poll: are you an ape?

[exchemist]

My point is simply that those who question it get the backlash. (As I quoted before)

The backlash is only against “those who question it” using fraudulent or misleading arguments regurgitated from discredited sources. That, I’m sure you will be able to understand, is tedious and annoying. I have almost never come across a creationist who asks genuine questions of their own and then listens to the answers. You, I’m sorry to say, are no exception.

Questioning in science is fine, but you need to approach it in a spirit of genuine enquiry or you will get short shrift. It also helps if you have bothered to study the things you are questioning, to see what the science actually says about them. That saves a lot of time and the need to straighten out misunderstandings.

I am always excited by the chance to teach science to interested people, and to learn things I did not previously know myself. That is why I am a member of a number of science forums. So I welcome questions. If they are genuine.

 

[Eddi]

You shouldn't - it wasn't posted for you.

Erm, yes it was

You quoted my post in the post in which you provided the link

You addressed it to me

There's your problem.

Many with an education have climbed their way outta the hole of ignorance they were brainwashed and indoctrinated into, but, sadly, most do not ever.

And those who "refuse to waste their time on such stupidity" as looking into a subject for themselves will never learn anything of value in this life.

Being "brainwashed" into knowledge and understanding....... OK.......

There is absolutely nothing "of value" in the bible when it comes to scientific matters

It is beyond worthless as a scientific text as it actively inhibits the advancement of science

 

[Kenny]

The backlash is only against “those who question it” using fraudulent or misleading arguments regurgitated from discredited sources. That, I’m sure you will be able to understand, is tedious and annoying. I have almost never come across a creationist who asks genuine questions of their own and then listens to the answers. You, I’m sorry to say, are no exception.

I’m sure that happens but I’m not referencing that.

Questioning in science is fine, but you need to approach it in a spirit of genuine enquiry or you will get short shrift. It also helps if you have bothered to study the things you are questioning, to see what the science actually says about them. That saves a lot of time and the need to straighten out misunderstandings.

Great… I think we are in agreement.

I am always excited by the chance to teach science to interested people, and to learn things I did not previously know myself. That is why I am a member of a number of science forums. So I welcome questions. If they are genuine.

That’s great! I’m not a science expert nor is it my field of expertise. I had chosen the business administration route until I received Jesus into my life.

 

[exchemist]

I’m sure that happens but I’m not referencing that.

Great… I think we are in agreement.

That’s great! I’m not a science expert nor is it my field of expertise. I had chosen the business administration route until I received Jesus into my life.

I’d like us to find some agreement so thanks for the constructive response.

Just don’t cite stuff from the Disco ’Tute , if you can avoid it. Those crooks make my blood boil.

 

[Father Heathen]

This summarizes the "debate".

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is simply that those who question it get the backlash. (As I quoted before)

Scientists love honest questioning. But when loons demand that they answer what are essentially Flat Earth questions they can see that they are dealing with dishonest loons. Groups that require their employees to swear that they will not follow the scientific method have lost the ability to complain when others treat them as spoiled children.

 

[Sargonski]

Because that's where this idea that the Sumerian deities (the Annunaki) were actually ETs who came here to mine gold and genetically engineered humanity as a slave race came from - a series of books by Zecharia Sitchin. David Icke did a lot to popularize these ideas and he added the reptilian thing to it. You're not getting it from the Bible itself.

No .. the ideas do not come from Sitchen nor Icke. The Ideas come from the History of Mesopotamia .. beliefs of the people of the Day .. and in particular .. as stated in the initial post .. from the library found at Ugarit .. written in a language that is extremely similar to Ancient Hebrew .. so close that Scholars say if you go back far enough you can't tell the difference between the two.

This is what the people in Mesopotamia believed -- Most of the story is found in the Bible ..... some of the extra stuff in the story ommitted in the Bible I supplied.

That Sitchen and Icke chose to popularize some made up Reptilian stories supposedly related to the Sumerian creation story is not relevant to the fact that the Bible contains most of the actual creation story .. the story that all people of the day believed over most of the known world .. Israelites included .. which comes from the Bible itself .. as shown you in the previous post. Where the faux oblivion comes from I do not know.

