aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Feb 12, 2006 23:32:17 GMT -5
LINKI hope I'm not the only one who finds this disturbing. It's unbelievable that such fallacious crap can go unquestioned. I can't blame the kids since they really don't know better. It's the parents that are scary. And dumb. It's one thing to say "I understand evolution, but my faith prevents me from accepting it," but none of the yahoos in the article understood it at all. This Ham moron is completely twisting evolution using strawman arguments. Of course, we've seen this from rabid fundamentalists before. The shocking part for me is the brain washing of the children. I guess I should have expected such things, otherwise how else would creationism and fundamentalism continue to exist. Still, it's frightening how kids who would be otherwise rational and curious are being duped. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by Azonthus on Feb 13, 2006 10:18:57 GMT -5
I guess this is going to be as worthwhile as trying to teach Triceracops good manners, but I'll try anyway. I hope I'm not the only one who finds this disturbing. It's unbelievable that such fallacious crap can go unquestioned. Ever consider that this is the exact same feeling Creationists have about evolution? I do not find it disuturbing in the least; in fact, I admire Ken Ham and have even seen some of his lectures. It was hard being a creationist in a school full of evolutionists and he gave me some great arguments that really stumped my teachers. Of course, my grades suffered for it and I eventually learned to stick the garbage in my short term memory long enough to regurgitate it onto the tests and to keep my mouth shut when it comes to proving the teacher wrong in front of the rest of the class, but I still enjoyed stumping the teachers. And I still do it on occasion just for the heck of it. I can't blame the kids since they really don't know better. It's the parents that are scary. And dumb. It's one thing to say "I understand evolution, but my faith prevents me from accepting it," but none of the yahoos in the article understood it at all. I believe these 'yahoos' understand evolution perfectly. In order to make a good case against it, you must first know what it teaches and how it teaches its doctrine. 'Know thine enemy.' This Ham moron is completely twisting evolution using strawman arguments. And I'm sure the author of this article wasn't biased at all when she wrote it... Of course, we've seen this from rabid fundamentalists before. The shocking part for me is the brain washing of the children. Public schools don't brain wash children? Day cares don't brain wash children? ANYTHING can be called brain washing as long as it's teaching against the 'norm' or accepted standard. To Creationists like myself, these conferences are a GOOD THING. Call me a Nazi if you want, but I will proudly stand up for my beliefs. I do take the Bible literally in all accounts, especially in the account of creation. If you can't believe the very first thing the Bible says, how can you believe the rest of it? I guess I should have expected such things, otherwise how else would creationism and fundamentalism continue to exist. Creationism and fundamentalism continue to exist because they are right. How can there be no God if EVERY SINGLE CULTURE TO EXIST has a form of religion? There is something in man that knows there is a greater power and man searches for that. The story of evolution is simply another form of religion. Still, it's frightening how kids who would be otherwise rational and curious are being duped. Don't you think they can be curious about the Bible and wonder what the Bible says about creation? That's not duping them in the least.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Feb 14, 2006 2:32:09 GMT -5
Ever consider that this is the exact same feeling Creationists have about evolution? I have no doubt. Though why people think that scientific knowledge must be threatening is beyond me. My college biology teacher believed in the divine creation of the world and yet he could still teach evolution better than any one I have personally seen. These attacks on evolution, and especially the ones made by Ham in that article, are quite ugly and are highly fallacious. Of course, it’s possible that he’s simplifying things to reach the child audience. However, I don’t think doing so does the kiddies any service. I do not find it disuturbing in the least; in fact, I admire Ken Ham and have even seen some of his lectures. Now I do find this rather disappointing. I haven’t seen his other lectures, but the one showcased in the article was quite wrong in so many ways. Him showing a picture of a chimpanzee and implying that evolution says that’s what the children’s’ grandparents looked like was a complete misrepresentation of evolution. Surely you see that. Again, it’s possible it was done for the benefit of the kiddies. Of course, lying about what evolution actually says is hardly a way to help children, is it? Not exactly a shining and honest Christian moment on his part. It was hard being a creationist in a school full of evolutionists and he gave me some great arguments that really stumped my teachers. Such as? In any case, I’m not surprised. I don’t have too much faith in the current education system. Also, it’s not simply enough to understand evolution. To be able to defend it, you also have to understand logical fallacies and debate tactics since this is the large bulk of creationist arguments, in my experience. Of course, my grades suffered for it Were these science classes? If so, I would understand why you got bad grades. and I eventually learned to stick the garbage in my short term memory long enough to regurgitate it onto the tests and to keep my mouth shut when it comes to proving the teacher wrong in front of the rest of the class, but I still enjoyed stumping the teachers. And I still do it on occasion just for the heck of it. What exactly is the nature of this “stumping”? Let me guess, you call into question the uncertainties that are inherent in science and then leap to the conclusion that this proves creationism? I believe these 'yahoos' understand evolution perfectly. From chimpanzee to human within two generations? Ham is a complete moron judging from the article. If he IS aware of evolution’s nature, then he’s lying to the kids. Something that I don’t put past the loudest and most zealous proponents of creationism. In order to make a good case against it, you must first know what it teaches and how it teaches its doctrine. 'Know thine enemy.' That’s nice in principle, but apparently not so in practice. What I see are Strawmen of evolution that he uses to discredit real evolution. That’s not knowing your enemy, it’s slandering your enemy. And I'm sure the author of this article wasn't biased at all when she wrote it... I don’t think she was. Care to point out the parts where she wasn’t doing anything but showing Ham and the people there for what they were? Where were the positions of evangelical creationists being distorted? Or is this simply a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy? Public schools don't brain wash children? Day cares don't brain wash children? ANYTHING can be called brain washing as long as it's teaching against the 'norm' or accepted standard. By what standards is brainwashing? I would think that in science class, kids should be taught what science has discovered about the world they are living in. Evolution is a fundamental part of that. And considering that evolution is the primary theory used to explain biodiversity by modern science, I’d say, by your very own standards, that what Ham and others like him are doing is very much brainwashing meant to deter kids from even opening their minds up to evolution in the first place. Let's just put it this way, science doesn't need general religion to be suppressed in the home in order for it to be taught properly. However, judging from your sickened attitude toward science, you seemed to have quite some