Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 39 of 154 (414112)
08-02-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by arachnophilia
08-02-2007 6:14 PM


Re: double standards
arachnophilia writes:
i've noticed that the moderators do spend more time on creationists. for instance, the bit that prompted this. IAJ got suspended, after continuing to write gibberish after we were issued an off-topic warning. but i continued to reply to his gibberish. he got suspended. i didn't.
We all go off topic at times. The apparent bias against creationists is maybe because such a high percentage of them seem not only to go off topic, but also not to understand that they've done so. It's quite common to see a creationist drag one thread off topic and towards his or her particular obsession of the moment, and then to take another thread, with a very different O.P., and drag that towards the same obsession, then a third, then a fourth, and so on.
What I can't understand is why such a person doesn't just start a topic centred around the particular obsession in the first place.
Perhaps that's what should be encouraged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 08-02-2007 6:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 3:20 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 50 of 154 (414137)
08-02-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
08-02-2007 12:56 AM


Directly On Topic!
What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
A rare species, if by "creationist" you mean Biblical literalist types.
If we consider the broader meaning of "creationist", there are plenty who fit the description "articulate informed creationist" on this site, but they're always arguing on the science/evolution side.
If someone is both a believer in a creator God and scientifically well informed, then it's likely that they'll argue for evolution in a debate on biology, and unlikely that they'll attempt to present scientific evidence for their God.
Intelligent thiests know that belief in God is a matter of faith. Many see science as the study of their God's creation. If their God exists and created the universe, then they're correct!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-02-2007 12:56 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2007 11:32 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 154 (414194)
08-03-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
08-02-2007 11:32 PM


Re: Articulate Interpretations Of Science.
Buzsaw writes:
The crux comes when you consider that the God of their faith is likely the Biblical god. So if the God of their faith is a Biblical God, they are confronted with the fact that if their God is a Biblical god then according to the record of the book of their God he intelligently designed everything that was made and all things came from him. All of this stuff is relative to the God of their faith. So to be intelligently informed and articulate on scripture, it makes sense to be able to interpret what is observed in science as being intelligently designed by a higher power than NS and RM.
I did say theists, rather than Christians, but many such theists do regard themselves as Christians, so I think your comment could certainly be described as articulate and informed!*
Interestingly, you'd be limiting the intelligence of a creator God to suggest that he couldn't create a universe in which NS and RM are part of the design. What's random from our point of view would not be from his. An infinitely intelligent creator God who exists outside spacetime would perceive the four dimensional universe in similar way that we can look at a three dimensional view. What we see as past, present, and future would all be known to a truly omniscient Deity.
In creating the universe, this deity created Buzsaw with intent, with complete knowledge of all the physical, chemical and biological processes that would lead up to him, of what point (or points) in spacetime he belongs, and with full knowledge of the history of his great, great, great grandchildren. That's what I call omniscience! Such an entity would not need to practice genetic manipulation in such a way that the I.D. people seem to be suggesting. He wouldn't need to correct mistakes that he wouldn't make.
If you want to argue with people who believe in an infinitely intelligent God and describe themselves as Christians that their kind of God bears no resemblance to the Biblical God, then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
The intelligence of the biblical God seems to me to be pretty much limited to the intelligence of the people who invented him.
If there's a real creator of this universe, then describing such books as the Bible and the Koran as His word is incredibly insulting.
Not that he'd care, of course.
*[Note bluegenes covering himself against possible accusations of making an off topic post]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2007 11:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 69 of 154 (414233)
08-03-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
08-03-2007 12:58 PM