 

[Kenny]

Scientists love honest questioning. But when loons demand that they answer what are essentially Flat Earth questions they can see that they are dealing with dishonest loons. Groups that require their employees to swear that they will not follow the scientific method have lost the ability to complain when others treat them as spoiled children.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No .. the ideas do not come from Sitchen nor Icke. The Ideas come from the History of Mesopotamia .. beliefs of the people of the Day .. and in particular .. as stated in the initial post .. from the library found at Ugarit .. written in a language that is extremely similar to Ancient Hebrew .. so close that Scholars say if you go back far enough you can't tell the difference between the two.

This is what the people in Mesopotamia believed -- Most of the story is found in the Bible ..... some of the extra stuff in the story ommitted in the Bible I supplied.

That Sitchen and Icke chose to popularize some made up Reptilian stories supposedly related to the Sumerian creation story is not relevant to the fact that the Bible contains most of the actual creation story .. the story that all people of the day believed over most of the known world .. Israelites included .. which comes from the Bible itself .. as shown you in the previous post. Where the faux oblivion comes from I do not know.

You're just incorrect. Those Annunaki alien ideas started with Sitchin (not the reptilian stuff as I said that was afterwards). I used to believe that sort of stuff. Sorry you read it on some shoddy site or book that didn't properly credit where it came from.

Show me a "scholar" who says such things.

 

[Sargonski]

You're just incorrect. Those Annunaki alien ideas started with Sitchin (not the reptilian stuff as I said that was afterwards). I used to believe that sort of stuff. Sorry you read it on some shoddy site or book that didn't properly credit where it came from.

Show me a "scholar" who says such things.

No .. sorry .. it is you who knows naught of what one speaketh .. you can go read the Atra Hasis Text online for yourself .. the Enuma Elish .. Gilgamesh Epic .. the biblical flood story where utnapishtim is the one chosen to surive the Flood. The entire creation account - in great detail - you can read online at your liesure.

And what these folks believed .. is what was told to you .. These beings from the Sky come to Earth .. the labor is difficult .. so they create a worker species called the Adamu .. and so on .. the rest of the stuff given you is in the Bible .. same Adamu .. what part of where that word comes from did you not understand ? Doesn't come from "Sitchen" ... comes from these ancient texts .. some from the 3rd millenium BC .. and we can read these texts .. folks been hard at work translating the Rash Shamra Texts from Ugarit .. little more than 10% has been translated ... but that is a huge amount compared to what we used to know .. can go watch the Chick from Yale Divinity School give a hour long lecture on the topic .. Youtube ..

So it is you who is "just incorrect" - the Annukaki Alien ideas started ~ 4300 Years prior to Sitchen's Birth .. here is the Atrahasis text ..where your journey into the 3rd millennium begins .. Sitchen being so 2cnd Millennium Har har

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://geha.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2017/04/Atrahasis.pdf

 

[John53]

My point is simply that those who question it get the backlash. (As I quoted before)

Got some examples? I've never seen anyone get backlash for asking questions.

Asking the same question over and over when it has been answered by multiple people, yes that gets backlash.

 

[Sargonski]

You're just incorrect. Those Annunaki alien ideas started with Sitchin (not the reptilian stuff as I said that was afterwards). I used to believe that sort of stuff. Sorry you read it on some shoddy site or book that didn't properly credit where it came from.

Show me a "scholar" who says such things.

Look Frankie .. once again you can believe !! here is your Scholar "who says such things" .. one of many many many.

and more .. 2 complete lectures you lucky fellow.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Look Frankie .. once again you can believe !! here is your Scholar "who says such things" .. one of many many many.

and more .. 2 complete lectures you lucky fellow.

So where does she mention aliens genetically engineering humans?

 

[Kenny]

Got some examples? I've never seen anyone get backlash for asking questions.

Asking the same question over and over when it has been answered by multiple people, yes that gets backlash.

