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

[firedragon]

I observed every creationist I have ever conversed with and / or ever heard speak.

Maybe your scope is very very small.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent. You have given ppl like Kent Hovind who was a fake Phd granted by a fake university situated in a house with three rooms. He is no creationist, he is an anti evolution, pseudo scholar. Super going quoting famous evangelists like that off the TV. Quite shallow.

Ill give you a creationist. Ibn Khaldun. Do some research on him.

He was not a creationist. You know this since your error was previously corrected.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe your scope is very very small.

Nope. Likely projection on your part again.

 

[firedragon]

As I said, you are most welcome to point me to a creationist that is both honest and not ignorant of the sciences involved.

But you won't, will you?

See, it is you and some other atheists here who are proposing most of humanity in this world are either ignorant, dishonest, or mental. I dont know if you said mental, but maybe you said the other two. So when you say something like that, it is you who has to provide evidence to that claim. Its the burden of proof fallacy to say "I claim this, now prove me wrong". No no. It is only grown up to know that if you claim something, you have to provide evidence.

Thus, please do provide "EVIDENCE" to the fact as you claim most of humanity are either ignorant or dishonest and there are no other options. Please go ahead. Dont neglect this question and respond with some rhetoric.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, it is you and some other atheists here who are proposing most of humanity in this world are either ignorant, dishonest, or mental. I dont know if you said mental, but maybe you said the other two. So when you say something like that, it is you who has to provide evidence to that claim. Its the burden of proof fallacy to say "I claim this, now prove me wrong". No no. It is only grown up to know that if you claim something, you have to provide evidence.

Thus, please do provide "EVIDENCE" to the fact as you claim most of humanity are either ignorant or dishonest and there are no other options. Please go ahead. Dont neglect this question and respond with some rhetoric.

Nope, we never made that claim. Most people in the world do not appear to be creationist. Are you still having a hard time understanding that term? Don't conflate "theist" with "creationist", they do not mean the same thing. Creationism is a rejection of the science that shows Genesis to be mythical. That is all.

 

[thomas t]

No, it is an observation based upon your posts

this observation was wrong but the way you worded it made it a personal attack.
You can say "you post in this thread in a supid manner," then I would just have responded "no, I don't". In contrast, "You don't know the basics of logic" is getting personal, though.
But this was way over the top, because it was getting personal.
Can we stop this now?
My assumptions weren't a personal attack, of course. They remained on the subject level.

I don't need any links from your side to understand what is and is not evidence. Please stop trying to educate me. Your offers of "help" are simply getting on my nerves.
What would you do if someone knocks your door saying
"I sell you this insurance, it is quite good"
"no, good bye"
"but I offer you my help!"
"No, get yourself off my door"
"but you need it soo much!"
You see, people can just get on other people's nerves. What would you do to get this person off?

And I stay with my opinion, you can't substanciate your claim that Genesis is a myth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't see it. You can only understand it.
A scientist claiming God is not science. A scientist claiming metaphysical naturalism is not science.

And you continue down the endless pit of random comments, pretending they have something to do with the point at hand.

The point at hand was about how creationistic ideas are laughed away in biology departments, just like how flat earth ideas are laughed away by geographers and stork theorists are laughed away by embryologists.

I have no idea what you are talking about, nore how it relates to the point at hand.

My best guess, is that you are once again trying to goad me down the rabbit hole of semantic nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A person claiming God is the above. A person claiming metaphysical naturalism is the above.

Ok.

Not seeing the relevancy of this. But ok.

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I guess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Excellent. You have given ppl like Kent Hovind who was a fake Phd granted by a fake university situated in a house with three rooms.

Yes. Which is one of many ways in which he is dishonest.

He is no creationist, he is an anti evolution

He is both. They are kind of synonymous. As so many of us have been telling you.

, pseudo scholar

Like the vast majority of creationists.

Super going quoting famous evangelists like that off the TV. Quite shallow.

Feel free to come up with your own list with creationists that are neither ignorant nore lying.
Note that the linked list, is not a list of tv evangelists. The majority of names given are NOT televangelists at all. Many of them are even quite educated. Engineers and alike.

Sounds a bit like you stopped reading after "kent hovind".

Ill give you a creationist. Ibn Khaldun. Do some research on him.

A guy who lived 800 years ago?



Sounds like you haven't learned anything in this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No.

Ok.

Then clarify. Why did you bring them up? What point WERE you trying to make?
And keep in mind the post you were replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe your scope is very very small.

I assure you that it isn't.

I'm still waiting for you to give an actual example of a creationist who is neither ignorant nore lying.

Heck, at this point, I'ld even settle for any example of any creationist who brings an argument I haven't heard of before instead of simply recycling that which has been refuted a thousand times over already.

Not holding my breath though.

By now, I have concluded that you have no such examples. You would have given them already if you did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See, it is you and some other atheists here who are proposing most of humanity in this world are either ignorant, dishonest, or mental.

Not at all. Even only for the fact that the majority of people aren't creationists at all.

I dont know if you said mental, but maybe you said the other two. So when you say something like that, it is you who has to provide evidence to that claim. Its the burden of proof fallacy to say "I claim this, now prove me wrong".

