Are all creationist dishonest?

[Revoltingest]

However, it seems to me that some people do not want to set a number at all.
to me, that is no different than to excuse people, and even encourage, said dishonesty.

Your obsession with demanding a number from me is ridiculous.
Now I'm excusing them & encouraging dishonesty, eh?
This is where I need one of those double face palm thingies.

 

[painted wolf]

I whole heartily agree that it is a subjective number.
And I will even flat out admit that I personally set the number low.
Much much lower than you and Autodidact.

However, it seems to me that some people do not want to set a number at all.
to me, that is no different than to excuse people, and even encourage, said dishonesty.

i don't have a number... I'm pretty flexible and try to let individual creationists inform me of their own motives. I try to adjust my tactics accordingly.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

i don't have a number... I'm pretty flexible and try to let individual creationists inform me of their own motives. I try to adjust my tactics accordingly.

Sounds good to me.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Are you ignoring the example I gave, where the same speciation event happened in the wild and then in the lab.

"Are all creationists dishonest" is the subject of the thread, and you are providing ample evidence of the answer.

Still believe in salvation?

Kidding. I have no problem claiming to be Lucifer, for such has an element of truth; but as a natural born mathematician, sharing knowledge is elemental. What is this guy trying to share?

 

[McBell]

Your obsession with demanding a number from me is ridiculous.

Seeing as I was not talking to you in that post...
AND
Seeing as I have already stated that I done with your game...

I have no idea why you are so obsessed with not giving a number even when you are not even being asked for a number.
Seems perhaps you are protesting to much?

Now I'm excusing them & encouraging dishonesty, eh?

If that is all your intellect could gather from my correspondence with Painted Wolf, then so be it.

This is where I need one of those double face palm thingies.

Why?
Because of your obsession with not wanting to give a number even when you are not being asked to give one?

 

[McBell]

i don't have a number... I'm pretty flexible and try to let individual creationists inform me of their own motives. I try to adjust my tactics accordingly.

wa:do

I do not use the same number for all creationists, or even for all people.
I give my numbers out on a case by case basis.

There is a difference between someone who is willing to learn and someone who is not willing to learn.
IMO, those who are not willing to learn are just flat out dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

....you are so obsessed with not giving a number....

It sounds like I'm being accused of being obsessed with inobsession. OK.

If that is all your intellect could gather from my correspondence with Painted Wolf, then so be it.

Now, now...let's not start commenting on each other's intellectual abilities.
I've spared you my opinion of yours.
I just don't get why you're so hostile about something so irrelevant as quantifying guesses & opinions. So what if we disagree...big deal.

 

[McBell]

Now, now...let's not start commenting on each other's intellectual abilities.
I've spared you my opinion of yours.

one wonders why you are so intent on being insulted.

 

[Revoltingest]

one wonders why you are so intent on being insulted.

It just seems that way. It's a groundskeeper thing.
But actually, it's the creationists whom you're really insulting.

 

[outhouse]

You still havent revealed any details about macro evolution being observed. IS this something that only you have witnessed?

go look at post #108 or #110

Now, are you lieing about macro evolution? or uneducated?

the choice is yours, heres the education above and below. your move

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[10] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

 

[Alceste]

That analogy fails for very complex subjects.
If a reasonably intelligent person thoughtfully tells me that 0+1=5, then I sense deception.
If the same person says we must keep spending $trillions in stimulus money to fix the economy, is he dishonest just because he's very wrong in my view, but not his own?

This thread is about creationism. Are you saying that whether or not the earth is a few thousand years old is an issue reasonable, honest people with a good grasp of the evidence can disagree on?

I don't think so. As is often the case with outrageously irrational opinions, we don't see:

Person A: factual claim
Person B: skepticism and demand for evidence
Person A: evidence
Person B: relevant and equally credible counter-evidence OR acceptance of claim.
Person A: Satisfaction, OR on receipt of credible counter-evidence, rejection of initial claim

We see:

Person A: factual claim
Person B: denial of claim, refusal to look at evidence, obfuscation, Bible quotes, appeal to popularity, the rejection of empiricism itself and / or personal attacks.
Person A: exasperation and new thread wondering if ALL creationists (or libertarians ) behave this way, and if so, why?

I would argue that the first example is an honest approach to debate, and the second example is dishonest. On the other hand, we have all become so inundated with constant propaganda using all these tactics and more that we are no longer aware there actually is an honest way for us all to disagree with one another.

 

[Jacksnyte]

As is often the case with outrageously irrational opinions, we don't see:

Person A: factual claim
Person B: skepticism and demand for evidence
Person A: evidence
Person B: relevant and equally credible counter-evidence OR acceptance of claim.
Person A: Satisfaction, OR on receipt of credible counter-evidence, rejection of initial claim

We see:

Person A: factual claim
Person B: denial of claim, refusal to look at evidence, obfuscation, Bible quotes, appeal to popularity, the rejection of empiricism itself and / or personal attacks.
Person A: exasperation and new thread wondering if ALL creationists (or libertarians ) behave this way, and if so, why?

