One more thing, the Scientific American site has a print-friendly version sans photos that doesn't need to be clicked on every page.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
" Repeating constantly the most stupid 'arguements' about something they do not at all
understand, in face of overwelming evidence.... "
ar.ro.gance: A feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing
manner or presumptuous claims.
Your arrogance is puffed up beond compare. If a creationist made such
comments they would be flamed on the spot. Ive heard or read just as many
'stupid arguement' on both sides of the issue.The FACT of the matter is
Jan, weither you like it or not, Is there isnt 'smoking gun' evidence on either
sides of the issue.
I don't think you read the article. Besides, it was Scientific American who named the article, not JanH. Not that I'm defending JanH! That would be like me trying to stand in front of a battalion of marines trying to defend them! LOL.
Repeating constantly the most stupid, ignorant "arguments" about something they do not at all understand, in face of overwhelming evidence they for emotional reasons fail to absorb, is something else entirely.
That's just his opinion and wasn't that inflammatory or insulting. Maybe get some new arguments? Or, do as I did, read a book by an actual (gasp!) evolutionary scientist, such as Richard Dawkins, Pullitzer-Prize winning Jared Diamond, etc. What's wrong with looking at both sides of the issue? That's the only intelligent way to do it.
If you have refutation to the points in the article, they're welcome here on this discussion board.
Edited by - Patio34 on 4 August 2002 12:1:30
After arguing a lot about this issue, and seeing creationists keep coming back with "arguments" that have been rebutted a zillion times, dishonestly pretending it wasn't, I am perfectly justified in treating creationism as a contemptible, silly superstition.
Creationist arguments can be divided into two categories: ignorant and dishonest (and shades in between).
If you think stating facts is "arrogance", well so be it. I'm bloody arrogant about facts and truth. But the truth, dislike it or not, is that scientific opposition to evolution does not exist. The opposition is exclusively religious, and from the most braindead camp -- fundamantalist christianity.
The FACT of the matter is Jan, weither you like it or not, Is there isnt 'smoking gun' evidence on either sides of the issue.
Absolute rubbish, and considering how many such debates you have been in here, you should know better.
29+ Smoking Guns for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
But somehow I don't think you will read it. Now, what should we call that? It is what I call arrogance.
I do and will continue to read both sides of the issue. My point was
and is not the debate of evelution or creation, but that, I feel evelution/athiest
are given much more rope when it comes to throwing out insults or questioning
religionist/creations intellect. Creationist always get blamed for trying to 'push' there
views on others.Some times Jan these 'stupid arguements' you refer to are
just an easy way to dismiss questions that cant be answered. Evulution/athiest is a relitively
new concept in human history, and if it did have 'smoking gun' evedience it wouldnt
be such a minority.
Evulution/athiest is a relitively new concept in human history, and if it did have 'smoking gun' evedience it wouldnt be such a minority.
Atheism and evolution are not related. People disbelieved gods before Darwin, and all the major churches today accept both evolution and theism.
You are simply wrong that the majority decides or believes what is right about the natural world. The vast majority of people in this world is totally ignorant about science. They just use products based on hard science -- computers, telephones, airplanes, firearms, medication -- without giving much thought to the theoretical work of millions of scientists over hundreds of years that have built up our knowledge to this level. Even die-hard creationists use medicine, without giving a thought to the idea that epidemological studies underlying its production is wholly based on evolutionary science.
But I am not so sure evolution is a minority view. Even in the US, people who accept evolution is in the (slight) majority. In highly secular western europe, creationism is a fringe belief. I doubt opposition to it even exists in Japan or China. To find a similar opposition to evolutionary science as you will find in the US, you would have to go to fundamentalist muslems. But there, as you may be aware, leading 'scholars' have argued that belief in a round earth is a heresy.
The evidence stands on its own merits. If a majority is ignorant about it, this says a lot about them, and nothing about the strength of the case.
The opposition is exclusively religious, and from the most braindead camp -- fundamantalist christianity.
For me at least this is the crux of the matter.
I don't want some idiotic fundamentalist teacher teaching my kids her/his version of anything about god when he/she is supposed to be teaching science. When I was in school (and I went to Catholic schools) I had the benefit of learning about evolution from an atheist. To me, that was RESPONSIBLE on the part of the school. God and creation never came into the discussion as it should be. Only verifiable facts were presented, i.e., the fossil record. Then I had other classes where I learned about God and morality, etc. from nuns. The two were kept separate and it was up to me to decide how to correlate the two systems.
I haven't studied the subject of evolution as extensively as some of you here have. But I have seen many, many (too many) idiotic arguments put forth by fundamentalists. Enough to automatically swing me onto the evolution camp. At least when I see the arguments for evolution they are supported by verifiable facts.
If a majority is ignorant about it, this says a lot about them, and nothing about the strength of the case.
By the way I noticed you changed your pic.
I would put mine online but don't know how.
Take Care Jan. Always enjoy your posts.
What a dilemma! The Catholic church admits to evolution. Never thought the Catholic church could be an attractive option.
Send your pic to me. I'll put it up for you.