|
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2003 : 11:16:12
|
The creation evolution debate itself is a stage for discussion. Where as people draw opinions about their chosen beliefs which can not be loosened. I can not think of another debate in which there is such division among its participants.
I came across this quote from Tolsoy in which he sheds some light on the subject. In my opinion, the more complicated things become, the more we need to take a step back and ask ourselves why that is.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."-Tolsoy
I think both camps are guilty of this to some degree..........
|
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2003 : 19:37:14 [Permalink]
|
I don't think anyone's been murdered over the creation/evolution debate. The debate over abortion, however, has caused deaths. It has a much deeper, and more emotionally-based divide, since the same facts can be seen in multiple ways. The point at which a "potential life" becomes a "real life," for example, isn't really something for which there is evidence, since different people will weigh different aspects of any measurement differently, and thus come to different, but still reasonable, conclusions. The fact that the different opinions are all reasonable is what causes such violence when the "two sides" meet.
Contrast this with the creation/evolution "debate" (Young-Earth Creationists {YEC}, that is - Old-Earth Creationists bump heads with evolution much less often). The only way to come to a different-but-reasonable conclusion about, for example, the age of the Earth is to deny, for example, that radiometric dating is valid at all. This isn't a case of two people looking at a radio-isotope date for a rock and coming to different conclusions about what that date means, it is a case of one person claiming that, since that date conflicts with his/her interpretation of the Bible, the date must be wrong.
And not just that date. Since there are several different methods of measuring such dates, and they all agree, all of them must be wrong. And not because the Bible says so, but because what those particular people (YECs) read into the Bible says so.
Evolution is my "chosen belief" not one iota more than it is my "chosen belief" that my shoe size is ten-and-a-half. Both can be measured by various independent techniques, all of which arrive at the same answer. The only assumption this rests upon is the idea that an objective reality exists and can be measured, which is an assumption that both scientists and most YECs agree upon. Since that idea is not a part of the "creation/evolution debate," my acceptance of evolution based upon measurable evidence does not constitute a "belief" in anything close to the same way that, for example, I believe that laws against homicide are good to have (an idea which isn't nearly as firmly grounded in physical evidence). And it's several more orders of magnitude different from a YEC's belief that the Bible is the Word of God.
Another reason that I don't "believe in" evolution is that there are many possible observations about the world which would disprove evolution in a heartbeat. The truth is that many people have gone looking for that Tolstoyan "simplest and most obvious" piece of evidence which would show that the theory of evolution is, at the very least, mistaken. At a minimum, such evidence would more than "loosen" many scientists opinions, it would garner someone a Nobel Prize. It's not like there's no motivation for the quest.
However, such findings have thus far (150 years plus) been lacking, and not a hint of them have come from any YEC argument (not a few of which are much older than 150 years). The entire YEC movement is not based upon positive evidence, it is instead based upon the denial of everything that scientists have found which happens to support evolutionary theory.
(It is also based upon the lie that evolution denies a place for God in people's lives.)
So, "debate?" There is no debate. Instead, there are a bunch of people who claim that the hard evidence from at least a dozen diverse scientific fields is entirely wrong, without supplying any worthwhile evidence themselves to support such a claim. A "debate" involves a comparison of ideas. So, the truth is that YECs have yet to enter into a single true debate with any scientist (or group thereof) whose field touches upon evolutionary theory.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 12:45:55 [Permalink]
|
| Well put....there is no debate. What is the motivation for this exchange of views? I think people reply more to impress those with similiar views than to change the minds of the people they are discussing with. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 14:43:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
Well put....there is no debate. What is the motivation for this exchange of views? I think people reply more to impress those with similiar views than to change the minds of the people they are discussing with.
That's food for thought. Maybe I'm one of those? I need to think about this. I like to share the knowledge I have, for the benefit of others, I think it is my main motivation in these kinds of threads, but some times it does not come out right.
And then, with my previous experience with religious people, I take some pleasure in thrashing "holier-than-thou"-believers. It's not a redeeming character of mine, but one I will gladly to learn to live with. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 16:57:33 [Permalink]
|
Of course, the motivation depends on both the person and the circumstances. If I encounter a YEC who's clearly curious, I'll be much more patient than if he/she is one of Dr. Mabuse's "holier-than-thou believers." The goals of the latter seem often to be to judge me, tell me that I'm going to Hell, and try to 'save' me. I have little patience for such people, especially when their position is based upon lies, making them much less holy than they think they are.
Around here, obviously, there aren't a whole lot of YECs for the YECs to impress. Perhaps they're patting each other on the back on other forums, after telling tall tales of entering the land of the heathens and doing battle. I don't know.
And although the occassional "Dave Rocks!" is nice, I don't respond to the YECs here out of a desire to impress anyone here, I do it mostly because I feel an obligation to clear up the idiocy. A secondary motivator is that like-minded people here will, I hope, correct me if my corrections are not, themselves, correct, and so I might learn something. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 19:26:33 [Permalink]
|
| Ohhh... there is trully no debate because while one side evolutionists bring hard, exact scientific evidence to sustain their point, the other side - creationists - base their statements on a book that has absolutley no scientific basis, is created out of folclore and whose "truths'" have been proven to be lies all the time - the bible. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 22:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Didn't I just say that?
No, I didn't. Since it is not true that the Bible's truths "have been proven to be lies all the time." Some of the lessons that the Bible tries to teach - for example, that in general, people shouldn't kill each other, or steal from each other, or lie to each other - are pretty much Good Things no matter what you base the ideas upon.
The pathetic part is that many YECs think that without the threat of eternal punishment, those particular "truths" lose all value. If they practice what they preach, more power to 'em, since it'll keep however-many YECs from trying to kill me, rob me, or lie to me. Not all YECs are so respectful of their own source text, unfortunately. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 06:56:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is the motivation for this exchange of views?
I have a couple of reasons:
1. If these people continue to perpetrate their claims without opposition then they can claim victory, and then they can use this "victory" in their attack on the teaching of valid science in the classrooms.
2. To challenge myself to learn more. This really is probably my main personal reason, but since I started debating creationists online I have learned quite a bit about some subjects I probably wouldn't have studied too much without the extra motivation. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 12:46:00 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry Dave, but I didn't mean the lessons, I ment the truths they bring forth when it comes to reasoning, truths such as the great flood, the trip of moses and other such examples. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 13:04:31 [Permalink]
|
Even along those lines - historical "facts" - the Bible isn't always wrong. There are plenty of events in the Bible with verification from other historical records. Now, the supposed miracles, those are what are lacking evidence.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 13:19:08 [Permalink]
|
| aaannnddd.... what do the examples I gave represent??? the historical fact that emperor x wes ruller when christ was crucified??? :) huh? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