Percy writes:
And so it seems very strange these recent days to witness a stream of creationists who do not seem to care about maintaining the illusion that creation science is real science.
Perhaps there's a feeling that if the I.D. old earthers, with their acceptance of a great deal of evolution, did not make it into science classes, then the school rooms are not a likely venue for the battle. Maintaining their 50% of the U.S. public is best done via the traditional strengths of dogmatic "true" religions (promise of heaven, threat of hell, etc.)
Complex scientific arguments that they'll lose in the eyes of anyone who understands anything much about science can backfire, and make the preachers appear ignorant and stupid.
I'm not suggesting that this is any kind of creationist strategy, more perhaps a general instinctive reaction to events.
Another factor may be that there could have been a significant movement from the YEC camp into the I.D. camp. Not of the general public as a whole, but from that small minority with sufficient scientific knowledge to be able to make coherent arguments for psuedo-science. If you were arguing for "scientific" creationism of some sort, which line would you find easier to fight the scientific establishment with, AiG type stuff, or Discovery Institute stuff?
I.D. is no threat to the international scientific establishment at all, merely a temporary problem in U.S. education issues, a problem you've always had anyway since the start of teaching the Modern Synthesis in western schools.
I.D. is actually more of a threat to Young Earth Creationists. The young earthers risk losing their next generation of "intellectuals".
Perhaps that's a partial explanation if you're puzzled by an apparent lack of Articulate Informed Creationists.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-03-2007 12:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 08-04-2007 8:19 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 76 of 154 (414335)
08-03-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 7:50 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
arachnophilia writes:
which is better, to ask an evolutionist about his opinion of what makes a good creationist, or to ask a creationist?
Perhaps a good idea would be a "creationists only" thread. It would be interesting to hear opinions on the question in this thread's O.P. title.
But what I'd really like to see is a creationists only thread debating the numerous different types/theories of creationism.
To attempt to challenge the Theory of Evolution, a coherent, united theory is required.
Imagine an equivalent of RAZD's "Definition of the Theory of Evolution" thread. At present, it would be chaos. Would any creationists like to start up a "Definition of Creationism Theory" thread? It should be for creationists only, perhaps. Not for evolutionists to chime in and say "that's rubbish", or whatever, because the purpose is to establish a wording to describe a theory, not to debate it the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 7:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 10:50 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 78 of 154 (414344)
08-03-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2007 8:39 PM


Love the Logic
In an earlier post I stated and argued a self-evident axiomatic fact: Whoever the Atheist-evolutionists praise is the most pseudo and wrong and whoever they condemn is the most right and threatening to their dogma.
Since PaulK is the epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist, and since he says I am the very least or worst (or any other synonym) this logically means that I am the exact opposite. Logic says the Atheist-evolutionist WOULD NEVER approve of a real Christian-Creationist. PaulK's condemnation means I am exactly that.
In a way, you've got a good point there. What I'm trying to figure out is whether your description of Paul as the "epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist" is the equivalent of his comment on you, which implied that you were just about the worst Creationist on the board.
It would have helped if you'd simply returned the compliment, and described him as the worst atheist-evolutionist around. Then we could simply have applied your logic, and come to the conclusion that he's a really good atheist evolutionist.
The fact that you describe him as the "epitome of an atheist evolutionist" leads me to believe that he may be a fraud. Perhaps even an undercover creationist.
If so, he's a good one. Or should I have said a bad one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2007 8:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 154 (414362)
08-03-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
08-03-2007 9:57 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
inkorrekt writes:
Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear.
I've noticed this on other forums debating Evolution/Creation, inkorrekt. The evolutionists dominate. Creationists have faith, that's all, and saying "I have faith in my view" is not much of an argument.
For example, you might have faith that the flower fairies pollinate the flowers. But try arguing about it with biologists and botanists who know a lot about about plant reproduction, and it would be difficult to prove your faith, wouldn't it? That's the essence of the problem. There is no evidence for creation, and plenty for evolution, so the evolutionists have an unfair start, don't they?
I personally make it easy for myself, and always make sure I'm on the side where the evidence lies in such debates. Why not try the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 08-03-2007 9:57 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2007 11:45 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 88 of 154 (414395)
08-04-2007 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 10:50 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
well, you need a little more than that. you need a coherent united theory that explains all the evidence that evolution has correctly predicted, and predict something that is totally distinct from the result evolution would predict. and then test and confirm that prediction.
Exactly. That's why the attempt should be made. Of course there won't be a coherent result. It's like the recent best evidence for creationism thread. It came up with appearance of design, and that's all. We're back with William Paley. But it helped. Our creationists are all going on about appearance of design right now. No less than three of them have managed to change "appearance of design" into "design" in mid argument in order to then challenge us with the undeniable truth that design needs a designer.
The reason for the dearth of creationists isn't because of a few bannings. That's just a symptom of the impossible situation. You've explained the reason in your way in the post I'm replying to, and I explained it to a creationist a few posts above in mine.
They're bankrupt of ideas. Perhaps without realising it, one of them has just come up with ideas based on the work of a Christian evolutionist. He's turning into Jar!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 10:50 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 102 of 154 (414535)
08-04-2007 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
08-04-2007 8:19 AM


