On being ill-informed

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".

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.

[QUOTE][b]shudders and then mumbles something about discriminating generalizations.[/QUOTE][/b]Grumble all you want, but I've seen few Creationists that have even a basic understanding of science. That's the problem.Of course, I'm not judging the present company.

[QUOTE][b]it either seems as ignorance or you havent been looking around.[/QUOTE][/b]Unfortunately I have been looking around and almost everything I see (and I'm not commenting on present company) makes me more convinced that Creationism feeds on ignorance. The people who need education most, in this case, are those who reject it on religious grounds. I also consider the ghetto analogy to be correct. Sorry but that's my opinion based upon the claims of more Creationists than I can keep up with. I've probably encountered somewhere on the range of 50 to 100 by now just on the 'net. Not one has presented a credible argument, most actually recycle the same old arguments. It is entirely feasible for an evolution to save his responses, and about the time they have stockpiled 15 or so, they have everything they need to repel any other creationist they are likely to engage. The sad aspect of that is that once you learn Creationist arguments, you actually end up having to explain Creationist arguments to those that try to use them. You'd be amazed how many Creationists garble other Creationists' arguments so thoroughly that they make no sense, and the evolutionist actually has to guess at what the Creationist is trying to say. It makes as much sense as arguing with a parrot. Now to be fair I have seen evolutionists do the same a couple of times, but it is not nearly as widespread on our side.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-10-2002]

[QUOTE][b]former means first for those without a large vocabulary.[/QUOTE][/b]See, you're being dishonest again! "Former" refers to a state that existed before the present, not necessarily the "first" of anything. Clinton is the former US president, but not the first.Let's not play fast and loose with the facts...

[QUOTE][b]--I guess this is one thing that both sides are always going to disagree on, I find it in every person that stands up to debate, creationist and evolutionist. As I guess it goes a little something like your attention towards arguments. Just like everyone your going to pay more attention debating with the opposite and paying less attention on other people debating than your own, basically this is fact. In my opinion simmilar to yours, I see the same thing but the other way around. I have found very many anti-creationists that constantly bring up questions that have already been answered, almost all that are so simple it isn't even funny anymore. It goes to show you there are 3 levels of supidity, bias, ignorance, and open mindness, or willingness to accept consequences and deal with the facts. Now just like yourself, I see many evolutionists out there that are simply entertaining and interesting to debate and discuss with it, such is the center of an unbiased experience of new information and a learning. But ofcourse theres always going to be those dud's out there that like you stated, scramble and try to explain arguments either beyond their own reasoning or out of self ritious awareness in their on pre-considered infallacy.[/QUOTE][/b]I can agree with that.

Heh, that's up to the moderator but I know you were joking.