Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(4)
Message 121 of 136 (638170)
10-20-2011 11:18 AM


After years of reading and engaging in debates, I've come to the conclusion that, by definition, Creationists don't understand science otherwise they wouldn't be Creationists in the first place. They certainly wouldn't be trying to argue evidence for the science of Creation.
I think that the attempts over the last couple of decades to get Creationism taught in science classes have forced those with a poor understanding of science to engage in scientific debates. They're confronted with a jumble of jargon which they try to use in the same manner that scientists use it, but only succeed in confusing themselves and others. I also think that sometimes they are intimidated by the science and look for complexities and difficulties where none exist. As evidence of this have a look at this ancient thread
EvC Forum: Longest Land Meridian
I do think they understand the argument they're trying to make, but sometimes what they write bears little resemblance to it. Occasionally, they don't seem to understand what they are arguing against, as shown in the thread I linked to.
One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 2:41 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 10-20-2011 2:54 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2011 6:26 PM Trixie has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 122 of 136 (638207)
10-20-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Trixie
10-20-2011 11:18 AM


Trixie writes:
One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
Hello Trixie,
I believe it has to do with Scientist are not concerned with preserving religious belief. Whereas creationist are when confronted with science that conflicts with what is written.
In other words, scientist "have no dog in this fight."
Welcome back btw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Trixie, posted 10-20-2011 11:18 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 2:44 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 136 (638208)
10-20-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by 1.61803
10-20-2011 2:41 PM


For my money, the reason is that it's hard to understand science but it's easy to read the first two chapters of Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 2:41 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 136 (638210)
10-20-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2011 2:44 PM


For some, sure, but generally I don't think its a lack of understanding as it is just a simple wanting to believe in creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 2:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 125 of 136 (638212)
10-20-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Trixie
10-20-2011 11:18 AM


One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
It's due to a difference in goals. A scientist's goal is to learn as much as possible about reality. A creo's goal is to defend their already arrived at conclusion against all perceived attacks.
As a result, the scientist will investigate with a purpose to learn. In the situation you describe, investigation entails reading the bible. And, since science doesn't come loaded with preconceptions, scientists don't read to refute, they read to learn.
The creo doesn't learn science for the purpose of learning science. A creo looks for perceived flaws in science to see what they can use to either attack science's perceived assault on their beliefs or attempt to show that science props up their beliefs.
One approach is infinitely more likely than the other to arrive at accurate conclusions.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It 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
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Trixie, posted 10-20-2011 11:18 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 6:29 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 126 of 136 (638216)
10-20-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2011 2:44 PM


With all thoses "begats" are you kidding me???!!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 2:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 127 of 136 (638234)
10-20-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2011 10:09 AM


Dr. A writes:
While citing IamJoseph here is about as sporting as shooting a large fish in a small barrel, I thought that this magnificent contribution should not go unrecognized.
Here's my new definition of science:
'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS'.
I was considering having it as my signature.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 10:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 136 (638235)
10-20-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Trixie
10-20-2011 11:18 AM


One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
The average creationists have a lot more material to master than does the average scientist.
The amount of the Bible relevant to a discussion of evolution and cosmology amounts to only a few verses, and there is plenty of resources to help with the difficult parts. Also, it turns out that scientists without reading comprehension get weeded out of the educational process fairly early.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Trixie, posted 10-20-2011 11:18 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 129 of 136 (638238)
10-20-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by subbie
10-20-2011 2:54 PM


And the funny thing is, it's not as though the scientific-minded person needs to study Genesis, because it's not as though the creationist will ever argue for it. You could talk to a hundred creationists for a week and never once hear the words "talking snake".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 10-20-2011 2:54 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 130 of 136 (640116)
11-07-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
09-04-2011 7:39 AM


Rational Creationists
Percy says, in another thread
Percy writes:
How do we go about attracting the more rational creationists?
First you gotta find them!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 09-04-2011 7:39 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 11:42 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 135 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 8:21 AM Phat has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 131 of 136 (640119)
11-07-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Phat
11-07-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Rational Creationists
@3:35 - he says the 'C' word!!

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 11-07-2011 11:28 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Larni, posted 11-07-2011 11:48 AM Panda has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 132 of 136 (640121)
11-07-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Panda
11-07-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Rational Creationists
He goes on a bit, don't he?
Mind, I stopped listening after he said 'cunt'.
Shocked & Appalled.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 11:42 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 12:10 PM Larni has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 133 of 136 (640123)
11-07-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Larni
11-07-2011 11:48 AM


Re: Rational Creationists
Larni writes:
He goes on a bit, don't he?
As far as I can tell, he spends 23 minutes asking questions and giving no answers and in the last 7 minutes he reads out an article written by George Wald in 1954 and then says that George Wald retracted it. Not sure why. (I think it was a twisted Argument From Authority, where the fact that he retracts his original statement lends weight to his final statement. *shrug*)
He then says that the origin of life requires an external force (e.g. electricity) and that this means that there must be a god.
Larni writes:
Mind, I stopped listening after he said 'cunt'.
The film is edited ... but they decided to keep that bit in.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Larni, posted 11-07-2011 11:48 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Larni, posted 11-07-2011 12:18 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 134 of 136 (640125)
11-07-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Panda
11-07-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Rational Creationists
All goes to show that creos are not very good at thinking.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 12:10 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 135 of 136 (640278)
11-08-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Phat
11-07-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Rational Creationists
Oxymoron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 11-07-2011 11:28 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 11-08-2011 3:39 PM Pressie 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