Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2015, 11:04 AM
Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
It's like a broken record.

A creationist I've recently run into spouts of a number of quote-mined Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould snippets and thereby claims they have doubts about evolution.

This nonsense has been around for years and has been exposed so many times before I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would consider trying to put this forward as reasonable - then again I'm dealing with a creationist.

One of the quotes he's used is even provided as an example of quote-mining in Wikipedia!

Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments? I can see why they might think it would work with the naive or those world view is predicated on faith. But whenever I find a creationist quoting science or scientists, I immediately think to myself...."Here we go again....."

Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?

All of these things. The evidence for evolution is right smack in front of them, but I believe that they cannot see it at all. Like, they look right through it as though it's invisible to them.

Have you ever learned a new vocabulary word, and then all of a sudden, you start hearing that vocabulary word all over the place? Did the rest of the world just learn the same word at the same time you did, or was it that your brain was previously discarding the word it was hearing as unnecessary "background information," giving you the illusion that all of a sudden you start hearing the word right after you learn what the word means?

That's what I think is going on with creationists. I think they can't hear the argument because their brains just throw the information out as useless background noise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
07-09-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
I think it is because they are trying to convince themselves. It's like WLC's continued use of Kalam. He has been corrected sooooo many times and still doean't get it.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
07-09-2015, 06:37 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments?

Because they're stupid.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like daniel1948's post
07-09-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 06:37 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments?

Because they're stupid.

Succinct and accurate.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
They are so ingrained in their beliefs that they simply cannot possibly believe there is another answer other than 'goddoneit'. It's a classic case of incredulity.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
07-09-2015, 06:57 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  It's like a broken record.

A creationist I've recently run into spouts of a number of quote-mined Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould snippets and thereby claims they have doubts about evolution.

This nonsense has been around for years and has been exposed so many times before I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would consider trying to put this forward as reasonable - then again I'm dealing with a creationist.

One of the quotes he's used is even provided as an example of quote-mining in Wikipedia!

Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments? I can see why they might think it would work with the naive or those world view is predicated on faith. But whenever I find a creationist quoting science or scientists, I immediately think to myself...."Here we go again....."

Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?

It has done so. It appears you don't actually refute arguments or deal with them directly. Now where have I heard that before?! CAN'T UNDERSTAND ME OR LITERARY DEVICES? AND DO SUCH DISCOVERIES AS THE IDENTIFICATION OF THAT FACT POINTED OUT TO YOU WITHOUT EUPHEMISMS CUT TO THE HARD QUICK? EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE EARNED SUCH A STRAIGHT-SHOOTER APPROACH WITH THEIR SHAMELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC SUBJECTIVITY BUILT UP OF THEIR OVERCONFIDENCE IN A REPORTED PREPONDENCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

Actually, I think this is usually done by evolutionists through the use of anthropomorphisms and folk wisdom that interprets what is pragmatic as an indicator of intelligence- definitions that most ID proponents don't even use. Well, I am just not yet convinced this bland statement about scientific data being only numerical is worth the effort. DEFINITIONS ARE TYPICALLY MODIFIED BY PRELIMINARY DATA IN DRY-RUN TESTING, RECOMMENDATIONS MADE FROM PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS, AND RESPONSE MADE TO PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED PREVIOUSLY IN RESEARCH. THIS IS ALL DONE PRELIMINARY TO ACTUAL HYPOTHESIS TESTS. ONLY THE FIRST OF THESE IS EVIDENTIARY METHODOLOGICAL SUPPORT IN ANY DIRECT APPLICATION SENSE, AND THAT IS NOT PROPOSITION SUPPORT/NON-SUPPORT AT ALL. They want to underscore in absolute terms their view that ID and creationism have nothing, meaning no evidence at all.

Evolutionists mention evolution in their research design to get funding, not to test the toe. That in effect contorts my statement's meaning and import. IT IS NOT SCIENCE, BEING BASED ESSENTIALLY ON HYPERBOLE AND SPITE.



Big Grin Angel

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 08:48 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
Looks like someone found the "create a creationist argument" script. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
07-09-2015, 09:51 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 06:51 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  They are so ingrained in their beliefs that they simply cannot possibly believe there is another answer other than 'goddoneit'. It's a classic case of incredulity.

I think you mean it's a classic case of credulity.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 09:56 PM
Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
No I meant incredulity. Creationists are unwilling or unable to believe in another option; namely evolution.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: