Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[SkepticThinker]

Reporting the context of Sagan's words does not change their meaning nor import. Although Sagan did not apparently believe in ID, his statement about the fossil evidence was not misstated by me.

It actually does. That's the point.
And yes, it was misstated by you. I don't know how you can read it and think otherwise.

A common ploy of ToE propagandists is to claim that those who expose their false teaching are "dishonest".

A laughable claim coming from a quote miner.

 

[gsa]

You have to understand the evolutionist mindset. They go out of their way to kill their own emotions, they do not try to cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness, honesty and such. To evolutionists emotions are wrong, only facts matter. An evolutionist will just say whatever is most succesfull at promoting evolution theory, no matter what is honest or fair.

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda. It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

1. What is an "evolutionist" except someone who does not dispute the modern evolutionary synthesis?

2. Assuming that you mean someone who accepts modern understandings of evolution, that implies nothing else at all about the person.

3. Emotions surely matter, but they do not determine truth or falsity of biological evolution.

4. You say all of this in defense of a selectively edited quote that stood for the polar opposite of what it was being used for. This suggests deep dishonestly, to be sure, but not the kind you claim.

5. Make up stories about the Holocaust?

 

[viole]

You have to understand the evolutionist mindset. They go out of their way to kill their own emotions, they do not try to cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness, honesty and such. To evolutionists emotions are wrong, only facts matter. An evolutionist will just say whatever is most succesfull at promoting evolution theory, no matter what is honest or fair.

There is not an evolutionist mindset, for the simple reason that evolution is a fact that is independent from our mindsets.if you do not accept that, it is because of your godist mindset, which has the not negligible disadvantage of not being supported by any factual evidence, I am afraid.

There are no gravitationalist mindsets either.

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda. It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

What?

Even if that were true, that would be like refuting nuclear energy because someone holds a nuclearist agenda because of the nuclear bombs in Japan. Which, of course, does not affect the reality of nuclear interactions and the conversion of mass into energy. Or do you think it does?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have to understand the evolutionist mindset. They go out of their way to kill their own emotions, they do not try to cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness, honesty and such. To evolutionists emotions are wrong, only facts matter. An evolutionist will just say whatever is most succesfull at promoting evolution theory, no matter what is honest or fair.

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda. It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

By all means, please go out and find us someone who understands the "evolutionist mindset," whatever that means. It sure ain't you.

This post is ridiculous in so many ways.

 

[Ouroboros]

You have to understand the evolutionist mindset. They go out of their way to kill their own emotions, they do not try to cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness, honesty and such. To evolutionists emotions are wrong, only facts matter. An evolutionist will just say whatever is most succesfull at promoting evolution theory, no matter what is honest or fair.

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda. It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

That's how you see a person like me? Killing my emotions, trying to not cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness and honesty? You think that I think emotions are wrong and only facts matter?

Well, you're 100% completely and grossly wrong!

Also, I don't have any "evolutionist agenda." That you suggest that someone like me have some agenda shows that you're the one with the agenda, which is a smear campaign against "evolutionists."

You know, when you point finger at someone, three fingers point back at ya'.

 

[viole]

A common ploy of ToE propagandists is to claim that those who expose their false teaching are "dishonest".

Dishonesty necessitates a realization of what is true.

I am not sure that this is the right adjective for those who oppose the evidence of evolution.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

Dishonesty necessitates a realization of what is true.

I am not sure that this is the right adjective for those who oppose the evidence of evolution.

Ciao

- viole

You can be charitable and call it ignorant until the ignorance is corrected and it turns willful, at that point you are only left with stupid or dishonest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

1. What is an "evolutionist" except someone who does not dispute the modern evolutionary synthesis?

2. Assuming that you mean someone who accepts modern understandings of evolution, that implies nothing else at all about the person.

3. Emotions surely matter, but they do not determine truth or falsity of biological evolution.

4. You say all of this in defense of a selectively edited quote that stood for the polar opposite of what it was being used for. This suggests deep dishonestly, to be sure, but not the kind you claim.

5. Make up stories about the Holocaust?

Subjectivity matters. How aggressive are you in pursuing evidence that rejects evolution? It requires effort to pursue evidence, a morale is needed, emotional depth. You must find ways to be happy to do it.