trouble reconciling the classes with your personal beliefs. What Ham is doing is preventing kids from opening up to science in the first place. He wants to keep creationist belief in these kids pure and unspoiled by Evil-ution. THAT is brainwashing. You see this in every other instance where mainstream Christianity shrilly points to cults and accuses them of brainwashing; when cults sequester members from outside contact and instill their own doctrine. You see this when Iranian media try to ban rock and roll to prevent it from "corrupting" the youth. By poisoning the well, Ham, and others like him, are trying to pre-emptively brainwash kids. It's not enough that they have faith; Evolution must be outright demonized. To Creationists like myself, these conferences are a GOOD THING. Call me a Nazi if you want, but I will proudly stand up for my beliefs. I do take the Bible literally in all accounts, especially in the account of creation. If you can't believe the very first thing the Bible says, how can you believe the rest of it? You’re presuming that in order for the Bible to be true in any sense, it has to be literally true in its entirety. Is Stouthorn any less of a Christian simply because he can believe in BOTH God and evolution? What about the billion or so Catholics who are bound by Catechism to believe in an evolution of sorts? Sectarianism aside, are they any less Christian? Was my college biology teacher any less of a Christian? Frankly, I’m growing weary of this BS where people think that their personal standards of how Christ should be worshipped is the One True Way. It’s unbelievable to see the slander and liable being tossed around by creationist proponents like Ham and Falwell just because their religious sensibilities are offended. You’re implying that you can’t seem to even fathom how people can read the Bible and enrich their lives by it without having to take it literally. Either that, or you do see it, but you think it’s wrong, for some reason I can’t seem to grasp. I think some of you folks need a good dose of pragmatism. Creationism and fundamentalism continue to exist because they are right. Or, because it serves a human need for certainty and authority. The fact of the matter is, Azonthus, that a belief that is actually right shouldn't have to rely on fallacies in order to perpetuate itself. The fact that science, a methodology that minimizes human ego and want, rejected creationism a long time ago should be the first clue that creationism in its literal sense is false. And why do you think this is because of your God as opposed to a human psychological need for religion? A need for order and authority? There’s an implicit arrogant assumption there that your God is the wellspring from which ALL of religion sprang, even though many of them, such as Buddhism, are actually quite different theologically from Christianity. No doubt, you think that other religions are wrong in the way that they go about their business and that yours is the True Way. There is something in man that knows there is a greater power and man searches for that. I have no doubt. The material universe is a grand and wonderful thing. I can only imagine what the first humans thought when they looked up in the night sky and saw the Milky Way in all its glory. Did they think those balls of plasma were the souls of their loved ones promising the reward of life after death? What did the first hominids think when they saw fire for the first time? I have no doubt Man found the need to explain what he experienced. I’m sure religion served very well for thousands of years. But to be honest, I think science has been far more consistent in giving us tangible results that spring directly from a deeper understanding of the world around us than subjective faith can ever give us. The story of evolution is simply another form of religion. Ah, now the equivocation comes in. Really Azonthus. I am getting more disappointed the more I listen to you. This is something I associate with people like JJ. Is there anything to this phrase that dosn't make it a tawdry and hoary sound byte that people like JJ spout out on cue? At least back it up with some reasoning rather than your say-so alone. At risk of repeating what I said to JJ/dan, I’ll just tell you this. All things being equal, science is the superior form of knowledge seeking when it comes to the material world. That’s because it doesn’t include the intangibilities of the supernatural and the a priori of personal faith. Not to mention a superior methodology. If what I’m hearing from creationists are true, it would seem they’ve come to the conclusion first, namely that God exists and that the Bible is His Word and absolute authority of How Things Should Be. Everything else, it seems, must conform to that basic principle. That’s nice when you’re doing religion, but it’s utter crap when it comes to science. See, it’s the other way around with science. You look at the evidence, the world, first, and then you create a theory, a truth, to explain it. If there’s new evidence, you have to change the truth to fit the evidence. So you see, contrary to what you just posted above, evolution – and by extension, science in general – is not a form of religion. Oh, but I will grant you this. Science has taken over many areas that religion once dominated. So I can see how you might think that it’s simply a rival system to your religion. But that doesn’t make it a religion, per se. Don't you think they can be curious about the Bible and wonder what the Bible says about creation? That's not duping them in the least. It is when they go out of their way to distort and implicitly demonize evolution with the stunts that are pulled in that article. - Aric
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Feb 17, 2006 14:05:29 GMT -5
Okay, What do I have to lose. I'll give it a shot. This is just to show people that the Bible supports Creation, and what it has to teach us about it.
Creation/Or Evolution?
What does the Bible teach us about creation? God is the Creator. It's in the Bible, Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
God reveals Himself through creation. It's in the Bible. Psalm 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands."
Creation points to God's existence and our responsibility. It's in the Bible, Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
God spoke the world into existence. It's in the Bible, Psalm 33:6,9, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm."
God created the world in six literal days. It's in the Bible, Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested the seventh-day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Through whom did God create all things? It's in the Bible, Colossians 1:16, "For by Him [the Son] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him." John 1:3, "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."
What was God's object in making the earth? It's in the Bible, Isaiah 45:18, "For this is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: 'I am the Lord, and there is no other."
How did God provide inhabitants for the world He had created? It's in the Bible, Genesis 2:7, 21, 22, "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being… So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man."
In whose image was man created? It's in the Bible, Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
To what position did God assign man? It's in the Bible, Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let us make a man—someone like ourselves, to be the master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas.' " Psalm 8:3-6, "When I look up into the night skies and see the work of Your fingers—the moon and the stars You have made—I cannot understand how You can bother with mere puny man, to pay any attention to him! And yet You have made him only a little lower than the angels, and placed a crown of glory and honor upon his head. You have put him in charge of everything You made; everything is put under his authority."
