Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Hi BD,I can see that you are still very upset about having been so wrong in the When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) thread. That's fine, you can be as upset as you like, just as you are free to be as wrong as you like. What you're not free to do is to derail this thread with your childish temper tantrums in the way you derailed that ID thread. If you want to continue making foolish errors about silicon and abiogenesis, please take it there. You might actually notice that my last missive to you remains unanswered.In the mean time you have three options on this thread;1) Provide us with evidence for Roger Ebert's NDE (tricky, because it never happened).2) Withdraw the claim about Ebert (tricky for you, because that would be the honest thing to do, so not really your strong point).3) Forget about Ebert and provide us with another example of a supernatural NDE so we can all have a bit of a giggle showing you how you're (inevitably) wrong about that as well.I mean, this is your argument right? That evolutionists are hypocrites? That we use lax standards in gathering evidence for evolution, whilst holding supernatural effects up to an unfair and unattainable level of scrutiny? Isn't that what you've been telling us? Well here's your chance to show us how your supernatural science is supposed to work. Come on Bolders, we're all waiting with bated breath...Or you could continue to scweam and scweam and stamp your little foot. Your choice kid.Mutate and Survive

Please stay on topic. I don't want to have to remind you again.Oh, and Dawkins did talk very specifically about silicon as a possible early ancestor of life. I am waiting for your apology.

It does seem to be typical of creationists that they think everybody is partisan just because they are, that everybody will jump on the bandwagon just because they do. If they have no repsect for anybody else's intelligence or integrity, is it because they have none of their own? Maybe they think intelligence and integrity don't exist.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I've told you Bolders, if you want to talk about silicon and abiogenesis, the thread is still open. My last message to you remains unanswered. Take it there. If you are going to get an apology, it will be there; although I wouldn't hold my breath.So, to repeat;When did roger Ebert have a NDE? Where's the evidence?If you can't provide us with such evidence, will you withdraw the claim?Can you provide us with any examples of other NDEs that qualify (in your view) as supernatural?We're all waiting. Right now though, you don't seem to be willing to back up your own arguments. How is your supernatural science supposed to work? If you won't say, I guess we have to assume that it doesn't and that you were talking nonsense. Again.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Bolderdash,You introduced Ebert's near death experience and someone else's recounting of conversations doctors had while he was flatlined as examples of what you think is good evidence for the supernatural. You claimed that this evidence for the supernatural was as good as the fossil evidence for evolution. In other words, you think evolutionists assess the quality of evidence in the same way as you do, you who are a creationist. That's the precise exact topic of this thread, Bolder-dash, that creationists think evolutionists think as they do.And yet you can't produce any substantiation whatsoever of these supernatural near-death experiences. Instead you're doing your utmost to distract attention first from the topic and now from your lengthy series is misstatements and misapprehensions.Unless you're prepared to discuss the topic, I think you're done here.--Percy

Since you are not the moderator on this thread, I am going to have to remind you to please stay on topic and discuss the thread. Please don't derail the discussion further.Now, about how "creationists think evolutionists think", I think most creationists think that evolutionists just don't have the proper reasoning skills to understand two sides to an argument, and further they are so locked into their dogma, that really most of the time, they practice a sort of preaching to the choir sort of closed minded mentality about the whole evolution topic.Perhaps most evolutionists in school were simply taught that this is the way life is, and since that was all they were taught, and never really got a very rounded education, they basically stop thinking shortly after junior high school. Perhaps one can blame this on the evolutionists themselves for never really pursuing the subject more themselves and having an intellectual curiosity, and perhaps part of the fault is also the public school systems for not teaching a well rounded curriculum. Although in truth I suppose the curriculum was decided by the evolutionists; so it falls back to them.At least this is what I think about how evolutionists think.

I was a creationist for most of my formative years, until I actually examined the evidence for both propositions and was convinced of the scientific soundness of evolution. You've made it abundantly clear that it is the creationists like you who lack any sort of curiosity. Intellectual curiosity is not equivalent to guileless credulity.

Ok, well that is an interesting opinion. Noted.I am still of the lack of a well-rounded education opinion. I also think that one reason why evolutionists are so close minded and not very contemplative is because perhaps somewhere along the way, during their sequestered education, they were perhaps subtly brain-washed by a modern scientific community that is less about seeking truth and more about getting their funding, and fostering their atheistic cultism. You can see a lot of evidence for this in the rabid way they gather like attack dogs to chase away any academics who actually have as their agenda seeking the truth, and not the ideology of the modern scientific mafia.Again, just my opinion.

Any evidence for this assertion? But alas, you opinion has no affect on reality.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well, I guess we've firmly established the truth of the topic. Thanks for that.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Considering most schools tip toe around the subject it's doubtful. I for one was a creationist until I took the time to understand the subject. Well rounded? I was taught of Biblical creation as most people are from parents and Church like most people in the United States do. Do you have something else in mind? Perhaps Churches and parents should do better at understand the subject and start coming up with better arguments then "DURRR The Universe is complex therefore God must have designed it" . If they did far less people would abandon it. Schools at least when I was in school didn't really cover evolution until 9th or 10th grade of High school. Considering 9/10 people who abandon creationism do so for this very reason I highly doubt this is the case. Perhaps we can blame creationists for having weak arguments? Perhaps we can blame parents and Churches for not teaching it well enough to followers?

Except I received my basic education about Evolution at a Christian Church School. Christians have always supported the Theory of Evolution as the best available explanation of the diversity we see all about us and that trying to teach Intelligent Design or Creationism is to foster and impose ignorance upon our children.Since that has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and since that refutes your assertion that evolution fosters atheistic cultism, why do you continue to post falsehoods?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So all scientists are atheists?Any believer in evolution is an atheist?
You better start informing a lot of churches and all Catholics.Oh wait. Are you playing the no true scotsman card agian?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Yea, sure, thanks for asking.I see this rabid dog mentality in the way they ganged up on eminently qualified scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez, who was inexplicably denied tenure at ISU, and how they fought to oust Richard Sternberg, a double PHD evolutionary biologist, and teacher Caroline Crocker. I also see it in the way they attempt to silence discourse, like by protesting against Academic Freedom laws, as well as how they have taken over Wikipedia sites and filled them with Nazi worthy evolutionist propaganda. And of course its also pretty easy to see the attack mentality on this website as well.There are of course many many other examples of this kind of orchestrated muzzling of the search for truth-but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure you could read a lot more of it..well, except that they often hide the books about subjects they don't like at the major books stores, but if you are determined enough you can find it through the underground networks.I do have to give them credit though, they have been pretty resourceful and impressive in the way they have distorted so much information- this is one area where they seem very skilled to me.

This is your response to a post explaining the topic to you? Is there anything you can't misunderstand? Sheesh! Yes, you're precisely describing the premise of this thread, that creationists think evolutionists think like themselves. What you described about how you believe evolutionists think precisely describes how creationists actually conduct science. You've provided an excellent example of the contrast in styles in this very thread. When asked for substantiation for your near-death claims you demurred, which is what you think evolutionists do. However, in reality if you ask an evolutionist for evidence he'll produce it. That's because unlike creationism, the evidence for evolution actually exists and can be produced. It is only creationists who are forced by the lack of evidence for their ideas who are forced to engage in evasive debate tactics.The rest of your message just goes on to describe other misimpressions you have of evolutionists. Creationists are the ones lacking a well rounded education, and they're the ones lacking curiosity, preferring to declare "Here be God" rather than finding actual answers. Your every post is another endorsement of the premise of this thread that creationists project their own way of thinking and acting onto evolutionists.--Percy