I already gave you a list of creationists who are either ignorant or dishonest.
You have given me nothing.

Not a single name of a creationist who isn't either ignorant or lying.

No no. It is only grown up to know that if you claim something, you have to provide evidence.

Which I did. I gave you a whole list of names. You handwaved it away and then came back with the name of a person who's been dead for almost a thousand years and who doesn't fit the definition of creationist.

Thus, please do provide "EVIDENCE" to the fact as you claim most of humanity are either ignorant or dishonest and there are no other options

Already gave you the list. You handwaved it away. In dishonest ways even, claiming Kent Hovind isn't a creationist. I acknowledge the dude is a brutal example of exceptional dishonesty and stupidity. But that kind of drives my point home, now doesn't it?

Certain other creationists are a lot better then him in hiding their ignorance and dishonesty, sure. But they remain ignorant and dishonest nonetheless.

Please go ahead. Dont neglect this question and respond with some rhetoric.

What question? Your request for evidence? I already gave you plenty of examples to validate my point.
You have given me nothing to validate yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And you continue down the endless pit of random comments, pretending they have something to do with the point at hand.

The point at hand was about how creationistic ideas are laughed away in biology departments, just like how flat earth ideas are laughed away by geographers and stork theorists are laughed away by embryologists.

I have no idea what you are talking about, nore how it relates to the point at hand.

My best guess, is that you are once again trying to goad me down the rabbit hole of semantic nonsense.

That you accept biological evolution say nothing about metaphysics and whether objective reality is natural, supernatural or what ever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok.

Not seeing the relevancy of this. But ok.

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I guess.

You can't see it. It is cognitive, you understand it.

 

[firedragon]

Already gave you the list. You handwaved it away. In dishonest ways even, claiming Kent Hovind isn't a creationist. I acknowledge the dude is a brutal example of exceptional dishonesty and stupidity. But that kind of drives my point home, now doesn't it?

The question: Thus, please do provide "EVIDENCE" to the fact as you claim most of humanity are either ignorant or dishonest and there are no other options.

Answer you gave is invalid and you know it.

 

[firedragon]

I assure you that it isn't.

It is. Very very small.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Which is one of many ways in which he is dishonest.

So Hovind is the composition of all billions in the world in your world right?

Lol.

Ciao mate. Have a blast.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this observation was wrong but the way you worded it made it a personal attack.
You can say "you post in this thread in a supid manner," then I would just have responded "no, I don't". In contrast, "You don't know the basics of logic" is getting personal, though.
But this was way over the top, because it was getting personal.
Can we stop this now?
My assumptions weren't a personal attack, of course. They remained on the subject level.

I don't need any links from your side to understand what is and is not evidence. Please stop trying to educate me. Your offers of "help" are simply getting on my nerves.
What would you do if someone knocks your door saying
"I sell you this insurance, it is quite good"
"no, good bye"
"but I offer you my help!"
"No, get yourself off my door"
"but you need it soo much!"
You see, people can just get on other people's nerves. What would you do to get this person off?

And I stay with my opinion, you can't substanciate your claim that Genesis is a myth.

No, it wasn't. Please, no more personal attacks. You made claims. They were shown to be wrong. I offered to help you. You ran away even though you said that you would not.


All creationists to date have either been ignorant of the sciences, or dishonest or both. It is not that hard to learn the basics of science. I am confident that is well within your abilities. Why resist learning? You don't want to learn from me, but no creationist will teach you the basics. They cannot since if they honestly understood the basics they would not be creationists any longer.

There is a reason that creationists always lose in courts of laws. Judges have to be experts on evidence. They can quickly see through the BS of creationists. Even conservative judges end up finding for the evolution side.

Lastly I already have shown Genesis to be a myth. But you ran away from the evidence. You did not even understand the evidence. There is no point in giving you evidence if you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
But you ran away from the evidence. You did not even understand the evidence. There is no point in giving you evidence if you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

I know how evidence works even as a religious person. As long as I don't in effect confuse physical, chemical and biological with cultural, the mental and psychological and don't confuse those 2 categories with metaphysics, I can be religious and you can't catch me for my views being wrong.
So I have learned to use the God of the Gaps and metaphysics as where I place my belief in God. And I have learn to do this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
I place my religious belief where science doesn't work and keep them subjective and/or metaphysical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know how evidence works even as a religious person. As long as I don't in effect confuse physical, chemical and biological with cultural, the mental and psychological and don't confuse those 2 categories with metaphysics, I can be religious and you can't catch me for my views being wrong.
So I have learned to use the God of the Gaps and metaphysics as where I place my belief in God. And I have learn to do this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
I place my religious belief where science doesn't work and keep them subjective and/or metaphysical.

That works, sort of. But it does make Genesis mythical. I never tried to claim that science refutes God or even Christianity. It only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis.


EDIT: The OP has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand what the term "creationist" means. It does not mean "theist". Theists believe that somehow God created everything, but it is an equivocation fallacy to think that makes all theists "creationists". One needs to understand the history of the words creationist and creationism to understand their meaning The terms are relatively young. The first documented use of the word "creationist" appears to be by Darwin himself in describing those that oppose evolution based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis.