Ignorance about evolution no longer a valid excuse for creationists

[Thief]

yes not all creationist are ignorant

in the examples you posted however, creationist are using science to avoid and confuse those who do not know.

That's not happening....you're just in denial.

there is zero evidence for creation/ID

You will post a response....your ability is the evidence of design.

the scientific community as a whole does not even debate this at all, because there is nothing that shows the evidence we have to be false.

So what if evolution is real?....God did it.

to date! creation /ID is a myth and its outlawed from public schools for a reason

That reason has nothing to do with myth.

we dont teach myths as science to children

Lack of faith is not good for the soul....you'll see.

 

[Android]

Lack of faith is not good for the soul....you'll see.

And there it is!

The biggest hook religeon has... THE THREAT!!!

"Believe what we believe or you'll burn in hell for eternity".

Personally, I don't take too kindly to threats. Intimidation is not the way to gain support. Besides, it only works on the weak.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Lack of faith is not good for the soul....you'll see.

Oh noes...the default "God will smite you for being a heathen" argument.

Gimme a break.

 

[Tristesse]

Astrid, you're missing one simple point. It's not that creationists are ignorant about everything, it's that the majority of them are ignorant on this one subject. I've met creationists who apear to be very intelligent, but they lack knowledge when it comes to evolution.

Saying someone is ignorant about something when they clearly have very little knowledge of the subject, is not an insult, it's a fact.

 

[Astrid000]

Astrid, you're missing one simple point. It's not that creationists are ignorant about everything, it's that the majority of them are ignorant on this one subject. I've met creationists who apear to be very intelligent, but they lack knowledge when it comes to evolution.

Saying someone is ignorant about something when they clearly have very little knowledge of the subject, is not an insult, it's a fact.

Are you trying to say that creationist scientists cannot enter into evolutionary discusions because they lack knowledge when it comes to evolution. Tristesse that is nonsense and you know it. Yet you will still commit such a comment for publication. Why, that is such a silly thing to assert. Many of them have peer reviewed papers and contributed to mainstream science. Many have written good papers that are not creation based. They do have knowledge and know what evolutionists are proposing. They accept what has been observed. They have no problems with any proof of microevolution. They do not deny these fact. They do not believe that the observed facts multiplied many times will result in macroevolution. They deny mathematical modelling and the assumptions required as their basis. This is not the same as knowing nothing about TOE, and denying it out of ignorance.

To debate with creationists by throwing around insults, particularly ones that are baseless, may be great fun and it may get them angry, so if that is what you seek then great. However if you truly want to debate a creationist at a mature level I think you need to drop the immaturity and hit on reality.

I did not want to get off on the wrong foot here, just being new and all. But it is simply a lie to say that creationists know little about evolution. Rather a person needs knowledge to be able to choose to deny it. Not all of course, but many creationists can talk the talk, and have decided that the evidence for macroevolution, is not solid. That is their choice and it is not always based in ignorance and denial of observed facts.

I am embarrassed that some evolutionists feel the need to stoop to down right lies in order to defend evolution. There is no need for it. We have the stronger stance.

People here are not alone in their stereotypical behaviour. Pack mentality is well researched, but I am surprised to see such hatred fester on a religious forum. The like of Dawkins is also an embarrassment with his never ending need to speak in defence of evolution against creationists with demonic fervour and total ignorance of creationist reasonings. Why he even carries on about Intelligent designers in his talks that ultimately are evolutionists with a twist. I think new age evolutionists are sick of hearing it.

This thread is embarrassing on the basis of the very accusation being made here against all creationists is reflective; which is that evolutionists demonstrate their ignorance of the various creationist stances while accusing creationists of the same ignorance in relation to evolution. In which case evolutionists appear to be no better.

To call all creationists ignorant is to head off a good debate before it even starts. I would leave it for the bible quoters that truly know little about TOE...but they are not all like that. That is an unfounded stereotype and embarrassingly ignorant.

 

[Astrid000]

A law degree and a Masters in basic Earth Science does guarantee accurate knowledge in evolutionary biology. A quick read of Luskins papers reveals either ignorance, willful or otherwise, of biology, or intellectual dishonesty. Or both.


You have yet to provide 10 qualified and accredited biologists and their peer reviewed publications that propose a valid scientific argument for an alternative to biological evolution.
You continue to add and add criteria. I have provided what was intially reqested, now your are gobbling on about alternatives to biological evolution. The sign of a looser is flashing.
What you have provided is a list of fringe scientists with varying degrees of specialization (the lack of biologists is telling) with either an obvious ignorance of biological evolution. And if that ignorance is willful, the intellectual dishonesty is as obvious as the nose in the middle of your face.

