The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Elrohir]

Nice - a group of people opposed to science and to religious freedom makes up a word, this gets used by similar people, and thus included in dictionaries - and that is supposed to mean that there was no agenda behind it?

Get real!

If you believe in evolution, then you're an evolutionist. Why is this so hard? I'm an evolutionist, and going by the dictionary definition, so are you.

So you still claim that science only works where it conforms to your religion.

Science hasn't, and can't disprove the existence of God, so stop pretending it has. Only in your wet dreams, buddy boy.

BTW, you ARE intolerant - I remember well your preaching about things that you were clearly shown to be clueless about, or totally wrong on. It seems you can't accept that other people have a different opinion on these, nor that their opinion may be closer to the truth. Thus: you're an intolerantist.

Wait, since when did wrong=intolerant? If I say something wrong, then I'm wrong. If I say you have to believe as I do, or I'll break your arm, I'm intolerant. There's a huge difference. Also, what things are you talking about? And when did I say that I couldn't, or wouldn't accept that other people have different viewpoints on different issues? Where are you getting these absurd accusations?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Meh.

I think you'd find if you looked over the past 5 pages or so that this thread goes through cycles. It's dead for about a month, then a hit-and-run Smidleetroll post resurrects it, then it's sustained for about a week with stale back and forth arguments. Then it dies again.

It's like teh circle uv life

 

[carlosMM]

You know, this particular issue has come up in discussions that I've had with my wife. What to call the people who agree with evolution? I've just been saying "people who agree with evolution". Not everyone who agrees with evolution is a scientist, so I can't just say "scientist". And I don't like the term "evolutionist".

I call them 'sane' or 'informed' or 'educated' or 'realistic' or 'knowledgeable' or - if there is the need to define them quite specifically: 'not religiously indoctrinated'.

 

[Elrohir]

No it isn't. It's a matter of definition.

A scientist starts out believing nothing, starts believing something when it's proven, and stops believing in something when it's disproven.

Going by your definition, I don't think there is a single true scientist in existence today. (Or ever has been) No one can disbelieve literally everything, until he can prove it true. How do you prove that anything beyond your own mind exists? How can you actually prove that you seriously aren't a brain in a jar somewhere, and that the rest of what we perceive as the world isn't really part of your imagination? You can't. There's no such thing as a person who believes nothing until proven otherwise, because no one can believe nothing at all.

A scientist by definition is someone whose beliefs are determined 100% by the facts. A creationist by definition is someone who will believe something with absolute disregard to the facts.

That's how it works when you decide what you want the answer to be before you even start looking for one.

I disagree that a creationist by definition is someone who absolutely disregards the facts, but I agree that most YE creationists don't know what they are talking about at all.

 

[carlosMM]

If you believe in evolution, then you're an evolutionist. Why is this so hard? I'm an evolutionist, and going by the dictionary definition, so are you.

For the billionth time - why are you not able to understand this? - I DO NOT believe in evolution!




I'll exaplin again, although I know that you are either mentally incapable or simply unwilling to accept the fact: I 'accept' evolution as a valid scientific theory.


'believing' means 'not knowing, but uninformedly thinking it is fact' - that's what you do about your god.
Science is not about this, science is about accumulating evidence, proposing a hypothesis and then trying to dismantle it. If you can't make it fail, then you accept it as correct. And still keep trying to falsify it.

Science hasn't, and can't disprove the existence of God, so stop pretending it has. Only in your wet dreams, buddy boy.

I do not think you are in any way qualified to talk about my dreams, especially wet ones. Aside from that, you should be intelligent enough to have understood from the about 50 times you were told here that disproving the existence of something is impossible. Rather, proof must be positive, and you god has failed in that category umpteen billion times, as opposed to evolution: we have massive amounts of tests for evolution that come back positive (beyond a reasonable doubt - know that term?), and zip-zilch-nada for God. why do I get the suspicion that you back the wrong horse?

Wait, since when did wrong=intolerant?

strawman. go to your corner and face the wall for 15 minutes.

If I say something wrong, then I'm wrong. If I say you have to believe as I do, or I'll break your arm, I'm intolerant. There's a huge difference. Also, what things are you talking about? And when did I say that I couldn't, or wouldn't accept that other people have different viewpoints on different issues? Where are you getting these absurd accusations?

You deny evidence to further your own religious position. Call it what you will, I call it lies, and damn lies at that. And I call it intolerance.

 

[carlosMM]

Especially for you, Elrohir, so that you perhaps finally understand that saying 'creation is true' as an a priori means not working scientifically.

 

[Smidlee]

I disagree that a creationist by definition is someone who absolutely disregards the facts, but I agree that most YE creationists don't know what they are talking about at all.

