Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
70 online now:
Capt Stormfield, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,042 Year: 5,154/6,534 Month: 574/794 Week: 65/135 Day: 5/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Creationists' Willful Ignorance?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 182 (629007)
08-15-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pressie
08-15-2011 6:42 AM


Ok, I won't give you any more word salad:

1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?

2. You call Creationists as ignorrant. Pls tell us when non-creationists will catch up in the Nobels prize listing with the ignorant creationists?

3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 6:42 AM Pressie has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-15-2011 9:29 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 08-15-2011 11:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 62 of 182 (629008)
08-15-2011 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 6:16 AM


IamJoseph writes:

I was just testing your comprehension levels, actually.


It is your responsibility to communicate successfully.
You are unable to do that using English.

Please post in your native language.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:55 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 63 of 182 (629010)
08-15-2011 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Panda
08-15-2011 6:51 AM


If I lower the bar how will you ever improve?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:51 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 64 of 182 (629011)
08-15-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pressie
08-15-2011 6:42 AM


Pressie writes:


IamJoeseph writes:

Mobiles do not reproduce because they are not programmed to do so with a directive program.


Listen to yourself. A programme on a mobile certainly won’t let the mobiles to reproduce. Companies producing mobiles would love to hear how they can ‘programme’ a mobile to reproduce.

To claim that our mobile phones could reproduce is beyond crazy.
But IamJoseph will refuse to admit that he writes utter nonsense.

I expect him to change the subject rather than confront how messed up his posts are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 6:42 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 7:19 AM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 65 of 182 (629013)
08-15-2011 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 6:55 AM


IamJoseph writes:

If I lower the bar how will you ever improve?


You aren't raising the bar.
You don't even have a bar.

Please post in your native language.
It will benefit us all.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 7:07 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 66 of 182 (629016)
08-15-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Panda
08-15-2011 6:59 AM


Your off topic and deflecting. I told you previously - I don't have another language than english. Otherwise I would gladly say it in a native language of your own, seeing you have issues with english.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:59 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 10:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 67 of 182 (629019)
08-15-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Panda
08-15-2011 6:58 AM


Panda writes:

To claim that our mobile phones could reproduce is beyond crazy.
But IamJoseph will refuse to admit that he writes utter nonsense.
I expect him to change the subject rather than confront how messed up his posts are.

Yes, I know, because he has changed the subject.

Is it worth even to try and have a rational conversation with people like him or her?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 6:58 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 8:10 AM Pressie has taken no action

Panda
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 68 of 182 (629028)
08-15-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Pressie
08-15-2011 7:19 AM


Pressie writes:

Is it worth even to try and have a rational conversation with people like him or her?


He is the kind of debater that will always change the subject rather than support their nonsense claims.
So I expect the answer is 'no'.

Remember: He thinks that his English is perfectly understandable and that he doesn't post word salad.
Do you really want to debate with someone that deluded?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2011 7:19 AM Pressie has taken no action

Panda
Member (Idle past 2985 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 69 of 182 (629034)
08-15-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 7:07 AM


IamJoseph writes:

Otherwise I would gladly say it in a native language of your own, seeing you have issues with english.


Here is what other people think of your English:

"Could you care to explain what you meant; preferably without the word salad?"
"What the fucking hell are you talking about?"
"Since we don't need any more nonsense posing as English than we already have..."
"I'll take that as a no to my request to make a coherent argument."
"I had no idea what topic he was or wasn't on. How does one tell? I was just seeing if I could speak Josephish."
"Actually, grammar, as well as terminology, is a big part of the problem in understanding your posts. Your grammar and terminology are often incorrect. Understanding your intended meaning by reading what you've written is often very difficult."
"Talking to you is like having a conversation with a random word generator."

I suggest you look towards yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 7:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 8:36 PM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 70 of 182 (629105)
08-15-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Panda
08-15-2011 10:01 AM


Yes, this is a phenomenon which exposes the widespread ignorance what an ancient text means and how it applies in today's generation. The shock surprise in asking what is meant by seed today is disgraceful - as if its open to multi-choices. Translate it into your own native language if your english comprehension is so poor!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 10:01 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-15-2011 9:59 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 08-15-2011 10:30 PM IamJoseph has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 71 of 182 (629106)
08-15-2011 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 6:49 AM


more of the same from IamJoseph
I see you are at it again IamJoseph.