I have better things to do then to play your silly game of ignorance. If believing all creationists are unknowledgeable in relation to evolution helps you sleep at night..go for it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You continue to add and add criteria. I have provided what was intially reqested, now your are gobbling on about alternatives to biological evolution. The sign of a looser is flashing.

Fail.

Really?

Can you name, lets say, ten (10) qualified biologists who deny evolutionary biology?
And if so, can you provide listings of their peer reviewed publications outlining why they would deny biological evolution, and their alternative proposal to the diversity of life?

10 biologists accredited and qualified to speak on evolutionary biology.

I look forward to the 10 accredited and qualified biologists with their peer reviewed papers on alternative proposals to evolutionary biology. Particularly Creationism.


( The aforementioned Sarfarti is a chemist with no scholarship in biology)

Nope, just 10 qualified and accredited biologists and their peer reviewed publications that propose a valid scientific argument for an alternative to biological evolution.

However, the subject here is whether or not ignorance, intentional or otherwise, is a valid excuse for Biblical Creationism.

And whether or not someone can find 10 qualified and accredited biologists and their peer reviewed publications that propose a valid scientific argument for an alternative to biological evolution.

I have asked for nothing more or less from you this entire time than 10 qualified and accredited biologists and their peer reviewed publications that propose a valid scientific argument for an alternative to biological evolution.

Well?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Are you trying to say that creationist scientists cannot enter into evolutionary discusions because they lack knowledge when it comes to evolution.

A very large percentage of the time this is completely true. Matter of fact, I have not met a single creationist in person that had the first idea about evolution. That makes them ignorant.

Many of them have peer reviewed papers and contributed to mainstream science.

If they are peer reviewed, they are either creationist peers, in which case they aren't peer reviewed by scientific standards, or they are papers on topics other than life science.

Many have written good papers that are not creation based.

Again, not on life sciences. You've failed to present even one example.

They do have knowledge and know what evolutionists are proposing.

This is actually false.

They accept what has been observed.

No they don't. A Majority outright disregard evolution.

They have no problems with any proof of microevolution. They do not deny these fact. They do not believe that the observed facts multiplied many times will result in macroevolution. They deny mathematical modelling and the assumptions required as their basis. This is not the same as knowing nothing about TOE, and denying it out of ignorance.

Again, this is a false blanket statement about creationists that just isn't true.

To debate with creationists by throwing around insults, particularly ones that are baseless, may be great fun and it may get them angry, so if that is what you seek then great.

Regarding someone as ignorant isn't an insult. It can be used that way, but it isn't an insult by default. Creationists may take it that way but that is on them. If the shoe fits...

However if you truly want to debate a creationist at a mature level I think you need to drop the immaturity and hit on reality.

Funny you should say this, considering creationists are famous for their inherent dishonesty. So much for maturity.

But it is simply a lie to say that creationists know little about evolution.

Again with the blanket statements, and again, false.

Rather a person needs knowledge to be able to choose to deny it.

This doesn't even make sense. Especially considering creationists do this all the time.

Not all of course, but many creationists can talk the talk,

Haven't met one yet. The ones that frequent this site are a good example of not talking the talk.

I am embarrassed that some evolutionists feel the need to stoop to down right lies in order to defend evolution. There is no need for it. We have the stronger stance.

First off, who is we? If I'm not mistaken, I remember you saying you weren't a creationist, so that is sort of suspect. Secondly, you are "embarrassed" for the wrong team bud. You should be embarrassed by the team that makes outlandish claims with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. As far as having a "stronger stance", all I can do is

The like of Dawkins is also an embarrassment with his never ending need to speak in defence of evolution against creationists with demonic fervour and total ignorance of creationist reasonings.

I would bet a couple months pay that Dawkins has forgotten more about "creationist reasoning" than you have ever known. Again with the crazy claims.

Why he even carries on about Intelligent designers in his talks that ultimately are evolutionists with a twist. I think new age evolutionists are sick of hearing it.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that ID'ers are evolutionists with a twist? Please tell me you aren't.

This thread is embarrassing on the basis of the very accusation being made here against all creationists is reflective; which is that evolutionists demonstrate their ignorance of the various creationist stances while accusing creationists of the same ignorance in relation to evolution. In which case evolutionists appear to be no better.

This is nothing but woffle

To call all creationists ignorant is to head off a good debate before it even starts. I would leave it for the bible quoters that truly know little about TOE...but they are not all like that. That is an unfounded stereotype and embarrassingly ignorant.

Those "bible quoters" you speak of include creationists bud. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Jose Fly]

Astrid...er..I mean NewHope,

Many of them have peer reviewed papers and contributed to mainstream science. Many have written good papers that are not creation based.