One thing you learn about scientist as well as human nature: The scientist which believe in "position A" thinks the scientist that claims "position B" is completely insane even if both are evolutionists. I remember a reporter interviewing two groups of evolutionists stated that the first thing he picked up on. If you are a creationist to them then you have to be double insane.

 

[Elrohir]

For the billionth time - why are you not able to understand this? - I DO NOT believe in evolution!

You believe the theory of evolution is true, do you not? Either you believe it is true, or you believe it is not, or you hold absolutely no opinion on the matter. Obviously you do hold an opinion on the matter, or you wouldn't be posting in this thread, and obviously you don't disbelieve it, because you are bashing creationists for not believing it. Logically, then, you must believe it is true. What am I missing?

I'll exaplin again, although I know that you are either mentally incapable or simply unwilling to accept the fact: I 'accept' evolution as a valid scientific theory.

Ah, a good old personal attack, a sure sign of a poor debater. Why can't you discuss this calmly and rationally without insulting my intelligence? Insulting people only makes you look bad, especially when you are trying to claim the high intellectual ground.

'believing' means 'not knowing, but uninformedly thinking it is fact' - that's what you do about your god.
Science is not about this, science is about accumulating evidence, proposing a hypothesis and then trying to dismantle it. If you can't make it fail, then you accept it as correct. And still keep trying to falsify it.

Dictionary.com, belief: "something believed; an opinion or conviction". Is it your opinion that life evolved on the Earth from single celled organisms to all the life here in the present day? Then you believe that evolution is true, and are an evolutionist. Good grief, this is not difficult at all.

strawman. go to your corner and face the wall for 15 minutes.

Can you debate without the condescending remarks for a few minutes, please? You said, "you ARE intolerant - I remember well your preaching about things that you were clearly shown to be clueless about, or totally wrong on...." You said I was intolerant because you remembered me being wrong, not because I threatened anyone who disagreed with me. Being wrong is not the same as being intolerant, even if we accept that in this unknown exchange I was indeed wrong.

You deny evidence to further your own religious position. Call it what you will, I call it lies, and damn lies at that. And I call it intolerance.

What evidence, pray tell, do you have that God doesn't exist? You're the one asserting that I'm ignoring evidence, please be so kind as to provide it that I may be enlightened.

Are you seriously saying that believing something that is false is the same as being intolerant? (Even if we accept, for a moment, that I am wrong?) Your position is clearly absurd; I'll give you the chance to rephrase.

 

[carlosMM]

You believe the theory of evolution is true, do you not?

For the billionth+1st time: no.

:yawn:


is the concept of science so hard to grasp?

Either you believe it is true, or you believe it is not, or you hold absolutely no opinion on the matter.

FALSE.

Obviously you do hold an opinion on the matter, or you wouldn't be posting in this thread, and obviously you don't disbelieve it,

So think on: what other options are there????

because you are bashing creationists for not believing it.

Nope, I'd never do that. Not for 'not believing'....

Logically, then, you must believe it is true. What am I missing?

The simple fact that this is not about 'belief'!

Ah, a good old personal attack, a sure sign of a poor debater. Why can't you discuss this calmly and rationally without insulting my intelligence? Insulting people only makes you look bad, especially when you are trying to claim the high intellectual ground.

Ah, the good old sidetracking to avoid the issue.


AGAIN: it is not about belief, and since you have proven to be capable of reading and understanding the English language I have a hard time understanding why you do not get it: THIS IS NOT ABOUT BELIEF!

Dictionary.com, belief: "something believed; an opinion or conviction". Is it your opinion that life evolved on the Earth from single celled organisms to all the life here in the present day?

I do hold that opinion.

Then you believe that evolution is true,

Nope. Logical short-circuit on your part. And don't come citing dictionary definitions at me: they include each and every possible option, and are not necessarily limited to an exact usage of language.

Good grief, this is not difficult at all.

Not for me, but you seem to be incapable of understanding that 'belief' in any discussion with a religionist or cerationist always suggest 'religious belief' or 'conviction not based on evidence'.

Can you debate without the condescending remarks for a few minutes, please?

I could - I just adapted the religionist's usual tone

You said, "you ARE intolerant - I remember well your preaching about things that you were clearly shown to be clueless about, or totally wrong on...." You said I was intolerant because you remembered me being wrong, not because I threatened anyone who disagreed with me. Being wrong is not the same as being intolerant, even if we accept that in this unknown exchange I was indeed wrong.

read again my post....

What evidence, pray tell, do you have that God doesn't exist?

Sigh.

And AGAIN you ask for a proof of inexistence. Do you not understand that this is impossible?

You're the one asserting that I'm ignoring evidence, please be so kind as to provide it that I may be enlightened.

Read this thread and all the million other threads about the topic - they are full of evidence FOR evolution, and totally devoid of evidence against it. Also, they are full of false evidence for the existence of god(s), especially the usual arguments from ignorance.

As a sane and intellectually honest human I can only draw the simple conclusion that the hypothesis 'God exists' and its follow-ons 'God created earth' etc. are not valid scientifically, as there is no evidence for them. Also, since ample evidence has been brought forth for evolution, and the many attempts to show the hypothesis wrong have utterly failed, I must conclude that evolution is the best-fitting hypothesis and should therfore be onsidered a theory, and paradigm.

Are you seriously saying that believing something that is false is the same as being intolerant? (Even if we accept, for a moment, that I am wrong?) Your position is clearly absurd; I'll give you the chance to rephrase.

I never said that, but I know it is too good a strawman for you to pass. You are forgiven. Now please do go to your corner.

 

[carlosMM]

One thing you learn about scientist as well as human nature: The scientist which believe in "position A" thinks the scientist that claims "position B" is completely insane even if both are evolutionists. I remember a reporter interviewing two groups of evolutionists stated that the first thing he picked up on. If you are a creationist to them then you have to be double insane.

Funny, another post that totally ignores all of the previous replies you received - why is that? Please do answer our many points. E.g. about proto-whales.

 

[El_Machinae]

I actually don't mind the term 'evolutionist'. I would restrict it to some whose field crosses over into evolutionary theory, of course. "Evolutionist" is not a subfield of any other field, because evolution has so much cross over.

But I also get Carlos's point, because it sounds like people are claiming that there is an 'evolutionist' cult that is pushing that field.

The term doesn't bother me, unless it's used in an ignorant context.

 

[Elrohir]

For the billionth+1st time: no.

:yawn:


is the concept of science so hard to grasp?

Is the concept of "belief" so hard to grasp? Honestly Carlos, this is insane. Do you think the theory of evolution accurately describes how life changes? Yes or no? If you think it does, then you believe that the theory of evolution is a valid theory.

FALSE.

You saying that it's false doesn't make it so. If my argument was false, then show me how, but simply saying "FALSE" doesn't help anyone.

AGAIN: it is not about belief, and since you have proven to be capable of reading and understanding the English language I have a hard time understanding why you do not get it: THIS IS NOT ABOUT BELIEF!

Why isn't it about belief? You asserted that a true scientist doubts everything, until it is proven valid, and I said it's impossible to doubt everything, and even something as basic as the existence of the universe outside of one's own mind isn't provable. (See Plato's cave, or the brain in a jar analogy) You've never responded to this.

I do hold that opinion.

Then you believe that evolution is true, and are thus an evolutionist. Now was that so hard?

read again my post....

You said I was intolerant because I was wrong. Do you seriously believe that being wrong, even if I was or am, makes me intolerant?

Sigh.

And AGAIN you ask for a proof of inexistence. Do you not understand that this is impossible?

Look: You asserted that I was ignoring evidence by believing in God. YOU PROVE IT. I don't have to prove God exists, because I'm not trying to convince you that He does, because I don't care to. You are trying to convince me that He doesn't exist, thus the burden of proof rests on you. Either put up, or shut up Carlos - admit that you have no proof and apologize for saying that I was ignoring evidence, or provide the evidence. Is that so difficult?

Not for me, but you seem to be incapable of understanding that 'belief' in any discussion with a religionist or cerationist always suggest 'religious belief' or 'conviction not based on evidence'.

I never said religious belief, I'm talking about belief in general, as a conviction or opinion. (As in the definition I quoted earlier)

I never said that, but I know it is too good a strawman for you to pass. You are forgiven. Now please do go to your corner.

Can you stop being pedantic for one moment? For such a supposedly sane, rational and mature human being you're acting awfully immature. Please drop the condescending attitude and snide remarks, and debate simply and civilly. That is not difficult, and you are only making yourself look bad by being so rude.

 

[carlosMM]

Is the concept of "belief" so hard to grasp? Honestly Carlos, this is insane. Do you think the theory of evolution accurately describes how life changes? Yes or no? If you think it does, then you believe that the theory of evolution is a valid theory.

Sigh.......


Yes, I think that the Synthetic Theory of Evolution is fairly close in describing the development of life. But no, I do not 'believe' it.


As for the condescending remarks: I only give back what religionists use on me. If you think that's not nice - well, I'd be happy to stop at any time, it is just that you guys have such a hard time coming off your high horses. Which begs the question 'which horse? Eohippus? Przkewalski? Which horse was on the ark?'

 

[The Last Conformist]

They call us evolutionists. We call them godbotherers. Yin and yang, cosmic symmetry. :hippie:

IOW, could we drop the row about labels? If you want to be polite, don't refer to people in ways they take offense at - that's all there is to it.

 

[Phlegmak]

Elrohir, what carlosMM is talking about is that saying that he "believes" evolution is making it sound like it's a religion. That's what creationists (like Kent Hovind) contend and it's completely false.

carlosMM, technically Elrohir is correct in using the word "believe", but only if he means it in a nonreligious context.

