Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[AV1611VET]

Wrong.

Just because a person has an education doesn't mean they're familiar with the technical meanings of terms such as "fairy tale," "myth," or "legend" -- or that they'd care if they did. Many people prefer to use these terms in the more common parlance.

So are they putting God on the same par as Humpty Dumpty in spite of their education?

 

[AV1611VET]

If any here does, they're wasting their time.

They could better waste it in the counting numbers thread, couldn't they?

Yet they prefer to waste it ridiculing creationism ... right?

 

[AV1611VET]

And I see you're following me. People will talk.

They must be jamming the phone lines with you & me then.

I consider you my stalker.

(Or I did at one time. You sorta eased up since your vacation.)

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear TLK, I see you go to all sorts of threads in able to demonstrate your hatred for God and His children.
​

And I see you're following me. People will talk.

And either show where I have demonstrated a hatred for God, or retract your slander.

Dear TLK, I wasn't following you, but actually, saw that AV had posted, and I like to read his posts. Your arrogance is showing.

You expose your hatred for God by spending your days attacking His children. Why are you so mad at God's children? I suggest it is because of your hatred of anything concerning God. Remember what Jesus explained to us about His brethren:

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

WHY? What has Jesus done to you?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Split Rock]

So theoretically I shouldn't see anyone with an education referring to creationism as a fairy tale ... right?

I don't infer that creationism as a fairy tale, unless a creationists claims evolution is a fairy tale. Then I often ask if the evolution fairy tale includes talking snakes, etc. My point is that creationism has more characteristics of a fairy tale than evolution does. That doesn't make it a fairy tale, per se, however.

So if anyone here does, they are either an Internet scientist, or a "rare exception"?

I would say, yes, a rare exception. I try to get other scientists concerned about creationism, but most ignore it. The reason I use is that creationists vote.

You would know better than I would, but if this site is any indication of scientists in general, I would disagree with you.

But you are looking at what we call a biased sampling. The only scientists you are considering are those who have chosen to concern themselves with creationism. You are then extrapolating that most scientists concern themselves with creationism, because the only ones you deal with do so. This has led you to the incorrect conclusion.

 

[sfs]

So if anyone here does, they are either an Internet scientist, or a "rare exception"?

Rare exception. There are millions of scientists in the world and a handful here. Handful/millions = rare.

You would know better than I would, but if this site is any indication of scientists in general, I would disagree with you.

You are seeing what is known as ascertainment bias. If you only study scientists found on a creation/evolution discussion site, you are liable to get a very skewed notion of how scientists in general feel about creation and evolution.

Based on what, specifically? bias? training? research? emotions?

Some bias and tradition, since scientists tend to be biased against religion and have long tradition of contempt toward creationism. Much exposure to real science, which contradicts most creationist claims. In the end, though, much of it comes down to the sheer idiocy of most creationist arguments.

You have to blame it on someone, don't you?

Want it or not, some of the blame is indeed yours (speaking of creationists collectively).

It's not going to wash in the end, though.

Not your call to make.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you are looking at what we call a biased sampling. The only scientists you are considering are those who have chosen to concern themselves with creationism. You are then extrapolating that most scientists concern themselves with creationism, because the only ones you deal with do so.

Good point ... (as usual).

That's why I said "scientists in general," as I don't know what they all think about creationism.

I know the unregenerate ones would disagree with it, but now I'm interested to what degree they disagree; viz., fairy tale, lie, myth, legend, parable, superstition, ignorance, whatever).

This has led you to the incorrect conclusion.

Fair enough -- I'll acquiesce to your knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some bias and tradition, since scientists tend to be biased against religion and have long tradition of contempt toward creationism.

I wonder which came first, the education or the contempt?

Much exposure to real science, which contradicts most creationist claims.

I wonder which came first, the exposure or the contempt?

In the end, though, much of it comes down to the sheer idiocy of most creationist arguments.

Had to get your personal view in there, didn't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not your call to make.

It's not, huh?

So every unregenerate person who stands before God and says they would have believed, if not for creationists ... God is going to make an exception?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So are they putting God on the same par as Humpty Dumpty in spite of their education?

Nope -- they're putting Creationism on the same par as Humpty Dumpty -- because of their education.

Why is it that Creationists are continually conflating God and Creationism?

 

[TLK Valentine]

They could better waste it in the counting numbers thread, couldn't they?

Yet they prefer to waste it ridiculing creationism ... right?

Ridiculing something that deserves it is hardly a waste of time. Ask Mark Twain.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Dear TLK, I wasn't following you, but actually, saw that AV had posted, and I like to read his posts. Your arrogance is showing.

Your sense of humor isn't... and I put up a kissing smiley and everything!

You expose your hatred for God by spending your days attacking His children.

Sorry, your logic doesn't follow. I hate Hitler, but I've got no beef with his old man.

Speaking of arrogance, isn't it rather arrogant of you to assume that anything done to you is the same thing as anything done to God?

Why are you so mad at God's children?

Only the especially childish ones.

I suggest it is because of your hatred of anything concerning God.

I suggest you're quite mistaken. I have no beef with who/whatever is controlling the universe... I issues are with people when they get insufferably obnoxious.

Remember what Jesus explained to us about His brethren:

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Funny thing -- Jesus was speaking specifically to his disciples... reminding them to love and (dare I say it?) care for all people... Golden Rule, and all that.

Hmmm... caring -- we've had this discussion before, haven't we?

WHY? What has Jesus done to you?

Nothing -- which is why I've done nothing to Him.

What have I ever done to you? And more importantly, what did Jesus instruct you to do about it?

 

[sfs]

It's not, huh?

So every unregenerate person who stands before God and says they would have believed, if not for creationists ... God is going to make an exception?

Still not your call to make.

 

[sfs]

I wonder which came first, the education or the contempt?

Usually the education. Many scientists come from a religious background.

I wonder which came first, the exposure or the contempt?

Exposure breeds contempt.

Had to get your personal view in there, didn't you?

Any reason I shouldn't? Keep in mind that I'm much more charitably minded toward creationism than most scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it that Creationists are continually conflating God and Creationism?

Because I don't know of a single creationist (Jew, Christian, or Muslim) that doesn't believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Not one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ridiculing something that deserves it is hardly a waste of time.

Perhaps you can tell me what aspect of creationism earns this ridicule?

(Specifically, of course.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Usually the education. Many scientists come from a religious background.


Exposure breeds contempt.

I applaud your honesty.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because I don't know of a single creationist (Jew, Christian, or Muslim) that doesn't believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Not one.

You do know what "conflate" means, don't you, AV?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps you can tell me what aspect of creationism earns this ridicule?

(Specifically, of course.)

Where to begin? The superstition, the selectivity, the hypocrisy, the neurosis...

But off the top of my head, I would say the arrogance of demanding that this superstition deserves "equal" time with scientific effort despite not producing anywhere near an equal amount of effort.

I do want to get specific about it, but alas, I need to get ready for work soon -- another time, then?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do know what "conflate" means, don't you, AV?

Yes ... I don't know of a single creationist (Jew, Christian, Muslim) that doesn't conflate God and creationism.

Not one.