Is Anyone A Former 'Scientific Creationist'?

[Dr Adequate]

Anyone here, or... just anyone at all ever?

We have lots of ex-believers in stuff on these forums. And yet I can't remember hearing from an ex-'SC'. In my trawls of the web, I've found one possible case --- I'm going to email him.

But I'm really not sure that it's ever happened. Has any 'SC', ever, ceased his babbling of pseudoscience long enough to look in some real science books and find out that he's wrong?

 

[hammegk]

Interesting question. There is an alternative: if you a 'materialist', you should in good faith assign 100% probability that your view is correct; if the probabity you assign is not 100%, either you are a closet dualist, or a liar.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I nominate that for non sequitur of the year. It's only April, I know, but I think I'm on to a winner.

 

[Hawk one]

If you traverse the published feedbacks in Talk Origins (Which I assume you don't need to be linked to, Dr. A), you might be able to get in touch with someone like that. I have seen quite a few stories that I believe should fit your criteria, and at least some of them will have their e-mail available, so that you can contact them and find out if it was a serious feedback.

Just a suggestion, since I myself have just about always accepted a universe without a creator.

 

[KelvinG]

Very few creationists every change. It costs too much for that operation to remove their heads from their ass.

 

[hammegk]

Very few creationists every change. It costs too much for that operation to remove their heads from their ass.

You 100% materialist, or just another silly dualist?

 

[KelvinG]

You 100% materialist, or just another silly dualist?

Heh, heh. Somebody's desperately trying to pick a fight in this thread, isn't he?

 

[nicholls]

QUOTE]Heh, heh. Somebody's desperately trying to pick a fight in this thread, isn't he?[/QUOTE]

A duellist, perhaps?[

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I wasn't a "scientific creationist", but I didn't believe in the theory of evolution until I'd been to college. I had to hold the skulls in my hand before I was convinced.

No, I didn't have a "fundie" upbringing.

 

[Throg]

Interesting question. There is an alternative: if you a 'materialist', you should in good faith assign 100% probability that your view is correct; if the probabity you assign is not 100%, either you are a closet dualist, or a liar.

I'm not generally one to ignore people but the level of ignorance implicit in this statement inspires me. I'm not even going to try to argue.

 

[Yahweh]

Former JREFer Sparklecat used to be a former YECist and Rapture believer, see her story The Transfiguration of a Believer.

 

[hammegk]

I'm not generally one to ignore people but the level of ignorance implicit in this statement inspires me. I'm not even going to try to argue.

Ignorance? Sure, if you say so, less than 100% (=illogical dualist), or 100% materialist (=insane).

Actually consider objective idealism with an open mind.

BTW, I do assign 100% certainty to just one statement, that being "thought exists".


nichols: duelist is correct ...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hammy, this is the adult table, you belong in the kid's table. Now be a good boy and go play with your geeky friends.

 

[Throg]

Ignorance? Sure, if you say so, less than 100% (=illogical dualist), or 100% materialist (=insane).

Actually consider objective idealism with an open mind.

BTW, I do assign 100% certainty to just one statement, that being "thought exists".


nichols: duelist is correct ...

I tried, but I'm just too weak-willed to ignore (and no I do not take "weak-willed" to imply dualism).

I referred to your apparent ignorance of materialism. Rather than simply repeating your assertions, please supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one must be 100% certain of the materialist model in order to be a materialist. Please also supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one need not be 100% certain of the dualist model in order to be a dualist. Once you have done so, it will make sense for me to either acknowledge that you are correct or argue with you.


Sorry for the facetiousness of my previous post but unsupported assertions are terribly irksome.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you traverse the published feedbacks in Talk Origins (Which I assume you don't need to be linked to, Dr. A), you might be able to get in touch with someone like that.

I can only find a couple of short posts over a whole year.

* shakes head *

On the other hand, the following quotations cheered me up no end:

The day has an astronomical explanation. The year has an astronomical explanation. The week doesn't. How can you call a week a week with no explanation for it? Creation is the only place you get reference of a week from, so you can't even use week without contradicting yourself.

