|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Anyone else notice this pattern? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Maybe you are over educated and cannot comprehend that not all people comprehend in the same the way as you. Perhaps you could try a different way of explaining yourself that is easier to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Re: Anything is possible -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heinrik writes:What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us? That's a silly proposition. We all only know a tiny bit of all knowledge, so we are all of us ignorant of almost everything. The question being asked is why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something. The king in The King and I says, "Sometimes I'm not even sure of what I absolutely know," but the rule for creationists seems to be, "I'm especially sure about things of which I have absolutely no clue." Presumably those of us who are not poker players would not join a poker discussion board and start arguing with members about poker strategy. We know we don't know anything about poker, at least compared to those who play all the time. But a goodly number of creationists with almost no knowledge of biology or evolution think nothing of coming here and arguing for post after post about how wrong evolution is, all the while rejecting most of the valid scientific information that is provided to them. It's incredible and seems extremely unlikely that people could behave this way when you think about it in clinical terms, but it happens here literally every day. You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Message 152 of 158
01-22-2008 11:46 PM Reply to: Message 150 by Heinrik 01-22-2008 10:35 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rahvin writes: Those who have been well-educated typically have excellent critical thinking skills and are extremely open to a good argument based on evidence. Are you sure about this? What does typically mean?
how can such a person be described as anything other than intellectually lazy, stubborn, or simply dishonest? Good question! Have you an alternative?
Under what precise circumstances is ignorance or outright stupidity a positive trait?[ Another great question that I will offer an answer to. Ignorance and stupidity become a positive when others' (who do not possess the traits) derive benefit from these traits in others.
If a Creationist wants to learn about what misconceptions they have about Evolution, Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution?
most of us try to "go easy" on them and help them understand, I am sure this is genuine but is 'going easy' on someone helping them to understand? This doesn't mean you try the opposite of being hard on them which also does not work. The methods of trying to communicate and understand, noble as they may be, are not working. Who amongst the educated communicators can or wants to communicate on anothers' level, other than their own? Why do many creationists and evolutionists fail to reach a common understanding? Maybe because they just want to change each others' minds or win the argument.
how can anyone expect those who do know what they're talking about to not come across as condescending? I expect you to not be condescending with me when I do not understand or agree with you. I do not expect anyone to be condescending with me. I expect to be treated equally well as you expect to be treated. Have you experienced someone being condescending with you as an adult? Kids have to put up with it but I do not! I hope my reply answers many of your questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
trixie writes: Some of us may be highly educated in scientific fields, but that dosn't mean that we can only understand what fellow scientists are saying. I think this is exactly what it means. Are you listening to the creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation with understanding?
trixie writes: but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong. Aren't you doing the same thing? You refute each others beliefs. Your beliefs are built on physical evidence and creationists on spiritual evidence but neither understands or accepts the other and yet you are describing the same thing. Do you expect anyone to understand your point of view when you don't understand theirs and make no attempt to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
heinrik writes: What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us? percy writes: The question being asked is why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something. You dismissed Heinriks' concept as silly. Could this be the example of 'why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something'? To be specific, in this case because it is not understood the reader automatically assumes it is 'silly'. Your analysis is spot on. Your only 'mistake' is in thinking it isn't you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
teen4 writes: You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones. Rather than purposely trying to win a debate by purposely being dense, perhaps you should consider growing up? What are the significant details that have been missed and what do you mean by 'purposely being dense??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
rrhain writes: The official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life upon this planet. Yes it is the only scientific theory we have that I am aware of. Doesn't the church also preach a creation theory that is not at all scientific? You know the one, the theory about god and devil?
You seem to think that it's an either/or, that evolution and god cannot exist together. You obviously haven't read all my posts and are assuming incorrectly.
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? I certainly have considered the possibilty that god exists in a different way to the religious view. How do you personally think god may exist in a different way to what you imagine I am thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
How would you know you had misconceptions? How many of your misconceptions are you carrying right now? Tell me about them. I may be able to clarify or I am sure someone will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution?
nosey ted writes: Guaranteed!! Absolutely!!! Please, pick one that you think is important and propose a thread on it. We would love to learn. I have friends in high (or low) places who would be glad to hurry your proposal through the process. Ahh, I should have said "alledged" misconceptions because I don't know what they are. However, your reply infers that you do and I would be truly very happy to try and help you with your misconceptions if you would care to articulate what they are. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
why is that? Did you not answer 'yes' when I asked if you would not mind your learning about your own misconceptions concerning evolution?
