|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4510 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4853 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
hooah:
[What's wrong with not believing in evolution?] Because it's not a belief. BarackZero: So YOU say. Anyone who does not subscribe to YOUR belief doesn't have a belief. Clever wordplay that is. Hooah again: Not accepting a particular theory is one thing. To blindly assert that it is absolutely false, fight against it, all the while not properly refuting it, is wrong. Ignoring facts when they go against your actual beliefs, is wrong. That is where the ignorant/insane/stupid labels are applied. If you don't understand something, learn about it. Don't just deny that it is factual because you don't want to learn. BarackZero responds: Has it EVER occurred to any Darwinist here (and I use that term "Darwinist" loosely, as in a bowel movement) that one can understand perfectly well the extraordinarily (if you folks are to be believed) complex two-step process of random mutation, followed by selection, and not swallow it whole? Did that ever occur to any of you? Even once?I thought not. "Ignorant/insane/stupid labels" are applied because of the boundless intolerance, the stifling hatred, the insufferable arrogance exhibited from Dawkins down. You Dawkinsists COULD talk to people in a civil manner.You COULD exhibit some of the sophistication, some of the worldliness and tolerance you're always claiming for yourselves, but no, you prefer to deal in "ignorant/insane/stupid labels." All the time. People on your side who do so should be studiously ignored.It is difficult when there are so very many of you, and when you do not begin to condemn anyone on your own side of the aisle, no matter how egregious, how despicable are his comments. Take "wiping Al Gore's ass" Omnivorous, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Maybe they just don't want to believe? Maybe they are just incapable of understanding evolution and thus have a hard time believing it can be true? This does seem to be the fault that many people have. That if they're incapable of understand a topic then it just can't be true, or if they can't see it. What's wrong with not believing in evolution? Well, that would fall under "ignorant" or "stupid", depending on the circumstances. And there's nothing morally wrong with it. It's a shame for them, of course, that they're missing out on some cool stuff, but then maybe they find different things cool. If they spent the time I spent studying science doing something that they find more rewarding, then that's fine by me. Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth; if they are going to support someone else teaching some opinion, they have a duty to try to find out if he's speaking the truth. If they just want to have unexamined opinions of their own, that's fine.
You don't have to be religious in order to not believe in evolution. But it sure helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
BarackZero writes:
If you're trying to ignore people, you're doing it wrong. People on your side who do so should be studiously ignored. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Most people will know that Behe is apparently convinced that irreducible complexity demolishes evolution and he has claimed, over the years, to have found several examples of an irreducibly complex structure in an organism - the most famous being the cilia. I think Behe is a theistic evolutionist and accepts the bulk of the theory of evolution. In a debate with Kenneth Miller, Behe stated that he accepts that man and the other great apes evolved from a common ancestor. Behe apparently thinks that God had some subtle guiding hand in evolution. His pursuit of irreducible complexity examples is his search for God's fingerprints. I still find it mysterious that he feels the need to find those fingerprints. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And that he finds them in a frikin cilia. Sheesh.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Minnemooseus writes:
Perhaps he was having a crisis of faith, and needed this argument to reassure himself.
I still find it mysterious that he feels the need to find those fingerprints.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And that he finds them in a frikin cilia. His God evidently has very small fingers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Last I heard Behe was arguing that God did some genetic engineering, creating combinations of mutations that Behe thinks too improbable to occur by chance.
(Also, it should be pointed out that "theistic evolution" is often taken to mean the view that God created a universe where evolution would produce the desired results, without God needing to intervene in the process).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Something I originally posted at the Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God topic:
Food for thought - a quote from the book (pp. 172-173):
quote: Religious beliefs so strong that perceptions of reality must be wrong. Ignorant, stupid or Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Would you please use db quotes?
I like reading your responses but you don't make it easy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SignGuy Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
Haha, its amazing how double minded some of u seem to be in an effort or "fairness". Schools cqnnot haveO a lick of theology presented in class, but u have no problem teaching evolution as fact? Also u have a problem having evo banned, but dont want other religions taught? I have a great idea any topics relating to the origins of our universe be it from the bible or a book on evolution, be either all banned or all allowed.
Any time a person is undecided and is taught one point of view extensivly that person may likely end up following what hes tought before he has options to explore what he chooses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Schools cqnnot haveO a lick of theology presented in class, but u have no problem teaching evolution as fact? No. This is because teaching religion (as opposed to teaching about religion) in schools is against the First Amendment; and because evolution is a fact.
Also u have a problem having evo banned, but dont want other religions taught? Yes. See above.
Haha, its amazing how double minded some of u seem to be in an effort or "fairness". [...] I have a great idea any topics relating to the origins of our universe be it from the bible or a book on evolution, be either all banned or all allowed. Does this concept of "fairness" include teaching that the Earth is flat alongside teaching that it is round? Teaching Holocaust denial alongside history? Teaching denial that germs cause disease alongside the germ theory of disease? Or does this concept of "fairness" only apply to the bad ideas that you like?
Any time a person is undecided and is taught one point of view extensivly that person may likely end up following what hes tought before he has options to explore what he chooses. So I guess you'll be campaigning to have Muslim imams come and teach at your local Sunday school? The kids need options. Either that or you're engaged in hypocritical special pleading. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Haha, its amazing how double minded some of u seem to be in an effort or "fairness". Schools cqnnot haveO a lick of theology presented in class, but u have no problem teaching evolution as fact? well that is cause evolution is fact and it is based on science, and religion is not basicly religion is a wild guess of a d.vine being and his will, no point of teaching that in school.
Also u have a problem having evo banned, but dont want other religions taught? well yes evolution is proven by science religion is not, and evolution is not a religion.
I have a great idea any topics relating to the origins of our universe be it from the bible or a book on evolution, be either all banned or all allowed. no only the things you can prove should be taught, if you can prove god then by all means god should be taught if not then no god or religion.
Any time a person is undecided and is taught one point of view extensivly that person may likely end up following what hes tought before he has options to explore what he chooses. correct so religion should be banned for people under 18
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SignGuy Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
Since when on earth did Evo theory become fact!? There is plenty of scientific, and common sense evidence to point towards creation.....but I get it, you are allowed to choose whats healthy for my kids because its not religious. In the mean time, it is possible that souls are at stake, but you aren't concerned with the possibility of interfering with a parents choice to raise there children as they wish or, the eternal destination of those kids.
You want religion kept out of the way of science, but not the other way around because of intellectual integrity????? I WANT TO CHOOSE WHATS GOOD FOR MY KIDS! I dont want religion taught in schools, and I am a Christian. God did not force me to follow him, so I dont want to shove religion down anybodies mouth. I thought that was the american way, to let everybody live how they wish, and have no interference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I thought that was the american way, to let everybody live how they wish, and have no interference. Can you see no point at which religious indoctrination becomes child abuse? Withholding medicines, perhaps? Or raising children deliberately to be ignorant of the world around them? Or training them to hate? Where do you draw the line between a parent's interests and those of society? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024