Evolution or Creationism?

[Smidlee]

We know the answer to that one.

Yes i do.

Dogmatic preaching is only necessary for ideas that don't hold water, like the failed hypothesis of young earth creationism. If a guess or hypothesis is on the right lines then it doesn't need dogmatic anything, it will just become more and more strongly supported by evidence.

Without dogmatic preaching Darwinism would be history as the evidence against it has been piling up especially in the last decade. You are trying to dogmatically claim the evidence is getting stronger while even other scientist claiming they see the emperor naked.

 

[Smidlee]

dp

 

[Cearbhall]

Without dogmatic preaching Darwinism would be history as the evidence against it has been piling up especially in the last decade. You are trying to dogmatically claim the evidence is getting stronger while even other scientist claiming they see the emperor naked.

What evidence? What aspects of his theories?

He wasn't right about everything. He didn't know about genes, for one thing. But no, scientists have not been turning against him in the past decade.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yes i do.

Yeah, you'll agree it's not one of man's best literary works. Good in places but overall a bit of a mixed effort.

Without dogmatic preaching Darwinism would be history as the evidence against it has been piling up especially in the last decade. You are trying to dogmatically claim the evidence is getting stronger while even other scientist claiming they see the emperor naked.

Is that why you have to resort to dogmatic preaching whilst those who work with it just keep piling up the evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

Yeah, you'll agree it's not one of man's best literary works. Good in places but overall a bit of a mixed effort.

I don't hold the same worldview that you do.

Is that why you have to resort to dogmatic preaching while those who test it just keep piling up the evidence?

You are still trying to dogmatically claim all the evidence fits your worldview/ religion.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't hold the same worldview that you do.

Clearly.

You are still trying to dogmatically claim all the evidence fits your worldview/ religion.

I don't need to be dogmatic or preach, because all the science for the last 150 years has upheld the theory. Creationist hypotheses, however, were discarded centuries ago because they didn't fit with the real world evidence. Hard cheese, I know, but that's why the dogmatic preaching is reserved for your side.

 

[Smidlee]

Clearly.



I don't need to be dogmatic or preach, because all the science for the last 150 years has upheld the theory. Creationist hypotheses, however, were discarded centuries ago because they didn't fit with the real world evidence. Hard cheese, I know, but that's why the dogmatic preaching is reserved for your side.

There you are being so dogmatic again when ID and creation hasn't went anywhere. You are badly overstating your position.

 

[Loudmouth]

There you are being so dogmatic again when ID and creation hasn't went anywhere. You are badly overstating your position.

There is still a flat earth society. There are still geocentrists. Just because ignorance is not fully defeated does not stop it from being ignorance.

 

[Smidlee]

There is still a flat earth society. There are still geocentrists. Just because ignorance is not fully defeated does not stop it from being ignorance.

LOL. You are trying to imply we (creationist and ID) are ignorance and you probably didn't know the president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist. Thanks. You made my day.

"In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin. He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and he dismisses suggestions that his own government was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks." http://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

Geocentric model still works even today for orbiting satellites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. You are trying to imply we (creationist and ID) are ignorance and you probably didn't know the president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist. Thanks. You made my day.

"In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin. He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and he dismisses suggestions that his own government was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks." http://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

Geocentric model still works even today for orbiting satellites.

There are those that claim that the Flat Earth Society is peopled by people that merely want to try to debate an impossible topic. The description of the new President confirms that. He only want to defend a crazy idea for kicks. He is not disputing what is found in the real world. And yes, to be a creationist one either has to be dishonest or ignorant.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, to be a creationist one either has to be dishonest or ignorant.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[Smidlee]

There are those that claim that the Flat Earth Society is peopled by people that merely want to try to debate an impossible topic. The description of the new President confirms that. He only want to defend a crazy idea for kicks. He is not disputing what is found in the real world. And yes, to be a creationist one either has to be dishonest or ignorant.

Then you are deceived since I'm not dishonest nor ignorant no matter how much you want to believe I am. Pride blinds people.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Then you are deceived since I'm not dishonest nor ignorant no matter how much you want to believe I am. Pride blinds people.

I suspect subduction zone was being nice by leaving out the less palatable options. The actual quote is:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

 

[phileas007]

Then you are deceived since I'm not dishonest nor ignorant no matter how much you want to believe I am. Pride blinds people.

Do you mind if I join the conversation?

From my POV the term "ignorant" really doesn't fit at all, since we all are anyway mostly ignorant about most of things most of the time.

 

[phileas007]

Could you please stop with the red herrings and instead elaborate a bit on the topic of why you don't believe that evolution is an excepted scientific theory?

 

[AV1611VET]

From my POV the term "ignorant" really doesn't fit at all, since we all are anyway mostly ignorant about most of things most of the time.

That's why I started this thread: Look what I found:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mind if I join the conversation?

From my POV the term "ignorant" really doesn't fit at all, since we all are anyway mostly ignorant about most of things most of the time.

I disagree. As you say we are all ignorant about certain topics. Telling someone that they are ignorant about a subject is not necessarily an insult. Most, if not all, of the creationists are ignorant about the theory of evolution here. The reason that they are ignorant is that they purposefully keep themselves this way. It gives them a psychological out when they are told that it is a sin to lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are deceived since I'm not dishonest nor ignorant no matter how much you want to believe I am. Pride blinds people.

I believe that you are ignorant. I hope that you are not the other possibilities. What possible reason can you give for rejecting the theory of evolution? What other science do you reject and why? The reason that I say this is because to reject the theory of evolution one has to reject all science sooner or later.

 

[RickG]

I disagree. As you say we are all ignorant about certain topics. Telling someone that they are ignorant about a subject is not necessarily an insult. Most, if not all, of the creationists are ignorant about the theory of evolution here. The reason that they are ignorant is that they purposefully keep themselves this way. It gives them a psychological out when they are told that it is a sin to lie.

Excellent point. Along with that I add the term "intellectual dishonesty", which describes the work of people who use only information that appears to support their position, while deliberately ignoring all information that does not support their position.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL. You are trying to imply we (creationist and ID) are ignorance and you probably didn't know the president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist. Thanks. You made my day.

You demonstrate with almost every post that you are ignorant of biology and the theory of evolution. I am largely ignorant of particle physics. However, you don't see me claiming that all particle physicists are wrong, or that particle physics is a religion. More so, I don't claim that particle physics should be taken out of class rooms.

This is the problem. Creationists who are ignorant of the science arrogantly claim that the people who are knowledgeable of the science have it all wrong.

Geocentric model still works even today for orbiting satellites.

Not for satellites that we have orbiting Mars, Jupiter, Saturn . . .