Arrogance of Elitism

I think I can see a caricature of my own behaviour within your well written little parody.................. Ah this is where your parody falls down. All too often the creationists seem to have given the subject at hand no thought at all. Yet they remain convinced that they have seen the error everyone else is making regardless. That is the problem.Imagine a convention of mechanics. Everything from amateur car enthusiasts to formula 1 design teams. Swapping info and ideas. Being desperately geeky about all things carrish. Then imagine a guy who has changed a bicycle tire three times in his life and read the wiki article on the internal combustion engine. He comes in, gets up on the stage and proceeds to tell the entire auditorium where it is that they are all going wrong with regard to a number of technical details.The arrogant idiot would rightly be derided as a conceited fool and I for one would not drive a car he had put together. Would you?Not all opinions are equally well founded.

The PoV you hold, that of an eternal static flat universe was held previously by many including scientists. However as new evidence has come in this view has been utterly, totally and completely empirically refuted. But you won't listen to this when it is said.Your PoV is that of someone who chooses to ignore all of this evidence because it fails to fit your limited human perception and theistic beliefs (I personally don't see this contradiction but you obviously feel it strongly).You provide no answers to the questions that caused the original downfall of your view. You provide no refutation of any of the highly tested results of current theories. And yet you then insist that you have been proven correct somehow.........????? In your case I would call this stubbornness rather than arrogance but it is a thin line that divides the two........

Both you and Buz have the silly habit of using the term "illogical" to describe anything that you are personally incredulous of.Personal incredulity is not a valid argument. Even when you erroneously call it "logic".

With that attitude no wonder you are so wrong so often.
Logic based on false premises leads to false conclusions.
Obviously. No matter how logical or perceptive one may be false conclusions will be derived from false information. How can the information on which conclusions are based be irrelevant to the conclusions themselves. That is illogical. Well if you think that scientific investigation is the same as reading Harry Potter it is little wonder that you are so confused. Science tests conclusions regarding nature against nature in order to obtain the most reliable information possible on which to base further conclusions. That, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. This is obviously not a viable means of investigation as regards fictional characters (sorry Harry). The other thing you have in common with Buz is continually asserting to everyone how well you are doing in a debate............

Which other evidence based theories do you refute with this rationalist nonsense? Flight? Medicine? Solid State Physics? Electromagentism?Every piece of technology you use is a testament to your irrational hypocrisy.

Are all points of view regarding the workings of nature equally valid?If not what makes one more valid than another?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the conclusion is not logically derived from the premise maybe. Exactly. False premise + False logic can potentially (if rarely) = true conclusion. So two wrongs can make a right after all.Are you claiming that creationists not only have false premises but are also applying logic falsely to draw true conclusions? This is a very novel approach to logic I must say!! If someone has insufficiant knowledge on which to make reliable conclusions then they are hardly equivelant to someone who draws different conclusions from superior information are they?To assert otherwise is just silly.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So on which facts do you base your faith in the computer in front of you? Or are you overcome with shock everytime you switch it on and connect to the internet?You can dress up your brand of nonsense with all the logical and philosophical terms you like. This does not make your arguments any more logical or philosophical. They are still nonsense. This thread is aptly named. You are one delusionally arrogant SOAB.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It works because the people who designed and built it have theories as to how nature works. Tested theories. Everytime you use your computer you put your faith in the theories that they applied.Whether you believe it or not you have faith in quantum theory. Likewise everytime you use GPS you put your faith in the theory of General Relativity.I agree that we have "faith" because "It's a fact that it works".What you seem to be missing is it is these very facts that Buz was effectively denying. Hence the inferiority of his position. And yours.

For one so "logical" you have a very poor sense of comparison. Empirical evidence of splatting after cliff jumping is obviously possible without understanding gravity. Hence the cavemen. However the design of GPS is most definitely not possible without a theory of gravity. Hence the GPS example. Nobody claims that scientific theories are indisputably true. All evidence based investigation is necessarily tentative. But when the evidence is overwhelming and unrefuted only the stubborn, churlish and philosophically opposed deny it as the closest approximation to truth available. Forget computer programmes. The ToE has directly resulted in numerous predictively based discoveries. ID, for example, has never once ever resulted in a single discovery. Why, based on this is it not right to conclude that the ToE has a greater degree of veracity than ID?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually what annoys me are pseudo-intellectual bullshitters who make illogical and evidently inferior arguments whilst posturing with philosophical terms that they barely understand, who are at the same time continually congratulating themselves on how clever they are and declaring that any perceived flaws with their fallacious arguments are the reult of everyone else being unable to comprehend the insightfulness of the position that they have convinced themself must be flawless because they are too much smarter than everyone else for it not to be.That is what annoys me.

If your starting point is to assume intelligence you will indeed be able to see evidence for it by selectively seeking such evidence.However this is an invalid assumption and an invalid method of objective investigation.Hence the failure of ID to result in a single discovery. Ever.

Dude you are an idiot who thinks he is a genius. That makes you the worst kind of idiot. If you really want to claim that the creationsit method of logic consists of taking false premises and applying incorrect logic to come up with correct conclusions then I will only disagree with 2/3rds of that particular claim. If you really want to believe that through the application of logic reliable conclusions can be drawn regardless of the information on which they are based then it is no wonder that you have drawn the conclusions that you have. Yes and we seem to have discovered quite a few of them. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The key to this whole problem of "arrogancy" as far as I can see is that you and other creationists see different theories as equally valid points of view. You just see yours as differing from the majority.However the non-creationist contingent do not see the scientific position as just another POV. We see it as a highly tested, highly analyzed, highly verified accumulation of evidence, observation and logical analysis developed over many years to exacting standards with continual comparison to nature as the judge of its validity. A model not borne from any personal or philosophical point of view but an interweaving body of knowledge confirmed repeatedly by nature itself.The creationist POV approach seems to be to work out how you would like nature to be and to then seek evidence to support this claim.
The scientific approach is to test every single conclusion against nature and to build up a model that not only explains but accurately predicts the observable physical phenomenon. A model that has nothing to do with how we might want nature to behave for whatever philosophical reason.So when you say things like "it is arrogant of you to assert that your POV is superior merely because it is the majority POV" it misses the whole point of the scientific method. You are equating your night-time musings and bedroom brainwaves with decades of intense research by international collaborations involving some of the keenest minds on the planet.Established scientific theories are not just POVs in the sense that you mean.In science when two theories compete they need to both equally explain all the currently observable evidence. They are then pitted head to head by means of predicting different results regarding as yet unknown phenomenon. The theory that wins is the theory that makes the most accurate predictions and leads to new evidence being discovered.Creationist/IDist models do not follow these exacting methods. That is why they lead to no discoveries. That is why they are so unreliable as conclusions. That is why they are unscientific.Buz - Your kindergarten cosmology model does not explain even a fraction of the observable evidence (gravitational lensing, Casmir effect, clocks moving slower in stronger gravitational fields, the curved paths of photons in space, black holes, red shifted galaxies etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.................). Your "model" also makes no observable predictions.How can you honestly claim it as a competing theory by any even vaguely scientific measure?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I just wish all online spell-checkers had a sense of humour Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.