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

[disciple Clint]

Talk of " ploy" and various other false and / or nvidious
remarks don't indicate you've an interest in honest talk,
no more than does your mini- gish, all of which you
lifted from some creationist site, none of which you've
the background to understand.
Hard core creationist beliefs such as those expressed are
never held by educated people, no more than they think
astrology is valid.
I have a friend from a poor farm family in SE Asia
who grew up not even knowing the earth is round, like
an orange, and just believing what the catholic church
taught.
She got a lucky break though and found herself in the
USA. Smart and ambitious, speaks three languages,
engineering degree, drives a Lexus.
Soaks up education like a sponge, loves it.

I knew her in college. I was so struck by something
she said, that I told her doesn't make sense, after a bit
she said, 'I see, that's just a superstition, I don't believe it now".

Very different from creationist mentality.

But never mind, I expect it's way too late for you
to unlearn the garbage you've soaked in.
I wish you well.

chad kincham posted 983 to answer your question you could give him the honest courtesy of addressing the points he made rather than being disrespectful and demeaning while totally ignoring the content his post

 

[Astrid]

C'mon they thought a platypus was an intermediate species when I was a kid. Almost all of the theories have been modified. That's exactly why I brought up gradualism.

I doubt you are remembering correctly. In fact I'd say zero chance the platy was ever described as an intermeciste sprcies. The very idea makes no sense.

 

[Larniavc]

Those who believe in science investigate claims and prove that they are either true or false, I have asked several times for just exactly that, all I get in return is talking in circles in an attempt to avoid investigating the facts.

That's not strictly true. One would attempt to disprove a hypothesis. One would not attempt to prove it. That is the reason that science is tentative.

 

[Astrid]

chad kincham posted 983 to answer your question you could give him the honest courtesy of addressing the points he made rather than being disrespectful and demeaning while totally ignoring the content his post

Now reread his post and observe the dismissive contempt
expressed in it. Did you notice any of the false and mentioned?
remarks I mentioned? I was far more generous in my rof that.
than any of that.
I am not being disrespectful in my response,
I took my time to offer an honest appraisal.
That creationism is tightly associated with low
educational status is a well documented objective fact.
I pointed to how a person might overcome such handicap.
And there is no chance our friend understands the issues advanced.

I dont think you appraised the two posts very rralistically.

There is no content in the post. It's a mishmash of moldy pratts.
I called it a mini gish, because to attempt to correct all of the
misinformation would take hours. All of which would be wasted
anyway.
Respect for persons is good, but I've no respect for ignorance.
The more militantly it's advanced, the less respect I have.

If your friend would care to speak for himself and show
where I displayed disrespect for him personally, I will
certainly take it back and apologize.

Other than that, I stand by all of it.
And FTM, instead of just jumping on me, read both posts
again, for content.

 

[Speedwell]

chad kincham posted 983 to answer your question you could give him the honest courtesy of addressing the points he made rather than being disrespectful and demeaning while totally ignoring the content his post

Those are quite ancient arguments (many of which better-informed creationists realize have been refuted and no longer use) directed at a false "straw-man" version of evolution. Where would you like us to start? Let's try the first one:

"Abiogenesis has failed, but that’s being ignored."

Abiogenesis has not "failed." There is at the present time no coherent theory of abiogenesis. It can hardly be said to have failed of it doesn't yet exist.

 

[Astrid]

That's not strictly true. One would attempt to disprove a hypothesis. One would not attempt to prove it. That is the reason that science is tentative.

"Not strictly true" in that half of it is totally wrong.

 

[Astrid]

Those are quite ancient arguments (many of which better-informed creationists realize have been refuted and no longer use) directed at a false "straw-man" version of evolution. Where would you like us to start? Let's try the first one:

"Abiogenesis has failed, but that’s being ignored."

Abiogenesis has not "failed." There is at the present time no coherent theory of abiogenesis. It can hardly be said to have failed of it doesn't yet exist.

And the "being ignored" thing is displaying utter contempt for
the integrity of those who are, FALSELY, accused of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hard core creationist beliefs such as those expressed are never held by educated people,

Did an educated person hold this hardcore creationist belief:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you call evolution "magic" you are degrading not only evolution but all of science which is not a good lesson for children.

And what's a good lesson for children when God's miracles are called "magic"?

Is all of theology being degraded?

 

[renniks]

As science digs deeper into things, the process of evolution, the age of the Earth and it's geological process have become clearer and better understood. Modifying theories is a good thing as it shows that science is working the way it should with increased knowledge.

Or, it shows how little they actually know.

 

[expos4ever]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

I have not read any of the many posts in this thread - I expect I will be repeating what others have posted.

I think the disagreement is about how we obtain knowledge of the world: the non-creationist adopts the "scientific" model, the creationist appeals to revelation and the authority of scripture.

 

[Mr Laurier]

And what's a good lesson for children when God's miracles are called "magic"?

Whatever you want.

Is all of theology being degraded?

nope.

 

[renniks]

Ah, someone else who doesn't understand evolution yet thinks they can argue against it.

Everything is potentially an intermediate species. Unless they go extinct or find a niche and there is no benefit in changing.

I understand how it's supposed to work. Im just a skeptic. Especially when everything gets modified constantly.

 

[renniks]

I don't have anything against religious beliefs in and of themselves, but it does make me both laugh and also raise a sadness of what creationists are teaching their children with such cartoonist analogies. When you call evolution "magic" you are degrading not only evolution but all of science which is not a good lesson for children.

Now you want to tell me what to teach my kids?
Evolution as you teach it isn't science at all.
As I said, it claims things happened not by observation but by speculation. I can find bones in the woods and create my own model of what they are and how they got there, but that doesn't make it so. And before you claim proof you might want to consider how many other proven theories are now thought to be false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever you want.

nope.

Then Frank's point can take a hike.

 

[renniks]

Just your "complete skeleton" thing gives you away.
A veterinarian let alone a paleontologist can pick up bone
in the pasture and tell you like that if it's pig, cow, horse, deer,
dog, human.

I generally can also. But then there's the pig tooth that was supposed to be proof of a intermediate species. Oops!
So your teeth from some extinct mammal still doesn't tell you much, when you don't have access to that animal. Do you have DNA? Joint structure? Hair? Intact skull?

 

[renniks]

I doubt you are remembering correctly. In fact I'd say zero chance the platy was ever described as an intermeciste sprcies. The very idea makes no sense.

Oh I remember fine. It's a beaver with a bill. Half bird, half mammal, lol! Right!

 

[Speedwell]

Now you want to tell me what to teach my kids?
Evolution as you teach it isn't science at all.
As I said, it claims things happened not by observation but by speculation. I can find bones in the woods and create my own model of what they are and how they got there, but that doesn't make it so. And before you claim proof you might want to consider how many other proven theories are now thought to be false.

Because you apparently think that's how science works--that's why somebody else ought to teach science to your kids. They don't have to believe it, but they ought to know what it is.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh I remember fine. It's a beaver with a bill. Half bird, half mammal, lol! Right!

What makes it half a bird?

 

[Speedwell]

I understand how it's supposed to work.

You may think so, but so far none of your comments suggest that you actually do.