Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Subduction Zone]

Occam's Razor can take a hike, can't it?

One has to apply it properly. No need for it to take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Sorry. You can't have it both ways.

And despite what some believe about the term "evolution," I have the dictionary on my side.

And until a vote is rigged to get that term changed, I'll stick with "evolutionist."

Remember: I'm just a Koine, a Plebian, a common person.

I don't have a formulary of scientific terms that are off-limits to use.

 

[driewerf]

Occam's Razor can take a hike, can't it?

Occam's razor doesn't apply.
Your response doesn't cut it

 

[AV1611VET]

One has to apply it properly. No need for it to take a hike.

Occam's razor doesn't apply.
Your response doesn't cut it

Let's test that theory, shall we?

Which statement more closely conveys the intent of the speaker:

1. My neighbor is an evolutionist.
2. My neighbor is a person with a basic level of science education.

For extra credit: Which conveys the intent of the speaker in the fewer number of words?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's test that theory, shall we?

Which statement more closely conveys the intent of the speaker:

1. My neighbor is an evolutionist.
2. My neighbor is a person with a basic level of science education.

For extra credit: Which conveys the intent of the speaker in the fewer number of words?

You do not know how to form a hypothesis. And you try to use some terms as pejoratives. Let's not do that. Why not say this:

1. My neighbor is a realist.
2. My neighbor is a person with a basic level of science education.

By your standards my example is better than yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not know how to form a hypothesis. And you try to use some terms as pejoratives. Let's not do that. Why not say this:

1. My neighbor is a realist.
2. My neighbor is a person with a basic level of science education.

By your standards my example is better than yours.

Have a good day, sir.

I don't need to put up with this.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Then what do you call that subset of the human race that believes in or supports the theory of evolution?

Educated

 

[driewerf]

Let's test that theory, shall we?

Which statement more closely conveys the intent of the speaker:

1. My neighbor is an evolutionist.
2. My neighbor is a person with a basic level of science education.

For extra credit: Which conveys the intent of the speaker in the fewer number of words?

I wrote earlier in this very thread:

Creationists have come to their conclusions first (the Earth is 6000 years old and all is created), and try to shoehorn reality into their worldview. By labeling the science minded, empirical oriented people as "evolutionist" they try to drag us to their own level. As if the scientific community is doing what they do, formulate the conclusion first and look for confirmation there after. That's why I was not amused when Pitabread also used that word and I objected with the following.post
Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

I object to call myself an evolutionist. Creationists may call themselves creationists. they have decided a position and are shoehorning reality into their preconceived "conclusion".
I didn't. I studied sciences (that brighter people than me gathered) and reached a conclusion after study. The ToE is the conclusion after empirical investigation, not a position in which reality needs to be forced.
"Empiricist" doesn't cover it completely, but comes closer than evolutionist.

We, science minded people, should object every time we are called "evolutionists". It is completely idiotic to use that we self call us that way.

"Evolutionist" is a smear word invented by creationists -- the scientific equivalent of iconoclasts -- to drag science minded people to their own level. Creationism is nothing more than a self perpetuating stupidity and ignorance. That's bad enough. But the worse is that they try to infect other people.
I hope that I can inoculate at least one or two people from creationism.

 

[Frank Robert]

Then what do you call that subset of the human race that believes in or supports the theory of evolution?

Intelligent!

Evolution is not something one believes, rather is accepted as the best theory that fits the evidence and makes the best predictions.

 

[Bradskii]

I would be very cautious in dealing with you .. and if I spent my waking day querying most things I hear (and testing them out .. rather than just accepting them because I think people are 'nice') then why should I be so worried about 'trusting' someone, (ie: or whether they're a liar or not)?

In this case because the person is trying to convince you that all science is wrong

 

[Bradskii]

I've seen that defended, even called honest
and admirable, in the the case of Dr. K Wise.

Honest in that he says what he is up front,
admirable for sticking to his Faith in God
and the truth revealed in the bible.

One doesn't need to lie for their beliefs. To themselves or to others.

 

[Estrid]

One doesn't need to lie for their beliefs. To themselves or to others.

A lot of people do seem to have to.

 

[sjastro]

Creationists are a strange bunch.
Creationists are generally ignorant of science but there are some notable exceptions.
There is Dr Danny R Faulkner.

• PhD, Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 1989
• MA, Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 1983
• MS, Physics, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA, 1979
• BS, Math, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, USA, 1976

I became familiar with Faulkner after he published an excellent rebuttal of one of my pet hates Plasma Cosmology and was absolutely gobsmacked to find he is a YEC.

 

[SelfSim]

In this case because the person is trying to convince you that all science is wrong

Do you mean 'inconsistent', there?

 

[SelfSim]

Creationists are a strange bunch.
Creationists are generally ignorant of science but there are some notable exceptions.
There is Dr Danny R Faulkner.

• PhD, Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 1989
• MA, Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 1983
• MS, Physics, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA, 1979
• BS, Math, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, USA, 1976

I became familiar with Faulkner after he published an excellent rebuttal of one of my pet hates Plasma Cosmology and was absolutely gobsmacked to find he is a YEC.

So in that case, you listened to what he had to say .. did he tell any lies?

 

[SelfSim]

A lot of people do seem to have to.

If I were to punch you in the nose, wouldn't you retaliate with a good degree of prejudice?

 

[Bradskii]

Do you mean 'inconsistent', there?

I'd stick with wrong. If the planet actually is 6,000 years old then there aren't many branches of science that would survive that being proved. Cosmology, physics, biology, chemistry, geology...the list would go on and on.

 

[sjastro]

So in that case, you listened to what he had to say .. did he tell any lies?

Here is the article published in 'Answers in Genesis'.
I couldn't fault it and what I find quite humorous is Faulkner a creationist criticizes his fellow creationists who support Plasma Cosmology.

In the final paragraph he makes a statement which I think would rile many creationists and mainstream scientists for different reasons.

As a professional astronomer with a Ph.D. in astronomy, I find the case for plasma astronomy to be seriously lacking. I trust that my examination here will cause others to carefully consider the problems that I have identified and realize that many conventional astronomy explanations, like any operational science, have no issue with creation.

 

[Estrid]

If I were to punch you in the nose, wouldn't you retaliate with a good degree of prejudice?

You would not make it out of Hong Kong.

 

[sjastro]

You would not make it out of Hong Kong.

I suppose I can make some stereotype arguments here such as is this because everyone fights like Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan?