On being ill-informed

I have a question for the creationists who regularly post hereImagine for a moment, that this was a christian thread, perhaps along the lines of "Is Christian belief valid?" or something similar. Now imagine I make a post that reads:"Christianity is nonsense! All their beliefs are stupid! How can anyone believe the things in the bible? How can you believe that Adam and Eve killed their own son? How can you believe that a flood that lasted for only four days killed everything on the earth except for those in the ark? How can you believe that Moses led his people around and around in the desert, trying to find Egypt? Why didn't he just ask someone? How can you believe the teachings of a man who married a prostitute, like Jesus did?"Now, would you not think something like "Uh-oh, here's a person who knows virtually nothing about christianity, who has heard a few half-truths somewhere, got those wrong, and is obviously biased against it."?And wuold you not reply with something like "I suggest you do a little research on what the bible actually says, and what christianity actually believes. Your 'facts' are completely wrong. You should not attempt to discuss matters about which you obviously know nothing."?I suggest that your thoughts and reply would be something very like the above, and quite rightly. Persons who know nothing or virtually nothing about a topic should not attempt to debate that topic, nor are they qualified to hold opinions about it.The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly. Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory, yet they presume to debate it and dismiss it. They bring out the hackneyed questions like "If we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?", "How did life get here in the first place?" - questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory. People who constantly ask questions like this (and others) obviously have got hold of a few half-truths (possibly from creationist web-sites, Jack Chick tracts, or the like), got them wrong, and think they actually know something about the topic. Why are there so few (I have yet to see one) creationists who are actually knowledgable about evolutionary theory, and why do so many creationists who know virtually nothing about it feel free to discuss and dismiss it? Surely even they will agree this is not a reasonable position?

I would have to say that, I don't know about all the other creationists discussing here, but I come here with an unbias mindset, and a willingness to consider and learn. I am not the most knowledgable about the ToE, and when I post I don't discredit it when I feel I have adiquitelly refuted the previous post. I have a willingness to consider different plausable ideas and suggestions in feasability. As long as we are working in the realm of science. I may give my opinions on things just as everyone else does, but I also consider the scientific feasibility.--Know that I am not here to discredit Evolution and make it look stupid or any of that. I am here to learn of what it has to say, and compair and contrast with Creationist Explinations.------------------

more discriminating generalizations.... (shudder).------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Actually Toff's post doesn't do justice to many things some Creationists seem to believe evolution is.He is being too generous for most Creationists, not making "bad generalizations".

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Actually Toff's post doesn't do justice to many things some Creationists seem to believe evolution is.

​

He is being too generous for most Creationists, not making "bad generalizations".

---

any generalization is bad and is discrimination anyway you take it but you can have your own opinion.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"Actually Toff's post doesn't do justice to many things some Creationists seem to believe evolution is.
He is being too generous for most Creationists, not making "bad generalizations"."Ehem..
--Directing towards creationionists:
"Persons who know nothing or virtually nothing about a topic should not attempt to debate that topic, nor are they qualified to hold opinions about it."
--This implies with a support in itself of attempt discrimination as is shown by his usage of words such as 'Persons who' or 'nor are they'. I sense a bit of ignorance in its text in all honesty. He then directly after implies more emphesis supporting my interperetation of the previous."The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly."
--Again using the vague wording of 'they' in context, that obviously is interchangably with 'Creationists'. Even further emphesis on what he implies by 'they'."Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory"
--Then he there-after accuses 'creationists' in general as without knowledge whatsoever, and so falsly accuses us as automatically dismissing the theory before-hand assuming we know nothing of the theory, or in the least no significant rational amount."yet they presume to debate it and dismiss it""They bring out the hackneyed questions like "If we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?", "How did life get here in the first place?" - questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory."
--In this statement, this is not the only reason people may bring up such questions. For one, it is seldom you find someone asking these questions, second, I will ask these questions myself, for emphesis on exactly what their fudemental basis is or something of that nature. Though I would not use this termonology and wording in a question like this."People who constantly ask questions like this (and others) obviously have got hold of a few half-truths (possibly from creationist web-sites, Jack Chick tracts, or the like), got them wrong, and think they actually know something about the topic."
--Again attempting to discredit Creationists by a general discrimination."Why are there so few (I have yet to see one) creationists who are actually knowledgable about evolutionary theory, and why do so many creationists who know virtually nothing about it feel free to discuss and dismiss it? Surely even they will agree this is not a reasonable position?"
--And then he wraps it up again that no creationist here has knowledge on Evolution theory. thus he concludes the debate without even starting it really.------------------

I've seen some really awful ones along these lines. For instance, I was trying to explain plate tectonics to a creationist. After a while, I realized he thought that we 'evolutionists' were claiming that continents float in the ocean like leaves.

I've seen some really awful ones along these lines. For instance, I was trying to explain plate tectonics to a creationist. After a while, I realized he thought that we 'evolutionists' were claiming that continents float in the ocean like leaves.Creationism has been likened to a pan-American intellectual ghetto, in which otherwise promising young students, at a very young age, are taught to mistrust evolution and science at large. The only "science" they trust comes from ministries that have no interest in telling the truth, only what supports the ridiculous literal genesis view.Because they never learn what real science is about, they simply go around spreading these falsehoods, ruining other potentials. Since the American public is generally science-illiterate there is nothing to slow the progress of the ghetto.

(shudders and then mumbles something about discriminating generalizations.)------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

One must remember that the debate here is (mostly) polarized as being between the science perspective and the FUNDIMENTALIST CREATIONIST perspective. There are vast numbers of people that have more moderate creationist views. See my "Theological Evolution" topic.In the context of this debate, however, "creationist" is generally used to mean "fundimentalist creationist".To KP, in regards to a question elsewhere:
YEC means young earth creationist, which is more or less one and the same as fundimentalist creationist.If you identify yourself as a creationist, the assumption is that you are a fundimentalist YEC, unless you make it clear otherwise.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
One must remember that the debate here is (mostly) polarized as being between the science perspective and the FUNDIMENTALIST CREATIONIST perspective. There are vast numbers of people that have more moderate creationist views. See my "Theological Evolution" topic.

​

In the context of this debate, however, "creationist" is generally used to mean "fundimentalist creationist".

​

To KP, in regards to a question elsewhere:
YEC means young earth creationist, which is more or less one and the same as fundimentalist creationist.

​

If you identify yourself as a creationist, the assumption is that you are a fundimentalist YEC, unless you make it clear otherwise.

​

---

Unfortunately,these "moderate" creationists are usually viewed as even greater threats to the YEC movement by its proponents that evolutionists because,in their opinion,the "moderates" should know better and their actions and views often get them labeled as traitors to Christ.

I think we need to get down to the truely important question.WHY AM I STILL DESIGNATED A "JUNIOR MEMBER"?KP and LVB (amongst others) have been here for shorter lengths of time and have lower message posting counts.I sense discrimination against people with geology degrees.E-mailed Percy this question a few days ago.Whiner Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

which is why i tend to distance myself from religion and more towards constant faith in god, at least that why i feel that i actually have faith in him. the same goes for science; research and do everything you can to form your own understanding not just follow the general trend because everyone else does. i am in no way moderate either, i more than likely have more faith in god then they do. its just that i dont care about some dumb technicality in the bible, so what if its off on few things it was written thousands of years ago when we had less understanding of life and the universe. i know that it was changed to fit in more for the average person and even then theres only so much we can totally comprehend.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"I've seen some really awful ones along these lines. For instance, I was trying to explain plate tectonics to a creationist. After a while, I realized he thought that we 'evolutionists' were claiming that continents float in the ocean like leaves."
--You obviously need to talk to another creationist, hehe, whoever it was you were talking to hasent a clue about Earth/Marine Geology and Plate Tectonics. You see much of this around because they are simply trying to say something you arent interested in.------------------

"Creationism has been likened to a pan-American intellectual ghetto, in which otherwise promising young students, at a very young age, are taught to mistrust evolution and science at large. The only "science" they trust comes from ministries that have no interest in telling the truth, only what supports the ridiculous literal genesis view.Because they never learn what real science is about, they simply go around spreading these falsehoods, ruining other potentials. Since the American public is generally science-illiterate there is nothing to slow the progress of the ghetto."
--I would suggest a good eye-opener, it either seems as ignorance or you havent been looking around.------------------