Creationists say the funniest things....

Stolen from an actual conversation on Facebook between "J" an Intelligent Design proponent who thinkings evolutionary theory is not to be believed and some fellow believers in woo....

Irony abounds...


J: Why is it that young-earth creationist papers (published in creationist journals and peer-reviewed by other creationists) generally quite explicitly start off by assuming what they're trying to prove?

K: Confirmation bias.

J: Many of the young-earth papers don't even try to hide the fact that they're assuming their conclusion from the outset. It's bad methodology for one thing. But YECists seem to think that it's a virtue...


L (to J): You are correct. Unfortunately, pointing out the bad methodology doesn't help. By definition, non-YEC propositions are by default considered capitulation to a worldview hostile to theism (Christianity in particular). And no matter how many times you deny it, you won't convince them otherwise.

K: I wouldn't dismiss their quest too quick. Just like evolutionary thought has motivated some scientists to try to find an alternative to a Creator and in their quest they stumbled upon some interesting findings ( a classical example is Watson and Click's DNA helix discovery; they wanted so badly to dismiss God...) so young-earthers questioning has led to some debate about fossils, and even some startling findings about the implausibility of fossils forming in the sea floor.

The same pattern is happening in Biblical studies. Those 19th and 20th century scholars who wanted so badly to discredit the Bible and and so came up with all kinds of form-criticism and myth theories, have thus paved the road for the current textual-criticism scholarship, which is poised to debunk it all because the former arguments are simply exhausted.


--------------

Hanging round believers, I am struck time and again by the utter alternative version of reality they hold inside their heads.

Textual Criticism supporting the bible??
The Discovery of the structure of DNA was solely to disprove God? (WTF??)
The implausibility of fossils???

But kudos must go to J for trying to distinguish himself from the godly creation types while doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING by a different name.


Putting the "dis" into ingenuity

Views: 322

Tags: Believe, Bible, Comedy, Creationism, Design, Designer, Facebook, Faith, Fun, Funny, More…God, I.D, Intelligent, Irony, Religion

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Steph S. on May 30, 2012 at 7:54pm
Yes I agree with Loren that it is because of being indoctrinated at an early age. Brainwashing is right.
Comment by Richard Healy on May 30, 2012 at 1:35pm
Hi Loren,

O hear what you are saying. what kills me about this conversation is these I.D.iots are basically crowing about the stupid Young-Earthers.

Assuming the point they are trying to proove? Hello?

"This is Pot." He said, "Kettle you are black ner ner ner ner ner...."
Comment by Loren Miller on May 30, 2012 at 5:45am

To me, this is just one more consequence of the early indoctrination in religion that I have little doubt most of these YEC'ers are subjected to.  Their god is real to them and MUST be considered, so EVERY facet of creation must be suffused with their deity.  Of course, this also means that the indoctrination manual they were hammered with HAS to be true.

Confirmation bias?  More like confirmation brainwashing!

Comment by Richard Healy on May 30, 2012 at 2:29am
Subsequently, I'm watching this segment on The Magic Sandwich show - and Micheal Payton (around 7 minutes) hits on exactly the kind of thing I've been struggling to describe, how is it people can veer so drastically away from critical thinking and still think they are talking sense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE04gX61owk

They 'Glenn Beck' the argument* - meaning as he puts it: "There is a liberal or an atheist bias in the world, and all that they are doing is essentially putting the counter-side to that. Even if it doesn't make sense what they are saying is 'we are the alternative, we are allowing people to make up their own mind'"


Read that bit again about textual criticism, disproving the 'myth' argument.
Yeah Jesus probably wasn't a myth as in TOTALLY FABRICATED - but what we do know based on how the book was probably written is that the claims don't match up with reality either and the whole thing is one massive copy-paste effort of several different convergent and dissimilar mounting to contradictory influences post hoc editing and NOT TRUE - but they leave that part out.



* I feel sullied and unusual to use him as a verb but nevertheless...

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service