Why Creationists' Willful Ignorance?

quote:

---

I am endeavoring to summarize my position. Part of that is the question of why creationists persist in keeping themselves ignorant...

---

Creationism was introduced in the Hebrew bible; the Gospels and Quran do not describe or include this, though they subscribe to it in some form. This says you should refer to the ignorance of the Herew bible or Jews. However, your problem is the Jews are not so ignorant - they have cornered the Nobels in every category by a margin none can plausibly catch up with - notably in the sciences.

quote:

---

of evolution and the associated sciences.

---

Its a scientific 'theory'.

quote:

---

I will prsent here what I have posted and open it up to discussion and criticism. I am particularly concerned with my assessment #2, pertaining to the goals of creationist/fundamentalist education.

---

Evolution, as a premise as opposed the recent name coinage, was introduced in Genesis, and in its correct protocol and far more comprehensively than Darwin did. Namely, Genesis lists a host of anticipatory factors before life emerged, not mentioned by Darwin - thus more comprehensive. E.g. seperations of light and darkness, day and noght, water from land - life would not emerge without these actions, would they?You will find the first listing of life form groupings in Genesis' had copy texts. Namely, in categories of terrain and habitat, as opposed skeletal imprints which are subject to errors or may not mean what is concluded of them. The listing by terrain and habitat is the most fundamental mark of life form differences: immobile vegetation; water borne; air borne; land based. The first thing one sees of a life form is not their skeletal forms but whther they abide in the water, air or land, right?NS and S of the Fittest also come from Genesis: the seed output from the host parents transmits the directive program which fosters and sustains life for its survival. Evolution is merely the wiring which conforms to the data of the translitted seed which acts as a chip in your mobile. Your mobile needs a directive program, right?Which part is ignorant?

quote:

---

Science is OBJECTIVE. It deals with facts.

---

Correct. And facts are that which is manifest, observable, repeatable. Read, not subject to eons of years: the difference between Genesis and Darwin's evolution premises. Only one of the latter can be classified as FACT, not subject to unprovable time spans. Its not a fact to say your proof is on another galaxy under a red rock?Cherry picking FACTS is hardly science.

No word salad. Mobiles do not reproduce because they are not programmed to do so with a directive program. DVD replication programs do - and not because of a thing called evolution.The seed factor is listed in hard copy text which introduced repro in the first scientific writings - not to be confused by deceptively simple ancient texts designed for all generation's understanding. The seed refers to the output of the host dual parents, a combination of a male sperm and female egg: A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND. Thus zebras reproduce zebras. Try repro without the seed factor - but without the word salad?

I was just testing your comprehension levels, actually.

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?

If I lower the bar how will you ever improve?

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.

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!

quote:

---

1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?

​

Why does this matter? What does this get you?

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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.

---

So a thread that says creationists are ignorant should not be responded to? I didn't start this thread - but someone appears threatened!

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Your just drifting. You forgot to say creationsts are not ignorant!

quote:

---

3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism?

​

Are you really serious?

---

Yes. Take your time - no hurry.

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?

​

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?

---

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:

---

It is faith and religious belief that does not want to change, not science.

---

Science changes; Genesis has not because it does not need to.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

What part is not understood - you didn't say?

quote:

---

4) Offspring;

---

Congratulations. However, the word offspring is recent, and such a usage would negate authenticityof the text's contemporary factor. But there was never any need to do a search here; the word seed is placed in such a context there is no alternative meaning in the verse, 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'; this is especially seen when 'life forms' was the text's subject.

quote:

---

Ok, I won't give you any more word salad:
1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?

​

You KEEP coming back to this as though it were a convincing argument.

---

You keep running away from it because it is a convincing arguement. The first recording of life form groupings is in Genesis - how far can you run?

quote:

---

You claim that the Bible is the first recording of this stuff because you claim that the Bible predates everything else.

---

I never said that. The Hebrew bible is a late comer in the ancient world. Abraham emerged some 1200 years after the pyramids were built; the Hebrew bible 400 years thereafter.

quote:

---

Cave painting CLEARLY demonstrate different animal groups and predate the Bible

---

That's bunk and bogus, based on the age of the cave - not the painting. Colour was not invented in writings till 5,500 years ago, and it came from India. Check the population and mental prowess grads of your cave painters again. If Australian aboriginals are 60K years old, their popilation would be at least 5 trillion. Bite the bullet - your dates have no proof nor any graduating imprints; the Hebrew bible has, wth no vacuous gaps.

quote:

---

(and in fact the ENTIRE UNIVERSE according to your 6,000 yr calendar) but tens of thousands of years.

---

That is not a Hebrew understanding but an embarrassing Christian one. Genesis lists a host of actions before life emerged, accounting for billions and millions of years: separation of light and darkness; water from land; etc. Darwin forgot to list these critical factors. As if!

quote:

---

You need to pick an argument which hasn't been so completely destroyed so many times.

---

There has not been even a small dent of disproof of anything in the Hebrew bible. You are halucinating with other anti-creationsists. I am making you froth.

quote:

---

We're starting to think you might be mentally disabled in your ability to retain other people's arguments. It's almost like you don't understand that once you say something and it's shown to be wrong, it stays wrong no matter how many times you bring it up.

---

You have not been right in any responsa as yet.

quote:

---

take these two animals - Mosquito, and penguin.

​

Where do they fit into your 'kinds'? What about about land crabs and Japanese spider crabs? Are they different kinds?

​

What does airborne mean? Does it mean that butterflies, albatross, bats, flying fish and draco lizards are all the same kind?

---

Absolutely, and with the correct wording, listing groups within groups; including creepy crawlies and virus and bacteria:Genesis 1/20. ' the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures [the twice repeated refers to nono life unseen with the naked eye]; , and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed [crabs], after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. 24 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing [insects], and beast of the earth after its kind.'Air borne refers to winged fowl.

quote:

---

Here are the common definitions of ignorant.

​

1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

​

The vast majority of creationists are ignorant to varying degrees of the Theory of Evolution.

---

How would you rate yourself based on the responses to what are clearly ignorance of what you accuse of: check mate to Mosquito and penguin?

quote:

---

The first recording of life form groupings is in Genesis...

​

The "kinds" thing is pretty thin on details.

---

Not so. It is brimming with details. How else would you put it, suitable for all generations' understanding - have a go?

quote:

---

Genesis also had plant life before the creation of the sun. Not only thin on the details, but flat out wrong.

​

Moose

---

Incorrect. Only luminosity was focused on the earth; the stars and sun and moon are not mentioned:14/'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.'