I think it's best if you two stop arguing over the use of the word "believe".

 

[warpus]

Why would you find the term "evolutionist" insulting? Do you have a problem calling creationists creationists? What's the difference?

Well, would you call those who agree that the theory of gravity is sound, gravitationists? It would make sense if the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution were fringe beliefs, but seeing as how they're widely accepted, it hardly makes sense.

So when the word 'evolutionist' comes up, I immediately label the post as rhetoric. Is that what you want? Rhetoric is pointless babble with no substance.

Is the concept of "belief" so hard to grasp? Honestly Carlos, this is insane. Do you think the theory of evolution accurately describes how life changes? Yes or no? If you think it does, then you believe that the theory of evolution is a valid theory.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it would be a valid theory even if it was totally false. And I agree with Carlos, this is not about belief at all. Belief to you means something very absolute. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have that fits the data regarding how all the species came to be they way they are now. It is not a matter of absolute belief (such as the belief you have in God), but rather acceptance that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation we have. Nobody is saying it is 100% correct (well, some people might be, I suppose).

In a discussion with religious creationists, it is best to avoid the 'belief' word, because there is one meaning that makes sense in a religious context, and there is a more common every-day usage, as well. So, when I say: "I believe I will shag her tonight", I am expressing the common usage of the word.. which does not equate to absolute belief, such as your belief in God.

By using the word 'belief' when it comes to science, you are confusing the issue. Do you mean the common, every day usage of the word.. or are you attempting to imply that it is similar to your belief in God? It by no means is, and so I don't think the word belief should be used in this context at all, to avoid confusion, as well as pointless debates about the English language.

 

[Elrohir]

I have to thank Carlos for teaching me a valuable lesson - I've learned that some evolutionists really are as close minded and stubborn about something they believe as creationists. (And I'm not talking about the Theory of Evolution here) It's pathetic that I basically can't find a "camp" on this issue - the creationists won't own up to their bad science, and too many of the evolutionists are just as closeminded and rude. (If not more so, in select cases) Disgusting.

Well, would you call those who agree that the theory of gravity is sound, gravitationists? It would make sense if the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution were fringe beliefs, but seeing as how they're widely accepted, it hardly makes sense.

So when the word 'evolutionist' comes up, I immediately label the post as rhetoric. Is that what you want? Rhetoric is pointless babble with no substance.

Calling someone a gravitationist would be rather pointless, because everyone is. It would, however, be correct if they believed that gravity exists. So if you would like to call me a gravitationist, then I won't complain, although I'll think it's a little odd.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it would be a valid theory even if it was totally false. And I agree with Carlos, this is not about belief at all. Belief to you means something very absolute. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have that fits the data regarding how all the species came to be they way they are now. It is not a matter of absolute belief (such as the belief you have in God), but rather acceptance that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation we have. Nobody is saying it is 100% correct (well, some people might be, I suppose).

Who said belief is 100% absolute? If I "believe" that the closest McDonald's is two blocks north, I may be right, or I may be wrong, but simply because I believe it doesn't necessarily make me someone who will refuse to see evidence to the contrary, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm absolutely, 100% certain that there is a McDonald's two blocks north. Belief isn't necessarily absolute. (And in fact I would argue that it can never be truly absolute in every way)

 

[warpus]

Who said belief is 100% absolute? If I "believe" that the closest McDonald's is two blocks north, I may be right, or I may be wrong, but simply because I believe it doesn't necessarily make me someone who will refuse to see evidence to the contrary, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm absolutely, 100% certain that there is a McDonald's two blocks north. Belief isn't necessarily absolute. (And in fact I would argue that it can never be truly absolute in every way)

I move that your belief in God is a totally different concept than your belief about a McDonald's being 2 blocks north.

And since your belief in God forms such a strong basis for who you are as a person, whenever the word 'belief' comes out of your mouth, it will be assumed the kind of belief that you have in God.. That kind of belief doesn't apply to scientific theories (well, it could, but that's not how most people approach it), and that's why what you're saying is being disputed.

 

[carlosMM]

Elrohir, you made some points quite nicely: that religionists are

a) can't take their own medicine
b) are not willing to give exact definitions when they see that they should.

Thank you!

 

[Smidlee]

Meh.

I think you'd find if you looked over the past 5 pages or so that this thread goes through cycles. It's dead for about a month, then a hit-and-run Smidleetroll post resurrects it, then it's sustained for about a week with stale back and forth arguments. Then it dies again.

It's like teh circle uv life

I have never resurrected this or any other of the three threads like this; you can easily see Phlegmak resurrected it this time. (sometimes I see it being hit when I check my profile) I would say it been dead for years as you are not going to change the mind of evolutionists no matter what the evidence is (it has been shown the same with atheist).