you get the picture.

I guarantee it's nothing new. They just get caught more now.

Should God even dare put 10 Commandments down in writing, all atheism would be in an uproar to make sure it's displayed "properly" --- that is: not displayed.

So if we can display the 10 Commandments in a government building does that me we can display Rig Veda texts and Koran verses? It seems only fair. If a privately run institution wants to have religious paraphenalia all over its walls, I don't care. I just don't think it should be on government buildings. I don't want to see the 10 commandments as much as I don't want to see writings of the Baghavad Gita.

I can assure you that if (when) God showed up and 'set the record straight', you'd demand He leave --- again.

If God showed up that would be 100% proof that he exists. Remember it was the Pharisees that denied Christ...

No, I'm not --- Romans 1:20 is not talking about creatio ex nihilo --- it is talking about what has already been made.

Yes and it states that his attributes can be seen through what has been made. You claim he has hidden his handiwork of creation; no evidence for his attributes can be seen because he "erased" the evidence. The Bible says it can be seen.

 

[gaara4158]

If asked to prove or show evidence of my "paranoia", I would present the follow "alternate terminology list", which seems to be universal --- (here, anyway):

1. poofed vs created
2. magic vs miracle
3. myths vs beliefs
4. liar/deceiver vs believer

This doosey stands out head-and-shoulders above all else:

1. ignorant, bronze-age, goat-herding nomads

They were far from ignorant; were known for their shepherding, not goat-herding; and far from being nomads.

1. To an atheist, the two are the same.
2. See 1.
3. We don't call all beliefs myths. Just the beliefs that fit the definition of myth.
4. One can be a believer without being a liar/deceiver. But we will call people out in their lies, no matter who they are. It just happens that one of creation's biggest proponents, Kent Hovind, is a major deceiver.
5. They were ignorant in terms of today's science. We don't hold that against them, but we certainly take their words with a grain of salt because of it. They lived in the bronze-age, they herded goats as well as sheep, and many were indeed nomads.

We use this terminology because we're atheists/agnostics and not afraid to show it. Teachers/professors will be more sensitive in their word choice when talking about these subjects because they're not supposed to share their religious opinions.
If you don't believe it, it's because you don't want to believe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

We use this terminology because we're atheists/agnostics and not afraid to show it.

That's your prerogative --- but it's more than coincidence that, when exercising your prerogatives, you prefer the terms on the left side of my list, to the terms on the right side.

Teachers/professors will be more sensitive in their word choice when talking about these subjects because they're not supposed to share their religious opinions.

And thus my point.

Their "sensitivity" becomes ingrained into your psyches, and then, when outside of your "sensitive boxes" --- like here on the Internet, where those rules of sensitivity don't apply --- you still use (in fact, prefer) them.

Not to mention: defend them.