Reasons for Creationist Persistence

Last warning. If you can't debate/discuss like an adult, I will be happy to give you the opportunity to go and mess up some other playpen.

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

The posts from DorfMan in this thread are a classic example of the tactics, very successful tactics, of the Biblical Creationist.They operate on several levels. One is to inject as many spurious and irrelevant side issues into a discussion as possible in order to disrupt any possible reasonable conversation on their targeted subject. The second is to try to manipulate the discussion so that they will force the opposing side to disproportionate response. It is the classic tactic of all terrorist throughout history.The content of DorfMan's posts shows that the goal of the Christian Cult of Ignorance is not to increase knowledge, learning or understanding but rather to disrupt efforts at learning and promote ignorance.If people like DorfMan are sanctioned or banned, it simply promotes their end.There is no doubt that DorfMan can post many silly and nonsense message during his irregular hit and run attacks on EvC. But those posts cause only a small amount of damage and also create a great and good opportunity.The record stands for all to read.People will see DorfMan's posts. They will also see the responses of others.But if we ban DorfMan, it simply makes him yet another Martyr which is what the terrorists want.Biblical Creationists are Persistent because the tactic works. Like all Terrorists, they try to cause a small annoyance that results in their target over responding.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes. I've invented the word "asincere" to describe persistent creationists, by analogy with "amoral". They don't know that they're reciting rubbish, and they can't be bothered to find out.I mean, if I was a creationist, and I thought that thermodynamics proved me right, then I'd go and learn some thermodynamics so I could prove it myself. And then I'd find out I was wrong. And then maybe I'd move on to the "no intermediate forms" gibberish, and I'd want to learn something about the fossil record to back me up, and I'd find out I was wrong ...And eventually I'd stop being a creationist.The essential characteristic of creationists is to be obsessed with subjects they're not interested in.

Again, my personal experience argues otherwise. While it is true that there are many who poorly represent creationism, it is concurrently the case that there are many who legitimately practice (and represent) science AND advocate biblical creationism.In fact, I am personally aware of an extensive number of people who do exactly that, whether family, acquaintances, or professionals whom I have researched.The YECers at this site are constantly encouraged to study the topics they debate; That's should go without saying. Conversely, I would expect the Evo to refrain from blanket statements (many of them quite extreme (see Jar's terrorist reference above)) especially in light of the many creationists who both practice science, and are EXTREMELY interested in the subjects they're "obsessed with"...

is it possible that Dorfman is just Poeing everyone?I've been reading back on some of his posts--he doesn't appear to be the typical fundie in your "Cult of Ignorance".

That was a little too sweeping, perhaps.I was thinking most of the creationists you get on message boards. The people who are just creationists 'cos they've been brought up that way are often neither obsessed nor interested in science. And I guess the handful of real scientists they have do have an interest in science. Now if only they could come up with some result that supported creationism ...But mostly, 'fess up, what we get is stuff about thermodynamics from people who've never studied thermodynamics, arguments about information theory from people who wouldn't recognise information theory if it bit them in the ass, arguments about morphology from people who don't know there humerus from their rectum, arguments about the fossil record from people who say that Archaeopterix is a perfectly modern bird ...And it never occurs to them to find out if they're right. They know they're right. About subjects they haven't studied.---A while back someone here posted about how birds couldn't have evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs are all "big lumbering creatures". He could have disabused himself of that notion by reading A Child's First Book Of Dinosaurs, never mind the scientific literature. But he'd never been that interested in dinosaurs.I kind of understand how there can be people who weren't fascinated by dinosaurs even as children, but I find it a lot harder to understand why people who have spent their whole lives scrupulously avoiding information about dinosaurs would then start posting about them on a message board as though they'd ever bothered to find out the facts.The word "asincere" only describes the phenomenon, I don't offer to explain it.

Granted. I'm just responding from the perspective of one who is legitimately fascinated by science AND who subscribes unequivocally to a creationist paradigm. Most of my close friends and acquaintances, adherents of creationism like myself, are practitioners of the sciences (in many fields) whose scienctific pursuit is not one iota less than genuine. Thus my perception of creationists at large (of whom I am one) is quite the contrary to that which is presented at large on this board..