Vomiting more random, poinless nonsense onto this forum.

1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?

Why does this matter? What does this get you? Would you like a gold star if you could prove that you favourite book was the first book to have some grouping of animals. Regardless if that grouping was non specific and has little relevance to the discussion. I have asked you for the evidence of your claim. I have asked for sources. Telling someone to prove you wrong does not support your arguement. Let me put this in very simple terms for you. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. See how that works. If you do want to discuss this, you will need to start your own thread. If you wont start you own thread, you will need to stop bringing it up in threads that are unrelated.

2. You call Creationists as ignorrant. Pls tell us when non-creationists will catch up in the Nobels prize listing with the ignorant creationists?

Seriously? Are you saying that all of the Jewish Nobel prize winners were actually Creationists? Are you aware that many are supporters of Evolutionary theory? Are you aware that the Jewish faith is one of the strongest religious supporters of the Theory of Evolution? Do you actually know the religious beliefs of all of the Nobel Prize winners? Please supply you data (including the source) that shows the Creationists and non Creationists. It would also be handy to know what sort of Creationism they are.

Do you really think that the 800 Nobel Prize winners is a good judgement of overall intelligence? Let me put it another way, Most Nobel prize winners are men, therefore women are more ignorant than men. Or how about this, most nobel prize winners are clean shaven, therefore people with beards and moustaches are ignorant. See how foolish your claim is? I doubt that you can support any claim that there is a positive link between creationism and intelligence, but to take Nobel Prize winners (they constitute 0.0000118% of the current population) as a group to judge overall intelligence is ridiculous.

3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism?

Are you really serious? I find it hard to believe that you are.

Check the title of the forum you are on. It will give you a hint to an alternative.

Why dont you start a thread with a few of your favourite claims.

You are obviously convinced that you have something to offer.

Why do you continue to throw random, unrelated, off topic statements into other threads when you can have one of your very own to 'educate' us all.

You have made it very clear that you think that you are more enlightened than many of us.

Time to put up or shut up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:49 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 9:53 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 72 of 182 (629107)
08-15-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Butterflytyrant
08-15-2011 9:29 PM


Re: more of the same from IamJoseph
quote:
1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?

Why does this matter? What does this get you?


So you have no answer to the first recording of life form categorising? I don't believe you. Is that not what evolution is all about, using the term species for life forms? Why then do you call my response to creationists being ignorant as vomiting? And why no response to which is the most fundamental factor of categorising differences of species - skeletal frame and dna - or terrain and habitat? What do we notice first about a zebra and a shark?

quote:

Would you like a gold star if you could prove that you favourite book was the first book to have some grouping of animals. Regardless if that grouping was non specific and has little relevance to the discussion. I have asked you for the evidence of your claim. I have asked for sources. Telling someone to

Knock-knock! It is specific, conditioning the difference to the most fundamental factors: water borne or air born are specific and stand out factors. Who's vomitting now - check your bib?

quote:
Let me put this in very simple terms for you. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. See how that works. If you do want to discuss this, you will need to start your own thread. If you wont start you own thread, you will need to stop bringing it up in threads that are unrelated.

So a thread that says creationists are ignorant should not be responded to? I didn't start this thread - but someone appears threatened!

quote:

Seriously? Are you saying that all of the Jewish Nobel prize winners were actually Creationists? Are you aware that many are supporters of Evolutionary theory? Are you aware that the Jewish faith is one of the strongest religious supporters of the Theory of Evolution? Do you actually know the religious beliefs of all of the Nobel Prize winners? Please supply you data (including the source) that shows the Creationists and non Creationists. It would also be handy to know what sort of Creationism they are.


Accepting evolution is not anti-creationism; the premise of evolution, in its correct protocol, comes from Genesis. Your error is your disregard of a host of Nobels winners as followers of Creationism, only they understand it better than you. Even non religious Newton and Einstein ultimately accepted a creator based universe; the definition of an unfathomable creator being nowhere better aligned with science than in the Hebrew bible: indescribable and unknowable. There is no scientific alternative to a universe maker behind the universe: name one? Thati s what creationism is about - its a fully scientific premise with no alternatives: you don't have one! Who's vomiting?

quote:
Do you really think that the 800 Nobel Prize winners is a good judgement of overall intelligence? Let me put it another way, Most Nobel prize winners are men, therefore women are more ignorant than men. Or how about this, most nobel prize winners are clean shaven, therefore people with beards and moustaches are ignorant. See how foolish your claim is? I doubt that you can support any claim that there is a positive link between creationism and intelligence, but to take Nobel Prize winners (they constitute 0.0000118% of the current population) as a group to judge overall intelligence is ridiculous.

