• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Creationist Philosophy

 
 
 
S

SLD

Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
6,402
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
A quote from a creationist:

No true conclusion is grounded upon a false narrative that cannot satisfy its own burden of proof but by a hypothetical presupposition asserted AS the truth manifest in reality, without evident declaration and demonstration either known or knowable to exist, in due process of time, objectively.

Subjectivism isn’t a scientifically entailed philosophy. Scientism is such an entailment, objectively found in every evolutionists’ narrative.

I am certain.
Click to expand...
 
I think the guy is trying to sound intellectual. Subjectivism is a valid philosophical concept that can be discussed. But I’m not sure what he means by scientifically entailed. Or what he means by scientism.

If anyone is interested in joining the conversation that this guy has posted (he’s posted a lot of this kind of crap), but feel free to join us in Facebook group called “Creation Science vs Religion of Evolution”. We need more “scientismistic” people.
 
Even the thread title is an oxymoron. Creationists don’t sell philosophies, they sell dogma. In that respect the title is a perfect little mirror of the subject garbled nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Elixir said:
Even the thread title is an oxymoron. Creationists don’t sell philosophies, they sell dogma. In that respect the title is a perfect little mirror of the subject garbled nonsense.
Click to expand...

At best it’s a contradiction, not an oxymoron. Strictly an oxymoron consists of two seemingly contradictory words which, when put together, generate a new and novel meaning. Actually I’d say that “creationist philosophy” is not even a contradiction; creationists have a philosophy, after a fashion, just not one that is very good — not supported by argument and evidence.
 
The “scientism” mentioned in the incoherent quote in the OP is a philosophical stance that only scientific statements have any meaning — an obvious contradiction, since “only scientific statements have any meaning” is not a scientific statement. Anyhow, that’s hardly relevant, since there is no “scientism” is the theory of evolution, only science, and they are not the same thing.
 
SLD said:
A quote from a creationist:

No true conclusion is grounded upon a false narrative that cannot satisfy its own burden of proof but by a hypothetical presupposition asserted AS the truth manifest in reality, without evident declaration and demonstration either known or knowable to exist, in due process of time, objectively.

Subjectivism isn’t a scientifically entailed philosophy. Scientism is such an entailment, objectively found in every evolutionists’ narrative.

I am certain.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Who said this?
 
It was just some guy on a Facebook group called The religion of evolution and the science of creation. But I don’t think it still exists. I think we evil atheists asked too many questions and they deleted it.
 
SLD said:
It was just some guy on a Facebook group called The religion of evolution and the science of creation. But I don’t think it still exists. I think we evil atheists asked too many questions and they deleted it.
Click to expand...
TikTok will be happy to have them.
 
ideologyhunter said:
I read it a couple of times, and it seems purposely opaque to me. At a guess, I think it's their old trope about science being just another religion, and if it is, they can stuff it up an archaeopteryx's bunghole.
Click to expand...

The second sentence has some mix truths and some leading assumptions.

NHC
 
NoHolyCows said:
ideologyhunter said:
I read it a couple of times, and it seems purposely opaque to me. At a guess, I think it's their old trope about science being just another religion, and if it is, they can stuff it up an archaeopteryx's bunghole.
Click to expand...

The second sentence has some mix truths and some leading assumptions.

NHC
Click to expand...
I agree, it seems likely that archaeopteryx would have had a cloaca, with a vent rather than a true bunghole, and that they should therefore stuff their trope (about science being another religion) up that.

It is certainly the case that archaeopteryx had a complex alimentary canal, and that those who claim that science is a religion deserve to have their opinions (and wherever practical, themselves) forcibly inserted into the terminal orifice of that canal; But the use of the term "bunghole" does (for most modern non-biologist readers) create a misleading and potentially erroneous assumption that a specific orifice for the elimination of faeces, separate from orifices used to eliminate uric acid, and/or for the transfer of spermatazoa and laying of eggs.

As an early ancestor of aves, it would be highly unlikely that archaeopteryx would display such differentiation of faecal, urinary, and genital orifices, and for the avoidance of confusion it is therefore wise to specify, for general audiences, that the orifice into which insertion of the claim should be performed is the vent, leading to the cloaca.

From a lingustic perspective, one might argue that the vernacular "bunghole", when applied to the avialae (the clade that includes therapod dinosaurs along with aves), necessarily implies "vent/cloaca", rather than the more traditional implication of "anus"; However the public at large may be unaware of the detailed anatomy of this clade, and as further misinformation, (even as an implicitly rather than explicitly inaccurate claim) is to be avoided, I concur with the implied argument that we should tell creationists "stuff it up an archaeopteryx's cloaca" (or more pedantically "stuff it up an archaeopteryx's vent"), thereby avoiding confusion.

Many, in a general audience, may however be unfamiliar with the word "cloaca", and so it would be appropriate to elaborate by providing a brief account of the key differences between a vent/cloaca and a true bunghole (as typified by the anus found in mammalia), thereby turning the discourse into a teaching moment.

On a similar note, we should also resile from the anatomically highly improbable recommendation that creationists "can go fuck themselves", as the morphology of the urinogential apparatus in homo sapiens typically renders such an act impossible; While significant variation of urinogential configuration is observed in this species, such that the possibility may exist for a small subset of individuals, it is highly unlikely that any given creationist would be suitably equipped.

This is doubly true in the hypothesised case that male creationists show a displacement of their penes to the cranial region, as summarised by the common phrase "all creationists are dick-heads". A cranial site for the penis has yet to be specifically observed, but even if it were shown to occur, it would non significantly increase the subject's ability to fuck himself, given the well attested limits to the curvature that can be applied to a human spine. Again, small numbers of individuals may be exceptional in this regard, but it would be unwise to assume that a given, randomly selected, creationist was amongst their number.

In summary, while they can shove their opinion up an archaeopteryx's bunghole, it should be clarified that the vent and/or cloaca, and not an anus per se, is the specific orifice in question; And while they should go fuck themselves, this act is unlikely to be physiologically possible, and it would therefore be incorrect to assert that they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom