No such thing as "evolutionists"

[Tristesse]

That is different than if millions of people believed in fire breathing dragons, and had experiences with salvation through faith in a fire breathing dragon that came to earth in the appearance of a man and died on a cross for our sins. Most evolutionists that I have seen believe there could be aliens, yet we can't see them. Rational?

The amount of people who believe a proposition does not make it any more true. At one time, almost everyone on earth thought that the earth was flat. Were they correct in that believing that assumption? No, but they didn't know any better. And besides we're talking about evolution not religion, because a lot of religious people accept evolution, many of them are on this forum. And as for personal experience, that is the flimsiest and worst type of evidence. Just ask a magician how easily the mind is fooled. There are always better explanations for the "personal experiences" people have. And I don't think people are lying when they say they've had a personal experience, I just think that they are mistaken.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The clerk at the 7/11. (That's all a PhD is good for these days.)

You need a Phd to work at 7/11? Phew, glad I didn't pursue one.

 

[ragordon168]

That is different than if millions of people believed in fire breathing dragons, and had experiences with salvation through faith in a fire breathing dragon that came to earth in the appearance of a man and died on a cross for our sins. Most evolutionists that I have seen believe there could be aliens, yet we can't see them. Rational?

3 problems with that:

1. even if fire breathing dragons existed we would still ask to see it to believe it. the reason we accept things like pet dogs is we know from experience that dogs are real and they are pets.

2. remember the statistics thing? the sheer scale of the universe means its almost impossible for us to be the only planet with life.

3. if a fire breathing dragon comes down to earth as a man its not really a dragon anymore is it?

 

[Magic Man]

We need to pull all the creationists off the streets because if they can't think rationally, they are a danger to the commnity. Not to mention though that they built this country into the greatest in the world.

Oh, you were doing so well! Right up until that last part! If you just left out the second sentence, I would agree. The second sentence, however, is just wrong and ignorant.

 

[Magic Man]

Let me make sure I understand this. I've been in electronics all my life, worked on radar tracking systems, graduated with 4.0 in college, raised two kids, married, gotten great reviews from my employers and the whole time I was irrational?

Yes, concerning your religion and parts of science, you've been irrational.

I wonder if any evolutionists went to a doctor that believed in creation and they operated on them? Wow, irrational with a scaple working on them.

Not if the doctor went through medical school. To be a doctor these days, you need to accept evolution. Without evolution, our current understanding of biology is pretty much non-existent.

 

[Magic Man]

Most evolutionists that I have seen believe there could be aliens, yet we can't see them. Rational?

"Most evolutionists"? I'd hesitate to say that. That means that 90% of the world's population thinks there are aliens out there. I wouldn't put that number that high.

However, yes, believing that there are probably other intelligent life forms out there is quite rational. Saying they're coming to earth and experimenting on people or whatever, however, isn't quite as rational.

 

[Draka]

We need to pull all the creationists off the streets because if they can't think rationally, they are a danger to the commnity.

Wow. That's got to be one of the greatest suggestions ever. My opinion of you has just gone up.

Not to mention though that they built this country into the greatest in the world.

Wow. That's got to be one of the most ignorant statements ever. My opinion of you just went back down.


Impressive post.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

wait, does Kent Hovind actually have a Phd, or is that just yet again another one of his lies?

Food for thought on that one

http://www.kent-hovind.com/doctor/index.htm:rolleyes:

 

[Falvlun]

"I believe in evolution."
"I am an evolutionist."

These are phrases that creationists want you to use, simply because they add to the appearance that creationism and evolution are equally valid scientific positions. They aren't. Creationism has an extraordinarily successful marketing campaign. People actually believe that there's a scientific debate! There isn't!

So please stop using those phrases, and please delete this EvC subforum (yeah right ), because it only assists the creationist marketing campaign by promoting confusion and ignorance.

I always cringe when I use the phrases "I believe in evolution", "those who believe in evolution", etc. But I can never come up with a unambiguous, non-bulky way of saying what I mean instead.

When you are talking about someone (or yourself), how do you refer to them, when that is the characteristic you wish to highlight?

Exchange "believe in evolution" with "someone who agrees with the tenets of evolution"? That really gets tedious after a while. We need some sort of shorthand.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

What this post assumes is all scientists believe in and promote evolution.

There is to my knowledge not a single biologist who holds any other valid theory.
That is not to say that everybody "promotes" evolution.

Before someone believes in evolution they must first believe it without evidence.

Says who ?

They say that the evidence points to evolution but that is not true. The evidence that people tout as evolution is really just data that has to be interpreted one way or another.

You are a funny guy.
Indeed evidence points to evolution. There has not been one single interpretation of the data that was consistent and hasn't concluded that evolution happened.
If you happen to have one i would be interested to see it.

It is a grave misconduct to simply claim that all evidence could simply be interpreted in either way.

 

[richardlowellt]

We need to pull all the creationists off the streets because if they can't think rationally, they are a danger to the commnity.

That certainly would be an excellent place to start.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I always cringe when I use the phrases "I believe in evolution", "those who believe in evolution", etc. But I can never come up with a unambiguous, non-bulky way of saying what I mean instead.

When you are talking about someone (or yourself), how do you refer to them, when that is the characteristic you wish to highlight?

Exchange "believe in evolution" with "someone who agrees with the tenets of evolution"? That really gets tedious after a while. We need some sort of shorthand.

How about "Accept"..?

'I accept the Theory of Evolution"....

You either accept it or reject it. You accept the theory because you have studied the data that supports it. You reject it because you haven't studied the data that supports it, or flat out want to ignore the data.

I think the use of the word "accept" would work and not come off as some sort of (belief...or...belief system)

 

[Falvlun]

How about "Accept"..?

'I accept the Theory of Evolution"....

You either accept it or reject it. You accept the theory because you have studied the data that supports it. You reject it because you haven't studied the data that supports it, or flat out want to ignore the data.

I think the use of the word "accept" would work and not come off as some sort of (belief...or...belief system)

:thumbs up: That sounds like it will work. Ok. I'll make a conscious effort to use "accept" rather than "believe".

 

[Man of Faith]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to stop saying evolutionist. I don't consider it a demeaning term, just a term for those that accept the ToE. We need a term to describe those people. Most of them are not scientists anyway. If I can put up with being called creationist because I accept the creation story as dcescribed in the Bible then those that accept the evolution story as described in 19th century theory can accept evolutionist.

 

[linwood]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to stop saying evolutionist. I don't consider it a demeaning term, just a term for those that accept the ToE. We need a term to describe those people. Most of them are not scientists anyway. If I can put up with being called creationist because I accept the creation story as dcescribed in the Bible then those that accept the evolution story as described in 19th century theory can accept evolutionist.

Many of us don`t want to play your game at all.

There are already terms for one who accepts evolution.

"Reasonable"
"Rational"
"Level headed"
"Non-delusional"

There are more but you get my meaning.

 

[Man of Faith]

Many of us don`t want to play your game at all.

There are already terms for one who accepts evolution.

"Reasonable"
"Rational"
"Level headed"
"Non-delusional"

There are more but you get my meaning.

Yes and if anything is demeaning it is suggesting that creationists cannot be described in those terms.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to stop saying evolutionist.

That's fine. Just remember a couple of things. One, people will know you're a creationist and that you reject evolution when you use the term. Two, when you say evolutionist, what you mean is "rational, at least somewhat-educated, halfway intelligent person".

We need a term to describe those people.

No, we don't, just as we don't need a term like "gravitationist" or "algebrist".

Most of them are not scientists anyway.

Um...that's true, considering most of the population is not scientists.

If I can put up with being called creationist because I accept the creation story as dcescribed in the Bible then those that accept the evolution story as described in 19th century theory can accept evolutionist.

Well, we can accept it, it's just a stupid term to use and only shows the user's ignorance.

And what's wrong with being called a creationist? That's no different than being called a theist. It describes one of your beliefs. "Evolutionist" doesn't describe a belief. It describes the acceptance of science's well-founded explanation for something. That's why it's as useless as "gravitationist" or something.

 

[linwood]

Yes and if anything is demeaning it is suggesting that creationists cannot be described in those terms.

Depending upon which literal creation story they hold to those terms are perfectly acceptable for describing their beliefs in such creation tales.

 

[Falvlun]

Many of us don`t want to play your game at all.

There are already terms for one who accepts evolution.

"Reasonable"
"Rational"
"Level headed"
"Non-delusional"

There are more but you get my meaning.

I think it's disingenuous to claim that those terms can be used as a designator for someone who accepts evolution. RF is proof that every person who accepts evolution isn't automatically "reasonable", "rational", and least of all, "level headed".

It also is ambiguous. Saying "I am a rational person" does not necessarily, or directly, convey the idea "I accept evolution." And, as has been pointed out, many people who believe in creationism can be rational and reasonable about other aspects of their life-- they simply built up a brick wall in this case.

 

[linwood]

I think it's disingenuous to claim that those terms can be used as a designator for someone who accepts evolution. RF is proof that every person who accepts evolution isn't automatically "reasonable", "rational", and least of all, "level headed".

When discussing the beliefs the label describes "un-reasonable" is indeed acceptable to describe someone who literally believes an omnipotent omniprescient magical being created life from clay by breathing a soul into it.

"Delusional" is closer to the truth but "unreasonable/irrational"is more PC in polite company.


I`m aware there are other creation stories out there so my mileage may vary but not by much.

It also is ambiguous. Saying "I am a rational person" does not necessarily, or directly, convey the idea "I accept evolution." And, as has been pointed out, many people who believe in creationism can be rational and reasonable about other aspects of their life-- they simply built up a brick wall in this case.

Any label is ambiguous.

Do you honestly believe any single word or term can accurately describe any single person or worldview in existence?

I thought we were discussing a specific area of thought here.
Within that area of thought my statement stands.

To literally believe that an entity whose very definition is a contradiction of physics created all space/energy/matter by "poofing" it into existence while ignoring the evidence to the contrary is indeed delusional, unreasonable, irrational and a few other labels I`m sure I`ll think of later.