Take a look at how aggressive evolutionists are at pursuing evidence of how things are chosen in the universe. Gould once said that evolution could have turned out differently, he called that a "turningpoint". The origin of species as by "turningpoints", which choices determine what species come to be. Pursue it, go ahead.....

There are ofcourse 0 evolutionists who consider the origin of organisms in terms of the decisions by which they come to be. And that is because of this "method" to destroy emotions in doing science. When you press down on your emotions that way, you are really only left with the most vile prejudices. And that is very clearly the emotional basis evolutionists bring to the debate.

 

[metis]

Subjectivity matters. How aggressive are you in pursuing evidence that rejects evolution? It requires effort to pursue evidence, a morale is needed, emotional depth. You must find ways to be happy to do it.

Take a look at how aggressive evolutionists are at pursuing evidence of how things are chosen in the universe. Gould once said that evolution could have turned out differently, he called that a "turningpoint". The origin of species as by "turningpoints", which choices determine what species come to be. Pursue it, go ahead.....

There are ofcourse 0 evolutionists who consider the origin of organisms in terms of the decisions by which they come to be. And that is because of this "method" to destroy emotions in doing science. When you press down on your emotions that way, you are really only left with the most vile prejudices. And that is very clearly the emotional basis evolutionists bring to the debate.

I grew up in a fundamentalist church that taught about the evils of "evilution", so what you write above resonates with me, but in a totally negative way. Most anti-evolutionists I've run across do so on the basis of ignorance on the subject with also another main reason being that their religion or denomination opposes the concept. Either way, these are people who really couldn't care less what the objective science may indicate because they've already made their mind up, and it's mostly a closed mind.

And as far as "vile prejudices" are concerned, I've seen much more of that coming from anti-evolutionists in my experience. By and large, so many religious fundamentalists take the "my way or the highway" approach, and then they essentially demonize those who actually try to look at things more objectively. I was even verbally assaulted at a funeral parlor once when some there found out that I taught anthropology.

 

[Parsimony]

You have to understand the evolutionist mindset. They go out of their way to kill their own emotions, they do not try to cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness, honesty and such. To evolutionists emotions are wrong, only facts matter. An evolutionist will just say whatever is most succesfull at promoting evolution theory, no matter what is honest or fair.

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda. It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

I am an evolutionist. None of that is true of me. What does the Holocaust even have to do with whether evolutionary theory is correct or not?

 

[metis]

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda. It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

This is complete nonsense. I studied the Holocaust here in the States, in Poland, and in Israel, and what you say above is just plain drivel.

Most prejudice comes from those who simply cannot use science in any kind of objective manner, relying instead on bigotry that's often fueled by religious zealotry. Instead of looking at things from various points of view, which is the basis of science, they instead swallow lies that blind them, and many of these lies often have a "religious" source.

As I mentioned in my last post, I grew up in one of these environments, and I still detest how I was essentially brainwashed. When I did my studies in undergraduate school back in the 1960's, I learned just how much I had been mislead and literally lied to.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

[

I am an evolutionist. None of that is true of me. What does the Holocaust even have to do with whether evolutionary theory is correct or not?

I think the way evolutionists deal with the history of the holocaust very transparantly shows this prejudice, this disregard for the truth.

 

[metis]

[

I think the way evolutionists deal with the history of the holocaust very transparantly shows this prejudice, this disregard for the truth.

Oh, please tell us, what is your "truth" about the Holocaust.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh, please tell us, what is your "truth" about the Holocaust.

What is with your attitude to try to game the issue?

 

[metis]

What is with your attitude to try to game the issue?

My "attitude" is because I was lied to for many years by people I formerly had trusted. For me, this wasn't a light issue at all as it caused quite a bit of consternation and grief. Maybe some take this topic as some sort of joke, but I certainly didn't, and I still don't.

When people lie and distort science with a hidden religious agenda, they disgust me. When some people distort the Holocaust for political or religious reasons, they disgust me as well.

Science and religion should never be polar opposites since both are trying to ascertain the truth, whatever that might be, but there are some who simply are all too willing to lie and distort.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My "attitude" is because I was lied to for many years by people I formerly had trusted. For me, this wasn't a light issue at all as it caused quite a bit of consternation and grief. Maybe some take this topic as some sort of joke, but I certainly didn't, and I still don't.

