Creationists admit "We are losing badly"

[Jose Fly]

Umm.... yes. Your argument so far is that one creationist admits that creationism is losing badly (meaning an unpopular position).

Here, educate yourself: Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."​

You use this as a bludgeon to discredit the tenets of creation science.

Therefore your argument is essentially, "a majority of people say creationism is wrong, therefore it is untrue."

I've not said anything even remotely like that.

And from this you conclude......?

That public acceptance of evolution is on the rise, especially among millennials.

Which is just another way of saying that public acceptance of evolution is on the rise.

Which is reality.

So now, lets review.

Public acceptance of evolution is on the rise...

So what?

So that's good news for those of us who advocate for better science education.

Some creationist points this out to another creationist.

So what?

So some creationists are recognizing the reality of the situation, which is also a good thing.

 

[Dialogos]

Jose Fly, your answer to "so what" is the following..?

That public acceptance of evolution is on the rise, especially among millennials.

Oh, so you were just reporting the news then.

Great.

Now we know that evolution is a popular theory if we didn't already know.

And since this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not anyone should accept the prevailing trend, we thank you, Captain Obvious, for telling us all what we pretty much already knew.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, so you were just reporting the news then.

I certainly wasn't doing anything that you described earlier. But at least you recognize your error.

And since this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not anyone should accept the prevailing trend, we thank you, Captain Obvious, for telling us all what we pretty much already knew.

Funny how a thread about "what we already knew" is over 260 posts now. :think:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope, that was Greg Jennings. Blind and stupid, love it.

It's pretty funny when you mirror someone's behavior in an attempt to get them to see the absurdity of their ideology, and then they accuse you of blanket hatred for mimicking them. Then they still don't see. Maybe funny isn't the right word. It's sad

 

[Dialogos]

I certainly wasn't doing anything that you described earlier. But at least you recognize your error.



Funny how a thread about "what we already knew" is over 260 posts now. :think:

Funny, but not meaningful. "keep a word change a word" is into the thousands of posts.

What do you think that means?

:think:

:chuckle:

 

[Greg Jennings]

When and where?

You really haven't heard any Muslim leaders speaking out? King Abdullah of Jordan, for one?

 

[Jose Fly]

Funny, but not meaningful. "keep a word change a word" is into the thousands of posts.

What do you think that means?

That people find it interesting. I'd say the same about this topic as well.

 

[brewmama]

Did you cut and paste your whole long post?

Is that not allowed? Why the snarkiness, or is it that you just can't help it?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Is that not allowed? Why the snarkiness, or is it that you just can't help it?

Copy and pasting anything without a citation is useless. It often demonstrates that the person who did it never was highly educated in what they claim to be knowledgable in, as college professors don't accept any information from an uncited source. The reason is that the professors want to check and make sure that the information gathered was from a credible source and not some website that is unreliable.

That's why it's a problem

 

[zoo22]

Wait, what? Creationists "losing badly"?? No way. How could that be with all of TOL's creationoscienceamoligists pounding away at their keyboards, unleashing their tidal wave of scientific knowledge on the world, year after year after year.

This story must be a LIEberal hoax. I'm sure Nazaroo or one of the other well-informed experts around here can get to the truth of the matter.

 

[badp]

Well you kind of missed the meat of what I said. Theoretical physics IS empirical if it can be validated through mathematics. Like I said, if it wasn't an empirically driven field, then it wouldn't have been able to predict black holes decades before we actually saw them.

Theoretical physics is probably the most interesting thing in the world

The mathematics are sound. But what the mathematics describe is often theoretical, not yet observed. In the sense of "doing math" it's empirical. In the sense of "we see it happening" it's not empirical.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The mathematics are sound. But what the mathematics describe is often theoretical, not yet observed. In the sense of "doing math" it's empirical. In the sense of "we see it happening" it's not empirical.

And since the math involved is physics, and we know laws of physics to hold true by experience, theoretical physics backed with accurate math is indeed empirical, whether we see it or not. Just like with black holes, we can prove existence without observation

 

[badp]

The evolutionists have won hands-down. That's why they came here, because they love us so much they want to set us crazy Creationists straight. We should be grateful. After all, they could be spending their time doing real science instead of pulling us out of our backwater mythology. When will we see the pale blue light of science and enter the modern age? :bang:

BTW, anyone read Behe's The Edge of Evolution? He's one of those Christians who believes in evolution.

 

[badp]

And since the math involved is physics, and we know laws of physics to hold true by experience, theoretical physics backed with accurate math is indeed empirical, whether we see it or not. Just like with black holes, we can prove existence without observation

Err... not quite. Probability tells us that all the oxygen molecules in a room could exit simultaneously through random movement, suffocating whoever is inside. That can be mathematically proven. But that doesn't mean it actually has happened or will happen.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Err... not quite. Probability tells us that all the oxygen molecules in a room could exit simultaneously through random movement, suffocating whoever is inside. That can be mathematically proven. But that doesn't mean it actually has happened or will happen.

That math you speak of say something CAN happen. The kind of math in theoretical physics I'm referring to say something MUST happen

 

[badp]

That math you speak of say something CAN happen. The kind of math in theoretical physics I'm referring to say something MUST happen

Given enough time

 

[Greg Jennings]

Given enough time

Sometimes, yes. But I'll go back to the black hole example here. In that case, the conclusion that a black hole existed was drawn from the way that objects were being affected when traveling near a seemingly empty part of space. When the math was run they realized that a supermassive star had collapsed and it's gravity was so intense that it not only was affecting objects' trajectories, but sucking all visible light in as well. And that's why it was invisible

 

[gcthomas]

The evolutionists have won hands-down. That's why they came here, because they love us so much they want to set us crazy Creationists straight.

No, it's more to do with reducing the positive feedback on a bad case of group-think, to prevent waverers on the fence from thinking that the arguments they are hearing from anti-science advocates are well formed and persuasive for thinking people.

The actual Creationists are already lost in their own self reinforcing, little crank arrangements of back patting, social acceptance desiring, beliefs. You are beyond help, but are dying out slowly.

We can only think of the children - which is why there is such a fight over some schooling - and those who have left their homeschooling bubbles and are starting to think for themselves. Forums like ToL actually help, because the atheists here are uniformly polite and tolerant, putting an uncomfortable mirror in front of some of the more obviously intolerant Creationists here.

 

[badp]

No, it's more to do with reducing the positive feedback on a bad case of group-think, to prevent waverers on the fence from thinking that the arguments they are hearing from anti-science advocates are well formed and persuasive for thinking people.

Your efforts obviously aren't working.

We can only think of the children - which is why there is such a fight over some schooling - and those who have left their homeschooling bubbles and are starting to think for themselves.

One of the best cases for homeschooling, which is always under attack. We can innoculate our kids before the atheists get to them

Forums like ToL actually help, because the atheists here are uniformly polite and tolerant, putting an uncomfortable mirror in front of some of the more obviously intolerant Creationists here.

And I love the idea of TOL being part of a curriculum. Very educational, and it does help prepare them for the arguments they'll face in the "real world."

 

[Jose Fly]

Your efforts obviously aren't working.

As has been covered in this thread, the data shows they are working.