Was Albert Einstein a Creationist or a Master of Metaphor?

[yourdadonapogostick]

This guy is starting to get on my nerves. I should have guess that he was a creationist by the way he posts. He makes obviously wrong claims and gives no evidence for them. Not only does he give no evidence he does the creationist "Ignore all evidence to the opposite of what I am trying to say" trick.

This is an argument that doesn't have to do with that, but that first paragraph is just some history. In multiple threads on SFN, he posted this:

What about Einstein? Don't judge all creationists because
of the crazies.

Einstein was a creation scientist. And I have the quote:
"I want to know how God created this world. I want to
know his thoughts. The rest are just details."

I say it is just an extended metaphor with personification. He doesn't give any evidence to the contrary, yet does his creationist crap and ignores when I disect the quote in a purely literary manner.

So here is the question: "Was Albert Einstein a creationist or did he like literary devices?"

 

[Smurf]

Einstein, like Stephen Hawking, is best described as a Natrualistic Pantheist

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-Einstein, March 24, 1954

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

Thank you. Nicholas will be receiving a PM with that quote.

 

[Smurf]

The full quote is:

"I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it. "

it was written, in english, in a letter to an italian-american self-made atheist who had sent him a handwritten letter 2 days earlier that was incredibly in-depth, discussing politics, religion, science, Einstein's career and his own background.

 

[Moonbear]

This is an argument that doesn't have to do with that, but that first paragraph is just some history. In multiple threads on SFN, he posted this:

Pogo, do you realize it's poor etiquette to quote someone from one forum on another when they can't be present to debate or dispute your claims?

If someone is arguing in favor of creationism, be sure your own understanding of evolutionary theory is strong before attempting to debate with them, otherwise you are likely to only add to their misconceptions about evolution by poorly explaining it.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

the post wasn't about him. the part that talked about him was just a setting for my question.

 

[Math Is Hard]

but you quoted him specifically.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

read the quote and then the question and you will see that they are VERY closely related. it has nothing to do with the person who posted it. most of that post was a setting.

So here is the question: "Was Albert Einstein a creationist or did he like literary devices?"

is the important part. the question makes much more sense if you have the rest of the post, though.

 

[Math Is Hard]

You could have stated the question in your original post just as effectively without
1) referencing a specific member
2) slamming creationists in the derogatory terms that you chose

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

1)i referenced him because he is what caused the question
2)i didn't slam creationists, i "slammed" their poor tactics

 

[Pengwuino]

You guys should see this evolution "vs" creationism thread in this other forum. Experts in both fields would be appauled at what people are saying. A third theory must be made that is so complex and so intense and so mindboggling that simple minded people won't even dare try to argue it (incorrectly)!

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

there is no evolution v. creation because they are not mutually exclusive. it gets hype because ignorant people think they are.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah, that's why i put "vs". Its so dumb. "You see, the RNA evolves into the metopatania and over thousands upon trillions of quazilion centuries, the DNA adds levi jeans which means God doesn't exist!"

 

[Math Is Hard]

...he does the creationist "Ignore all evidence to the opposite of what I am trying to say" trick.

generalizing

..yet does his creationist crap and ignores when I disect the quote in a purely literary manner

generalizing and slamming

i didn't slam creationists, i "slammed" their poor tactics

So you are suggesting all creationists use these tactics? How could you know?

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

when i say "creationist" i mean the vast majority(which said person is a member of) that possesses the qualities of the creationist steiotype. no where in that post did i attack the people. i only attacked their tactics. you are inferring things from my post that they didn't imply.


if you want to see a slam, here it is: "all creationists are evil. everything they say is a lie." how does that suit you. this thread is way off topic, so drop it.

 

[Pengwuino]

when i say "creationist" i mean the vast majority(which said person is a member of) that possesses the qualities of the creationist steiotype. no where in that post did i attack the people. i only attacked their tactics. you are inferring things from my post that they didn't imply.

Whoa whoa... anyway to confirm that? You might want to change the statement to something along the lines of "The majority of creationists i speak to..."

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

look at any creationist resource, go to any church, talk to people online...you will see that they are the majority.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hell if i based my idea of "majority" off of what i see online, might as well think the majority of people think aliens are real and the government is abducting people and 9/11 waws fake. I ahve also never been into a church or church function where anyone was actually debating anything at all. I also never debate about such things with people online because no one really cares to argue about it. Are you just going around picking fights with people

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

ok, that's edging on a strawman.

 

[Pengwuino]

huh? what's a strawman. Whats with this fancy lingo I am hearing today that i don't even understand!

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

use google or the search function...

edit: the magic of the search function... https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=35522&highlight=strawman

 

[Pengwuino]

Pff *finds definition*

Thats teh exact same argument you used though. "Personal experience dictates majority". I guess that's why it was so easy to defeat your first argument ;) hehehe

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

no, not just personal experience. no where in this thread have i used the strawman fallacy.

google creationism and you will see what i am talking about. i will no longer reply to this topic in this thread because it is way off topic. if you want to continue this, make a new thread.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pff, why have a thread if your not going to make it go off topic :D. And i seriously doubt you went through every single website on google as i bet it probably numbered in the hundreds of thousands. You used personal experience because unless its somehow possible to take a count of all arguments ever used when it came to evolution vs. creationism.

But yes, back to whatever this topic was about... think it was about tacos or something.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

hey, it's not past the fifth page yet, just calm down!

mmm...tacos

basically, it all boils down to the fact that i was right and he was wrong. the thread was closed because the moderators agreed with me that it was spam.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh wait, its about Einstein

Well he probably liked tacos to say the least... how can't you like tacos...

 

[Smurf]

Someone Lock this.

 

[Gokul43201]

..."You see, the RNA evolves into the metopatania ...

What in the blazes is a metopatania ?

 

[Gokul43201]

To the OP :

1. Please avoid direct quotes of discussions from other forums

2. Your question is answered in essense by smurf. For a little more, see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=59763&highlight=Einstein

Now let's stop the bickering and take this thread rapidly off-topic, wot ?

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

ok, i think einstein was really just franzbear in discuise. franzbear is an evil genius bent on world domination and no one is capable of stopping him.

how is that for off topic?