Creationism: Is it New? Are creationists by default dishonest& ignorant in basic science?

[firedragon]

Yeah, scientists are not stupid. Scientists will not make comments on their colleagues on things which are not related to science, otherwise they would be considered fools. Belief is a personal matter. But they would sure be surprised by unfounded beliefs.
Yeah, science respects the effort of their predecessors even after they may have been proved wrong. It does not matter what personal beliefs they might have had.
Kindly explain the type of fallacy that you mentioned in your last sentence. How does genetics comes in?

Obviously you are not a scientists. So, obviously.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did I? I said you are worshiping the "God of Gaps'". Thousands of people have claimed to be or have been designated as prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis of this "God of Gaps". No one has ever offered any evidence. If you have even one, mention it.

Yes, I am not a scientist. But science is the base of my beliefs. You have not completed your sentence. "So, obviously" what?

 

[firedragon]

I said you are worshiping the "God of Gaps'".

How do you know what Im worshiping?

you say you are based on science, but you make general demeaning comments about billions of people in the world saying they are either dishonest, ignorant, or are mental, which is bigotry. And when asked for evidence to what you say you come with more bigoted statements. Now you claim something about me who you dont know, so that's another statement you made based on your prejudice, not evidence. So you speak of evidence? Mate, why do you look at the thimble in someones eye when you have a plank in yours?

Have a great day.

 

[thomas t]

If he "remade the world" then why wouldn't he remake it from scratch honestly instead of giving the Earth a false history?

Let me recall the comparison with the wine: wine must have a history of at least 6 months for it to be wine, there is no instant wine like there is instant ginger drink...
God made wine within a second just for the sake of having some good tasty wine. He didn't cheat, he didn't lie. He made the wine from scratch. Yet it looked older than it actually was.
Same with creation, I think.
In #252 I said that only in an old looking universe man is able to notice galaxies apart from their own. Is that cheating by God? No, I think. It is loving from his side to show man galaxies. Yet Bible (Genesis 1) holds that they are some 6000 years old only.

Dear Subduction Zone, this is going round in circles. Can we stop here. Normally you're doing a great job in apologetics, I know that. I've read what you wrote on CF, for instance. I know you make a case for atheism that isn't easy to deal with. But this time it's going round in circles a bit...

I don't think that my refutation of your answers reveals a lack of education in science.

The only way to refute evidence is with more accurate evidence.

no. One example: when you say "the cellar does not show traces of moisture, so it's a myth that flooding has occured!" I refute it with pointing to the land lord that potentially exchanged the house - after the flooding. To me, that's a refutation. If the flooding happened prior to the building of the new house, your evidence points to nothing but to the absence of a flooding of the new house. But that wasn't your point for which you claimed evidence!

Do you remember when I asked you how you would test your beliefs? You not only said that you did not have a test, you said that you would not test them. That is a statement that said that you had no evidence for your beliefs and were not interested in finding evidence for your beliefs.

This is a misrepresentation of what I said.
I said that I don't test my general belief in God. If it's just interpretation of scientific data for a particular field, I am open to change my mind!

As I see it, you made an ad hominem remark in #272 questioning that I wasn't afraid to learn.

God isn't a bumbler, I think. He didn't cheat. God didn't commit any evil act, nor is he ashamed, I think.

I didn't give a poor argument, I didn't paint God as an evil incompetent liar. I reason logically, I think.
The narrative of a literal Genesis is not a flase one.

I think I do understand what is and what is not evidence.
I didn't resort to mere hand waving and I don't assume that hand waving makes my arguments fly.

Don't pretend to be my teacher in posting unwarranted educational links, please.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Firdragon:
Yeah, how do the numbers matter? There are dishonest, ignorant people and those who have impaired mental facilities. Millions or billions. World population is large, 7.8 billion today. How is it demeaning? It is a fact. Atheist (including myself) have not come across any thing that indicates existence of God/Allah, therefore, we do not believe in existence of God/Allah; and consequently, we also consider claims of being prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis as totally false which will either be made by charlatans, ignorant or mentally afflicted. I am not alone. Millions of people are atheists.

"According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists)." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwji7Iq2gOvsAhVST30KHaC7A4cQFjACegQIBhAC&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism&usg=AOvVaw2thnTJKlN79t-gFfPzrEPb

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, how do the numbers matter? There are dishonest, ignorant people and those who have impaired mental facilities.

So there are three types of people who are non-atheists.

1. dishonest
2. ignorant
3. mental.

See, you have repeated this so repeating again doesnt make it valid, it is just a repetition of a bigoted statement. Providing a valid research would make you more credible, otherwise its just empty.

 

[firedragon]

You know what? There are two self proclaimed atheists here who have been claiming theists are either ignorant, dishonest or mental. No fourth option. Having that as a prejudice is bigotry.

Thus, should a theist take this example and commit the composition fallacy and state that all atheists are bigoted? Not at all.

So is not this a shameful act of an atheist who have not shown the quality theists have in this thread?

Theists can also be bigoted of course. But honestly I have not seen that against atheists in this thread. But atheists in this thread, not all but one or two have displayed bigotry. Thus, maybe its high time that these one or two atheists claiming to be scientific and evidence based to be what they claimed to be rather than making bigoted statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me recall the comparison with the wine: wine must have a history of at least 6 months for it to be wine, there is no instant wine like there is instant ginger drink...
God made wine within a second just for the sake of having some good tasty wine. He didn't cheat, he didn't lie. He made the wine from scratch. Yet it looked older than it actually was.
Same with creation, I think.
In #252 I said that only in an old looking universe man is able to notice galaxies apart from their own. Is that cheating by God? No, I think. It is loving from his side to show man galaxies. Yet Bible (Genesis 1) holds that they are some 6000 years old only.

Dear Subduction Zone, this is going round in circles. Can we stop here. Normally you're doing a great job in apologetics, I know that. I've read what you wrote on CF, for instance. I know you make a case for atheism that isn't easy to deal with. But this time it's going round in circles a bit...

I don't think that my refutation of your answers reveals a lack of education in science.

Yes, until you see your errors we will be going around in circles. And your poor argument was not a "refutation". That you think it was does indicate a lack of education. That is why I offered to go over the basics with you. You have as yet refused to take me up on my offer. And if you really understood the basics of science it would only take a short conversation to confirm that claim.

Once again are you interested in learning? It is clear that you lack this understanding.

no. One example: when you say "the cellar does not show traces of moisture, so it's a myth that flooding has occured!" I refute it with pointing to the land lord that potentially exchanged the house - after the flooding. To me, that's a refutation. If the flooding happened prior to the building of the new house, your evidence points to nothing but to the absence of a flooding of the new house. But that wasn't your point for which you claimed evidence!

The problem with your argument is that you are in effect saying that God is a liar when he hid what he did. And please note, you claimed to know what a genetic bottleneck was. That does not appear to be the case since you did not answer a clear question on that. Once again:

In your own words what is a genetic bottleneck and what is that a huge problem for believers of the myths of Genesis? The lack of physical evidence of a flood that could not have occurred is only a beginning of the evidence against the flood. Even though you want to claim that God magically made the Earth the same as it was before, and the Bible does not really say that, you have quite a few other questions to answer when it comes to this myth.

This is a misrepresentation of what I said.
I said that I don't test my general belief in God. If it's just interpretation of scientific data for a particular field, I am open to change my mind!

That is good then. There are many Christians, probably the majority of Christians, that know that Genesis is mythical. So how would you test to see if there was an actual flood? Remember, the Bible is the claim, it is not evidence. How would you test your belief in that myth? That is not testing your belief in God. But you should be willing to test that too.

As I see it, you made an ad hominem remark in #272 questioning that I wasn't afraid to learn.

How was that an ad hominem? I do not think that you understand that concept either. And it was definitely not an ad hominem fallacy. Quite a few people have a hard time understanding that logical fallacy.

God isn't a bumbler, I think. He didn't cheat. God didn't commit any evil act, nor is he ashamed, I think.

I didn't give a poor argument, I didn't paint God as an evil incompetent liar. I reason logically, I think.
The narrative of a literal Genesis is not a flase one.

I think I do understand what is and what is not evidence.
I didn't resort to mere hand waving and I don't assume that hand waving makes my arguments fly.

Don't pretend to be my teacher in posting unwarranted educational links, please.

Actually one cannot support the Genesis myths without calling God a liar and an incompetent bumbler. We can go over that too. What you should say is that you do not understand how you have done this.

That is why I like to start at the basics. Let's begin with the basics of science and perhaps after that we can go over logic and how it applies to the myths of Genesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are alluding that all who believe in creation are either dishonest, or ignorant, said in other words very clearly but cleverly. Thats bigotry.

Not bigotry. Instead, it's observation.

Every creationist (= meaning the common usage of the term) I have ever met either was ignorant of the science, OR was deliberately being dishonest about the science.

I have never met a creationist who was both honest about the science AND knowledgeable about it.

One exception though. Don't remember his name. But he's a YEC geologist (phd) who flat out states that he is very much aware of how all the science, in which he participates, supports evolution and an old earth, but that he is a bible believing christian so he will go with a literal reading of the bible eventhough all scientific evidence shows otherwise. Then again, I'ld classify that under "intellectual dishonesty".

Everybody else I ever met or heared about, was not like that. They were either honestly ignorant, or they were dishonest.

Can you provide evidence to say that all who believe God created are either 1) dishonest or 2) ignorant?

I don't have statistics or polls or what have you, if that is what you mean.
I only have my experience of talking to creationists.

Can you point me to a creationist that isn't either dishonest or ignorant concerning the actual science?

My prediction is that you will find it to be extremely easy to find creationists who are either ignorant or dishonest, while you will have a VERY hard time finding creationists who are both honest and knowledgeable.

People who are honest and who aren't ignorant of the science, tend to accept the science instead of bronze age myths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all. The scientific community is not that stupid and childish to think like that.

Foolish and childish, would be to take the "arguments" from creationists seriously.

As it stands, creationists are about as welcome in biology departments as Stork Theorists are welcomed in the field of embryology, or as flat earthers are welcomed by geographers.

And for VERY good reason.

A few might make some comments to make a religious following of some uneducated, pseudo scholars behind them, but as a community scientists are not that childish. It looks like you are just making assumptions.

No assumptions.
Creationists are factually laughed away by biologists and not at all taken seriously.

In fact, scientists practically worship old Christian thinkers like Newton.

For his work in physics.
Nobody cares about his religious beliefs, or his writings in alchemy (which, btw, dwarfs his work in physics.... he wrote TONS more on alchemy then physics).

They also revere others like Galilei.

For his work in astronomy. Not for his religious beliefs, whatever those were.

What you doing is called the "genetic fallacy" in both fronts.

And what you are doing is quite dishonest - pretending as if "creationist ideas" are accepted by science "because Newton". As if Newton is remembered and praised for his religious beliefs instead of his actual non-religious work in physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know what? There are two self proclaimed atheists here who have been claiming theists are either ignorant, dishonest or mental. No fourth option. Having that as a prejudice is bigotry.

Not prejudice. Just simple observation.

 

[firedragon]

Not prejudice. Just simple observation.

Hmm. You observed three quarters of the global population? Well, that's amazing.

 

[firedragon]

And what you are doing is quite dishonest - pretending as if "creationist ideas" are accepted by science "because Newton".

Nah. I didnt. So that's just a lie. Thanks though.

 

[firedragon]

I don't have statistics or polls or what have you, if that is what you mean.
I only have my experience of talking to creationists.

I didnt ask you but good to know that you are answering for someone else and committing the anecdotal fallacy. Great.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Foolish and childish, would be to take the "arguments" from creationists seriously.

As it stands, creationists are about as welcome in biology departments as Stork Theorists are welcomed in the field of embryology, or as flat earthers are welcomed by geographers.

And for VERY good reason.



No assumptions.
Creationists are factually laughed away by biologists and not at all taken seriously.



For his work in physics.
Nobody cares about his religious beliefs, or his writings in alchemy (which, btw, dwarfs his work in physics.... he wrote TONS more on alchemy then physics).



For his work in astronomy. Not for his religious beliefs, whatever those were.




And what you are doing is quite dishonest - pretending as if "creationist ideas" are accepted by science "because Newton". As if Newton is remembered and praised for his religious beliefs instead of his actual non-religious work in physics.

As long as anybody can separate metaphysics from methodological naturalism, they can claim science all that they like. And as long as they don't claim, that science can do this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 they can claim science all that they like.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not prejudice. Just simple observation.

Okay, anyone who claims privileged positive metaphysics are either ignorant, dishonest or mental. That includes some non-religious humans.
That is the end game of that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So there are three types of people who are non-atheists.
1. dishonest,
2. ignorant,
3. mental.

Well, there can be more categories, For Example, 1. people who cannot stand on their own and need a divine crutch to stand, insecure, who are afraid of tomorrow, of death. 2. Greedy, who would pray to their imaginary God/Allah for more material comfort, who believe in deals, give me this, give me that.

 

[firedragon]

As long as anybody can separate metaphysics from methodological naturalism, they can claim science all that they like.

You are right.

But in history there have been people who were scientists and philosophers who actually did not claim methodological naturalism but still were original. Maybe they didnt know to claim methodological naturalism. Maybe they did it without claiming it.

 

[firedragon]

Well, there can be more categories, For Example, 1. people who cannot stand on their own and need a divine crutch to stand, insecure, who are afraid of tomorrow, of death. 2. Greedy, who would pray to their imaginary God/Allah for more material comfort, who believe in deals, give me this, give me that.

More please. More. Its very interesting to see a dogmatic worshiper of his own supernatural assumptions about others.

 

[thomas t]

I stay with my opinion: Genesis or even the Bible as a whole is not mythical.
I don't think that what I should say is that I do not understand what I wrote.

The ad hominem remark consisted in questioning that I am not afraid of learning. I do know what ad hominems are, I think.

I did not and do not claim that God magically made the Earth the same as it was before, as I know the Bible does not really say that.

As I assume we live on earth #2 according to 2 Peter 3:5,6... I have no idea how I would test if there was a flood on the previous earth. But I don't need to, I think. I stay with my opinion: the onus is all on you since you came up with the claim that Genesis was, in fact, all mythological.

The following part of this post is addressing the many repetitions within your post:
Please stop going round in circles with me.

And please note, you claimed to know what a genetic bottleneck was. That does not appear to be the case since you did not answer a clear question on that. Once again:
In your own words what is a genetic bottleneck and what is that a huge problem for believers of the myths of Genesis?

I answered this. Go back to #271, last paragraph.


I answered your question whether I am interested in learning, yes or no. Go back to #274.

There aren't any errors on my side here, I think.

No, neither I nor my argument is in effect saying that God is a liar when he hid what he did.
I think than one can support the Genesis stories without calling God a liar and an incompetent bumbler.
I don't think my refutation was a poor argument.
I don't think any of my arguments indicates a lack of education.

I think I do understand the basics of science.
I think it is not clear that I lack this understanding.

This all is answering the many repetitions you've made. It's rude from your side to resort to making this many repetitions, I think.