Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
41 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,061 Year: 9,809/23,288 Month: 824/1,544 Week: 216/322 Day: 1/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 64 of 336 (619674)
06-11-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Panda
06-11-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Creationist definitions:

Science:Science acceptable to creationists
Evolution:Science not acceptable to creationists

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 06-11-2011 6:43 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 7:36 AM Percy has responded
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Percy has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 68 of 336 (619680)
06-11-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:09 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Hi Chuck77,

Not being able to keep other fields of science separate from evolution is not only typical creationist thinking, but also terrifically ironic in this case because some creationists believe that God created the original life forms and then evolution produced all the species we see today. This particular flavor of creationist view requires that the origin of life and evolution be separate.

Both evolution and abiogenesis are fields within biology. Evolution is how species change over time. Abiogenesis is how the first life came to be. We understand the mechanisms and processes of evolution pretty well, those of abiogenesis barely at all.

But abiogenesis and evolution are related to one another. There must have been a considerable period of overlap and ambiguity where early life was more than complex chemistry but less than what we would consider life. There was no clear line of demarcation where one instant there was no life and the next instant there was.

A true creationist thinker will reject this information and continue to insist that classifying abiogenesis and evolution as separate fields within biology is a dishonest evolutionist shell game.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 70 of 336 (619682)
06-11-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
06-11-2011 7:36 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Buzsaw writes:

Maybe may be or may not be..
...
We do-se-do to do a switch-y-do for you.

You must have missed the memo - auditions for town fool are next week.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 7:36 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2011 9:01 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 71 of 336 (619686)
06-11-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

Evolutionist definitions:

Science: Science acceptable to Evolutionists
Creationism: Science not acceptable to Evolutionists

Well, now you're just highlighting another problem with creationist thinking: illogic. The creationist confusion about fields of science is very real, we see it all the time. There is no equivalent evolutionist confusion, particularly since "creation science" has made no contributions for science to ignore.

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

This is a hodgepodge of familiar examples of creationist confusion about evolution and science and is typical creationist thinking. Most of these fall into the category of fallacy of, "If I can disrespect it I've refuted it."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2011 12:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 06-12-2011 10:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 89 of 336 (619866)
06-12-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RightHandMan
06-12-2011 7:33 PM


Re: When will beavers make the next hoover dam?
Hi RightHandMan,

Welcome to EvC Forum.

The message of the Lord is discussed over in the Religious Forums. This is one of the Science Forums.

This thread is about creationist thinking as it pertains to science education, while your message is the good news that God is here, so you probably want to try a thread over in the Religious Forums.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RightHandMan, posted 06-12-2011 7:33 PM RightHandMan has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 100 of 336 (619910)
06-13-2011 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mazzy
06-12-2011 11:52 PM


Mazzy writes:

just an example of whatever.....some faiths desert common sense altogether. TOE is one of them.

This is an example of capitulationist creationist thinking: "Okay, I give up, creation science *is* really religion, but evolution is religion, too."

I feel creationists that base their beliefs on the biblical creation have an excellent basis from which to start...

This is an example of the creationist belief that Biblical revelation is the equal of or is even superior to evidence from the real world.

There is no need to choose a particular version of creation to be taught in schools...It is about providing balanced information so that the community can be well informed and able to make an informed decision to accept TOE or any creationist model.

This is an example of the creationist tactic of claiming openmindedness: "We're only being fair and open-minded. Let's teach the Biblical creation myth, plus all the other creation myths that also have no evidence."

For me it does not matter which creation model is correct, as long as none of my ancestors were apes.

This is an example of creationist determination to ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. By the way, Mazzy, not only were your ancestors apes, earlier ancestors were rodent-like mammals, before that were reptiles, and before that were fish. So there's no reason to let your prejudices stop at apes.

The evidence, research, contradictions etc show me evolution is an unlikely event.

Finally, a mention of evidence, but only to provide a hint of the ignorance lying behind creationist rejection of many of the findings of modern science.

I am not an IDer, yet abiogenesis is unlikely to have occured on this planet or any other.

This is another example of creationist ignorance. Whether abiogenesis happened on the fifth day through a miracle of God, or by slow accumulating change over time on the primitive Earth or some other planet billions of years ago, abiogenesis (life from non-life) still happened. Unless life has always existed it had to have a beginning, and whatever that process was by which life first began, whether by miracle or nature, it is called abiogenesis.

This may be accomplished by instigating a curriculum of TOE that includes the debates and contradictions within itself, considers all creationist refutes seriously, and teaches TOE as theory, not a fact.

