|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,783 Year: 1,105/6,935 Month: 386/719 Week: 28/146 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Creationists' Willful Ignorance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
Ok, I won't give you any more word salad:
1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category? 2. You call Creationists as ignorrant. Pls tell us when non-creationists will catch up in the Nobels prize listing with the ignorant creationists? 3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 4039 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
It is your responsibility to communicate successfully. I was just testing your comprehension levels, actually.You are unable to do that using English. Please post in your native language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
If I lower the bar how will you ever improve?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 4039 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Pressie writes:
To claim that our mobile phones could reproduce is beyond crazy.
IamJoeseph writes:
Listen to yourself. A programme on a mobile certainly won’t let the mobiles to reproduce. Companies producing mobiles would love to hear how they can ‘programme’ a mobile to reproduce. Mobiles do not reproduce because they are not programmed to do so with a directive program. But IamJoseph will refuse to admit that he writes utter nonsense. I expect him to change the subject rather than confront how messed up his posts are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 4039 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
You aren't raising the bar. If I lower the bar how will you ever improve?You don't even have a bar. Please post in your native language.It will benefit us all. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your off topic and deflecting. I told you previously - I don't have another language than english. Otherwise I would gladly say it in a native language of your own, seeing you have issues with english.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Panda writes: Yes, I know, because he has changed the subject. To claim that our mobile phones could reproduce is beyond crazy.But IamJoseph will refuse to admit that he writes utter nonsense. I expect him to change the subject rather than confront how messed up his posts are. Is it worth even to try and have a rational conversation with people like him or her?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 4039 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Pressie writes:
He is the kind of debater that will always change the subject rather than support their nonsense claims. Is it worth even to try and have a rational conversation with people like him or her?So I expect the answer is 'no'. Remember: He thinks that his English is perfectly understandable and that he doesn't post word salad.Do you really want to debate with someone that deluded?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 4039 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
Here is what other people think of your English: Otherwise I would gladly say it in a native language of your own, seeing you have issues with english. "Could you care to explain what you meant; preferably without the word salad?""What the fucking hell are you talking about?" "Since we don't need any more nonsense posing as English than we already have..." "I'll take that as a no to my request to make a coherent argument." "I had no idea what topic he was or wasn't on. How does one tell? I was just seeing if I could speak Josephish." "Actually, grammar, as well as terminology, is a big part of the problem in understanding your posts. Your grammar and terminology are often incorrect. Understanding your intended meaning by reading what you've written is often very difficult." "Talking to you is like having a conversation with a random word generator." I suggest you look towards yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
Yes, this is a phenomenon which exposes the widespread ignorance what an ancient text means and how it applies in today's generation. The shock surprise in asking what is meant by seed today is disgraceful - as if its open to multi-choices. Translate it into your own native language if your english comprehension is so poor!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4748 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
I see you are at it again IamJoseph.
Vomiting more random, poinless nonsense onto this forum.
1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category? Why does this matter? What does this get you? Would you like a gold star if you could prove that you favourite book was the first book to have some grouping of animals. Regardless if that grouping was non specific and has little relevance to the discussion. I have asked you for the evidence of your claim. I have asked for sources. Telling someone to prove you wrong does not support your arguement. Let me put this in very simple terms for you. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. See how that works. If you do want to discuss this, you will need to start your own thread. If you wont start you own thread, you will need to stop bringing it up in threads that are unrelated.
2. You call Creationists as ignorrant. Pls tell us when non-creationists will catch up in the Nobels prize listing with the ignorant creationists? Seriously? Are you saying that all of the Jewish Nobel prize winners were actually Creationists? Are you aware that many are supporters of Evolutionary theory? Are you aware that the Jewish faith is one of the strongest religious supporters of the Theory of Evolution? Do you actually know the religious beliefs of all of the Nobel Prize winners? Please supply you data (including the source) that shows the Creationists and non Creationists. It would also be handy to know what sort of Creationism they are. Do you really think that the 800 Nobel Prize winners is a good judgement of overall intelligence? Let me put it another way, Most Nobel prize winners are men, therefore women are more ignorant than men. Or how about this, most nobel prize winners are clean shaven, therefore people with beards and moustaches are ignorant. See how foolish your claim is? I doubt that you can support any claim that there is a positive link between creationism and intelligence, but to take Nobel Prize winners (they constitute 0.0000118% of the current population) as a group to judge overall intelligence is ridiculous.
