Well, from what I learned, in a Catholic School, Evolution is not yet a fact although it is taken as factual by most.
Then you learned wrong. Or, at least, got the wrong impression.
Look, I do not think people here are really that bigotted and narrow minded. I think you just like to pay out on creationists because it is fun for you. I do not find it fun to pick on minority groups, the same as I would not call you multiregionalists ignorant. It is a cheap shot that is uncalled for. But then again, I am a nice person. Many bear heavy weights that eat away any goodness and cause undue hatreds. It is the way of the world.
You said earlier that you would call flat earthers ignorant. Is that not "picking on minority group" using your definition? I do not feel I am picking on anyone by stating that people who either ignore, misrepresent or misunderstand facts are ignorant.
Yeah but creationists do not deny the level of speciation you have observed, now do they?
Actually, many do. The most common argument I've heard from the vast majority of creationists is "evolution is a theory, not a fact", which shows not just blatant ignorance of evolution, but of scientific methodology.
They deny what you assume will happen but have not observed. This is hardly the linchpin to calling a creationist ignorant.
Then they have to ignore the evidence in order to deny it and fail to understand the facts that support it.
And yet I would say a creationist able to defend their view is less ignorant than an evolutionist that cannot.
Then you are wrong. One accepts something that is a fact, while the other denies something that is a fact. There is ignorance in both positions, but it cannot be less ignorant to deny an established fact than to accept it.
An evolutionist that cannot defend their view is also ignorant aren't they?
Yes.
They are ignorant because they believe what someone else told them and do not understand themselves personally. Many evolutionists do not understand the inticacies of genetics. If it is ignorant to not accept the majority view as being always right, there may be a point here. Yet, you must agree that most of your information comes from the researchers that knocked the current thinking and came up with new ideas. So there is evidence that current thinking is not always right.
Except for the evidence that, in this case, it is.
And many evolutionists have no idea about genetics.
Again, so what? We're not talking about the ignorance of "evolutionists". We're talking about whether or not creationists are ignorant.
So anyone here that cannot argue about alleles and the intricasies of research and accumulating data are ignorant, are they?
Yes. But what relevance does this have?
Then you clearly do not understand what ignorance is.
However this is no different to saying a creationist is ignorant because they do not know it all and do not believe what you have not observed. I am sorry. I am new here. But this is just not right.
It's really very simple. Creationists are ignorant becauase every single argument I, or anyone else on here, have ever encountered for creationism is based on ignorance of science, the scientific method and ignorance of evolution. I have yet to find any creationist argument or meet any creationist of any calibre who did not reach their conclusion through some form of ignorance (willful or otherwise).
I believe creationists do not assume, that what evolutionists have observed, will result in macroevolution. In other words they do not believe in what you have not observed. They do not believe in what information based on assumptions comes up with. That appears to be a perfectly legitamate, non ignorant, stance to take and creationists are entitled to do so, without bias.
Except the only way to reach that conclusion is through ignorance. Your argument here seems to be "they take a position, therefore they are not ignorant". My argument is "if they actually understood the science, they would accept the evidence - therefore they are either ignorant of science, or willfully ignorant of the facts". Just having a position does not mean that position isn't founded on ignorance.
So basically you are saying, in a round about way, that anyone here that is not a credentialed researcher or at least can argue about alleles and that stuff is ignorant.
That's not what I said at all, but since ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge I would say that is technically correct anyway. Like I said, we are all ignorant about a great many thing, it just so happens that creationists are ignorant of science or a particular branch of science.
I's say you have, by inuendo, just insulted the majority of evolutionists here on your forum and it not worth my while being here either.
I've already told you that ignorance is not an insult. Ignorance is merely the absence of knowledge.
That is becausee they can observe a tree growing. On the balance of probabilities it is also unlikely that the pictures of the world being round are faked, so I believe, as many do. That is not the same as believing in what has not been observed.
Except evolution has been observed.
Again this is just as ignorant a slant as skwim initially proposed. So all the uncredentialed evolutionists here should buzz off to another forum, should they?
Ugh, how are you not getting this? I didn't say anything about credentials, I just said people
who don't know anything about the science. Even though there are many people who who have no scientific credentials, they at least have a workable understanding of science, the scientific method and the facts as they pertain to evolution.
I think small minded people are worse and much more ignorant. Even I know there is creationist research out there. I do not think it is a requirement for you to like it.
You said earlier that flat earthers are ignorant. Doesn't this therefore make you something of a hypocrite?
I have mentioned Sarfarti and Sanford. Sanford is an ex creationist that has written many articles. I intend to look for the famous 10, but it will take a little time. I am heading out for a little fun later, but I will get to it and I am reasonable sure I can do it, from a quick look around.
But it is just a waste of my time, I already know. You all will continue to go around in circles for the sake of insulting creationists, regardless of any success I have. Are there any creationists here?
Instead of getting on your high horse, how about actually presenting some facts?
I have never heard of this flat earth society. I won't comment. I guess the out of Africa followers think the multiregionalists likewise simply refuse to see the facts and are ignorant.
That's a red herring argument.
Creationists can defend their view, likewise, and present their facts like Sanfords entrophy articles, so they have science behind their disbelief in evolution.
Please then present some of these facts.
They are not ignorant. Sanford 'knows' the facts and therefore is not ignorant Not accepting the facts is another matter. An evolutionists that cannot discuss biology at a molecular level is no less ignorant in their lack of knowledge based on your reasoning.
Then you clearly don't understand my reasoning.
No. by definition it doesn't. Ignorant means uninformed or lacking knowledge. Creationists scientists, be there 2, 10 or 1m, are not uninformed, nor do they lack knowledge of the science they are refuting. They are therefore, by definition, not ignorant.
I have yet to meet or hear of a single "creationist scientist" who isn't ignorant. Refuting this is simple: present facts that support creationism.
Rather someone that does not even know what the meaning of ignorant is, may by definition, be more ignorant than them all. I at least know what the definition of ignorance is and likely so do creationists that have finished high school.
Then why do you keep saying that it is an insult to call someone ignorant?
where god looks... dumb.