The makers of this website are probably a bunch of loser, outcast, liberal nerds that need to be smacked around. Next make some legit points for your meaningless cause, don't say to be creation vs. evolution either, and don't waste time bashing the truth like I bash your beloved faggot brethren. The truth is out there and will be found, but you are and will remain lost and die and go to eternal damnation. Thank You and have a nice day, faggots!

Is science believable? First helium had to pool together to make a star for no reason something had to act on it. Physics says that is improbable without God and it happens billions of times. To make planets asteroids had to collide to make heat to make the round shape, given the vastness of space it is improbable and it happens many times ... Space bends so that mean it is something nonphysical. So if nonphysical things exist that means that thing like God, souls also exist.

Using your own words: "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty". Then why teach these things as "truth" to our impressionable school age children? Evolution of species is a documented fact? What merit does it have then, because a "fact" is only a half-truth? I do not want my children being taught half-truths (lies) as absolutes.

 

[hammegk]

I tried, but I'm just too weak-willed to ignore (and no I do not take "weak-willed" to imply dualism).

Nor do I.

I referred to your apparent ignorance of materialism. Rather than simply repeating your assertions, please supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one must be 100% certain of the materialist model in order to be a materialist. Please also supply your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that one need not be 100% certain of the dualist model in order to be a dualist. Once you have done so, it will make sense for me to either acknowledge that you are correct or argue with you.


Sorry for the facetiousness of my previous post but unsupported assertions are terribly irksome.

Yeah, I know. The sublety underlying my statement is mind-boggling.

Position 1. Materialism=choose body (one way to say it) ...
Position 2. Unsure = dualism (by definition)
Position 3. Idealism=choose mind (one way to say it) ...

Feel free to demonstrate to your adoring fans I'm wrong.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Position 1. Materialism=choose body (one way to say it) ...
Position 2. Unsure = dualism (by definition)
Position 3. Idealism=choose mind (one way to say it) ...

Your classification is wrong. The mind cannot exist without the body.

 

[Hawk one]

I can only find a couple of short posts over a whole year.

* shakes head *

On the other hand, the following quotations cheered me up no end.
<snip>

Yeah, there aren't too many of those stories. I probably remember reading more than a couple because I read the whole feedback archive a couple months back. Of course, searching for much more than a year back may be as fruitless, as it's uncertain whether or not the e-mail adresses (if even visible) provided then are still in use now.

But on the other hand, it's always a good place for some really far-out quotes, so I guess it wasn't a total loss, eh

 

[Throg]

Yeah, I know. The sublety underlying my statement is mind-boggling.

Position 1. Materialism=choose body (one way to say it) ...
Position 2. Unsure = dualism (by definition)
Position 3. Idealism=choose mind (one way to say it) ...

Feel free to demonstrate to your adoring fans I'm wrong.

There's nothing subtle about it, you are just plain wrong or have re-defined materialism, dualism and idealism to fit your own personal preference, depending how you look at it.

Position 1
This is precisely my position.

Position 2
The only problem with being a dualist who is certain that our nature is dualistic is the basic problem of how do you acquire certain knowledge that is at the route of scepticism. There is no reason that a dualist cannot be as certain of his position as a materialist or idealist.

Position 3
There is no problem with being a idealist on the basis that you think it is most likely (not certain) to represent the most accurate model of reality.


You have confused the issues of one's model of reality with the level of certainty which one ascribes to one's model.

Feel free to demonstrate to your adoring fans that I am wrong.


Incidentally, if I do, as hammegk suggests, have adoring fans please send me money and, if you are female, obscene photographs and/or movies of yourselves.

 

[hammegk]

Your classification is wrong. The mind cannot exist without the body.

At the human HPC level, of course. And less complex neural systems presumably also have an associated "mind", imo.

Originally posted by Throg

You have confused the issues of one's model of reality with the level of certainty which one ascribes to one's model.

No confusion on my part; maybe on yours. Unless you disagree with the statement, if it interacts with "what is" it is the same monism "what is" is. Alternatively, you have body stuff interacting with mind stuff and you are a dualist.

100% materialism on one end, 100% idealism on the other, dualism some mixture of both.