It has been awhile since these were posted, but with the site upgrade and other concerns, this is the first opportunity I have had to respond. I could just let them go, but they are all so warm and fuzzy.
Posted by Bagginsssss….
“That is also true, I certainly seem to be more enlightened than she is.”
Even if this is true, why post about it? Whose ego is being stroked by whom?
“I know lots of Christian scientists that are smarter than me.”
This is a fine admission. There are those debating this topic with varied levels of education and intelligence.
“She isn't one of them.”
But this is just arrogant and condescending.
“Do you always attempt to put words into other peoples mouths like this? Or is it a form of dishonesty you have taken to recently?”
Actually, the comment of mine you were responding to I have seen posted on these forums by more than one member. It is bandied about in various forms, the central thesis being anyone who studies the theory of evolution will eventually cast off their ignorance and embrace the absolute truth of evolution. I was only using the words I find here, so if it is dishonesty, it isn’t mine.
Posted by TeddyKGB:
“Your rant isn't even on point. This is not a debate about the existence of God.”
Call it what you want, I was not commenting on the existence of God. I was commenting on the nature of Atheist, in that as a general rule, they tend to stand on pre-supposed intellectual superiority over anyone who either professes a belief in God or questions any aspect of evolution. It is hard to believe you didn’t see that.
“That said, I have a question: How come nearly every field of study - theologies included - gets to delineate its own parameters and sanction its own experts with little external objection, but when the hard sciences do the same, anti-evolutionists go all shriekingly post-modern, as if strength of belief is sufficient all by itself to supplant a decade of dedicated academic study?”
Actually, you make one of my points for me with the phrase “delineate its own parameters.” The terms of evolutionary science are defined by evolutionary scientist, naturalist, who allow for no other interpretation of those terms. In addition, anyone who does question the use of various terms is simply labeled as a ‘creationist’, or ignorant, or simply stupid. Thus, evolution is defined as any change in a species, so when a single base pair change results in a decrease in melanin production and alters the fur color of beach mice, the mouse has not adapted to its environment, it has ‘evolved.’ And woe to him who interprets the data differently. Is scientific data not open to interpretation? Are not scientist investigators attempting to find answers, whatever those answers may be?
As for the rest, the shrieking is evident on both sides, as evidenced by the following:
Posted by Goseminoles:
“Newsflash for you, Sparky. The people who spend summer after summer in hot deserts tediously extracting fossil after fossil and who literally strain their back testing every nook and crany of evolutionary theory do in fact know way more than you. Some people are smarter, wiser, and better educated than the rest of the idiots running loose in the world. The real problem is that the idiots generally believe they're in the former and not the latter category.”
Which proves what I have been saying about the play book of the typical evo-defender. Denigrate the opposition, claim any scientist who presents alternative theories as non reputable creationist hacks practicing junk and/or pseudo-science, declare intellectual superiority, dismiss with contempt. If this is the best you have, I hope you were never on a debate team.
“Excepting of course the many evolutionists who are also religious.”
Religious is a broad term, and says nothing about the quality or character of who these ‘evolutionist’ may be. I’m supposed to be comforted because some ‘evolutionist’ may be religious? Devil worshipers are religious.
“In the absence of any substantive evidence, it's called common sense.”
To believers, it is known as faith. I would ask that you accept it as such, but I would probably be wasting my time.
Posted by Bagginsssss….
“That is also true, I certainly seem to be more enlightened than she is.”
Even if this is true, why post about it? Whose ego is being stroked by whom?
“I know lots of Christian scientists that are smarter than me.”
This is a fine admission. There are those debating this topic with varied levels of education and intelligence.
“She isn't one of them.”
But this is just arrogant and condescending.
“Do you always attempt to put words into other peoples mouths like this? Or is it a form of dishonesty you have taken to recently?”
Actually, the comment of mine you were responding to I have seen posted on these forums by more than one member. It is bandied about in various forms, the central thesis being anyone who studies the theory of evolution will eventually cast off their ignorance and embrace the absolute truth of evolution. I was only using the words I find here, so if it is dishonesty, it isn’t mine.
Posted by TeddyKGB:
“Your rant isn't even on point. This is not a debate about the existence of God.”
Call it what you want, I was not commenting on the existence of God. I was commenting on the nature of Atheist, in that as a general rule, they tend to stand on pre-supposed intellectual superiority over anyone who either professes a belief in God or questions any aspect of evolution. It is hard to believe you didn’t see that.
“That said, I have a question: How come nearly every field of study - theologies included - gets to delineate its own parameters and sanction its own experts with little external objection, but when the hard sciences do the same, anti-evolutionists go all shriekingly post-modern, as if strength of belief is sufficient all by itself to supplant a decade of dedicated academic study?”
Actually, you make one of my points for me with the phrase “delineate its own parameters.” The terms of evolutionary science are defined by evolutionary scientist, naturalist, who allow for no other interpretation of those terms. In addition, anyone who does question the use of various terms is simply labeled as a ‘creationist’, or ignorant, or simply stupid. Thus, evolution is defined as any change in a species, so when a single base pair change results in a decrease in melanin production and alters the fur color of beach mice, the mouse has not adapted to its environment, it has ‘evolved.’ And woe to him who interprets the data differently. Is scientific data not open to interpretation? Are not scientist investigators attempting to find answers, whatever those answers may be?
As for the rest, the shrieking is evident on both sides, as evidenced by the following:
Posted by Goseminoles:
“Newsflash for you, Sparky. The people who spend summer after summer in hot deserts tediously extracting fossil after fossil and who literally strain their back testing every nook and crany of evolutionary theory do in fact know way more than you. Some people are smarter, wiser, and better educated than the rest of the idiots running loose in the world. The real problem is that the idiots generally believe they're in the former and not the latter category.”
Which proves what I have been saying about the play book of the typical evo-defender. Denigrate the opposition, claim any scientist who presents alternative theories as non reputable creationist hacks practicing junk and/or pseudo-science, declare intellectual superiority, dismiss with contempt. If this is the best you have, I hope you were never on a debate team.
“Excepting of course the many evolutionists who are also religious.”
Religious is a broad term, and says nothing about the quality or character of who these ‘evolutionist’ may be. I’m supposed to be comforted because some ‘evolutionist’ may be religious? Devil worshipers are religious.
“In the absence of any substantive evidence, it's called common sense.”
To believers, it is known as faith. I would ask that you accept it as such, but I would probably be wasting my time.
Upvote
0