I would argue that the first example is an honest approach to debate, and the second example is dishonest. On the other hand, we have all become so inundated with constant propaganda using all these tactics and more that we are no longer aware there actually is an honest way for us all to disagree with one another.

Amen!!! Preach ON, Sister!!!

 

[Alceste]

People's minds don't function so flawlessly that you can say with certainty that is dishonesty is required for believing irrational things.
Would you want someone calling you dishonest every time he found you believing something unsupported by objective evidence?

I would in fact want someone to point out whether I appeared to be rejecting credible evidence contrary to my opinions simply to cling to my opinions.

Granted, I'll decide for myself whether the critic seems to know what "credible evidence" means (i.e. published, peer-reviewed empirical research vs. a youtube video of Ken Hamm), but there are many people on this forum whose grasp of such things I deeply respect and admire. Any one of those folks is welcome to point out where I've gone astray at any time.

 

[Alceste]

I do not use the same number for all creationists, or even for all people.
I give my numbers out on a case by case basis.

There is a difference between someone who is willing to learn and someone who is not willing to learn.
IMO, those who are not willing to learn are just flat out dishonest.

From my POV, those who blaze in saying things like "I'm a PhD biology student and was sitting in my lectures one day when I just suddenly realized, HEY, EVOLUTION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!" followed by a lengthy copy and paste of an AiG article are pants-on-fire caliber liars. Those who repeatedly make the false claim that the ToE predicts that "a dog should give birth to / become a cat" in thread after thread, despite being corrected by an actual biologist like Painted Wolf the first time around are shockingly dishonest (with themselves first and foremost). Those who simply can't distinguish between credible empirical evidence and AiG-style propaganda are just unfortunate rather than dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

This thread is about creationism.

That is not in dispute.

Are you saying that whether or not the earth is a few thousand years old is an issue reasonable, honest people with a good grasp of the evidence can disagree on?]

Yes. My personal experience with our fundie friends is that intelligent & honest people can have a very different view of
reality, even though I find their perspective bonkers. Methinks you lack tolerance & empathy for our religious brethren.
How do you expect to have an edifying civil discussion with them when you call them "dishonest"?

I would in fact want someone to point out whether I appeared to be rejecting credible evidence contrary to my opinions simply to cling to my opinions.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[painted wolf]

Intelligent people don't always have a good education. And educated people aren't always intelligent.

I find most creationists are lacking science education, not intelligence or honesty. If you never learn how the scientific method works, why should you take scientific evidence any more seriously than opinion?

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Intelligent people don't always have a good education. And educated people aren't always intelligent.

I find most creationists are lacking science education, not intelligence or honesty. If you never learn how the scientific method works, why should you take scientific evidence any more seriously than opinion?

wa:do

Exactly - which is why I think of most creationists as unfortunate. There are certainly instances when they lie though. As an example, I read the Case for Christ, and the author wrote "I was an atheist until I looked objectively at all the evidence for the literal truth of the bible and concluded the bible is literally true!" I thought that smelled kind of funny, but I didn't decide he was definitely a liar until I read the intro to another book he wrote about the "evidence" for creationism, in which he wrote "I used to be an atheist AND an evolutionist until I looked objectively at the evidence for young earth creationism and concluded the bible is literally true!"

Those books were written years apart. Clearly, it has to be one or the other or neither. It can't be both. So, he's a liar.

I do think that dude is pretty representative of the cadre of shameless, profiteering deceivers at the heart of the YEC revival movement, but I don't hold the people who have fallen for that baloney nearly as accountable. If anything, the fact that they are not even able to recognize a lie when they see it make me think they might be quite honest at heart.

 

[McBell]

From my POV, those who blaze in saying things like "I'm a PhD biology student and was sitting in my lectures one day when I just suddenly realized, HEY, EVOLUTION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!" followed by a lengthy copy and paste of an AiG article are pants-on-fire caliber liars. Those who repeatedly make the false claim that the ToE predicts that "a dog should give birth to / become a cat" in thread after thread, despite being corrected by an actual biologist like Painted Wolf the first time around are shockingly dishonest (with themselves first and foremost). Those who simply can't distinguish between credible empirical evidence and AiG-style propaganda are just unfortunate rather than dishonest.

I completely agree.

The trick is determining whether they are honestly unable to learn about the ToE or merely protecting their box.

 

[McBell]

Yes. My personal experience with our fundie friends is that intelligent & honest people can have a very different view of
reality, even though I find their perspective bonkers. Methinks you lack tolerance & empathy for our religious brethren.
How do you expect to have an edifying civil discussion with them when you call them "dishonest"?

I have no problems with what people believe.
I do have problems with people lieing to justify/support their beliefs.

Not everyone who believes in creation is dishonest.
However, most, not all, but most, of the ones I have interaction with on the topic are.

 

[outhouse]

Not everyone who believes in creation is dishonest.
However, most, not all, but most, of the ones I have interaction with on the topic are.

my point exactly!!!