Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 151 of 154 (446016)
01-04-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by arachnophilia
01-03-2008 10:34 PM


Re: questions
arachnophilia writes:
pillars of the creationist community that believe they should "lie for jesus." ask the people who aren't creationists just how many times they've seen some particularly false claims repeated (why, you've got a few in this very post!), or how very rarely they run into a creationist who even understands what evolution actually is? the creationist campaign is largely misinformation
Surely there is a better thread in which to debate this. Particularly I want to know which lies, because I know for a fact that one does not have to lies for Jesus, He can speak for Himself, more importantly, that one should not lies for Jesus.
arachnophelia writes:
the creationist argument is made up of a bunch of little, disparate claims that add up to the "don't trust science!" whole.
Not true. We do trust alot of what science says concerning that which can be tested directly. (i.e. that one can determine what 'a' is either by observing 'a' directly or observing how 'a' effects 'b') What we are trying to point out, especialy concerning evolution and origin science [sic], is that science cannot observe it directly. (i.e. tring to determine what 'a' is without being able to look at 'a' or how it effects 'b'; but rather how 'c' or 'd' might be effected by 'b' if certain things are true of 'a'. which means that one has to make assumptions concerning what 'a' is because they cannot see or observe 'a', make predictions of how 'a' might effect 'b', and how 'b' might have effected 'c' to explain what we observe in 'c' and or 'd')
arachnopilia writes:
no, it's not still used. there have been whole threads on this topic, where no creationist has ever been able to cite a single valid example of recapitulation theory in a middle or high school textbook
Appearently you missed the part of my post where I stated that it was in my Highschool text book back in 95 (as was nebraska man), but direct me to those threads if you want to debate this further.
arachnophilia writes:
cave paintings are not the only evidence. examination, it's a snake, with a set of legs painted on.
LOL. direct me to these threads too please if you do not mind. I won't argue any further concerning them on this thread.
arachnophilia writes:
when someone goes to support their argument with relatively unrelated falsehoods, people generally try to take the time to correct those errors rather than ignore them as "off topic" and let them seem correct.
And yet, as I was pointing out, I get in trouble when I try to correct someone elses falshoods that are used to support their arguments against me.
Therefore as to the rest of your post, though I wish to correct a great number of falsehoods, misinformation, and flat out lies in it, I will refrain. Not because they are correct but because to debate them here would be off topic.

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2008 10:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2008 2:18 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 152 of 154 (446034)
01-04-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Tusko
01-04-2008 7:14 AM


I think I like you
Kind of the point. That creationism and ID, from a scientific point of view, was not ment to convence evolutionist scientists with their ingrained aversion to any explaination that is not based on naturalism. So much as to provide evidence viewed from a different perspective, to help those who do not have the foundation they need to both have a reasonable and scientific foundation for what they believe as well as the spiritual foundation. For instance, I believe in the inerant Word of God as it is written in the Bible and that the Bible contains the true history of the earth. Any hypothesis that contradicts that history is a lie from the pit of hell and satan himself, no matter how much science [sic] one claims supports it. Much in the same way many evolutionist (even here) claim that evolution and big bang cosmology are the truth and anything that contradicts them is a lie. Further more that anyone who is tring to study the earth and the cosmos from a creationist point of view cannot be a scientist. Creation scientists have provided me with enough observational evidence, for me personaly, to fit the Biblical account, that I no longer feel inadiquately equipt to argue my position with others. Just because I can't answer a specific question does not mean an answer does not exist, it just means that I haven't come across it yet, or creation scientists have not yet reached a point in which they can study that perticular question to answer it.
All such debate forums like this one point out, is that it requires different amounts of 'proof' even from a certain standpoint, (i.e. creation/evolution) to convince certain people. Some here would probably contend that anyone who falls for the creation account as being true by definition must be stupid, ignorant, or mentaly ill in some way to believe such. I personaly am offended by such statements but I will forgive them. While I would not go so far as to make statments concerning a persons intelligence, I do find it hard to believe that someone would think that the evolutionary account of history is anymore intelectual and therefore scientific than the creation account, to the point of completely ignoring, or labling as misinformation, that which is being represented as observations that indicate creation.
Frankly the more someone tells me that I am stupid or unintelligent for believing in the creation account, the stronger my conviction becomes. Nothing an evolutionist says is going to alter what I believe. Niether is any thing I say going to alter what they beleive. Should we agree to disagree then? No, because evolution is still being tooted as a proven fact when it is not, and cannot be proven. (FYI you cannot define a process by the mechanism. Evolution is a process, natural selection is a mechanism. You cannot define what a car is by spouting out the defininition of an engine)
This might not be what you where intending to say but it fits for the most part with how I feel.

