Creationist: Why Am I Always Wrong?

Wow. I’m just astounded that people can be so unable to get past their preconceptions.

Apparently Dr. Georgia Purdom thinks 2 + 2 = God.

I was under the impression that the default position that the apologists took when defending the Bible’s inaccuracies was to say that it was inspired by God, but written by man.

So, rather than comparing Man’s word to God’s word, we’re comparing Man’s word to Man’s word.

Some people in D.K’s position can recognize that they are continuously being fed incorrect information. I think it is much harder for them to realize and admit to themselves that the people who are feeding them are impostors, pretending to be “scientific,” deliberately and consciously making stuff up, omitting large parts of information or using obviously twisted logic.

Confusion is uncomfortable but feeling betrayed is painful so they just refuse to look at the deceitfulness of their sources.

I initially thought that there was a hopeful part to D.K. and his take on mutation and natural selection. Upon further inspection and more careful reading I realized that he did not actually research the topic in any way. Instead he is simply looking for a way to refute sound, repeatable science.

Maybe there’s still hope for the son. If he’s taking geology classes and learning that biblical answers aren’t going to cut it, he might just make the leap over to the rational side of things.

This just mystifies me. How is it that they can’t take that small step of logic from all of the creationist “evidence” they’ve ever presented being wrong to creationism being wrong, and make a gigantic leap of logic from the fine-tuning argument to the fine-tuner being the Judeo-Christian god? Isn’t it just as likely for the fine-tuner to have been Xenu?

I don’t think I quite follow what you mean about coming aross as pretentious but what I do want to say that I don’t think we can say that all creationist evidence is wrong. There are a lot of scientists that disagree with the bible but do agree with creationism. There is a great source that talks about this: http://www.whatthebleep.com.

I do agree that Dr Purdom’s response was somewhat biased.

It also validates something about which I’ve been complaining for years. There’s a growing evangelical presence at Ivy League and other top-tier universities. I don’t think that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists should be there.

I can’t cross that stream. Firstly, exposure to academia is the only hope for some of those folks, so you don’t want to deny them that. Secondly, if they can do the math, they deserve the opportunity. I prefer to let life after a formal education show them what they lack. If they snap out of it, great, if not, c’est la vie.

Firstly, exposure to academia is the only hope for some of those folks, so you don’t want to deny them that. Secondly, if they can do the math, they deserve the opportunity.

There should be an exit strategy, but I don’t think they should be taking spaces away from kids who have a more comprehensive world view, but who may not test as well. (Because I think standardized tests are bullshit, anyway.)

Darryl, just to show you what a hard-ass I’ve become, I think that if someone gets a PhD in science, then becomes a fundie – the university should revoke the degree. I am not joking.

I’m an English major, and some people think I’ll never make any real contribution to society as a result!

If you don’t believe that the world is 6,000 years old, that humans kept dinosaurs as pets and that everyone who disagree with you is going to burn in hell – you are already making a contribution!

And I’m not denying them – they have the Christian schools, like Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson. There are the large state schools in the South and Midwest, where there are already so many of them that they’ve become virtual Christian universities. There are the small Christian “liberal arts” colleges, like Patrick Henry (the poor man must be spinning in his grave). Let them go to those.

I live in Boston. I think I mentioned this here recently – there are something on the order of fifteen evangelical organizations on the MIT campus. MIT! This absolutely slays me. These kids are being groomed to be the finest scientific minds we can produce. If someone were to walk into a room and say to them, “Guess what, kids? Relativity, quantum mechanics – the whole of 20th century physics – it’s all wrong! Turns out Newton was right all along!” They’d say, “Wait a minute – if you’re going to come in here with an allegation like that , you’d better have some hard evidence!” But, someone tells them, “Two thousand years ago, God became a Jewish carpenter and let the Romans nail him to a tree so now he doesn’t have to be mad at us and roast us alive for all eternity” and they just say, “Okay”. Makes me crazy.

It is ridiculous, cipher, but public colleges can’t deny somebody just because of their religious opinions. If we suddenly allow them to start doing so, how many would start banning atheists? Freedom means allowing idiots to be idiots is all I’m saying. It’s worth the cost.

Jennifer M.

What the Bleep do we know was a production of the cult corporation of Ramtha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15452_1.html

It’s trendy to use “Quantum Mechanics” in new age literature and videos, to try to explain what would otherwise be called magical thinking; they’re trying to make it sound like science…

…the very definition of pseudoscience.

Here’s a tip on how to recognize pseudoscience renderings of quantum physics; be suspicious if you can understand it, and doubly so if there’s no math involved.

Cipher, I think you’re being too hard. If it wasn’t for education I might still be a fundy. Even PhDs can loose their way–it doesn’t invalidate what they’ve achieved. Take the Jeffersonian approach and let the free play of reason weed out the idiots. Don’t forget, anyone with a PhD who teaches or publishes is subject to the review of their peers and if they’re tenured, post-tenure review. Unlike the Humanities and stupid things like Marxist slants on sociology, if an scientist starts going whacky the scientific community has ways of quickly and thoroughly marking them.

“Ramtha is an entity channeled by the medium JZ Knight”

No, Ramtha is a funny voice that JZ Knight uses to impart pithy sayings on suckers.

The film does feature her but it also features 12 scientists with very impressive credentials. I would at least listen to what they have to say.

If I recall correctly, one or more of those scientists later stated that they were interviewed on false pretenses and/or quoted out of context. They repudiated their involvement with that quack as fast as they could once they realized what dreck the movie was.

And why would anyone waste money on a medium?

