On being ill-informed

I would have to say that, I don't know about all the other creationists discussing here, but I come here with an unbias mindset, and a willingness to consider and learn. I am not the most knowledgable about the ToE, and when I post I don't discredit it when I feel I have adiquitelly refuted the previous post. I have a willingness to consider different plausable ideas and suggestions in feasability. As long as we are working in the realm of science. I may give my opinions on things just as everyone else does, but I also consider the scientific feasibility.--Know that I am not here to discredit Evolution and make it look stupid or any of that. I am here to learn of what it has to say, and compair and contrast with Creationist Explinations.------------------

"Actually Toff's post doesn't do justice to many things some Creationists seem to believe evolution is.
He is being too generous for most Creationists, not making "bad generalizations"."Ehem..
--Directing towards creationionists:
"Persons who know nothing or virtually nothing about a topic should not attempt to debate that topic, nor are they qualified to hold opinions about it."
--This implies with a support in itself of attempt discrimination as is shown by his usage of words such as 'Persons who' or 'nor are they'. I sense a bit of ignorance in its text in all honesty. He then directly after implies more emphesis supporting my interperetation of the previous."The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly."
--Again using the vague wording of 'they' in context, that obviously is interchangably with 'Creationists'. Even further emphesis on what he implies by 'they'."Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory"
--Then he there-after accuses 'creationists' in general as without knowledge whatsoever, and so falsly accuses us as automatically dismissing the theory before-hand assuming we know nothing of the theory, or in the least no significant rational amount."yet they presume to debate it and dismiss it""They bring out the hackneyed questions like "If we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?", "How did life get here in the first place?" - questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory."
--In this statement, this is not the only reason people may bring up such questions. For one, it is seldom you find someone asking these questions, second, I will ask these questions myself, for emphesis on exactly what their fudemental basis is or something of that nature. Though I would not use this termonology and wording in a question like this."People who constantly ask questions like this (and others) obviously have got hold of a few half-truths (possibly from creationist web-sites, Jack Chick tracts, or the like), got them wrong, and think they actually know something about the topic."
--Again attempting to discredit Creationists by a general discrimination."Why are there so few (I have yet to see one) creationists who are actually knowledgable about evolutionary theory, and why do so many creationists who know virtually nothing about it feel free to discuss and dismiss it? Surely even they will agree this is not a reasonable position?"
--And then he wraps it up again that no creationist here has knowledge on Evolution theory. thus he concludes the debate without even starting it really.------------------

"I've seen some really awful ones along these lines. For instance, I was trying to explain plate tectonics to a creationist. After a while, I realized he thought that we 'evolutionists' were claiming that continents float in the ocean like leaves."
--You obviously need to talk to another creationist, hehe, whoever it was you were talking to hasent a clue about Earth/Marine Geology and Plate Tectonics. You see much of this around because they are simply trying to say something you arent interested in.------------------

"Creationism has been likened to a pan-American intellectual ghetto, in which otherwise promising young students, at a very young age, are taught to mistrust evolution and science at large. The only "science" they trust comes from ministries that have no interest in telling the truth, only what supports the ridiculous literal genesis view.Because they never learn what real science is about, they simply go around spreading these falsehoods, ruining other potentials. Since the American public is generally science-illiterate there is nothing to slow the progress of the ghetto."
--I would suggest a good eye-opener, it either seems as ignorance or you havent been looking around.------------------