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Tusko, posted 01-04-2008 7:14 AM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2008 7:24 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 153 of 154 (446052)
01-04-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by imageinvisible
01-04-2008 5:47 PM


Request for edification
Hi imagineinvisible,
You state:
Creation scientists have provided me with enough observational evidence, for me personaly, to fit the Biblical account, that I no longer feel inadiquately equipt to argue my position with others.
Although you are 100% correct that discussion of such would be ruled completely off-topic for this particular thread, I for one would be fascinated to discuss one or more examples of the "observational evidence" provided by "creation scientists" you find so compelling. If you have already opened a thread on this, please direct me to it. If not, I would appreciate a chance to learn of this evidence if you would be willing to open another thread. In my case, I fear I am limited to biological topics, but I'm sure others would be just as interested in any other aspect of creation "science" in which you feel equipped to argue the position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 5:47 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 154 of 154 (446187)
01-05-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by imageinvisible
01-04-2008 4:50 PM


Re: questions
Surely there is a better thread in which to debate this. Particularly I want to know which lies, because I know for a fact that one does not have to lies for Jesus, He can speak for Himself, more importantly, that one should not lies for Jesus.
i agree. if you'd like to know what lies specifically, well, stick around a bit. i'll start you off with a relatively commonly used, and creationist friendly source. have a good look at answersingenesis's "arguments we think creationists should not use." keep in mind that it's worded in a very friendly manner, and largely directed at one kent hovind...
Not true. We do trust alot of what science says concerning that which can be tested directly.
there's an old joke here, that if any of us were tried for murder, we'd want a creationist as our lawyer. "you see, your honor, there is no direct and observable proof. no one saw my client kill this individual. that security camera footage? why, the bullet doesn't even show up. how are we to know what happened. the bullet matching my client's gun? maybe it was designed that way by pure coincidence. the blood found my client's clothing? well you can't prove that it got there by violent means..."
science isn't all observation. some of it is studying the indirect evidence. just ask your local CSI team which holds up better in court: their indirect evidence such as fingerprints and DNA, or the observations of the local janitor.
no, it's not still used. there have been whole threads on this topic, where no creationist has ever been able to cite a single valid example of recapitulation theory in a middle or high school textbook
Appearently you missed the part of my post where I stated that it was in my Highschool text book back in 95 (as was nebraska man),
actually, i didn't. we've seen those claims a number of times, and everytime we check it out, it's at best one of those "vaguely similar drawings" and at worst the historical "this idea got disproven." and it was generally part of my argument about selective evidence as well. even supposing your high school textbook outright included the fraud as factual -- that's one textbook in thousands upon thousands that get it right.
but direct me to those threads if you want to debate this further.
here are several:
http://EvC Forum: Haeckel in Biology Textbooks (links and information, not debate)
http://EvC Forum: Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school? (part one, closed)
http://EvC Forum: Haeckels' Drawings Part II (part two, still open)
http://EvC Forum: Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....
cave paintings are not the only evidence. examination, it's a snake, with a set of legs painted on.
LOL. direct me to these threads too please if you do not mind. I won't argue any further concerning them on this thread.
oof. i'm just going to give you a google link for this one. there have been so very many threads.
And yet, as I was pointing out, I get in trouble when I try to correct someone elses falshoods that are used to support their arguments against me.
if that's really what you were doing, you wouldn't get in trouble.
Therefore as to the rest of your post, though I wish to correct a great number of falsehoods, misinformation, and flat out lies in it, I will refrain. Not because they are correct but because to debate them here would be off topic.
well, actually, no. that is the topic here. i am partly responsible for prompting this thread, as it was my initial comments in another thread that brought the discussion up. i was seeking to address the problems that creationists have on this site, and what the best way to deal with them is.
it seems that we think in very fundamentally different ways. evolution supporters generally like to break things down and analyze. creation supporters generally like to group things together. it seems that creationists often have a very poor understanding of what the topic is, and your post is a good example -- you avoid discussing the matter at hand thinking it would be offtopic. but you have no problem supporting your argument with unrelated arguments.
percy has a new thread about the second part of that problem, and it's quite an interesting read, so i'll push any comment on that part over there. what i'm more interested in is the way creationists think a topic should work, and how they should behave themselves in a debate. many are accused of the "gish gallop" but i'm starting to think that many creationists aren't doing it intentionally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 4:50 PM imageinvisible 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