Karen, which one? What did they say? I welcome rebuttals. Just let me know what happened.

And the medium. It’s really up to you. I would want to go because if she were to tell me something no one could know – that would be evidence that life continues after death…so I wouldn’t have to worry about dying. Well worth the money to me.

Yes, I have.

Cipher, I think you’re being too hard. If it wasn’t for education I might still be a fundy. Even PhDs can loose their way–it doesn’t invalidate what they’ve achieved.

Darryl, I’m tongue in cheek about a lot of this – except for the part about PhD’s being revoked. I am completely serious about that. Advocate creationism, lose your credentials.

I realize that we can’t actually have a quota system for fundies – but I think their attendance at top level schools should be strongly discouraged. As I said, they have Liberty U, Ole Miss and Patrick Henry – let them go to those. If they’re interested in being educated, they can do it there. If they’re just interested in getting a diploma, then they aren’t taking spaces away from kids who, in my opinion, deserve it more and are better “qualified”.

Take the Jeffersonian approach and let the free play of reason weed out the idiots. Don’t forget, anyone with a PhD who teaches or publishes is subject to the review of their peers and if they’re tenured, post-tenure review. Unlike the Humanities and stupid things like Marxist slants on sociology, if an scientist starts going whacky the scientific community has ways of quickly and thoroughly marking them.

The problem is that it isn’t working. Even with the “safeguards” in place, the right wing Christian wackjobs are gaining ground steadily. Dover didn’t really change anything; they just keep finding new and insidious ways to reinvent themselves and to insert themselves into the educational system. They’ve already infiltrated the government to such an extent that even eight years of a Democratic administration may not be enough to get rid of them.

I am 51 years old. I have been watching things move inexorably in this direction since I was a small child. It was during the Reagan years (which most of you don’t even remember) that everything really began to change dramatically for the worse. It became fashionable to be greedy and stupid. Then, Gingrich came along, flooded the House with young Republicans and bumped it up a few notches (it didn’t take them long to turn on him and force him out – for not being reactionary enough! – yet he still doesn’t get it). Now, we have an imbecile in the White House, whose strings are being manipulated by a man who may very possibly be evil incarnate. The Bible is being taught as science, and we’re billions of dollars in debt from defending ourselves against the “terrorist onslaught”. Not to mention the cost in human suffering. And conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have made this possible every step of the way. I’m vehemently opposed to empowering them any further.

Oh, yeah – and the sky is falling!

As I type this, I’m listening to PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. There’s a segment on about Ave Maria University, a fundamentalist Catholic school that is expanding into an actual township. The Stepford kids who go there are droning on about how their education is being grounded in “the TRUTH™”.

I said the other day that I’m an old-fashioned liberal; I’m only tolerant when it’s for the Left. I said it to be funny – but I wasn’t really joking.

By the way, have you ever been to a medium? Why don’t you try going to one yourself. Make sure she/he’s a medium (not just a psychic). And well-respected. Ask her to tell you something no one else could know. This way you can get the evidence first hand and just decide for yourself.

My grandmother died recently. My aunt, who changes religion like other people change their socks, went to a medium right afterwards. We gathered for the funeral, and my aunt told me what the medium says.

A bit of background: my aunt is in her 50s, my grandfather was involved in WWII.

The medium, who was a friend of a friend, told my aunt that my grandfather had seen his best friend blown up. Now, as far as we know, this didn’t happen, because my grandfather did not see combat. Where, then, would his best friend have blown up? It is not hard to believe that a woman in her 50s had a father in WWII. The medium also told her that my grandfather had “anger issues”- again, that is true, but not exactly a stretch, given his generation. When my aunt agreed, the medium went on to say that my grandfather was bipolar. He (the medium) said that my grandparents were appearing to him in their “preferred bodies” which was during their engagement, which had to be pre-40s. Yes, again, they were engaged prior to the war, but that is not exactly something he couldn’t have guessed. He also told my aunt that my grandmother’s death was instant- also true.

There was nothing from the reading that he couldn’t have guessed based on my aunt’s age. I also don’t know what he might have gotten wrong- she isn’t going to tell the skeptic what was flat-out wrong from the reading, if she even remembers. And my aunt has a vivid set of facial expressions, so while she may claim it would be hard to do a cold reading on her, it would not- her facial expressions would easily give away how hot or cold he was to the truth.

My aunt believed the guy. I look at it this way: my family now believes that my grandfather was a bipolar man who lied about going to combat. We will never know, because he is dead. Eventually, this will filter into the family history even though we have no way to test this or fact-check it. I think that is a shame, because it is going to eclipse actual facts about him.

My aunt paid this guy to destroy our memories.

I like tea: Well, it would be for me.

Jen: I’m very sorry to hear about that. I brought up the medium topic because my weblink contained one. Then it was discredited. I’m only advocating that people do their research before tossing mine out as quantum pseudoscience. Your aunt’s medium experience does sound like a shame.

Karen,

In order to have a truly authentic film they need to have at least one scientist that doesn’t agree with views of the film-makers. Otherwise the information would be biased. Notice Albert is complaining about the misrepresentation of his views, not his facts.

Cipher, I agree with your description of the political and social atmosphere of the recent years, but your assertion that PhD’s who advocate creationism should lose their doctorates is exactly the thought police state that the “right wing wackos” would love to have. You just seem to think that if you were the police chief things would be so much better. But with that kind of power to dictate what are the right and what are the wrong thoughts and opinions to have, where would you stop?

Sorry, I wouldn’t want to live in your version of America any more than I would want to live in the Dominionists’ version.

Oh, Cipher! Lets chill! This forum has been going on way too long.