"Unfortunately I have been looking around and almost everything I see (and I'm not commenting on present company) makes me more convinced that Creationism feeds on ignorance. The people who need education most, in this case, are those who reject it on religious grounds. I also consider the ghetto analogy to be correct. Sorry but that's my opinion based upon the claims of more Creationists than I can keep up with. I've probably encountered somewhere on the range of 50 to 100 by now just on the 'net. Not one has presented a credible argument, most actually recycle the same old arguments. It is entirely feasible for an evolution to save his responses, and about the time they have stockpiled 15 or so, they have everything they need to repel any other creationist they are likely to engage. The sad aspect of that is that once you learn Creationist arguments, you actually end up having to explain Creationist arguments to those that try to use them. You'd be amazed how many Creationists garble other Creationists' arguments so thoroughly that they make no sense, and the evolutionist actually has to guess at what the Creationist is trying to say. It makes as much sense as arguing with a parrot. Now to be fair I have seen evolutionists do the same a couple of times, but it is not nearly as widespread on our side."
--I guess this is one thing that both sides are always going to disagree on, I find it in every person that stands up to debate, creationist and evolutionist. As I guess it goes a little something like your attention towards arguments. Just like everyone your going to pay more attention debating with the opposite and paying less attention on other people debating than your own, basically this is fact. In my opinion simmilar to yours, I see the same thing but the other way around. I have found very many anti-creationists that constantly bring up questions that have already been answered, almost all that are so simple it isn't even funny anymore. It goes to show you there are 3 levels of supidity, bias, ignorance, and open mindness, or willingness to accept consequences and deal with the facts. Now just like yourself, I see many evolutionists out there that are simply entertaining and interesting to debate and discuss with it, such is the center of an unbiased experience of new information and a learning. But ofcourse theres always going to be those dud's out there that like you stated, scramble and try to explain arguments either beyond their own reasoning or out of self ritious awareness in their on pre-considered infallacy.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-10-2002]

"Sorry, TrueCreation, I don't think you understand the issue here."
--Lets see then, I only went from what I read."Even a cursory examination of my original post will reveal that when I made the quoted statement, I had not even mentioned creationists."
--Really? As I stated, you emphesise on who your talking to directly in the next sentance.

quote:

---

The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly. Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory

---

"How it could be taken that the statement is directed at them I have no idea"
--Why did you make such a statement directly afterwords?"It was a general statement, true of evolution, nuclear physics, religion, politics, and any other subject I can think of."
--I would doubt if this is what you meant when you were writting it, but I'm glad you restated so that it isn't as offensive."This one I don't even understand. Apparently I'm charged with using the word 'they' interchangably with 'creationists'. Yet in the quoted sentence, I don't use the word 'they' at all."
--Please forgive my missaccusation on this, I see you didn't use the word 'they', but you do explain that you do mean creationists directly afterword."Oops, sorry, wrong. I did not accuse creationists in general as 'without knowledge whatsoever'. I accused them of knowing virtually nothing about evolutionary theory, and I stand by that accusation."
--I said 'there-after', so refer to your next statment. I was making relevance toward you accusing us of complete laack of knowledge about evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory.

---

"Perhaps out there somewhere are legions of creationists who know a great deal about evolutionary theory. I've never encountered one."
--Ask me a question then, also note, that there are many theories asssociated with mechenisms for Evolutionary explinations."I can see no valid reason for bringing out a question that is, in and of itself, erroneous."
--I would ask a question out of frustration because it seems as you go throughout the debate, you can tell that the opposing debator usually slowely sways into a different perspect because of previous informity. Or you would ask them a question like 'How did life get here in the first place' (Not in this wording) to actually see what it is you have to try and argue with, as sometimes arguments get vage and it turns into something like 'no you still don't understand' or 'no you need to do prove it wrong' or something of that nature. So then you need the very basics, otherwize you may start rumbling a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter, or they will change it without informing so it seems as if the opposing debater looks like he is trailing off subject or all of his accusations are irrelevant becase 'so and so' is what we are discussing. I find much of this around so I do seldom ask questions of this like."To do so reveals nothing but your ignorance of the topic at hand, as did my 'questions' and 'statements' about christianity, in my example in my original post."
--Ignorance is what wrote those 'either or' statments, your options are confined to your own conjector."Again, sorry, not doing what you accuse me of. Accusing (read the sentence) 'people who constantly ask questions like this'. If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?"
--You wouldn't have been if you didn't make your statments so general, that is, you accused 'creationists' not John Paul or Cobra_Snake or John Baumgardner the other creationists around the forums."Sorry, again. The quote above is precisely the debate - 'why do creationists attempt to discuss/dismiss a theory about which they know virtually nothing'. The debate isn't 'do creationists know virtually nothing about evolution' - that is a given."
--If this is so true, then why bother to debate? If it is a given, you have already conclude the debate without starting it. Also, I do not at all dismiss a theory revolving around evolution."And just a word about generalisations, making them of which I have been accused by TrueChristian and KingPenguin. Yes, I, like virtually everyone, make generalisations."
--Ok, but as is evident from what you said earlier, 'If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?
', you should be attentive to what your generalization sustatins."Generalisations, in and of themselves, are not bad, even in a debate forum like this. The question is only whether or not they are accurate. If I were to state 'men are taller than women', I would get few arguments, despite its being a generalisation."
--Yes but your argument is using your analogy 'men are taller than women, thus men are smarter'. Your generalization accused creationists of not knowing knowledge on evolution theory, ie, you accused us of not knowing this because we are creationists."If I were to state 'men are better political leaders' than women, I would get many more arguments - but not because it's a generalisation. Because it's a generalisation that many would disagree with. So don't just chant 'generalisation' and think you've defeated the point; try actually debating what was said, what opinions were put forward, rather than ignoring something because it was a generalisation."
--Restate the question, without it being so offensive, ie, accusing creationists of not knowing anything on evolution. Mabye you should also be more specific, as I really don't know what to respond to.------------------