3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism? Are you really serious? I find it hard to believe that you are. Check the title of the forum you are on. It will give you a hint to an alternative. Why dont you start a thread with a few of your favourite claims. You are obviously convinced that you have something to offer. Why do you continue to throw random, unrelated, off topic statements into other threads when you can have one of your very own to 'educate' us all. You have made it very clear that you think that you are more enlightened than many of us. Time to put up or shut up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: So you have no answer to the first recording of life form categorising? I don't believe you. Is that not what evolution is all about, using the term species for life forms? Why then do you call my response to creationists being ignorant as vomiting? And why no response to which is the most fundamental factor of categorising differences of species - skeletal frame and dna - or terrain and habitat? What do we notice first about a zebra and a shark?
quote: Knock-knock! It is specific, conditioning the difference to the most fundamental factors: water borne or air born are specific and stand out factors. Who's vomitting now - check your bib?
quote: So a thread that says creationists are ignorant should not be responded to? I didn't start this thread - but someone appears threatened!
quote: Accepting evolution is not anti-creationism; the premise of evolution, in its correct protocol, comes from Genesis. Your error is your disregard of a host of Nobels winners as followers of Creationism, only they understand it better than you. Even non religious Newton and Einstein ultimately accepted a creator based universe; the definition of an unfathomable creator being nowhere better aligned with science than in the Hebrew bible: indescribable and unknowable. There is no scientific alternative to a universe maker behind the universe: name one? Thati s what creationism is about - its a fully scientific premise with no alternatives: you don't have one! Who's vomiting?
quote: Your just drifting. You forgot to say creationsts are not ignorant!
quote: Yes. Take your time - no hurry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4748 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Yes, this is a phenomenon which exposes the widespread ignorance what an ancient text means and how it applies in today's generation. The shock surprise in asking what is meant by seed today is disgraceful - as if its open to multi-choices. Translate it into your own native language if your english comprehension is so poor! Anyone who can violate the english language in the way you do (see example above) has no right to criticize other peoples literacy. I notice a common line of thought in your posts. You seem to believe that it is everyone elses fault that they cannot understand your posts, that noone is smart enough to grasp what you are saying, that noone else seems to be able to see the importance of the things you hold so dear, that you are the only one who can correctly interpret scripture and that you are the only one who understands what science, creationism, reason and logic really are. What do you think the chances are that you are the single person who understands all of these things and that every other poster here has been found wanting? How confident are you that you are some sort of prodigy so far advanced in every form of science, every form of debate and all branches of philosophy and religion that noone here can even comprehend what you are saying? Or maybe you are full of shit and supply arguments in a nonsensical manner. Which one do you think is more likely? (I mean this in the nicest possible way as a form of constructive criticism)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So you have no answer to the first recording of life form categorising? I don't believe you. Is that not what evolution is all about, using the term species for life forms? Wouldn't the most recent categorizations be more accurate than the first? Science changes and improves, you know. What is this hangup on the first? It is faith and religious belief that does not want to change, not science.
There is no scientific alternative to a universe maker behind the universe: name one? Thati s what creationism is about - its a fully scientific premise with no alternatives: you don't have one!
Creationism is the exact opposite of science. It ignores evidence and relies on ancient scripture and myth, things which do not and can not withstand the test of empirical evidence. That's why creationists have to ignore scientific findings, and scientific education, in favor of faith and belief. I think you may be a good example of this.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 2822 Joined:
|
quote: Its not about improves; everything improves. Better, there is no improvement but rather an alignment when the subject matter is further understood by later generations. The fact remains Genesis remains the instigator of the fundamental principles of evolution - and the term 'ignorant' in the thread heading cannot apply.
quote: Science changes; Genesis has not because it does not need to.
quote: Which evidence has been ignored - give an example? Of course creationism is 100% a scientific principle; the contradiction with cause and affect is the non-science here. We cannot pretend as if we have any alternatives here - we do not. Genesis correcty places evolution as a later process transmitter - it has nothing to do with Creationism, namely of primal source factors. Evolution is akin to the wiring in your mobile chip - as is correctly placed in Genesis. Evolution comes from Genesis and confirmed by new sciences.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025