Why do people laugh at creationist?

[busterdog]

I see ceding ground in spades. Don't you?

On the contrary, it looks like you have closed your ears and eyes to the possibility of anything good and true coming from an evolutionist. (Or can you show me even one occasion when you have ever accepted anything from us?)

You have ceded nothing. Your examples speak for themselves.

My use of the word "crazy" speaks for itself. That is a pretty tame word, especially in the context I used it.

You can "cede" as much ground to a three year old. And that is exactly how you treat creationists. Whatever you think you are saying, this is what they are hearing.

Go look at the creationist thread. How many people there think they can get the time of day from an evolutionist?

The idea that you even need me to cite one occasions in which I ceded much ground to evolutionist, is further evidence of where your thinking is. Its in this thread. I assumed many TE positions for the sake of discussion. Many times I have talked of the "elegance" of the science that constructed the big bang. Substantively, look at Fallingwaters thread on Humphries that is current in our forum now. No one asked for any concession and yet I conceded some of the relative merits of Big Bang.

You can provide a gratuitous, condescending acknowledgment that creationists believe in a "creator", but you will never cede anything of substance. You are simply not interested in what we say and are incapable of getting inside the thought process of a creationist.

The best example of anyone who has ever tried to walk through a creationist argument is Willtor. Has that never happened? I suppose it has happened. But its been a long time since Willtor has been around. Doest that make my "crazy" statement hyperbole? Maybe a bit. I am not fond of the asterix and footnotes. Had you even understood what I posted above, you have understood what I was writing.

TEs are not universally ugly about YEC posts, but you really have to search hard for a meaningful point of agreement on anything touching evolution or cosmology. Even when the arguing is about arguing you haven't the slightest interest in finding points of agreement. Thus, this thread.

And again, what you want is my hatred for TEs. You upped the ante. You made it ugly. You refused to ask me what I thought about the issue. You took my words out of context for your personal benefit. You want this to be TE v. YEC. This is your style: prosecution. Had any evolutionist posted what I posted, you would have asked them what they meant and then said, oh, ok. You think it makes it better that you understand that I acknowledge a creator? How is that?

This forum is a problem. You want to say its all the YECs fault. Go ahead. You don't like the reasons for the breakdown pointed out as above? You are free to take that approach. You want to jump ugly about a word like "crazy" -- whatever. You just never come to grips with the intense alienation caused because you cede no meaningful ground.

 

[shernren]

My use of the word "crazy" speaks for itself. That is a pretty tame word, especially in the context I used it.

...

And again, what you want is my hatred for TEs. You upped the ante. You made it ugly. You refused to ask me what I thought about the issue. You took my words out of context for your personal benefit. You want this to be TE v. YEC. This is your style: prosecution. Had any evolutionist posted what I posted, you would have asked them what they meant and then said, oh, ok. You think it makes it better that you understand that I acknowledge a creator? How is that?

This forum is a problem. You want to say its all the YECs fault. Go ahead. You don't like the reasons for the breakdown pointed out as above? You are free to take that approach. You want to jump ugly about a word like "crazy" -- whatever. You just never come to grips with the intense alienation caused because you cede no meaningful ground.

I didn't ask you to post that "TEs are calling YECs crazy". That was something you did entirely on your own. You upped the ante. I just pointed and waved excitedly.

As for me jumping ugly about a word like "crazy" - words have power, and I refuse to allow you to use that word to characterize my position. It is as simple as that.

I don't think you guys are crazy. And I think the majority of TEs would agree with me on this. Do you want someone who thinks you guys are crazy?

And since over 99.95% of all biologists and geologists today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a biological or geological science from an accredited college or university known for academic excellence in the respective science believe that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and the vast majority of them believe that it is about five billion years old, creationism is not a science but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 and several other passages in the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, creationism is neither biblical nor a science.

And the guy who said this is an OEC who has full rein in your subforum. Don't ask me how that works.

If you insist on saying I am calling you guys crazy, then that will be a deliberate misrepresentation of my position, unless you can define "crazy" and how I am using it. I use "crazy" in a religious context for Islamist bombers, suicide cults, and KJV-only-ists. It is not a tame word for me. And I would never use that word for you all.

So don't put words in my mouth.

You have ceded nothing. Your examples speak for themselves.

You can "cede" as much ground to a three year old. And that is exactly how you treat creationists. Whatever you think you are saying, this is what they are hearing.

... You can provide a gratuitous, condescending acknowledgment that creationists believe in a "creator", but you will never cede anything of substance. You are simply not interested in what we say and are incapable of getting inside the thought process of a creationist.

Oh, I've gotten into the creationist head before. In fact, I'm about to do it in a few minutes on that Genesis 1-2 thread, just watch. Remember that I've been a creationist for longer than I've been an evolutionist. So don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

In any case. "Believing in a creator" is not "anything of substance"? Shucks, for a moment there I thought I knew why you guys called yourselves creationists. But I think I know what you mean by "anything of substance":

The idea that you even need me to cite one occasions in which I ceded much ground to evolutionist, is further evidence of where your thinking is. Its in this thread. I assumed many TE positions for the sake of discussion. Many times I have talked of the "elegance" of the science that constructed the big bang. Substantively, look at Fallingwaters thread on Humphries that is current in our forum now. No one asked for any concession and yet I conceded some of the relative merits of Big Bang.

You can provide a gratuitous, condescending acknowledgment that creationists believe in a "creator", but you will never cede anything of substance. You are simply not interested in what we say and are incapable of getting inside the thought process of a creationist.

The best example of anyone who has ever tried to walk through a creationist argument is Willtor. Has that never happened? I suppose it has happened. But its been a long time since Willtor has been around. Doest that make my "crazy" statement hyperbole? Maybe a bit. I am not fond of the asterix and footnotes. Had you even understood what I posted above, you have understood what I was writing.

TEs are not universally ugly about YEC posts, but you really have to search hard for a meaningful point of agreement on anything touching evolution or cosmology. Even when the arguing is about arguing you haven't the slightest interest in finding points of agreement. Thus, this thread.

(emphases added)

So, what you actually want is for us to agree about evolution or cosmology.

In other words, you don't actually want us to agree that it is logically possible to hold your position of revelation. We have already done that, anyway.

You want us to acknowledge that your non-science is science.

It would be far more substantial to you for us to admit that Setterfield's theories are scientifically valid, than for us to admit that you guys believe in a creator as we do.

Isn't that right?

Or what, precisely, do you expect us to be able to agree with you about?

 

[champuru]

Many of the creationists are self proclaimed experts in a variety of scientific fields. Many of the ones who do actually have a degree usually have one from a school that isnt recognized by many science communities. Also, one of the arguements i see so often is where the critique the word "theory" and say "it's just a theory." Now if there were more of them (yes there are recognized scientists that are creationists) that were actually recognized scientists, then they would get more respect.