|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Anyone else notice this pattern? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution? Who do you think I should ask, my neighbor? my dad? my mechanic? Isn't this really the crux of the issue - how do you validate information? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution? Guaranteed!! Absolutely!!! Please, pick one that you think is important and propose a thread on it. We would love to learn. I have friends in high (or low) places who would be glad to hurry your proposal through the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Please, pick one that you think is important and propose a thread on it. We would love to learn. Second! I'll keep an eye out for that PNT!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Absolutely. We are only learning when we correct misconceptions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
trixie writes: Some of us may be highly educated in scientific fields, but that dosn't mean that we can only understand what fellow scientists are saying. I think this is exactly what it means. Are you listening to the creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation with understanding?
trixie writes: but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong. Aren't you doing the same thing? You refute each others beliefs. Your beliefs are built on physical evidence and creationists on spiritual evidence but neither understands or accepts the other and yet you are describing the same thing. Do you expect anyone to understand your point of view when you don't understand theirs and make no attempt to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
dameeva writes:
quote: Then explain the Catholic Church. The official position of the Catholic Church (stated by Leo XIII in the Encyclical and then expounded upon by John Paul II in the Magesterium) is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life upon this planet. Are you implying that the Pope isn't spiritual? I'm not saying you have to agree with Catholic theology...just whether or not you think Catholics have a theology. You seem to think that it's an either/or, that evolution and god cannot exist together. Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
heinrik writes: What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us? percy writes: The question being asked is why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something. You dismissed Heinriks' concept as silly. Could this be the example of 'why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something'? To be specific, in this case because it is not understood the reader automatically assumes it is 'silly'. Your analysis is spot on. Your only 'mistake' is in thinking it isn't you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
teen4 writes: You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones. Rather than purposely trying to win a debate by purposely being dense, perhaps you should consider growing up? What are the significant details that have been missed and what do you mean by 'purposely being dense??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
rrhain writes: The official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life upon this planet. Yes it is the only scientific theory we have that I am aware of. Doesn't the church also preach a creation theory that is not at all scientific? You know the one, the theory about god and devil?
You seem to think that it's an either/or, that evolution and god cannot exist together. You obviously haven't read all my posts and are assuming incorrectly.
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? I certainly have considered the possibilty that god exists in a different way to the religious view. How do you personally think god may exist in a different way to what you imagine I am thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sure, why not. Honorable Mention awarded to: anglagard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Are you listening to the creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation with understanding? Do you expect anyone to understand your point of view when you don't understand theirs and make no attempt to. What you are missing is that many here on the side of science were actually once creationists and argued from that side, using identical arguments to those being regurgitated today. These once-creationists now range from atheists to deists to theistic evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It is well-known that Eleanor Roosevelt considered herself to be ugly. Her husband had an affair (and continued seeing the other woman for the rest of his life) with her own social secretary, which I'm sure rather damaged her feelings of self-worth as a woman.
source So, doubt no longer, Chester. The funny thing is, you could have done what I did before you posted a claim about Eleanor Roosevelt; looked at Eleanor Roosevelt's wiki page to make sure what you were claiming was supported by evidence. Yet, you didn't do what took me about three minutes to do, and instead just made it easy for me to point out your sloppy mistake. Why didn't you take the trouble to make sure what you were saying was true, or at least wasn't specifically and particularly contradicted? I think this habit of fact-checking ourselves and making sure our arguments are actually correct and based in good quality, reliable evidence is the single biggest differentiator between the science-minded and the non-critical thinker. I can't tell you the number of times I have not posted an argument or a claim because when I read up on it, I realized that I was wrong about it. So, tell me, in your opinion, is the person who habitually fact checks themselves a person who is unable to learn, or is the person who never fact checks themselves the one with the greater ability to learn?
quote: Nobody is suggesting that we all write in an "academic manner". I certainly don't write in anything close to an "academic manner". I'd be delighted with everyone writing as though they got a B in 10th grade English. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Generally yes - in so far as creationists are willing and able to explain themselves. (Which goes back to competence at writing, too).
quote: Clearly you don't understand the points being argued. On the points being discussed here creationists do not generally claim to have "spiritual evidence" or even argue over the sort of evidence that should be accepted. To go back to my earlier examples, the creationist who claims to be an expert on Biblical prophecy started a discussion of Mark's version of a prophecy by referring to an element found only in Luke. On being questioned he said that he assumed that the two agreed. Similarly with the hurricane article the creationist accepted that the penny stock magazine was not an authoritative source and could not find any authoritative source that agreed with it - but nevertheless claimed that it was factually accurate even though it was very easy to debunk. As these examples indicate creationists are intellectually lazy (they do not bother to check their "facts") and strongly biased (they strongly assume that sources that say something they like are accurate) - independant of any claim to have "spiritual evidence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
How would you know you had misconceptions? How many of your misconceptions are you carrying right now? Tell me about them. I may be able to clarify or I am sure someone will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution?
nosey ted writes: Guaranteed!! Absolutely!!! Please, pick one that you think is important and propose a thread on it. We would love to learn. I have friends in high (or low) places who would be glad to hurry your proposal through the process. Ahh, I should have said "alledged" misconceptions because I don't know what they are. However, your reply infers that you do and I would be truly very happy to try and help you with your misconceptions if you would care to articulate what they are. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024