This is a reference to the creationist fallacy that there is some kind of legitimate debate within science about evolution. The creation/evolution debate is a contentious social/religious/political issue, but there is no debate within science about whether evolution really happened.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mazzy, posted 06-12-2011 11:52 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 114 of 336 (620120)
06-14-2011 8:46 AM


We're Seriously Off-Topic
I'm not sure where it happened, but we're seriously off-topic. The opening post poses a question for creationists, let me rephrase it in my own terms:

Let us say we decide that we should teach creation stories in science class. Which one or ones should we teach.

I think Mazzy has already provided his own answer in Message 96:

Mazzy in Message 96 writes:

There is no need to choose a particular version of creation to be taught in schools. Rather all that needs to be done is the truth, warts and all, of the current contradictions and debate within evolutionary theory to be taught and how this relates to the outdatedness of Darwins simplistic ideas.

In other words, Mazzy doesn't want to teach any creation stories, he wants to teach what he believes is wrong with evolution. So now we're discussing what we think is wrong about what he thinks is wrong with evolution, but that's not the topic of this thread.

If people would like to discuss what's wrong with evolution, then it would probably be better if they did that in a thread devoted to evolution rather than education. There are a number of threads over in the Biological Evolution forum, or someone could propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

I'm not moderating this thread, this is just a suggestion, but I'll post a note over at Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0.

Regarding the portions of the discussion that are on-topic, Mazzy mentioned God a couple times. I wonder if he thinks introducing explanations that include God into science classrooms is appropriate?

--Percy


Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 116 of 336 (620602)
06-18-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Granny Magda
06-18-2011 5:11 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Granny Magda writes:

It is a direct critique of The God Delusion.

Well worth critiquing in my book. While it can be critiqued on many levels, the one thing I see rarely mentioned is the failure of militant atheists to put religious belief in a human context. They think religious belief is something that anyone living in the modern age should be able to cast aside, but they never seem to notice that immersion in a technical society has little effect on belief in weird things. There is huge variation among people, but one of the qualities very common to people is belief in things for which there is no evidence, and this includes not just religion but ESP, UFOs, ghosts and on and on.

The militant atheists have to recognize that belief in things that aren't there is never going to go away - it's part of what makes us human. Even in a spaceship traveling to Alpha Centauri there would be such people. Doesn't one of the astronauts in the United States space program believe something pretty weird?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Granny Magda, posted 06-18-2011 5:11 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 06-18-2011 9:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 239 of 336 (637626)
10-17-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
I find it amazing that you found the precise same detailed mischaracterization of evolution appropriate for three different discussion sites:

From your Message 224:

Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?

Speaking of sneaky...

Most of what we see from creationists in this thread isn't discussion of creationist thinking but examples of creationist thinking. I'm not sure precisely what your post can tell us about creationist thinking. Maybe that they like to be economical?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:39 AM Hawkins has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 240 of 336 (637627)
10-17-2011 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:55 AM


Hawkins writes:

Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?

If you request this information in a thread where it would be on-topic, most likely in a thread in the Biological Evolution forum, then I'm sure people would be glad to help you out. This thread is in the Education and Creation/Evolution forum and is about creationist thinking.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:55 AM Hawkins has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 252 of 336 (637748)
10-17-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 5:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
I assume you're referring to this Biblical passage:

Genesis 1:20 writes:

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

And you're claiming that the "swarms of living creatures" are nano-life instead of fish, amphibians, crustaceans, etc?

Bacteria are not nano-life. The smallest bacteria are around 300 nanometers, and they can range up to as large as 5000 nanometers. Most people would give the range as .3 to 5 micrometers. Bacteria would be micro-life. Even more accurately, they can be referred to as bacteria.

Swarm can refer to any large closely spaced grouping consisting of anything from atomic particles to stars. Use of the word swarm does not imply anything about the size of the individual elements of the swarm.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:44 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 6:24 PM Percy has responded
 Message 261 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:27 PM Percy has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 255 of 336 (637769)
10-17-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
The same issues that caused your initial misinterpretation are apparently still at work as you attempt to interpret the subsequent clarifying explanations. It almost seems as if the more people explain the worse your understanding becomes. Nuggin and I have done a pretty fair job of explaining how you're misinterpreting swarm. You have to understand the meaning of English words before we can discuss the actual topic.

I don't see why explaining the definition of swarm again would have any better likelihood of success, so I guess I give up, but I suppose this does represent another good example of creationist thinking. You and Robert Byers and Dawn Bertot and others display a profound lack of comprehension skills, and an inability to understand could be considered a type of creationist thinking.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 6:24 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2011 9:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 281 of 336 (637833)
10-18-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:27 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
IamJoseph writes:

I used the term nano life loosely.

You use all terms loosely, and you make up word definitions. This style of creationist thinking tends to divert threads from their original topic. You're using up the small amount of remaining bandwidth in this thread with disputes over simple word definitions, with the inevitable result that the topic itself is being ignored.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:27 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:19 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020