And quite un-backed-up by any facts. We have creos telling us all the time that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of real scientists who are creationists. But we never see the list.Why are creationists so persistent in telling us about those creo-scientists, and so equally persistent in not telling us who they are?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I've known it to go both ways, I guess, but I agree - it's improper to make sweeping assertions about the educational character of home schooled individuals.Certainly some parents choose to homeschool in order to religiously indoctrinate their children against inconvenient facts. Other parents choose to do so because they feel they're more qualified to instruct their child than the teachers at their school, or they want to shield their child from the destructive environment of an unsafe school. Some such students do well. Some are woefully unprepared. Absent data I think it's reckless to make sweeping accusations. Ah, yes. The elusive creationist biologist. It'd be nice if we could ever get one here, particularly one who wasn't clearly suffering from senility. (I'm not calling you senile, I was referring to John Davison.)Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

WHAT? You're going to choose to disbelieve me because I haven't provided the names of the my creationist friends and acquaintances that practice science? Get real.I'm not about to cite all of their names here for your pedandic pleasure.What I will do for you is cite a little context in which I make the claim.I am personally well-acquainted with no less than 30 practioners (and of course creationists) of science in fields ranging from: mechanical engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, thoracic medicine, genetics, bioengineering, neurology, paleontology, computer science, pharmaceutics, aeronautics..and more. My point, whether you want to believe me or not, is that I was raised in an environment where adherence to both science and creationist paradigms were practiced without conflict, ignorance, deliberate deception, or any of the other accusations oft leveled at creationists, especially here...

Right; sometimes our personal experiences are insufficient to extrapolate to a general description. See the above reply to Ringo. I'm not trying to overstate the case by appearing to claim an overwhelming presence of "Creationist Biologists", but to merely relate my own acquaintance with those creationist biologists who do exist....unless maybe I am going senile (i'm losing my hearing, does that count?)...

Look, you can be a scientist in your day job and a creationist in private.But it's inconsistent. It's like being a nurse for an abortionist as your day job, and then every day, after work, you go out in front of the clinic, pick up a sign, and join the protesters.Your private life works against your public life. I don't understand why anybody would subject themselves to that kind of psychic torsion.Heck - do we even mean the same thing when we say "creationist"? If you just mean "people who believe God created the universe", those people aren't best described as "creationist." Creationists are people who reject evolution as the scientific explanation for the history of life on Earth, and instead substitute a literal reading of Genesis to explain the age of the Earth and the origin of new species.That view can't be reconciled with the biological sciences in any way. You're asking us to believe that people are working in fields like genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology, and producing successful research results, all the while rejecting the fundamental physical principles that underly those fields.That's ridiculous. I suspect this is simply a confusion about what "creationist" means. You're just using it to refer to people who believe in a creative God, right?

Thanks for the permission...but i'll have to pass, thanks. Not at all. It's the idea that man has a finite mind that can't necessarily grasp all truths. No, there's no confusion. That's exactly my point. The evo, for the most part, doesn't even recognize that this type of creationist exists (one who practices science and believes in a literal creation). That ignorance lends itself to the conjuring of a quasi-strawman creationist (I say quasi-strawman because some "creationists" do promote the image) in place of creationists who do in fact practice science. It's this kind of ignorance that i'm trying to draw attention to.

This is a science thread. The deal is: no evidence, no belief.You agreed to that implicitly when you posted in a science thread. Put up your evidence or retract the assertion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I meant no offense; nor to deny your existence.But in the main, my characterisation of activist creationists is about right.I remember when I first wanted to know about creationism, so I downloaded a whole book of 25 chapters to see what creationists had to say. And as I read it, I got more and more convinced that it was a parody. I was rolling about with laughter at all the really basic, childish mistakes. It had to be a joke. So I went back to the internet to see what creationists really had to say for themselves.It wasn't a parody.The bit which finally convinced me (erroneously) that it was a parody was where the guy said that scientists can't explain why sodium and chlorine are poisonous but salt isn't. This was in a book prepared specifically for use in schools as a textbook. How can anyone have the arrogance to know that little about chemistry and presume to teach it to children.The mind boggles.---As a creationist and scientist, can you point me towards any creationist resource on the internet which is not full of crass errors?Heck, I've challenged creationists before to point me out one creationist website which doesn't get the theory of evolution wrong. So far, I've had no takers.