Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[PsychoSarah]

exactly... glad you finally figured that out

He didn't really "finally figure that out", he just was long-winded about explaining it.

Not that it really matters from a creationist standpoint either way; even if this was a numbers game, far more biologists are evolution supporters than not.

 

[razzelflabben]

Wait, so you understand that X people believing Y, means diddly squat when the question is if Y is actually accurate??

Then why are you making a big deal out of these lists?

Look at the op ? it talks about the majority of people then someone said that there were creation scientists and that was argued...there are creation scientists and to deny it is...well...a refusal of the evidence which is something that supposedly we are accepting when it comes to evolution...so let me ask you all a question....IF YOU CANNOT accept the evidence that there are creation scientists, how can we trust that you all accept the real science of our origins? Using the word origins as Darwin did....

 

[razzelflabben]

Post the list; I try to go through each individual claimed one by one, to see if the people listed meet these qualifications of being a creationist scientist relevant to evolution. These qualifications are as follows:
1. They have to be alive. People generally don't remain active in the scientific community for their entire life, so anyone currently dead likely was more than a decade behind in terms of scientific progress before they went, making their work dated.
2. They have to have active scientific careers. An active scientist may author or co-author more than a dozen papers published in scientific journals every year, even if they have become college professors or deans. A person publishing only 7 papers in a decade long career has had a failure of a scientific career, and a person that hasn't published for multiple years is no longer active. Genetics gets hit the hardest by this; a person that hasn't been active in that field for 5 years will be immensely behind.
3. Their scientific careers have to be relevant to evolution. Even biology has enough in it such that not all biologists have work that's relevant to evolution. For example, on another list of "creationist scientists", there was an immensely qualified scientist there, but his work was almost exclusively in the diagnosis and treatment of fungal diseases.
4. They have to openly be creationists. Sometimes people are put on these lists, and yet when you look them up, you find nothing about them saying that they are creationists.

On the last list I evaluated, I was able to find 2 people that met these qualifications after looking through a couple dozen.

already told you I would not because you all aren't listening in the first place....get over it...if you refuse to listen you can't expect people to beat their heads against your stubborn walls to get a point across.

 

[PsychoSarah]

already told you I would not because you all aren't listening in the first place....get over it...if you refuse to listen you can't expect people to beat their heads against your stubborn walls to get a point across.

I am listening, so if you have something to say, feel free to say it. Just know that if people end up not agreeing with you, that doesn't mean that they didn't listen. You don't automatically agree with someone even if you are accurately interpreting everything they say.

To be fair, I didn't read through all of the posts prior to this page of the thread; seeing how long some of these threads are, I don't exactly have the time to do that usually, but I'll make an exception and try to do so for this one.

edit: After reading through, making sure to absorb your posts as well as possible, I conclude these things:
1. You brought up the list of creationist scientists, and then claimed it was waved away by people not present on this thread for no reason.
2. You later mention that the numbers aren't actually relevant to you, making it strange to me why you'd bring up the list in the first place.
3. You act as if responding to the list thing proves some point about people not listening to you, because you also mentioned that the list doesn't matter to you. But that begs the question of why you'd bring it up anyways. You get annoyed at people getting hooked on the irrelevant things YOU YOURSELF BROUGHT UP. You don't get to do that, especially considering that your posts are relatively short and thus they can't be distracted much away from the main content.
4. The whole time, you never bring up a single thing you actually want to discuss with atheists that they ignore. No specific topics to be seen. When the list and "lack of listening" is all you give, what exactly is there for people to respond to?

 

[razzelflabben]

I am listening, so if you have something to say, feel free to say it. Just know that if people end up not agreeing with you, that doesn't mean that they didn't listen. You don't automatically agree with someone even if you are accurately interpreting everything they say.

lol I expect people not to agree...why would you bring up such an insane argument if you were really listening to what I was saying and the point I was making?

So let's do an experiment to see if you really are listening....what is the point I am making?

To be fair, I didn't read through all of the posts prior to this page of the thread; seeing how long some of these threads are, I don't exactly have the time to do that usually, but I'll make an exception and try to do so for this one.

edit: After reading through, making sure to absorb your posts as well as possible, I conclude these things:
1. You brought up the list of creationist scientists, and then claimed it was waved away by people not present on this thread for no reason.
2. You later mention that the numbers aren't actually relevant to you, making it strange to me why you'd bring up the list in the first place.
3. You act as if responding to the list thing proves some point about people not listening to you, because you also mentioned that the list doesn't matter to you. But that begs the question of why you'd bring it up anyways. You get annoyed at people getting hooked on the irrelevant things YOU YOURSELF BROUGHT UP. You don't get to do that, especially considering that your posts are relatively short and thus they can't be distracted much away from the main content.
4. The whole time, you never bring up a single thing you actually want to discuss with atheists that they ignore. No specific topics to be seen. When the list and "lack of listening" is all you give, what exactly is there for people to respond to?

you missed the point I was making completely...so who is listening now?