Percy writes:
Without looking up the statistics I still think it would be accurate to say that the percentage of Americans who reject evolution and accept a young earth has gradually increased over the past few decades, especially recently in the face of the argument from design.
Cheer up, Percy, Coragyps, and all other thinking yanks.
From memory, the age group in the U.S. with the highest acceptance of the idea that animals descend from other animals is the 18-25 group (about 63%). They are also the age group with the highest proportion of self-described non-religious people (20%).
Time is on your side (as well as evidence, which is growing fast, as you know).
This has much more to do with cultural change and the declining influence of organised superstition than levels of technical understanding of biology.
I'm sure most of the 63% know very little about how they might have descended from a common ancestor with the chimps. It's just that the religious virus isn't strong enough for the concept to bother them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 08-04-2007 8:19 AM Percy has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 110 of 154 (414544)
08-04-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
08-04-2007 4:52 PM


Re: Informed
ICANT writes:
A person that is taught Atheism from birth will more than likely die an Atheist.
Everyone is an atheist at birth. No need for teaching. Also off topic, but worth discussing elsewhere if you believe otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 4:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 08-04-2007 6:43 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 129 of 154 (414904)
08-06-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Doddy
08-06-2007 8:37 PM


Re: Seriously Though
Doddy writes:
but didn't all the Bible-thumpers in Europe flee persecution and head over to the New World? Isn't that why Europe is nice and secular and America is full of fundies? Isn't that what the Thanksgiving stuff about the Pilgrims is all about?
Why the U.S. is a bit of an anachronism in the "western world" so far as religiosity is concerned is a fascinating and complex subject, worthy of a thread of its own (and a bit off topic here).
You're right about the fleeing from religious persecution as one historical factor (it makes you look at persecution in a different light - speaking from a modern European perspective, maybe it wasn't such a bad idea!). However, there are other theories as well.
It has to be said that the people doing the persecuting were probably just as religious as the sects being persecuted.
Large scale migration from Ireland may be another factor, as Ireland is still to this day easily the most religious country in the north-west of Europe. The Catholic potato famine mass migration in the mid-nineteenth century is well known, but I think that there was also a very large migration from the Protestant north earlier in America's history, and this may have been very influential. The brand of Protestantism in Ulster today is very similar to the U.S. fundy type, so the influence of those early migrants may have transferred down the generations.
Theories that have less to do with history are about things like feelings of economic insecurity in a very competitive society leading to a greater need for the surety of an afterlife as compared to very irreligious societies like the Scandinavian countries, where sinking into real serious poverty can't really happen, because of their social policies. Another thing may be the geographic isolation of large swathes of the population during the nineteenth and early twentieth century from the centres of learning and scientific progress. Relating that to your own country, isn't Queensland much more fundy than the rest of Australia?
I think that the U.S.'s high rate of religiosity compared to other "first world" countries is probably the result of a complex combination of reasons, which is why it's difficult to answer Straggler's question:
quote:
What is it about the U.S that makes this [the election of a remarkably unarticulate, uninformed, creationist President]* possible as compared to other comparable nations?
*Bracketed words mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Doddy, posted 08-06-2007 8:37 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Doddy, posted 08-06-2007 10:56 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 131 by Jaderis, posted 08-07-2007 12:17 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 132 by Nighttrain, posted 08-07-2007 6:39 AM bluegenes 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