Yet when it comes to defending their creationism, which they insist is science-based, they somehow fail to get anything published. Heck, they don't even try. Instead they figure "I'll just start my own journal and have all my buddies be the reviewers". That by itself tells you that they understand just how scientifically weak their own arguments are.

They do have knowledge and know what evolutionists are proposing. They accept what has been observed. They have no problems with any proof of microevolution. They do not deny these fact.

Who is this "they" you're talking about? Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? Carl Baugh? Duane Gish? Walt Brown?

They do not believe that the observed facts multiplied many times will result in macroevolution.

Except "macroevolution", evolution above the species level, is also a repeatedly observed fact.

They deny mathematical modelling and the assumptions required as their basis. This is not the same as knowing nothing about TOE, and denying it out of ignorance.

Many of them tell us why they deny the data. All you have to do is read their various "statements of faith".

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Foundational Principles

Pretty simple really.

However if you truly want to debate a creationist at a mature level I think you need to drop the immaturity and hit on reality.

That would be awesome. Please tell us where we can find these wonderful, open, objective creationists who know the subject matter, understand the data, and will debate in good faith. I've been doing this for over a decade and have yet to encounter anything like that. I even participated in debating some of the senior fellows at the Discovery Institute (including Dembski) when ID creationism was making its first forays into the internet. Even those guys engaged in typical internet creationist behaviors. I remember when Dembski was repeating Behe's claims about the lack of publications on the evolution of the immune system and blood clotting cascade, and when several of us posted links to just a sampling of the papers, he said we were "PubMed bombing" him and used that as an excuse to not have to address any of it. Eventually the forum was shut down.

So yeah, please lead the way to these great creationists you're talking about. I'd love to meet them.

I did not want to get off on the wrong foot here, just being new and all.

*sigh* Would you please stop? We're not stupid, and it's not just a coincidence that you just happen to show up when NewHope stops posting, yet you post in exactly the same manner (even down to the misuse of the quote function) and start off with the exact same argument NewHope made when she started ("you think all creationists are ignorant"). The more you persist in this charade, the more ridiculous you make yourself look. Of course, given your previous behavior, insight doesn't seem to be your strong point.

many creationists can talk the talk, and have decided that the evidence for macroevolution, is not solid.

Who?

That is their choice and it is not always based in ignorance and denial of observed facts.

Then what is it based on?

The like of Dawkins is also an embarrassment with his never ending need to speak in defence of evolution against creationists with demonic fervour and total ignorance of creationist reasonings.

LOL! "Demonic fervour"? Naw, you're not NewHope at all, are you?

Why he even carries on about Intelligent designers in his talks that ultimately are evolutionists with a twist.

ID is a form of creationism, but for the most part it's already dead. It was crafted specifically to get around federal court rulings in the US banning the teaching of Biblical creationism in science classes. So the creationists simply stripped their arguments of overt Biblical references and "intelligent design" was born. Fortunately, as subsequent federal court ruling found all that out and ruled that ID is indeed a form of creationism. The creationists have since moved on to their next tactic, getting "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" into public school curricula.

evolutionists demonstrate their ignorance of the various creationist stances while accusing creationists of the same ignorance in relation to evolution. In which case evolutionists appear to be no better.

If you're going to accuse us of being ignorant of what these wonderful creationists are saying, you should provide us with some links or something to the material. IOW, what exactly are we so ignorant of?

 

[Tristesse]

Are you trying to say that creationist scientists cannot enter into evolutionary discusions because they lack knowledge when it comes to evolution. Tristesse that is nonsense and you know it. Yet you will still commit such a comment for publication. Why, that is such a silly thing to assert. Many of them have peer reviewed papers and contributed to mainstream science. Many have written good papers that are not creation based. They do have knowledge and know what evolutionists are proposing. They accept what has been observed. They have no problems with any proof of microevolution. They do not deny these fact. They do not believe that the observed facts multiplied many times will result in macroevolution. They deny mathematical modelling and the assumptions required as their basis. This is not the same as knowing nothing about TOE, and denying it out of ignorance.

To debate with creationists by throwing around insults, particularly ones that are baseless, may be great fun and it may get them angry, so if that is what you seek then great. However if you truly want to debate a creationist at a mature level I think you need to drop the immaturity and hit on reality.

I did not want to get off on the wrong foot here, just being new and all. But it is simply a lie to say that creationists know little about evolution. Rather a person needs knowledge to be able to choose to deny it. Not all of course, but many creationists can talk the talk, and have decided that the evidence for macroevolution, is not solid. That is their choice and it is not always based in ignorance and denial of observed facts.

