Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4853 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 46 of 89 (585961)
10-10-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by hooah212002
08-19-2010 6:52 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by hooah212002, posted 08-19-2010 6:52 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 8:02 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 55 by Larni, posted 10-14-2010 6:08 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 89 (585981)
10-10-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tram law
08-19-2010 6:45 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tram law, posted 08-19-2010 6:45 PM Tram law has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 48 of 89 (586023)
10-10-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:08 PM


BarackZero writes:
People on your side who do so should be studiously ignored.
If you're trying to ignore people, you're doing it wrong.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:08 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 49 of 89 (586054)
10-10-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Bikerman
08-12-2010 6:18 AM


Behe's a theistic evolutionist
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Bikerman, posted 08-12-2010 6:18 AM Bikerman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 10:37 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 10-10-2010 10:52 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2010 2:32 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 89 (586064)
10-10-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Minnemooseus
10-10-2010 10:07 PM


Re: Behe's a theistic evolutionist
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-10-2010 10:07 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 11:08 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 51 of 89 (586065)
10-10-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Minnemooseus
10-10-2010 10:07 PM


Re: Behe's a theistic evolutionist
Minnemooseus writes:
I still find it mysterious that he feels the need to find those fingerprints.
Perhaps he was having a crisis of faith, and needed this argument to reassure himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-10-2010 10:07 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 89 (586070)
10-10-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
10-10-2010 10:37 PM


Re: Behe's a theistic evolutionist
And that he finds them in a frikin cilia.
His God evidently has very small fingers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 10:37 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 89 (586095)
10-11-2010 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Minnemooseus
10-10-2010 10:07 PM


Re: Behe's a theistic evolutionist
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-10-2010 10:07 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 54 of 89 (586589)
10-14-2010 2:57 AM


Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research
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:
Are such opponents of evolution sincere? Several years ago, I was invited to Tampa, Florida, to debate the issue of evolution with Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research and one of the most influential of the young-earth creationists. The debate had been occasioned by the passage of a curriculum mandating the inclusion of so-called creation science in high school biology. In front of a large audience, I hammered Morris repeatedly with the many errors of "flood geology" and did my best to show the enormous weight of scientific evidence behind evolution. One never knows how such a debate goes, but the local science teachers in attendance were jubilant that I scored a scientific victory.17
As luck would have it, the organizers of this event had booked rooms for both Dr. Morris and myself in a local motel. When I walked into the coffee shop the next morning, I noticed Morris at a table by himself finishing breakfast. Flushed with confidence from the debate, I asked if I might join him. The elderly Morris was a bit shaken, but he agreed. I ordered a nice breakfast, and then got right to the point. "Do you actually believe all this stuff?"
I suppose I might have expected a wink and a nod. We had both been paid for our debate appearances, and perhaps I expected him to acknowledge that he made a pretty good living from the creation business. He did nothing of the sort. Henry Morris made it clear to me that he believed everything he had said the night before. "But Dr. Morris, so much of what you argued is wrong, starting with the age of the earth!" Morris had been unable to answer the geological data on the earth's age I had presented the night before, and it had badly damaged his credibility with the audience. Nonetheless, he looked me straight in the eyes. "Ken, you're intelligent, you're well-meaning, and you're energetic. But you are also young, and you don't realize what's at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren't the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes."
Indeed I did. Morris continued so that I could get a feeling for what that ultimate authority was. "Scripture tells us what the right conclusion is. And if science, momentarily, doesn't agree with it, then we have to keep working until we get the right answer. But I have no doubts as to what that answer will be." Morris then excused himself, and I was left to ponder what he had said. I had sat down thinking the man a charlatan, but I left appreciating the depth, the power; and the sincerity of his convictions. Nonetheless, however one might admire Morris's strength of character; convictions that allow science to be bent beyond recognition are not merely unjustified - they are dangerous in the intellectual and even in the moral sense, because they corrupt and compromise the integrity of human reason.
My impromptu breakfast with Henry Morris taught me an important lesson-the appeal of creationism is emotional, not scientific. I might be able to lay out graphs and charts and diagrams, to cite laboratory experiments and field observations, to describe the details of one evolutionary sequence after another; but to the true believers of creationism, these would all be sound and fury, signifying nothing. The truth would always be somewhere else.
Religious beliefs so strong that perceptions of reality must be wrong. Ignorant, stupid or insane deluded? I would call it deluded.
Moose

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 55 of 89 (586596)
10-14-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:08 PM


Would you please use db quotes?
I like reading your responses but you don't make it easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:08 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 56 of 89 (586714)
10-14-2010 1:37 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2010 2:05 PM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 58 by frako, posted 10-14-2010 2:14 PM SignGuy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 89 (586727)
10-14-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 1:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 1:37 PM SignGuy has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 58 of 89 (586729)
10-14-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 1:37 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 1:37 PM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM frako has replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 59 of 89 (586731)
10-14-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by frako
10-14-2010 2:14 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by frako, posted 10-14-2010 2:14 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2010 2:40 PM SignGuy has replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-14-2010 2:46 PM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2010 3:01 PM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 67 by bluescat48, posted 10-14-2010 4:16 PM SignGuy has replied
 Message 68 by dwise1, posted 10-14-2010 4:36 PM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 71 by frako, posted 10-14-2010 5:04 PM SignGuy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 60 of 89 (586732)
10-14-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:33 PM


Religious indoctrination
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:33 PM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 3:24 PM Coyote 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