Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On being ill-informed
toff
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 54 (3788)
02-08-2002 3:13 AM


I have a question for the creationists who regularly post here
Imagine for a moment, that this was a christian thread, perhaps along the lines of "Is Christian belief valid?" or something similar. Now imagine I make a post that reads:
"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?"
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."?
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."?
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.
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. 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. 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. 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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:11 PM toff has not replied
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:51 PM toff has not replied
 Message 7 by grappler, posted 02-10-2002 1:34 PM toff has not replied
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:33 PM toff has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 54 (4085)
02-11-2002 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 12:59 AM


Sorry, TrueCreation, I don't think you understand the issue here. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"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"."
quote:
--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.

Even a cursory examination of my original post will reveal that when I made the quoted statement, I had not even mentioned creationists. How it could be taken that the statement is directed at them I have no idea. It was a general statement, true of evolution, nuclear physics, religion, politics, and any other subject I can think of.
quote:

"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'.

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.
quote:

"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.

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. Perhaps out there somewhere are legions of creationists who know a great deal about evolutionary theory. I've never encountered one.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I can see no valid reason for bringing out a question that is, in and of itself, erroneous. 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.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
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?
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
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.
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. 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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 12:59 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 7:40 PM toff has replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 54 (4117)
02-11-2002 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
02-10-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 02-10-2002 6:12 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by KingPenguin, posted 02-11-2002 10:01 AM toff has not replied
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 7:45 PM toff has replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 54 (4191)
02-12-2002 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 7:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Sorry, TrueCreation, I don't think you understand the issue here."
--Lets see then, I only went from what I read. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[/b]
Apparently not. You were much more eager to read things INTO it that weren't there than to actually go on what WAS there.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, I do not. The next sentence is even a different paragraph, showing the two are unrelated. Your conclusion is unsupported, and more than a little paranoid.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I have no idea what the fact that "there are many theories..." has to do with this.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
If you seldom ask questions of this kind, why are you defending it. To ask misleading questions or questions that are in themselves erroneous is simply poor debating.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I have no idea what this means.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Once again, read the sentence. I am accusing 'people who constantly ask questions like this'. Not creationists. Not you, or the other people you name. I am accusing anyone who constantly asks questions like this - not all creationists. Once again, you attempt to read more into a statement than is there.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
You miss the point. The debate is not about 'do creationists know virtually nothing about evolution'. The debate is 'why do creationists who know nothing about evolution insist on debating the topic'? I have not concluded the debate; I have asked a question, around which the debate revolves. Nor have I in the least answered it myself. That creationists as a rule know virtually nothing about evolution is a given; that is NOT what the debate is about.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I am attentive to what my generalisations sustain. That statement ('If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?' is obvious. The generalisation I made there was about people who ask a certain type of question. If you don't do that, then the generalisation doesn't cover you. Surely that's obvious?
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, my argument (using my analogy) had nothing to do with 'men are taller than women, thus men are smarter.' Intelligence (smartness) wasn't even mentioned. You say 'your generalisation accused creationists of not knowing knowledge on evolution theory' - WHICH generalisation. And I at no stage accused you of not knowing this because you are creationists - rather, the reverse is true. If you understood evolutionary theory, I suspect you would cease to be creationists.
[b] [QUOTE] "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.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Restate WHAT question? There is no question in the quoted paragraph.
And for someone who doesn't know what to respond to, you're doing an awful lot of responding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 7:40 PM TrueCreation has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 54 (4192)
02-12-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 7:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.

Umm....WHAT argument? As far as I can see, you haven't made one. You've just complained about any number of peripheral points, without addressing my actual question. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 7:45 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:14 PM toff has replied
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:42 PM toff has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 54 (4372)
02-13-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 6:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you have got to be the dumbest living person alive, toff. you just complained to and didnt give your all powerful proof behind your accusations. anymore of this bull and ill just stop responding to your mindless, arrogant, ignorant, good for nothing, idiotic, inbred posts. sorry to all those were offended (excluding toff of course).

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:14 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:59 PM toff has replied
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:44 PM toff has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 54 (4477)
02-14-2002 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 3:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i was being sarcastic of course and whenever you debate and proven wrong you can just change the mechanisms of the theory and make it correct. theres no ground to gained for either of us. i never said i was loving or christian either. i said i was faithful believer of Christ and that i believed the bible but i was not a creationist, since i dont see much purpose in science other than to understand God better.

And gee, after your brilliant reply to me earlier, your credibility is at such a high point. You are a christian, a creationist, and a hypocrite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:59 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 3:33 PM toff has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 54 (4478)
02-14-2002 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For one, Jesus himself hated religion, its one of the only things that made him angry in his life.
No, he did not, and I don't think you can possibly support such a statement scripturally. He was vehemently against what he saw as hypocritical displays of pious 'religiousity'; nowhere does he show any feeling against religion. He preaches it constantly (whether you like it or not, christianity is a religion, and Jesus preached love for and obedience to God - they are religious tenets).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:35 PM TrueCreation has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 54 (4538)
02-15-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 10:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well, toff, it seems to me that most of your posts have been insult.
Then what 'seems' to you is incorrect. Examine KingPenguin's post 36, and my previous ones. Please show me where I was insulting to him, or anywhere I posted anything that deserved his childish tirade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 10:36 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 54 (4914)
02-18-2002 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Cobra_snake
02-17-2002 6:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well, I am not supporting KingPenguin's actions, although I can see why he would get frustrated. And I am not saying that you are insulting people directly. However, if we examine three of your posted topics:
On creationists' beliefs
On being ill-informed
Always a laugh
Close inspection will reveal that these posts are almost fact free, and are in fact general insults to the basic Creationists position.

No, if you examine them you will see that they say things you don't like. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-17-2002 6:50 PM Cobra_snake 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