I am embarrassed that some evolutionists feel the need to stoop to down right lies in order to defend evolution. There is no need for it. We have the stronger stance.

People here are not alone in their stereotypical behaviour. Pack mentality is well researched, but I am surprised to see such hatred fester on a religious forum. The like of Dawkins is also an embarrassment with his never ending need to speak in defence of evolution against creationists with demonic fervour and total ignorance of creationist reasonings. Why he even carries on about Intelligent designers in his talks that ultimately are evolutionists with a twist. I think new age evolutionists are sick of hearing it.

This thread is embarrassing on the basis of the very accusation being made here against all creationists is reflective; which is that evolutionists demonstrate their ignorance of the various creationist stances while accusing creationists of the same ignorance in relation to evolution. In which case evolutionists appear to be no better.

To call all creationists ignorant is to head off a good debate before it even starts. I would leave it for the bible quoters that truly know little about TOE...but they are not all like that. That is an unfounded stereotype and embarrassingly ignorant.

Actaully, thats not at all what I said, astrid. And my statements are not all inclusive. I'm not talking about all creationists. I'm talking mainly about the prominent ones who seem to get the most attention. Those ones are ignorant about the facts supporting evolution. Being ignorant is not a bad thing, I'm ignorant when it comes to all sorts of stuff. But it's not a good thing to be intentionally ignorant, which sadly I think a lot of creationists fall into that category.

 

[Valjean]

really? where? is there published research you can link me to?

Just look at the fossil record, Warren. You can see plants and animals changing over time.

Bio Ev. = what happens from specie to specie

ToE = how it happens

My questions: What happens... specie to specie? - BE
How does it happen? - ToE

What: Species gain new traits
How: Natural Selection, Competition, Survival of the Fittest

Both of those are within the Theory of Evolution and do not exist without the other.

I would like to see where it was witnessed that an animal grew new traits and in turn was classified as a new species. I am truly curious.

You'd like to see it, but you do nothing to research it. True, it should have been taught you in school, but, failing that, there are still thousands of sites you can click on for examples.

 

[Thief]

And there it is!

The biggest hook religeon has... THE THREAT!!!

"Believe what we believe or you'll burn in hell for eternity".

Personally, I don't take too kindly to threats. Intimidation is not the way to gain support. Besides, it only works on the weak.

No...actually....

The biggest hook would be...
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.

It is fair warning.

And fair warnings are not a threat.
It's just cause and effect....on a personal level.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The biggest hook would be...
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.

Nah, that's not religion.
That's just the golden rule, a common denominator and basis for basic morality.
Nothing religious about it.

 

[Android]

It is fair warning.

And fair warnings are not a threat.
It's just cause and effect....on a personal level.

Word it however you like it, still sounds like a threat to me.

 

[McBell]

Word it however you like it, still sounds like a threat to me.

That is because it is a threat.
Sad that some people are only good because of fear of punishment....

 

[Warren Clark]

No...actually....

The biggest hook would be...
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.

It is fair warning.

And fair warnings are not a threat.
It's just cause and effect....on a personal level.

Every religion has that rule.
its the golden rule.
its not a hook for anything.
other wise everyone would be buddhist. XP

Telling someone "lack of faith is bad for the soul" is only an unjustified opinion.
Saying "You'll see" is a conotation of a threat.

 

[Thief]

Every religion has that rule.
its the golden rule.
its not a hook for anything.
other wise everyone would be buddhist. XP

Telling someone "lack of faith is bad for the soul" is only an unjustified opinion.
Saying "You'll see" is a conotation of a threat.

No...not at all.

As you do unto others....do you not expect as much in return?

Perhaps you don't believe in heaven or angels....

But you'll see.
And they will do unto you, as you did unto others.

What's unfair about that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

No...not at all.

As you do unto others....do you not expect as much in return?

Perhaps you don't believe in heaven or angels....

But you'll see.
And they will do unto you, as you did unto others.

What's unfair about that?

Be good.....or else.....:fight:

 

[RitalinO.D.]

No...not at all.

As you do unto others....do you not expect as much in return?

Perhaps you don't believe in heaven or angels....

But you'll see.
And they will do unto you, as you did unto others.

What's unfair about that?

Thats a cop out and a scare tactic that unfortunately for people like you, doesn't work on atheists.

The golden rule is common sense and has nothing to do with religion.

 

[McBell]

Thats a cop out and a scare tactic that unfortunately for people like you, doesn't work on atheists.

The golden rule is common sense and has nothing to do with religion.

What is sad is that he is promoting that his angels do not follow the golden rule..
Funny that.