 

[PsychoSarah]

lol I expect people not to agree...why would you bring up such an insane argument if you were really listening to what I was saying and the point I was making?

Dude, I don't know your life. I don't know your mind. I got that out of the way just in case, and to learn more about you.

So let's do an experiment to see if you really are listening....what is the point I am making?
you missed the point I was making completely...so who is listening now?

-_- I read every post; from the best of my ability, your overall point was that atheists don't understand or bother to listen to the reasoning behind why the educated creationists are creationists (which you only bring up in 1 post with any depth or clarity). If that was supposed to be your main point, why did you waste so much of your time with the list thing and constant posts complaining about people not listening.

I came into this thread much later than that post, so if I hadn't gone back to read it all, I'd have never seen it. Do you honestly read through every post made in every thread before posting in them? Is that a reasonable expectation from an informal debate platform? I think not. A person that wants others to listen will actually repeat their main point if no one is getting it, but since your point hinged on "people not listening", I guess it makes sense that you never bothered to clarify or repeat your point.

So, if at the end of this I am still wrong, do us all a favor and actually repeat your point again, because whatever you are trying to convey I am just not able to see with what you have posted thus far. I certainly hope for your sake you didn't hinge your entire argument on a point you made in one post that you never repeated in full or in different words again.

 

[razzelflabben]

Dude, I don't know your life. I don't know your mind. I got that out of the way just in case, and to learn more about you.


-_- I read every post; from the best of my ability, your overall point was that atheists don't understand or bother to listen to the reasoning behind why the educated creationists are creationists (which you only bring up in 1 post with any depth or clarity). If that was supposed to be your main point, why did you waste so much of your time with the list thing and constant posts complaining about people not listening.

I came into this thread much later than that post, so if I hadn't gone back to read it all, I'd have never seen it. Do you honestly read through every post made in every thread before posting in them? Is that a reasonable expectation from an informal debate platform? I think not. A person that wants others to listen will actually repeat their main point if no one is getting it, but since your point hinged on "people not listening", I guess it makes sense that you never bothered to clarify or repeat your point.

So, if at the end of this I am still wrong, do us all a favor and actually repeat your point again, because whatever you are trying to convey I am just not able to see with what you have posted thus far. I certainly hope for your sake you didn't hinge your entire argument on a point you made in one post that you never repeated in full or in different words again.

lol 1. yes I read posts before posting even when coming in late. If I miss a post I asked about it in advance since some are very long. 2. My point was that there are people out there that understand the theory of evolution pretty well and are still insulted, proclaimed to be ignorant on the topic, and have their ideas, beliefs, etc. reinvented so that the opposing side can make themselves sound right even if they don't have a leg to stand on and yes this is true for both sides of the issue. Now according to the OP I answered the question. but then, 3. another question was raised, that about lists of creation scientists which I used to show what I was previously talking about. Whether someone agrees with or doesn't agree with the creation scientists, declaring they don't exist as someone in the thread did, shows a lack of listening to what is being said. It's not that hard of a concept nor is it hard to understand the point I am making. No matter how you view things, the evidence shows that there are valid creation scientists out there. Does that make them right? No Does it make the evolution scientists right? No...But that is the point, isn't it? That we don't know what truth is just because someone says something that we want to twist into something totally different to make a point. From that point on, people have been trying to twist what I said into some argument for creationism, creation scientists, or any number of other things when my only point is that it is invalid to change someones words into something totally different and use those new words to try to prove they don't know what they really do know.

 

[sfs]

I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something?

Take it up with the one who wrote, "and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?" Who was that guy, anyway?

 

[Ophiolite]

lol I expect people not to agree...why would you bring up such an insane argument if you were really listening to what I was saying and the point I was making?

So let's do an experiment to see if you really are listening....what is the point I am making?
you missed the point I was making completely...so who is listening now?

Well, I've read each of your posts on this thread carefully and I do not understand the point you are making, unless it is "No one is listening to me". Perhaps, when you figure out what it is you want to say and then say it clearly, that will change. So, what is your point? I am listening.

(To anticipate one possible response, please refer to the second sentence in my signature below.)

Edit: Well, I see that - finally - you have spelled out your point in a subsequent reply to Psycho Sarah. Just as a heads up for you - that point was was not obvious, or even apparent to me. You might want to keep that in mind for the next point you wish to make.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I've read each of your posts on this thread carefully and I do not understand the point you are making, unless it is "No one is listening to me". Perhaps, when you figure out what it is you want to say and then say it clearly, that will change. So, what is your point? I am listening.

well this might be your understanding problem because I am NOT talking about something specific I have said, thus the comment about both sides do the same thing to one another...iow's a general lack of consideration for good communication prevails on the topic on both sides so no one really knows who knows what.