When people lie and distort science with a hidden religious agenda, they disgust me. When some people distort the Holocaust for political or religious reasons, they disgust me as well.

Science and religion should never be polar opposites since both are trying to ascertain the truth, whatever that might be, but there are some who simply are all too willing to lie and distort.

But you were gaming the history of the holocaust, that is not conducive to finding the truth about it.

You think how evolutionists generally deal with the history of the holocaust in relation to evolutionary biology is honest, fair, and such?

 

[gsa]

Subjectivity matters. How aggressive are you in pursuing evidence that rejects evolution? It requires effort to pursue evidence, a morale is needed, emotional depth. You must find ways to be happy to do it.

Well I am not aggressive about it at all, but then I am also not a biologist, and certainly not an evolutionary biologist. That said, I doubt that they are aggressively pursuing evidence that would contradict it, if only because so far there isn't any. What kind of evidence do you suggest be evaluated?

I also don't know that you appreciate current debates in evolutionary biology. There are many debates about how evolution occurs, just not debates that posit an intelligent designer, much less debates that would suggest the traditional religious accounts have any scientific value.

Take a look at how aggressive evolutionists are at pursuing evidence of how things are chosen in the universe. Gould once said that evolution could have turned out differently, he called that a "turningpoint". The origin of species as by "turningpoints", which choices determine what species come to be. Pursue it, go ahead.....

But there's no choice involved in the "turning points" that you are talking about. The use of the phrase is a deliberate reference to biology as history; it only makes sense in hindsight. Now, it may be that life itself plays an unascertained role in those events (this is one of the areas subject to some dispute right now) but that is not directed evolution.

There are ofcourse 0 evolutionists who consider the origin of organisms in terms of the decisions by which they come to be. And that is because of this "method" to destroy emotions in doing science. When you press down on your emotions that way, you are really only left with the most vile prejudices. And that is very clearly the emotional basis evolutionists bring to the debate.

The decisions by which they came to be is wiggle wording. There is considerable debate over,and interest in, the mechanisms of evolution. What is lacking among scientists is not disagreement over mechanisms and the relative role played by them, but rather disagreement over the concept of an intended end state.

The problem with intelligent design arguments in this area is most clear in the avoidance of exaptation as an explanatory mechanism that removes the idea of a pre-determined function. Something can only be "irreducibly complex" by assuming, as do Behe and other ID advocates, that the current state is one that is "intended." But intermediate states are also "intended" in the sense that they are adaptive and advantageous.

Also, your comment is not exactly true. The field of epigenetics and epigenetic inheritance does in fact look at conscious decisions (or behavior and environmental factors generally, conscious and otherwise) and the impact on traits across generations. But again, it implies no overarching design.

 

[metis]

But you were gaming the history of the holocaust, that is not conducive to finding the truth about it.

You think how evolutionists generally deal with the history of the holocaust in relation to evolutionary biology is honest, fair, and such?

Evolutionary biology and the Holocaust really have nothing to do with each other, so you're comparing apples with fruitcakes. IOW, one does not lead to the other.

And for you to say I'm "gaming the history of the holocaust" is prejudicial nonsense since I have written nothing about the Holocaust here other than to say I've studied it. So, who's "gaming" it up here?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But there's no choice involved in the "turning points" that you are talking about. The use of the phrase is a deliberate reference to biology as history; it only makes sense in hindsight. Now, it may be that life itself plays an unascertained role in those events (this is one of the areas subject to some dispute right now) but that is not directed evolution.

It can turn out several different ways, that is a choice. He said if evolution were run again, it could turn out differently. That is what choosing consists of. Focus on it, pursue it, go ahead. Are there comprehensive decisions, a lot of independent decisions? You tell me.

Or tell me about your emotional basis if any to pursue evidence like this.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolutionary biology and the Holocaust really have nothing to do with each other, so you're comparing apples with fruitcakes. IOW, one does not lead to the other.

And for you to say I'm "gaming the history of the holocaust" is prejudicial nonsense since I have written nothing about the Holocaust here other than to say I've studied it. So, who's "gaming" it up here?

It's the way you asked to please tell us about the holocaust, that is gaming the issue.

It is ofcourse just convenient for you to say that it is comparing apples with fruitcakes, undermining any sincerity about the issue.