"He sees much of it around because there IS much of it around. Creationists are, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular."
--There you go again, I sustain my argument against your assertion, unless you can make it a little more reasonable (I would advise a new argument actually), creationists are not 'as a rule', 'pethetically ignorant of science in general', nore are we ignorant of 'evolutionary theory in particular', If you wan't to direct this towards someone else be my guest, then it won't be so generalized and ignorantly proposed.------------------

I will go through your post once again, this time I will be less observant towards an ill-informity even on your own part, as I see that you think that we simply can't answer it or something of that nature."Now, would you not think something like "Uh-oh, here's a person who knows virtually nothing about christianity, who has heard a few half-truths somewhere, got those wrong, and is obviously biased against it."?"
--No doubt."And wuold you not reply with something like "I suggest you do a little research on what the bible actually says, and what christianity actually believes. Your 'facts' are completely wrong. You should not attempt to discuss matters about which you obviously know nothing."?"
--Something along those lines, and then I would address his obvious missunderstanding, I find that calms most people die from such an address to the forums."I suggest that your thoughts and reply would be something very like the above, and quite rightly. Persons who know nothing or virtually nothing about a topic should not attempt to debate that topic, nor are they qualified to hold opinions about it."
--With a response like you stated from the unknowledgable skeptic, I don't think that he/she would not be allowed to hold in such a debate. To hold a qualification for a debate I would have to say someone must have simple conceptual understanding, Ie, knows a little bit about Noah and his boat, and theories for the Flood. Likewize to know about the theoretical implications of mechenisms for Evolution, that is, if you wish to attain a quallification for biological debate. Though I would have to say anyone with these basic knowledgable concepts should be freely allowed to debate, as long as they do not come in with bias, ignorance, sarcasm, within the debating style that would be recognized through a post as you stated above. Debate in these forums should be intelligent and formalistic, its not all about what you know, its more about what you are willing to learn, thus opinions are no problem on this level."The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly. Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory, yet they presume to debate it and dismiss it."
--I will have to say there are one or two dud's walking around as creationists to put simply, making creationism and even science look bad. I would also hold false to the assertion that 'they presume to debate it and dismiss it', as if this is centered toward Evolutionary theory, it is in no way easilly dismissed, nor have I myself found reason to dismiss it as impossible, but on my own humble opinion, I dismiss it in its entirety as improbable by opinion, but I still don't dismiss the debate for two reasons. I simply am entertained by the debate, not because it is funny, because it is interesting and a place where knowledge is found floating all around. The other reason being because I simply love to learn and gain experience in this field."They bring out the hackneyed questions like "If we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?", "How did life get here in the first place?" - questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory."
--To say the least, I have never seen these questions proposed in such a way, I believe I saw that 'if we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?' one, I proposed the 'How did life get here in the first place' but I put it more like 'What is your mechenism for the upbringing of life in the first place'. This doe snot reveal complete lack of knowledge about Evolutionary theory."People who constantly ask questions like this (and others) obviously have got hold of a few half-truths (possibly from creationist web-sites, Jack Chick tracts, or the like), got them wrong, and think they actually know something about the topic."
--For one, this again does not show that they 'obviously have got hold of a few half-truths'. As me myself used to get confused to what the mechenisms for different things were as different organizations propose them differently. This does not say that creationists 'think they actually know something about the topic'."Why are there so few (I have yet to see one) creationists who are actually knowledgable about evolutionary theory, and why do so many creationists who know virtually nothing about it feel free to discuss and dismiss it? Surely even they will agree this is not a reasonable position?"
--I will again say that there are duds scrolling around in these debates and posting some rather obtuse questions and answers. Also, If your going to say that creationists don't know about Evolutionary theory, you should next time, try and back it up with some sort of example.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-13-2002]