Obviously I am limited to what Google provides… but I found this quote:

(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments​

Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers’ mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling. Bolyanatz32 noted that evolutionists often assume that

‘anyone holding the creationist viewpoint must be illogical, backward, subversive, uneducated, and stubborn.’

Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature.33,34 A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all

‘creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.’ And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.’35

(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs​

It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.

(3) Refusal to award degree​

Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.

(4) Denial of promotion​

Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.36,37

(5) Denial of tenure​

Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception.38 This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.

1. Bolyanatz, A.H., The creation/evolutionary controversy … more heat than light, Anthropology Newsletter25(7):I and II, 1984. Return to text.
2. Bergman, Ref. 5. Return to text.
3. Bergman, Ref. 6. Return to text.
4. Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? The Humanist 44(4):6–10, 1984. Return to text.
5. Bergman Ref. 5. Return to text.
6. Carnes, T., Denial of promotion response, Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 8(1):3, 1985. Return to text.
7. Tourney, C., God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994. Return to text.
8. Beard, E.N. (ed.), Members’ notable notes, Universitas 16(7):3, 1985. Return to text.

 

[John53]

Obviously I am limited to what Google provides… but I found this quote:

(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments​

Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers’ mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling. Bolyanatz32 noted that evolutionists often assume that


Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature.33,34 A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all

You can find the same things said about any group no matter how you choose to group people.

(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs​

It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.

(3) Refusal to award degree​

Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.

(4) Denial of promotion​

Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.36,37

(5) Denial of tenure​

Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception.38 This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.

1. Bolyanatz, A.H., The creation/evolutionary controversy … more heat than light, Anthropology Newsletter25(7):I and II, 1984. Return to text.
2. Bergman, Ref. 5. Return to text.
3. Bergman, Ref. 6. Return to text.
4. Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? The Humanist 44(4):6–10, 1984. Return to text.
5. Bergman Ref. 5. Return to text.
6. Carnes, T., Denial of promotion response, Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 8(1):3, 1985. Return to text.
7. Tourney, C., God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994. Return to text.
8. Beard, E.N. (ed.), Members’ notable notes, Universitas 16(7):3, 1985. Return to text.

The rest just seems to be hearsay.

 

[Kenny]

You can find the same things said about any group no matter how you choose to group people.



The rest just seems to be hearsay.

Yes, I suppose we could say that but apparently it is referenced so it tends to have some support rather than doubt.

Even on this forum, notice the derogatory statements and/or the believing of the worst just because the scientist doesn’t agree. Isn’t it automatic label as soon as someone posts a counter?

 

[John53]

Yes, I suppose we could say that but apparently it is referenced so it tends to have some support rather than doubt.

Even on this forum, notice the derogatory statements and/or the believing of the worst just because the scientist doesn’t agree. Isn’t it automatic label as soon as someone posts a counter?

There's derogatory statements of all kinds directed at various people or groups. I don't see some kind of conspiracy targeting any one group.

 

[Revoltingest]

If empirical science shows evolution to be true, why are there people with knowledge of science deny the theory?

To have knowledge is no guarantee of cromulent beliefs.
- Could be inadequate knowledge.
- Could be incorrect knowledge, ie, not really knowledge.
- Could be illogical reasoning from knowledge.
- Could be a need for loopy beliefs despite debunking knowledge.

Creationists appear to suffer from all of the above.
I have spoken.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can find the same things said about any group no matter how you choose to group people.



The rest just seems to be hearsay.

It sounds as if he believes the mockumentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". He did not understand that the "No intelligence allowed" part of the title referred to those involved in making that film:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" The New York Times deemed it "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike". "

Just about every claim in the movie was refuted after it came out.

 

[John53]

It sounds as if he believes the mockumentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". He did not understand that the "No intelligence allowed" part of the title referred to those involved in making that film:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" The New York Times deemed it "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike". "

Just about every claim in the movie was refuted after it came out.

Could be but I also think some people feel they're being picked on if everyone doesn't agree with them. Not sure why it's a shock on a debate forum.