Your just drifting. You forgot to say creationsts are not ignorant!

quote:

3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism?

Are you really serious?


Yes. Take your time - no hurry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-15-2011 9:29 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2011 10:08 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 79 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-15-2011 11:07 PM IamJoseph has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(3)
Message 73 of 182 (629108)
08-15-2011 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 8:36 PM


Yes, this is a phenomenon which exposes the widespread ignorance what an ancient text means and how it applies in today's generation. The shock surprise in asking what is meant by seed today is disgraceful - as if its open to multi-choices. Translate it into your own native language if your english comprehension is so poor!

Anyone who can violate the english language in the way you do (see example above) has no right to criticize other peoples literacy.

I notice a common line of thought in your posts. You seem to believe that it is everyone elses fault that they cannot understand your posts, that noone is smart enough to grasp what you are saying, that noone else seems to be able to see the importance of the things you hold so dear, that you are the only one who can correctly interpret scripture and that you are the only one who understands what science, creationism, reason and logic really are.

What do you think the chances are that you are the single person who understands all of these things and that every other poster here has been found wanting?

How confident are you that you are some sort of prodigy so far advanced in every form of science, every form of debate and all branches of philosophy and religion that noone here can even comprehend what you are saying?

Or maybe you are full of shit and supply arguments in a nonsensical manner.

Which one do you think is more likely?

(I mean this in the nicest possible way as a form of constructive criticism)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 8:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 10:27 PM Butterflytyrant has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 74 of 182 (629109)
08-15-2011 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by IamJoseph
08-15-2011 9:53 PM


Re: more of the same from IamJoseph
So you have no answer to the first recording of life form categorising? I don't believe you. Is that not what evolution is all about, using the term species for life forms?

Wouldn't the most recent categorizations be more accurate than the first? Science changes and improves, you know. What is this hangup on the first?

It is faith and religious belief that does not want to change, not science.

There is no scientific alternative to a universe maker behind the universe: name one? Thati s what creationism is about - its a fully scientific premise with no alternatives: you don't have one!

Creationism is the exact opposite of science. It ignores evidence and relies on ancient scripture and myth, things which do not and can not withstand the test of empirical evidence. That's why creationists have to ignore scientific findings, and scientific education, in favor of faith and belief.

I think you may be a good example of this.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 9:53 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 10:24 PM Coyote has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 75 of 182 (629111)
08-15-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Coyote
08-15-2011 10:08 PM


Re: more of the same from IamJoseph
quote:
So you have no answer to the first recording of life form categorising? I don't believe you. Is that not what evolution is all about, using the term species for life forms?

Wouldn't the most recent categorizations be more accurate than the first? Science changes and improves, you know. What is this hangup on the first?


Its not about improves; everything improves. Better, there is no improvement but rather an alignment when the subject matter is further understood by later generations. The fact remains Genesis remains the instigator of the fundamental principles of evolution - and the term 'ignorant' in the thread heading cannot apply.

quote:

It is faith and religious belief that does not want to change, not science.


Science changes; Genesis has not because it does not need to.

quote:

There is no scientific alternative to a universe maker behind the universe: name one? Thati s what creationism is about - its a fully scientific premise with no alternatives: you don't have one!

Creationism is the exact opposite of science. It ignores evidence and relies on ancient scripture and myth, things which do not and can not withstand the test of empirical evidence. That's why creationists have to ignore scientific findings, and scientific education, in favor of faith and belief.
I think you may be a good example of this.


Which evidence has been ignored - give an example? Of course creationism is 100% a scientific principle; the contradiction with cause and affect is the non-science here. We cannot pretend as if we have any alternatives here - we do not. Genesis correcty places evolution as a later process transmitter - it has nothing to do with Creationism, namely of primal source factors. Evolution is akin to the wiring in your mobile chip - as is correctly placed in Genesis. Evolution comes from Genesis and confirmed by new sciences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2011 10:08 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2011 11:27 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022