Do you want to believe in Evolution? Do you want to preach Evolution?
It's in the Bible, 1Corinthians 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
My friend, when men are truly saved they will give God all the glory!!!
I thank my Pastor for finding this for me.
Pastor Jerry Friend
— Barry
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Feb 18, 2006 1:08:23 GMT -5
Dwaggie, what was the point of that post? All I saw you do was spout scripture as if simply doing so proves anything on its own. Just because people believe in something doesn’t make it automatically true. Just because they claim some Authority for whatever they say or think doesn’t make it true. It needs to be corroborated with the reality that exists outside of people’s minds. Science does this. Imperfectly, to be sure. But any imperfections can be corrected and the theories can be adjusted, since the whole point of the scientific method is to change the theory to fit evidence and facts. However, creationists think they’re right to begin with. There’s no room for improvement since they think they’re already there. They have no proof of this either, of course. BTW, the Bible is neither factual nor evidence of anything on its own any more than the movie Gladiator was supposed to depict anything real. It needs to be corroborated with reality. The Bible isn’t even comprehensive. Why should people expect it to have anything meaningful to say about how the natural world works? There’s no way that it can reasonably be considered to be an absolute authority on anything. Not without other stuff to back it up. I suppose Faith serves this purpose for fundamentalists, but considering how subjective Faith is, I don’t know how this would logically do anything other than to show that it’s even more likely to be made up. Can you show me that faith is more than a simple suspension of disbelief? Is it anything more than YOU simply saying “I’ll ignore the stuff that might make me think I’m wrong and go ahead and believe in what I want and that I'm right.” I’ve done everything I can to show you HOW it is that simple faith and dogma isn’t enough to undermine scientific methodology. Nor to make beliefs true. True in the sense that they exist outside of your imagination. Do you want to believe in Evolution? Do you want to preach Evolution? I believe that science’s methodology is better than simply hammering everything to fit a conclusion you already came to beforehand. - Aric
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Feb 18, 2006 18:13:56 GMT -5
Don't argue with me on this matter. This is the Word Of God. And it's Never wrong about anything. If you have anything to say, ask God. I'm not your judge. I'm only a servant of God. And I stand with Him. And you or any others like ya are not going to change how I see things.
BTW, I didn't post the Creation/Or Evolution topic to cause a debate. I posted it for those Who want to believe. Oh, it's alright for people like you to post your ideas, but when one of us Christians posts something it's not? Because you don't like it. Did you ever heard of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution? I respect every opinion on here. I don't go around telling people that they are wrong just because they say it is science or what they believe it or not. I can either agree with it or not agree. If I don't agree, I just dismiss it.
P.S. I don't want to alienate you or anyone on this board for any reason. You all are so very kind and respectful to me. As I am to you all. I try so hard not to hurt any body's feelings, and not get out of line.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Feb 18, 2006 22:09:18 GMT -5
Don't argue with me on this matter. I think I'm perfectly free to argue on this matter. Or does your God not like free thought? So people claim, but I have seen no proof that it actually is. As far as I can tell, the Bible is just a collection of stories, myths, and perhaps some chronicles of the Israelite people in certain parts. The only thing supporting the idea that the Bible is the Word of God is your say-so and that lots of people want to think it is. And it's Neverwrong about anything. Care to back that up? Observation of the universe seems to show that the universe is billions of years old. Biology shows that ALL vertebrate animals start out as female. So how could Adam have been the first one? My guess that the creation story absorbed a lot of the patriarchism of the day. Oh, and try check Genesis 24:1-4, Nehemiah 13:23-27, Ezra 10:10-12, Leviticus 25:42,25:44-46. Sounds like segregation doesn't it? Maybe those Good Old Boy Southerners were correct and those evil secularist liberals were wrong about segregation in America. The Bible's always right, huh? To be honest, Dwaggie, I don't care whether the above examples are actually right. It's actually a lot more frightening if it is. The point of the matter is that you should stop to think a little before you make such a hasty generalization like that. You might have to beckpedal later. If you have anything to say, ask God. I never met the guy. However, his followers are plentiful and vocal. And they seem to think they know what God wants and thinks. Ask Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell everytime they say hurricanes are going to destroy Florida because of the active gay community. Or when Falwell said September 11 was punishment from God. I'm not your judge. I'm only a servant of God. And I stand with Him. And you or any others like ya are not going to change how I see things. I think you've been quite clear about how you see things. As you said yourself in another thread, it's actually quite simple and straightforward. I just don't buy into any of it. BTW, I didn't post the Creation/Or Evolution topic to cause a debate. I posted it for those Who want to believe. No prob. Though, I thought you knew me enough to expect some sort of challenge. Oh, it's alright for people like you to post your ideas, but when one of us Christians posts something it's not? Care to point out where I said that it wasn't okay for you to post your ideas? Don't confuse a challenge to your religious methodology with a challenge to your right to express your views. If you feel intimidated whenever you express your opinions, then I'm sorry about that. But don't expect me to sit idly by when I see people making fallacious mistakes and passing it off as absolute truth.. Because you don't like it. I'll admit that I don't like fundamentalism. But I never said you couldn't voice your own opinion. It appears to me that you just don't like being challenged on your positions and are now whining about some sort of illusory persecution. Show me where I said you couldn't talk about your own religion here in this forum. Did you ever heard of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution? Yes, and I'm exercising it. I never said that you couldn't. You just didn't like what I have to say and are now making up accusations about oppression. I respect every opinion on here. I don't go around telling people that they are wrong just because they say it is science or what they believe it or not. I can either agree with it or not agree. If I don't agree, I just dismiss it. That's your position. But I don't agree, obviously. I will hold their methodology accountable when I think I see something wrong. Rather than accusing me of stepping on your 1st Amendment rights (something that i haven't actually done) maybe you ought to try arguing logically. I posted the fallacies in the philosophy/theology forum. I suggest that you take a look at it and take it to heart. P.S. I don't want to alienate you or anyone on this board for any reason. You all are so very kind and respectful to me. As I am to you all. I try so hard not to hurt any body's feelings, and not get out of line. Nah. No hard feelings. There's a big difference between something like this, which I consider to be a semi-formal debate, and something like RPing or real life. There'sno need to take it personally, unless the attack itself is extremely personal, like insults (what I do to JJ/dan ;D) and the like. - Aric
|
|
Kiva
Apprentice
Self-proclaimed Ninja Mistress... with cat ears...