(To anticipate one possible response, please refer to the second sentence in my signature below.)

Edit: Well, I see that - finally - you have spelled out your point in a subsequent reply to Psycho Sarah. Just as a heads up for you - that point was was not obvious, or even apparent to me. You might want to keep that in mind for the next point you wish to make.

lol it was painfully obvious to anyone reading for comprehension not for trying to belittle others...but no worries...I'm use to it by now.

 

[Ophiolite]

well this might be your understanding problem because I am NOT talking about something specific I have said, thus the comment about both sides do the same thing to one another...iow's a general lack of consideration for good communication prevails on the topic on both sides so no one really knows who knows what. lol it was painfully obvious to anyone reading for comprehension not for trying to belittle others...but no worries...I'm use to it by now.

Well, just in case you didn't bother to read it, this was the sentence I wished you to consider.

If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you.

Your response is discourteous. I am accustomed to evaluating written and oral communications with individuals having a wide range of skills and diverse native languages. Objectively, your posting style is ambiguous at best, unintelligble at worst. Clearly you do not wish to accept this, or the well intentioned alert. Good luck with your ongoing belief in the clarity of your posts. You can expect major frustration in future as mutliple posters fail to understand you. Fortunately, the Ignore button will free me of any such concern.

 

[mark kennedy]

This coincides with other stats that correlate education with acceptance of evolution. Creationists are, on average, less educated than non-creationists. Given that understanding the ToE is borne out of education, the results are not surprising.

Let's not forget, accepting evolution doesn't negate God acting at the point of origin. That is the essence of the debate, we as creationists don't accept an all consuming naturalistic assumption. The insistence that we should is absurd.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's not forget, accepting evolution doesn't negate God acting at the point of origin.

Nor throughout the process, if you get into the metaphysics of causality a little deeper. There is nothing in natural causality which excludes divine causality, nor is it necessary to assume that if there is divine causality it must act in the same (potentially detectable by science) fashion as natural causality.

That is the essence of the debate, we as creationists don't accept an all consuming naturalistic assumption. The insistence that we should is absurd.

No one is insisting. No one really cares. The number of scientists who do not make an assumption of metaphysical naturalism and are not troubled by their colleagues about it should show the falsity of that proposition.

 

[USincognito]

I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc?

Were you not, just two hours earlier, posting these comments?

...and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?

lol I did look into, found a long list of creation scientists, posted the link on another site and was told that I was wrong because...(no reason given)

 

[USincognito]

Getting back to the OP and flipping the findings around, I've noticed that the more vehemently opposed to evolution someone is, the less likely they are to have any understanding of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this again shows a lack of understanding but don't really have the patience for such non sense at the moment....reminds me of the above post by dogma hunter...the same principle applies.

What am I misunderstanding?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Look at the op ? it talks about the majority of people then someone said that there were creation scientists and that was argued...there are creation scientists and to deny it is...well...a refusal of the evidence

Nope, there are no "creation scientists".

There might be people who call themselves that, but I could call myself an astronaut as well - it wouldn't make me an astronaut.

A scientist is some one who does science: research, experiments, peer reviewed publications,...

There are no "creation scientists", because none of them are "doing science".
That is what people mean when they say that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist".

IF YOU CANNOT accept the evidence that there are creation scientists

There is no evidence to accept.
Like I said, there are people who call themselves that.
But that doesn't make them such. And I already explained where there is no such thing as a "creation scientist". There's no such thing as "creation science".

I can call myself a professional baseball player, but it would not be true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Getting back to the OP and flipping the findings around, I've noticed that the more vehemently opposed to evolution someone is, the less likely they are to have any understanding of it.

And the more likely it is that their heads are burried in some religious book.

 

[mark kennedy]

I suspect that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims would also accept that the One who created life (and the natural world in which life exists) is also able to intervene, from 'time' to 'time.'

I seen a timeline from a Rabbinical source, the timeline is even shorter then the one form the King James. Muslims believe in some version of creationism but it's not something you could mistake for formal arguments.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, just in case you didn't bother to read it, this was the sentence I wished you to consider.

If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you.

Your response is discourteous. I am accustomed to evaluating written and oral communications with individuals having a wide range of skills and diverse native languages. Objectively, your posting style is ambiguous at best, unintelligble at worst. Clearly you do not wish to accept this, or the well intentioned alert. Good luck with your ongoing belief in the clarity of your posts. You can expect major frustration in future as mutliple posters fail to understand you. Fortunately, the Ignore button will free me of any such concern.

lol and yet many many many more people tell me that my communication skills especially written are exceptional even to the point of gifted...who should I listen to? You, or the dozens of other people who have no issue because they come with listening ears intent on hearing what I have to say rather than an attitude of only listening enough to respond.