"im not a strong supporter of religion, thats why i dont consider myself christian and i dont believe much of either side of the creation/evolution debate."
--For one, Jesus himself hated religion, its one of the only things that made him angry in his life.
--Second, what is it about Creation don't you accept, I believe we've heard what you don't accept about Evolution.------------------

"Umm....WHAT argument?"
--The one that asserts that 'Creationists are, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular'. You have yet to produce a reason and examples to support your reason."As far as I can see, you haven't made one."
--Thats because I didn't start one."You've just complained about any number of peripheral points, without addressing my actual question."
--I replied to your post in this way 2 posts of mine ago, we can carry on there."And, sorry, but, as I say, according to my (fairly wide, stretching across multiple levels of society and many types of christians, creationists ARE, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular."
--Thats odd, I could almost say the same for Evolutionists against creationism. Why is it that I see alot of this in the debates, and for some reason it makes no relevance in the least being an assertion in its nature. This is the problem you make an assertion like this, and expect an answer to follow it. this is very simmilar to someone asserting your example here:

quote:

---

"Christianity is nonsense! All their beliefs are stupid! How can anyone believe the things in the bible? How can you believe that Adam and Eve killed their own son? How can you believe that a flood that lasted for only four days killed everything on the earth except for those in the ark? How can you believe that Moses led his people around and around in the desert, trying to find Egypt? Why didn't he just ask someone? How can you believe the teachings of a man who married a prostitute, like Jesus did?"

---

So I guess my response would follow somewhat along the lines of this:

quote:

---

Uh-oh, here's a person who knows virtually nothing about christianity, who has heard a few half-truths somewhere, got those wrong, and is obviously biased against it.

---

------------------

"Always nice to see a 'loving christian' reveal his true colours. Unable to debate, he relies instead on insult and ad hominem. How sad...and what a wonderful witness for his alleged god."
--I'm not going to address KingPenguin's wording but he did give you the problem in this sentance:

quote:

---

you just complained to and didnt give your all powerful proof behind your accusations.

---

------------------

"well i just think that creation takes the bible to literally and tries to use it as history guide, which it isnt. it just gives you an understanding of how things occur and what and who were the forces and reasons behind them."
--I really think I need to make an illustration of my point on the way creation science, creaitonism, and faith (in the bible) correlate. I will quote myself on some points I stated earlier:

quote:

---

Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?

---

quote:

---

I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.

---

"on a funny note im in like three different religion youth groups: baptist, lutheran, and assembly of god; and i just thinks it stupid how they usually say theyre theyre the only ones that are right and that they are the true religion. lutheran is what i can stand the most though because in my church we arent forced into anything and they dont tell us what to believe, they still however instruct us on how we should live and thats what they should be doing. i still dont enjoy religion nearly as much as i enjoy faith and love of christ and from christ."
--This is probably why I like non-denominational churches, their not so 'denominational' to put it in its simplest form. And even the Bible itself urged churches to merge and not conflict on the little things that we are doing today, must be there for a reason huh."society has however made me doubtful of my own existence in any form; im not sure if im actually here anymore.
any thoughts?"
--I don't fully understand what your saying.------------------

Only 1 of my last 4 messages received a reply ------------------