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kiva on Mar 4, 2006 23:32:42 GMT -5
An interesting trend I've noticed throughout this thread. Aric, you proposed the argument that what this "Ken Ham" person is teaching and the teaching methods he employs is wrong and disturbing. While everyone is entitled to their beliefs and we still posses the freedoms of speech and religion I noticed somethign throughout the course of this debate. Az, you debunk what Aric has said and state your own beliefs as to what is implied by the texts. However, you fail to back up your statement with proof. Aric, you also fail in this respect. You debunk everything that Az has replied, simply telling us why YOU think it's wrong. But you don't back it up with what you think is right and the proof needed to convince me of your claim. Dwaggie provides a definite resource for his argument. Although not a readily accepted text for a debate, still it is a written document that historians can confirm it's accuracies. And again Aric, twice you fail to back up your cross-examination with proof. Again it's just what you think is wrong and right. You call Creationism a 'fallacious mistake,' (You really like that word, don't you? ) but where is your proof that what Dwaggie has presented is a lie? Besides your own words and feelings, I'm interested to see where you get your arguments from. As for me, it's easier for me to believe that I have a Heavenly Father who created me in His image than it is for me to think that my ape-like Greatx100 Grandfather was picking bugs and pests of my Great-100 Grandmother. It's also a little more meangingful... in my opinion.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Mar 5, 2006 4:17:05 GMT -5
An interesting trend I've noticed throughout this thread. Aric, you proposed the argument that what this "Ken Ham" person is teaching and the teaching methods he employs is wrong and disturbing. While everyone is entitled to their beliefs and we still posses the freedoms of speech and religion I noticed somethign throughout the course of this debate. I didn't simply propose an argument. I pointed out examples where he deliberately misconstrues evolution in order to turn impressionable kids against it. To see this requires a passing understanding of evolution to begin with. Not some distorted caricature of it. Az, you debunk what Aric has said and state your own beliefs as to what is implied by the texts. However, you fail to back up your statement with proof. Aric, you also fail in this respect. You debunk everything that Az has replied, simply telling us why YOU think it's wrong. But you don't back it up with what you think is right and the proof needed to convince me of your claim. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you missed the idea of my parts. I was talking about methodology. In other words, I wasn't talking about who was correct in what they believe. I was talking about how they think. This is intimately related to what conclusions they come to, so I can see how you might have confused the two. Besides, if I am correct in the way that I am gauging your thinking process (and by "your" it can apply to anyone who bases their beliefs on faith), then it wouldn't matter what evidence I present since you'll most likely reject it in favor of the conclusion you already came to in the first place. I alluded to this in my response posts, BTW. Dwaggie provides a definite resource for his argument. Although not a readily accepted text for a debate, still it is a written document that historians can confirm it's accuracies. Again, it wasn't that kind of debate. When talking about methodology, simply presenting evidence and assuming it's true doesn't work either way. The only thing Dwaggie was doing to sustain the idea that what he posted was correct in any objective sense was his own contention that it was. I called into question his methodology of assuming that the Bible is infallibly true and that everyone should listen based soley on that premise. Dwaggie just seemed to assume that it's true, which is a point of contention in and of itself in this whole debate. And again Aric, twice you fail to back up your cross-examination with proof. Again it's just what you think is wrong and right. Either you did not understand what I was trying to argue or you're deliberately twisting what I said in order to more easily criticize it. Evidence had nothing to do with either Azonthus' or my posts. I was talking about HOW people think. You call Creationism a 'fallacious mistake,' (You really like that word, don't you? ) but where is your proof that what Dwaggie has presented is a lie? More misunderstanding (or misleading) on your part. I never said it was a lie. This indicates that I thought Dwaggie was deliberately trying to decieve me or something like that. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that's what he believes. What I was saying was that modern science does not operate by the same principles as religion. Thus, creationism, as a blatantly religious idea, shouldn't be taught in a science class. Also, I would like to point out that it's precisely because of science's methodology that scientists have been able to produce more tangible results when it comes to the material world than pure religion ever has. That's why it would be a better way of describing the material world than religion would be. Look at it this way. Let's suppose polio is still around and you don't want to get it. What do you do? Do you 1)pray to God, 2) Run down to Venezuela and buy some magical medicinal chili peppers, or 3) take the Salk vaccine? I would hope you chose number three first since that's what actually destroyed polio in the West. What about praying to God? It doesn't hurt, (neither does buying magical chili peppers) but it's not the primary way of dealing with the real problem in this particular scenario. So again, how do we know what to believe? Do we believe those who propound faith as an answer to our problems or modern mysteries? Or do we go with what has shown tanglible and reliable results? IOW, do we go with science in this case? Besides your own words and feelings, I'm interested to see where you get your arguments from. It's called rationality. It'd work for you too if you invested a little more thought to it. The fact that you completely misjudged my posts shows that you didn't understand what I was trying to say. As for me, it's easier for me to believe that I have a Heavenly Father who created me in His image than it is for me to think that my ape-like Greatx100 Grandfather was picking bugs and pests of my Great-100 Grandmother. It's also a little more meangingful... in my opinion. It's easier? As I said before either here or in another thread, just because something is easier to believe in doesn't make it true. If you want evidence or examples, how about this: Everyone believes the world is flat because that's the way things look like from their point of view. Is it true? I hope that's not a hard question for you. I'm joking, of course. It's actually a lot more difficult when you apply that rationality to your cherished personal beliefs and assumptions rather than a historical misconception that we now know in retrospect to be comically false. And frankly, after all your chastisement about not presenting evidence, all you've done here in this part of your post is present your own personal feelings about the issue in one pat sentence. Is this anything other than rhetoric on your part? - Aric
|
|
Kiva
Apprentice
Self-proclaimed Ninja Mistress... with cat ears...
