On being ill-informed

And I must say that it has been a long time since I have fitted the description of "junior", except on this board. Maybe a more appropriate terminology might be "associate member" or "qualifyig member" or suchlike.

Hi Moose!I've been off studying why you're still classified as a Junior Member, and it turns out that, just as you suspected, the software is prejudiced against geologists! Who woulda thought!The software has now successfully graduated from sensitivity training, and I see you're now classified as a regular member. Let me know if the software backslides. --PercyPS - The threshold for Member status is 31 posts

​

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

lol!!!------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[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]

yeah heres another approriate einstein quote "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." former means first for those without a large vocabulary.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[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...

what the hell is that suppose to mean? i meant first in that sentence, i was dumbing it down for all you non-believing inbreeding evolutionists!!! eat some of your own generalized discrimination crap! stop being so literal, pull finger out your bumhole and relax a bit, geez man.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"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."
--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.------------------

​

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

[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.

i can agree with it as well, i hope i wasnt too excessive in my last post.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

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

yeah im not that judging, lol------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Sorry, TrueCreation, I don't think you understand the issue here. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"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:

---

--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.

---

Even a cursory examination of my original post will reveal that when I made the quoted statement, I had not even mentioned creationists. How it could be taken that the statement is directed at them I have no idea. It was a general statement, true of evolution, nuclear physics, religion, politics, and any other subject I can think of.

quote:

---

"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'.

---

This one I don't even understand. Apparently I'm charged with using the word 'they' interchangably with 'creationists'. Yet in the quoted sentence, I don't use the word 'they' at all.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Oops, sorry, wrong. I did not accuse creationists in general as 'without knowledge whatsoever'. I accused them of knowing virtually nothing about evolutionary theory, and I stand by that accusation. Perhaps out there somewhere are legions of creationists who know a great deal about evolutionary theory. I've never encountered one. [b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]I can see no valid reason for bringing out a question that is, in and of itself, erroneous. To do so reveals nothing but your ignorance of the topic at hand, as did my 'questions' and 'statements' about christianity, in my example in my original post. [b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]Again, sorry, not doing what you accuse me of. Accusing (read the sentence) 'people who constantly ask questions like this'. If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I? [b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]Sorry, again. The quote above is precisely the debate - 'why do creationists attempt to discuss/dismiss a theory about which they know virtually nothing'. The debate isn't 'do creationists know virtually nothing about evolution' - that is a given.And just a word about generalisations, making them of which I have been accused by TrueChristian and KingPenguin. Yes, I, like virtually everyone, make generalisations. Generalisations, in and of themselves, are not bad, even in a debate forum like this. The question is only whether or not they are accurate. If I were to state 'men are taller than women', I would get few arguments, despite its being a generalisation. If I were to state 'men are better political leaders' than women, I would get many more arguments - but not because it's a generalisation. Because it's a generalisation that many would disagree with. So don't just chant 'generalisation' and think you've defeated the point; try actually debating what was said, what opinions were put forward, rather than ignoring something because it was a generalisation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

---

He sees much of it around because there IS much of it around. Creationists are, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.