Why did you say absolutely to this question when you don't have a clue what your misconceptions are? Do you think you have misconceptions or not? When asked the same question, Radz response also inferred he knew the nature of his own misconceptions. [post 169] Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Are you kidding? The only time I can think of this happening is when a person of greater intelligence takes advantage of a less intelligent person for monetary gain. You know, like used car salesmen, or Televangelists. Are you kidding? It is happening daily all around the world. It becomes a positive gain for some when 'uneducated' people do all the poorest paid jobs because that is all they can get, if they are lucky. But especially so in the poorer countries where the tobacco industry and other big business like Nike completely exploit them.
If I have any misconceptions regarding the Theory of Evolution and what its claims actually are, I fully expect and welcome correction from people who actually know better. This group, typically, does not include Creationists with a 5th grade or lower understanding of scientific concepts. I don't think you understood my point which is: when you point out to creationists their misconceptions about creation (not the other way around), how do you respond to them on their chosen subject? For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
quote: What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
nator. Post 1 writes: So, I have noticed that many of the Creationists on this board have, shall we say, less than stellar writing skills compared to the science-minded folks.Sure, there are a few exceptions, but I would guess that well more than two thirds of the Creationists who have ever posted here simply write very poorly. Their grammar and punctuation ranges from average to downright awful, they frequently fail to break their posts into paragraphs, and their ability to express ideas, sentence structure and word usage doesn't give one an impression of their having done very well in high school English. On a related note, my husband frequents a message board populated by people who work in higher education. Not surprisingly, most posters there write well, and express themselves clearly and often eloquently. Every so often a controversial subject such as Affirmative Action comes up in discussion, and he has noticed that of those people who pop up to write posts condemning it, many of them possess markedly poor writing skills. So, why does everyone think this pattern exists? nator. Post 177 writes: Nobody is suggesting that we all write in an "academic manner". I certainly don't write in anything close to an "academic manner". I'd be delighted with everyone writing as though they got a B in 10th grade English. nator. Post 177 writes: So, tell me, in your opinion, is the person who habitually fact checks themselves a person who is unable to learn, or is the person who never fact checks themselves the one with the greater ability to learn? I don't know. You tell me. Is it lack of understanding or poor communication skills? Check out post 99. Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
All you're doing is providing yet more evidence of a common creationist pattern, namely ignoring the evidence and going, "Nuh-uh!" You see, that is only your perception of a creationist pattern. Your perception is clouding your judgement.
percy writes: Heinrik's response in Message 158 was even sillier, and Rahvin, Molbiogirl, RAZD and Teen4christ all carefully explained to Heinrik how he was once again only contributing more evidence for the premise of this thread. Do you mean this response...............
heinrik writes: You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh? ............. in comparison to this:
percy writes: The king in The King and I says, "Sometimes I'm not even sure of what I absolutely know," but the rule for creationists seems to be, "I'm especially sure about things of which I have absolutely no clue." As far as I can remember this was a fictional movie about a primitive thinking king who needed a governess to open his heart. It was not a documentary using actual transcripts. Margaret Landon wrote the story.
Margaret Landon (September 7, 1903 - December 4, 1993) was an American writer who became famous for Anna and the King of Siam, her 1944 novel of the life of Anna Leonowens. Born as Margaret Dorothea Mortenson to A.D. and Adelle Mortensen in Somers, Wisconsin, she was one of three daughters in a devout Methodist family. The family moved to Evanston, Illinois, where she graduated from high school. She attended Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, graduating in 1925. She taught school for a year, then married Kenneth Landon, who she knew from Wheaton, and in 1927 they signed up as Presbyterian missionaries to Thailand. In addition to having three children and running a mission school in Trang, Landon read extensively about the country, during which she learned about Leonowens. When the family returned to America in 1937, she took up writing. She moved to Washington, D.C. in 1942 when her husband joined the United States Department of State as an adviser on Southeast Asia. Her book on Leonowens was published in 1944 and became an instant bestseller. A later work, Never Dies the Dream, about her own experiences, appeared in 1949. She died in Alexandria, Virginia in 1993, aged 90. Edited by dameeva, : providing more information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
teen4christ writes: You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones. Perhaps you should consider reading the rest of my post and in context of the replies to the same post by the other members? I checked every post and cannot find one that describes any point as insignificant. No-one has actually said that clearly. Everyone has their opinion of what is significant and what isn't. I just wanted to know which points you, personally, find insignificant.
Rather than purposely trying to win a debate by purposely being dense, perhaps you should consider growing up? Are you using dense as an adjective or as an object?
1.
a. Having relatively high density. b. Crowded closely together; compact: a dense population. 2. Hard to penetrate; thick: a dense jungle. 3. a. Permitting little light to pass through, because of compactness of matter: dense glass; a dense fog. b. Opaque, with good contrast between light and dark areas. Used of a photographic negative. 4. Difficult to understand because of complexity or obscurity: a dense novel. 5. Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024