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kiva on Mar 5, 2006 14:33:14 GMT -5
I'm sorry Aric, if you thought I was misconstruing your thoughts. But the way you presented them was in a manner that sounded offensive as far as an attacking way, not a rude or ignorant way. Now, you yourself have stated that this thread has turned into a I'm not sure how many different types of debates there are, but all the ones I've seen have given standpoints and backed them with proof. You yourself have also stated that your proof is found in "rationality". Yet, there are aspects of science that cannot be logically explained. (e.g. How an atom that is positively, negatively, and neutrally charged seems to stay together to form matter. Scientists have already claimed that this defies the laws of magnetism, electricity, etc.) So, does this mean that logic is all based on what an individual believes to be rational? (Again, I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything, I'm simply employing your 'methodology' to see how and why you think the way you do.) Also, I still don't understand why you thought I didn't understand your posts, and my ignorance was showing. I said that you thought that what Ken Ham said was disturbing. This is true, because you said it in the first sentence of your post. Have I lied, or did you mean that in a different way? I also said that you failed to provide proof that what you say about Ken Ham is true. You post your statements based on emotion. So far, the only thing you've done is tell us how wrong we are to be promoting Creationism in this way, and even made a few veiled jabs at Christianity. Yet while I agree that this is not the best way to go about teaching someone, you've still not given a convincing argument that it's wrong to teach Creationism in school or anywhere else. Your statements are based on emotion, and as far as I know, emotion is not accepted as concrete evidence in a court of law. As far as twisting your words, I never made a quote of what anyone has said in this thread until now, I was merely making a scientific, rational observation. Plus, if you're going to talk some kind of scientific 'ology', they still use proofs to back up their claims and discoveries and theories, unless scientists have stopped doing that now... As for the "fallacious mistake" incident: The word is derived from the word "fallacy" which mean 'deception'. And if the thesaurus is an accepted text, then it also means a 'lie'. I used a simpler form of the word so that I wouldn't sound redundant, but since this word was not a quote of what you'd said, apparently "fallacious" has an alternate definition of which I am unaware of. And don't confuse me with a Freemason. I believe in a general hospital's care, and that science has made great leaps and bounds in medicine and that it's beneficial for everyone. Perhaps you need to study more about us before you lump us all into one category and think that we all believe the same thing. Now, correct me if I'm worng, but it sounds to me as if your entire last post was centered around the fact that you think I believe that science is wrong. Your question containing the Venezualean chili peppers led me to this conclusion. This is untrue. If I did believe this, I would have said so. I love medicine and astronomy, which are both branches of science. So it seems that you are twisting what I have said, and in fact DID NOT SAY, to suit your needs. For if you look at my last post, you will see that apart from my last opinionated paragraph, I took no religious or scientific standpoint on what was written.[/b] I simply made a scientific and judicial comment on what I saw that was lacking in this presentation of the evidences of what you all believe just as another anonymous scientifically-mainded person would have done. You did not hear my standpoint on the topic until the last paragraph and then commenced to dig deep into what I wrote to prove me wrong about things I hadn't even said. Be careful, Aric, for you've just done what you claimed I did. And now I present a question to you: If Evolution is so true, then why is it still considered a "Theory" and not a "Truth"? (P.S. This isn't going to affect our RP, is it? )
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Mar 5, 2006 21:16:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry Aric, if you thought I was misconstruing your thoughts. But the way you presented them was in a manner that sounded offensive as far as an attacking way, not a rude or ignorant way. Well, it was an “attack” in that I thought I was challenging the basis for which Azonthus and Dwaggie were using to justify their positions. I'm not sure how many different types of debates there are, but all the ones I've seen have given standpoints and backed them with proof. At risk of sounding repetitive, I was arguing methodology. I was trying to argue how one set of ideas or thoughts related to others. IOW, how people come to their conclusions. You yourself have also stated that your proof is found in "rationality". Yet, there are aspects of science that cannot be logically explained. (e.g. How an atom that is positively, negatively, and neutrally charged seems to stay together to form matter. Scientists have already claimed that this defies the laws of magnetism, electricity, etc.) So, does this mean that logic is all based on what an individual believes to be rational? (Again, I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything, I'm simply employing your 'methodology' to see how and why you think the way you do.) See, I wasn’t arguing the minutia of the process of evolution. I was talking about the philosophy of science and how it relates to faith-based forms of knowledge. I’m no physicist, so I can’t speak to the atomic matter you brought up. However, I wonder how whatever uncertainty in science there is automatically allows the use of irrationality to fill in the gaps. Does this subatomic mystery supposed to unravel science? Or to discredit it? It’s not enough to simple point out the alleged shortcomings of science. I really don’t know what you’re trying here. Also, I still don't understand why you thought I didn't understand your posts, and my ignorance was showing. I said that you thought that what Ken Ham said was disturbing. This is true, because you said it in the first sentence of your post. Have I lied, or did you mean that in a different way? In the context of what you were trying to tell me in that entire post, it looked like you were saying that I didn’t back up my disagreement with Ken Ham’s methods. I did point out in a previous post that showing a picture of a chimp and implying to the children that evolution said it was their immediate ancestors was bogus and underhanded. You might have caught that had you not been so intent about concentrating on the TONE of my post. I also said that you failed to provide proof that what you say about Ken Ham is true. You post your statements based on emotion. Nope. See my immediate response above. I showed a clear example where Ham either deliberately lied to the children about evolution or simplified it in order to easily sway impressionable children. There was emotion in my post, but I assure you, I brought up evidence to back it up. I don’t know why you overlooked this part. It might help to actually respond to the individual segments of the post that you want to respond to. Breaking it up and then replying to each section allows you to formulate counterarguments with the original text and intent of the person you’re reponding to right in front of you. So far, the only thing you've done is tell us how wrong we are to be promoting Creationism in this way, and even made a few veiled jabs at Christianity. Actually, the intent wasn’t to tell you “how wrong” faith-based forms of knowledge are, but rather to show the difference in “how to know”. Those “jabs” are the result of the personal philosophy I hold. I think that essentialism is fundamentally flawed in the way it comes to any sort of truth. Yet while I agree