- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,744
- 52,542
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So are they putting God on the same par as Humpty Dumpty in spite of their education?
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.
So are they putting God on the same par as Humpty Dumpty in spite of their education?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.
If any here does, they're wasting their time.
And I see you're following me. People will talk.
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.
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 theoretically I shouldn't see anyone with an education referring to creationism as a fairy tale ... right?
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.So if anyone here does, they are either an Internet scientist, or a "rare exception"?
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.You would know better than I would, but if this site is any indication of scientists in general, I would disagree with you.
Rare exception. There are millions of scientists in the world and a handful here. Handful/millions = rare.So if anyone here does, they are either an Internet scientist, or a "rare exception"?
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.You would know better than I would, but if this site is any indication of scientists in general, I would disagree with you.
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.Based on what, specifically? bias? training? research? emotions?
Want it or not, some of the blame is indeed yours (speaking of creationists collectively).You have to blame it on someone, don't you?
Not your call to make.It's not going to wash in the end, though.
Good point ... (as usual).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.
Fair enough -- I'll acquiesce to your knowledge.This has led you to the incorrect conclusion.
I wonder which came first, the education or the contempt?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 exposure or the contempt?Much exposure to real science, which contradicts most creationist claims.
Had to get your personal view in there, didn't you?In the end, though, much of it comes down to the sheer idiocy of most creationist arguments.
Not your call to make.
So are they putting God on the same par as Humpty Dumpty in spite of their education?
They could better waste it in the counting numbers thread, couldn't they?
Yet they prefer to waste it ridiculing creationism ... right?
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?
Still 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?
Usually the education. Many scientists come from a religious background.I wonder which came first, the education or the contempt?
Exposure breeds contempt.I wonder which came first, the exposure or the contempt?
Any reason I shouldn't? Keep in mind that I'm much more charitably minded toward creationism than most scientists.Had to get your personal view in there, didn't you?
Because I don't know of a single creationist (Jew, Christian, or Muslim) that doesn't believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.Why is it that Creationists are continually conflating God and Creationism?
Perhaps you can tell me what aspect of creationism earns this ridicule?Ridiculing something that deserves it is hardly a waste of time.
I applaud your honesty.Usually the education. Many scientists come from a religious background.
Exposure breeds contempt.
Because I don't know of a single creationist (Jew, Christian, or Muslim) that doesn't believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
Not one.
Perhaps you can tell me what aspect of creationism earns this ridicule?
(Specifically, of course.)
You do know what "conflate" means, don't you, AV?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?