Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 94 of 196 (158413)
11-11-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kc8rdb
11-03-2004 11:59 AM


Ignorant creationists
This is going to anger some, but i don't see why anyone would be surprised that creationists are ignorant of fact.
They don't need to have facts. They have beliefs, and that is good enough for them. When their beliefs are shown to have no basis in fact (which they invariably are, but try and convine a dyed-in-the-wool young earther of that) they aren't being challenged on a point of fact, their core ideas are being mocked. Something very important to them is being challenged, and that bugs people. (It bugs me too. Talk about putting prayer in public schools and watch how pissed I get)
I was rambling a bit, but the bottom line is this: To remain a creationist, one must remain ignorant. If the facts of science are learned, then one must leave creationism behind. The two cannot co-exist. this is not to say that religion and science are mutually incompatible. There will always be gaps to push a god into if one really needs to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kc8rdb, posted 11-03-2004 11:59 AM kc8rdb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 11-11-2004 2:17 PM mikehager has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 148 of 196 (161278)
11-18-2004 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
11-18-2004 8:14 PM


Re: Questions and answers
We get it buz. Your position is really quite simple. Complexity implies design. That is, of course, the old and oft discredited argument from design. You also think that the designer is whichever god you happen to believe in.
Please answer this very simple question... if complexity requires design, who or what designed god? Infantile, I know, but to the point.
Conversely, if god does not require a creator, why does anything else?
These very simple question show a glaring weakness in the design argument. It is internally inconsistent, first requiring that complex things be designed and then claiming that a very complex thing (a creator deity) can just exist while nothing else can.
The general reply is a fallacious special pleading on god's behalf. Do you have any reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2004 8:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2004 10:42 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 162 of 196 (161329)
11-18-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Buzsaw
11-18-2004 10:42 PM


Re: Questions and answers
When you are challenged, it is suddenly off topic? Interesting. In any case, to proceed. Buz said:
Something had to be forever existing in order to produce anything. I say it was God. You might say it was a particle of space as Rich Gore of National Geographic put it, or whatever you think it began from.
That is quite incorrect. To begin, I said nothing of the sort. I questioned your assertion that complexity requires a creator and that the creator is some kind of god. That proposition is inherently illogical and can only be defended by a special pleading, which you, like clockwork engaged in with the first sentence I quoted when you claimed that everything has to be created except god.
It may be disengenuous to refer to creationists as ignorant for the reason you give but that wasn't what the originator of the thread said. The initial post was regarding the writer's observation that creationists tend to be relatively uninformed about the real science of evolution. I happen to agree with that.
Buz, if you object so strongly to the term "ignorant creationist" you might try not being an exemplar of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2004 10:42 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2004 4:24 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 183 of 196 (161758)
11-20-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Buzsaw
11-20-2004 8:36 AM


Buz?
You're still ducking my questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2004 8:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 186 of 196 (161919)
11-20-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Buzsaw
11-20-2004 4:24 PM


Re: Questions and answers
Actually, you would do well to bone up on your writing. In any case, You said you choose to believe that the eternal thing was god, and I addressed that.
You still haven't actually responded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2004 4:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2004 7:29 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 196 of 196 (162342)
11-22-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Buzsaw
11-20-2004 7:29 PM


Re: Questions and answers
You claim that something had to always exist. This merely pushes the same question back a step. If one thing (be it god or anything else) can exist (eternally or otherwise) uncreated, why can nothing else? If complexity and order exists at the heart of the universe (again, be it god or anything else), why is that example of complexity unique? Why can complexity not occur spontaneously elsewhere? That's why the line of argument you are engaging in is called a special pleading. It is the fallacious position of stating that a rule applies in all cases, except in a particular one.
It should be noted that a possible instance of order and complexity existing eternally (I do not state that such exists) is only a contradiction when one also states that complexity requires design, which is the ID or creationist position. It is not a contradiction to the converse position, that complexity can spontaneously arise.
I apologize for my brusque behavior, and I am properly reprimanded by your polite replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2004 7:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024