that this is not the best way to go about teaching someone, you've still not given a convincing argument that it's wrong to teach Creationism in school or anywhere else. Your statements are based on emotion, and as far as I know, emotion is not accepted as concrete evidence in a court of law. See, it looks like you’re concentrating on only the passion rather than whatever substance I tried to put in the post. I don’t know what kind of debates you’ve been into, but I’m guessing they didn’t involve Logical Fallacies like the ones I posted in the theology/philosophy forum. It looks like you’re completely ignoring my points about methodology and are instead using this “emotional” angle to dismiss my arguments. You know, you might actually want to take up my advice about using the quote function liberally when responding. It’s rather difficult for me to put a handle on your post without any sort of context to which parts you disagree with. As far as twisting your words, I never made a quote of what anyone has said in this thread until now, The very fact that you didn’t quote my words opens up the likelihood of misinterpretation. All I saw was a broad generalization of my position without you actually responding to the individual points. I was merely making a scientific, rational observation. By what definition of “scientific” and “rational observation” are you going by? Rather than being systematic and addressing the points of my post directly, you wrote giant block paragraphs without substantially relating to anything I said. Plus, if you're going to talk some kind of scientific 'ology', they still use proofs to back up their claims and discoveries and theories, unless scientists have stopped doing that now... I see you yourself aren’t above “jabs”. And when it comes to methodology, it’s about knowledge and not hard science. I DID use examples to illustrate my points. If you bothered to inquire as to what I meant by them rather than going about on some dismissal of my position based on your distaste of my passion or on some odd notion that I was talking about hard science rather than the philosophy of knowing, then you should have quoted it and specified what you wanted to know about it. As for the "fallacious mistake" incident: The word is derived from the word "fallacy" which mean 'deception'. And if the thesaurus is an accepted text, then it also means a 'lie'. I used a simpler form of the word so that I wouldn't sound redundant, but since this word was not a quote of what you'd said, apparently "fallacious" has an alternate definition of which I am unaware of. If you read the TWO links I posted in that forum and understood it, you’d know what “fallacy” means in this context. To me, it means more of a mistaken conclusion based on skewed logic rather than an outright lie. Please read the links and see if I am accurate in this. If not, then I’ll stop using the term “fallacy” and all words derived from it. And don't confuse me with a Freemason. I believe in a general hospital's care, and that science has made great leaps and bounds in medicine and that it's beneficial for everyone. Okay… Now, what the HELL is this about? That was supposed to be a thought experiment in determining how to know what works. It wasn’t directed at you personally. Let me repost the thesis of that section since you missed it the first time around. “I would hope you chose number three first since that's what actually destroyed polio in the West. What about praying to God? It doesn't hurt, (neither does buying magical chili peppers) but it's not the primary way of dealing with the real problem in this particular scenario. So again, how do we know what to believe? Do we believe those who propound faith as an answer to our problems or modern mysteries? Or do we go with what has shown tanglible and reliable results? IOW, do we go with science in this case?” Granted, the last part was partly rhetorical, but I thought it was rather clear that scientific methodology tends to be more accurate when it comes to materialism than religion would be. Why evolution would be a better scientific explanation than creationism would be in this context. Perhaps you need to study more about us before you lump us all into one category and think that we all believe the same thing. First, Dwaggie accuses me of oppressing him, though how I did such is a mystery to me. Perhaps he was talking about the grand evil secularist conspiracy against Christianity. And now, you think that I was referring to you directly with that example? You’re seeing an issue where there is none. Now, correct me if I'm worng, but it sounds to me as if your entire last post was centered around the fact that you think I believe that science is wrong. Your question containing the Venezualean chili peppers led me to this conclusion. This is untrue. If I did believe this, I would have said so. I love medicine and astronomy, which are both branches of science. Again, that thought experiment wasn’t supposed to be about your epistemological position. It wasn’t about WHAT people believe. It was about methodology. It was about HOW people come to conclusions. So it seems that you are twisting what I have said, and in fact DID NOT SAY, to suit your needs. Actually, if you were following what I was saying (hopefully it’s clear to you now) you would see that YOU are the one making stuff up. I NEVER said that thought experiment represented your personal beliefs. You either mistakenly intuited it on your own or you’re using this to discredit my argument. The whole entire time I was responding to you, I hammered the point about methodology. The thought experiment was an example of that. But apparently, you thought that it was simply a mischaracterization of your position rather than the “proof”, if you will, that you thought was absent from my post. For if you look at my last post, you will see that apart from my last opinionated paragraph, I took no religious or scientific standpoint on what was written.You’re going to have to backpedal hard with this one. I never implied you did hold the position that Venezuelan chili peppers or prayer-based healing were legitimate medical treatment options. Read my post again. Carefully, this time. And try to understand it rather than reading what you want into it. If this is your idea of “scientific” and “judicial” (i.e., putting your own thoughts into the meanings of the words I say) I can see why you hold the beliefs you do as you have laid them out at the OMB. Now, THAT was a jab. Next time, ask me to clarify rather than simply assuming your first conclusion about my words were correct. The thought experiment was a demonstration of methodology. Only, you mistook it for a personal attack. No wonder you missed the point. That’s disgusting. Especially after all the mistakes you made while misinterpreting my post. Next time, USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION!!! And address it point by point as I have bothered to do with your posts. The irony here is palpable. And now I present a question to you: If Evolution is so true, then why is it still considered a "Theory" and not a "Truth"? I see the same mistake being made here as EVERY creationist has made since 1859. You’re judging scientific evolution based on the essentialism that seems to characterize your own system of knowledge. I gather that you think “Truth” is supposed to be some ultimate and absolute definition of What Is. Science doesn’t work like that, RELIGION does. A theory is simply a working model that explains some element or process in the natural world. In order for anything to become a theory, it has to be looked at by other scientists (remember the scientific process from you science labs), and it has to be CONFIRMED by them after they try to tear it apart and attempt to disprove it empirically. Also, as I have said a couple times in either this thread or others, a theory will change if there is more evidence. Think about that. From what your posts at the OMB seem to indicate, it looks like you already came to