Anyone else notice this pattern?

quote:

---

Alright, one more rhetorical question. What is it about some people that makes them want to not only discuss things they know nothing about, but even to insist, for literally pages and pages, that they're right?

---

I know it's a rhetorical question but the answer seems to be pure egotism and bias. The same egotism that makes Buzsaw claim to be an expert on Biblical prophecy - when he knows almost nothing about the subject. The same bias that made Buzsaw assert that an article on a penny stock site about hurricanes had to be accurate because he liked what it said - without even a basic investigation. (I don't use Buz as an example out of malice, it's just that he has provided the clearest examples).

quote:

---

I think this is exactly what it means. Are you listening to the creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation with understanding?

---

Generally yes - in so far as creationists are willing and able to explain themselves. (Which goes back to competence at writing, too).

quote:

---

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.

---

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".

quote:

---

For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?

---

Assuming that you are trying to create a comparable example - the question should be over what the Bible says - not over what really happened. In that case I would read the relevant chapter of Genesis, and note that it refers to the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If this is a relevant distinction in the context of the discussion I would point it out, quoting the relevant verses. If it is not relevant then I would accept that.On the other hand, a creationist in the same position would likely not even look at what the Bible said.

quote:

---

Would you dispute the belief that adam and eve ate from the tree of knowledge, especially from someone who truly believes in an all powerful god and that the bible was inspired by god?

---

That would not be a comparable example. To be truly comparable the example should be something easily checked and where there is no dispute over the evidence or the weight attached to it.Let it be noted that I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did intend to offer a relevant example instead of one that can only be seen as a diversion. I did discuss it seriously. And you have chosen to ignore that in favour of continuing the attempt at diversion.

quote:

---

Exactly and yet the evolutionists point out that creationists beliefs are in fact misconceptions when they are not. They are strongly held beliefs.

---

Obviously a strognly-held beleif can still be a misconception, so can you please explain why this example referred to by Trixie in Message 155 is not a misconception ?

quote:

---

This has been the whole point that when a strongly held belief is held, the individual could not see it as a misconception.

---

Why, exactly, do you consider this point worth making ?

quote:

---

We all have strong justifications for our beliefs from - mum told me, to god told me, to science proves it.

---

Yet we see that creationists frequently make claims that are false and that they could easily discover to be false - if they just bothered to do some basic research. The question we are discussing is why they do that.Here's another example from this group: Why would anyone who knew anything about the Scopes case say that ? Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes was on trial for breaking a law forbidding the teaching of evolution ? (And before you assert that common knowledge is often wrong - on this point it is correct).

quote:

---

This is a physical example. How would you test a belief in god against reality?

---

As you know the misconceptions referred to are beliefs that can easily be tested against reality - and are known to be false. So asking about beleifs that cannot easily be checked is just a red herring.So please tell us why a "strong belief" that happens to be false is not a misconception.And then in the interest of understanding creationists - as you insist we should do - we can discuss why they are so subject to these misconceptions.