the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His Word. It looks like you came to the conclusion FIRST, if that is indeed the gist of what you believe. In science, you come to the conclusion AFTER you look at the evidence. And again, a theory isn’t absolute in the same way that your belief in God might entail. A theory MUST change to accept new evidence. That’s because a theory is really simply an intelligible framework that organizes the evidence and facts in a way that explains it sufficiently to be reproducible, and perhaps even observable in many instances, by people other than the guy who came up with the original theory. And that’s why I think science is superior when it comes to explaining the material world. It relies solely on that materialism to explain itself. It doesn’t introduce unproveable, and more importantly unfalsifiable, elements into its explanations. It can be both proved and disproved depending on the validity of the theory. And contrary to what some creationists think, it’s not enough to simply attack evolution and assume that it reciprocally validates creationism. They can attack it all they want. But in the end, they don’t have any legitimate scientific alternative to replace it. The best creationists come up with ultimately boils down to “God did it.” That’s fine for personal or religious beliefs, but that doesn’t cut it in science. Azonthus was straightforward in her rebuttal of my original post. But you’re trying to stump me by bringing up the uncertainty that’s inherent in science as if somehow that’s suppose to undermine its integrity. The fact that buildings don’t collapse under their own weight shows that science got it right when it comes to structural integrity and the strength of steel, which is a molecular and atomic matter, BTW. Whatever uncertainties you bring up about the subatomic, we KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT MATTER to make working nuclear weapons and power plants. Engineering, AKA applied science, works and creates tangible and reproducible results. Scientific methodology has it down right. - Aric EDIT - (P.S. This isn't going to affect our RP, is it? ) Of course not. I don't take debates personally. Actually, the reason I haven't been posting at the RP is because I have absolutely no idea where to go with that. I could think of a couple scenes where I fool arounf with Ryka ( ;D ) but not anything that will move the story along. I don't know anything about the gate in the Basin. Perhaps that's where we should start?
|
|
Kiva
Apprentice
Self-proclaimed Ninja Mistress... with cat ears...
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kiva on Mar 5, 2006 21:47:46 GMT -5
Alright I'll end this all right now with a simple apology. I'm sorry if we jumped down your throat about this whole subject, but it's been done to us as well for posting debatable material. Apparently, we learned the wrong kind of lesson from this, and it has been actual attacks on our beliefs that cause us to become a little defensive.
Unfortunately, discussions like these are difficult to hold over the internet simply because we cannot express ourselves as clearly as we can using nonverbal signals that are present in a face to face conversation.
I love discussing things and learning what people believe. Though this doesn't mean I accept it as Truth, it also doesn't mean I will despise you for it.(I'm speaking to a general audience.)
I am not conceding defeat in this discussion, I simply do not wish to continue on a path that may possibly lead to bitter words. I have presented my viewpoint, and it is enough. I wouldn't wish to make an enemy of anyone, nor place a stumblingblock in anyone's way. I also do not wish to cause strife among the brethren, so to speak.
There was a better way to go about this, but by the time I got here, the proverbial 'damage' was already done. And I'm afraid in my human ignorance I unintentionally added to the 'damage.' I apologize if anything I said was too crass. It was not my intent or goal.
So, moving on... I did kind of write myself into a corner with that part of the RP, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "fooling around" with Ryka. Care to PM me an example? I'll try to forge past my writer's block, but I can't vouch for it's good quality. So, be patient.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Mar 5, 2006 23:46:54 GMT -5
For my part, I should apologize for snapping at people who I consider to be friends. I learned debate on some comparatively unruly boards. Also, I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that people would automatically be acquainted with stuff I’ve been working on for college. ( @ myself) Alright I'll end this all right now with a simple apology. I'm sorry if we jumped down your throat about this whole subject, but it's been done to us as well for posting debatable material. Did I do this? I don’t mean this to be accusatory, but I would like to know if I jumped down your throats simply for posting your beliefs. If I did without backing it up with some reasoning, then I’d like to know if I made that mistake. Apparently, we learned the wrong kind of lesson from this, and it has been actual attacks on our beliefs that cause us to become a little defensive. This happened at the ToP? Or elsewhere? Again, I don’t want to sound like I’m accusing you of implying anything but if I looked like I was attacking your beliefs simply for its own sake, then let me know. I’d like to think that my position has some degree of rational justification, but frankly, I can’t tell on my own. I need feedback. Unfortunately, discussions like these are difficult to hold over the internet simply because we cannot express ourselves as clearly as we can using nonverbal signals that are present in a face to face conversation. Conversations like this are difficult, PERIOD. ;D I can run by what you said in my mind with some imaginary face and it still wouldn’t come out right. I think this is simply what happens in extended debates concerning issues that people hold dear. I suppose it doesn’t have to end up this way, but it can. I don’t think anything permanently negative should come out of some abstract debate, though. I love discussing things and learning what people believe. Though this doesn't mean I accept it as Truth, it also doesn't mean I will despise you for it.(I'm speaking to a general audience.) Ah. Well, I suppose I could say something elaborate in response, but I guess we should put this to rest. Just know that I don’t believe humans can really know there is Truth. Not with absolute certainty. Just truth. A transient one at that. I am not conceding defeat in this discussion, If I am right about how I assess religious methodology, then I wouldn’t imagine that you would in any case. ( ) I simply do not wish to continue on a path that may possibly lead to bitter words. Meh. From where I come from, harsh words shouldn’t be taken personally. Otherwise I wouldn’t speak to Stefan for implying that I was a totalitarian Nazi in that 9-11 thread over a year ago. However, I do speak to him occasionally. Debates are just that: debates. I have presented my viewpoint, and it is enough. I wouldn't wish to make an enemy of anyone, nor place a stumblingblock in anyone's way. I also do not wish to cause strife among the brethren, so to speak. If this community can be so easily broken up by abstract squabbles, then… Meh. There was a better way to go about this, but by the time I got here, the proverbial 'damage' was already done. And I'm afraid in my human ignorance I unintentionally added to the 'damage.' I apologize if anything I said was too crass. It was not my intent or goal. Well, you responded just as I did when I perceived that my points were being mischaracterized. I think I may have been a little meaner, though ( ) As for the RP, I’ll PM you. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 25, 2006 18:21:38 GMT -5
Ok - I've skim-read through this and let me just sum up for the benefit of lazy guys like me who prefer things in easy bullet points:
1. Ken Ham (among others) is preaching creation and saying evolution hasn't been proven.
This is wrong why?!!
2. Schools are preaching evolution and saying creation can't be right because that means we must believe in a god of some sort, which is not politically correct for a million reasons.
I'll tell you why THAT'S wrong - kids HAVE to go to school, and more than that, it's everyone's tax dollars that pay for it, including the majority of taxpayers, who don't actually believe in evolution!
3. Schools are preaching out of textbooks, which contain assumptions and fakes that everyone knows about (for example, peppered moth forgeries and Haeckel's embryos, among many others), whereas Christians are preaching out of the Bible.
SIDE NOTE: textbooks have been proved wrong on many occasions and as I just said contain fakes (I prefer to say they are PURPOSEFULLY LYING to our children so they believe what they want out kids to believe) whereas: the Bible has been around for quite a long time now and there's a reason people believe it's the infallible Word of God - there are no contradictions and none of it has EVER been proved wrong, actually let me give a promise . . .
If anybody can come up with ANYTHING that genuinely shows any of the Bible to be incorrect historically or contradictory then post it up here and I'll pay that person about $1000 (£500 - I'm English I'm afraid), in the form of personal cheque or whatever's easiest - that's my personal promise because I don't wanna waste my life on lies - I also don't want you to!
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Mar 30, 2006 4:12:24 GMT -5
1. Ken Ham (among others) is preaching creation and saying evolution hasn't been proven. This is wrong why?!! One of the virtues of the quote function (and I’ve already said this to Kiva), is the ability to look back up at the original person’s words for you to read again in case you misunderstood it the first time around. My issue with Ham was that he contorts evolution in order to convey a false impression of the theory for kids in order to better convince children against science. If you had read my responses carefully, you might have gotten that. I already pointed out first to Kiva, and now to you, that showing a picture of a chimp and telling kids that’s what evolution says is what their grandparents are is not showing both sides equally. He’s deliberately mischaracterizing evolution in order to turn kids off real science. BTW, why would creationists (not necessarily you, but it is a chronic problem I’ve seen here and on other boards) have to so often mischaracterize evolution in order to effectively argue your own side? Is there a problem with trying to understand evolution before creationists attack it? As far as I can tell, creationism is, by and large, more about attacking evolution rather than a rigorous attempt to explain their own position in a way that can be either scientifically proven or falsified. 2. Schools are preaching evolution and saying creation can't be right because that means we must believe in a god of some sort, which is not politically correct for a million reasons. And what does political correctness have to do with science? I'll tell you why THAT'S wrong - kids HAVE to go to school, and more than that, it's everyone's tax dollars that pay for it, including the majority of taxpayers, who don't actually believe in evolution! So, if the vast majority of the population believes the world is flat, should historians change Chistopher Columbus’ accounts, or physicists change their textbooks to satisfy this belief? Kids go to school to learn what they don’t get from home or any other situation outside of a learning environment. This includes science’s accounts of the material world. 3. Schools are preaching out of textbooks, which contain assumptions and fakes that everyone knows about (for example, peppered moth forgeries and Haeckel's embryos, among many others), whereas Christians are preaching out of the Bible. So, that thing about the peppered moths is supposed to discredit textbooks in general? It looks like you’re simply looking for an excuse to dismiss science texts based on one possible bad example. SIDE NOTE: textbooks have been proved wrong on many occasions and as I just said contain fakes (I prefer to say they are PURPOSEFULLY LYING to our children so they believe what they want out kids to believe) Do you have proof of the purposeful nature of the mistakes in the text books? whereas: the Bible has been around for quite a long time now and there's a reason people believe it's the infallible Word of God - there are no contradictions and none of it has EVER been proved wrong, actually let me give a promise . . . If anybody can come up with ANYTHING that genuinely shows any of the Bible to be incorrect historically or contradictory then post it up here and I'll pay that person about $1000 (£500 - I'm English I'm afraid), in the form of personal cheque or whatever's easiest - that's my personal promise because I don't wanna waste my life on lies - I also don't want you to! Samdman, what does having inconsistency or the lack thereof have anything to do with whether the Bible is true or not? It can be completely consistent, but if there is no corroboration with reality, none of that means anything at all when it comes to whether the Bible is an accurate source for natural history. Check the thread about the “proofs” about God. All of them are technically consistent from an internal logical point of view. However, they’re all based on presuppositions, namely the ones that are stated in the first lines of the proofs. Your presupposition is that the Bible is absolutely true to begin with. YOU made the assertion, and you need to back it up with something more than just a statement that a book written by people is free of inconsistency. Especially if you want to use the Bible in a debate against science. BTW, are you a fan of The Sandman? Not that I am. I’m just curious about your screen name. - Aric EDIT - HAH!!! 666 posts! And no, Anonymous, this is not bragging. It's celebrating Satanic portents.
|
|