A debate about debates

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 2 of 17

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, October 13, 2006 12:00 AM

To be fair, facts are something that have yet to be disproven. They are not set in stone. They are used because they have been proven useful. The theory of evolution has proven pretty useful I think.

Competing theories can be a good thing, but creationism is not a competing theory. It isn't a theory at all. It uses no observable evidence.

What I don't understand is why such a desperate need to debunk evolution? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't Science and spirituality coexist? Aren't there plenty of scientists who are also Christians?

Wouldn't even those of you who are creationists agree that however God must have created the Earth, its way too complex for us to write it out? Couldn't you accept at least the possibility then that the Bible's Genesis is metaphor? A simple way of covering a vastly complex topic so as to get to the point?

Why is there such an insistance on ruling out evolution that you would go to such lengths as to outright ignore empirical evidence?

there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?

CITIZEN

Friday, October 13, 2006 12:24 AM

I honestly don't understand why we're giving it time of day.

Cartoon, a religious nut case that would happilly kill all non-believers starts a BS thread about how evolution is wrong because a physicist wrote the foreword for a book that has nothing to do with evolution (i.e. he flat out lies). Another one is started by a defacto troll (who gets on well with Cartoon, that should tell you something) and people are trying to talk to them in a sane and rational way.

Ignore them, ones a troll and the others too stupid to tie his own shoelaces, why bother?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 13, 2006 12:59 AM

Thank you Cit, for expressing in just four plain sentences, more good sense than I have seen all day.

Bout time some of ya figured it out.

-Frem

DARKJESTER

Friday, October 13, 2006 1:32 AM

DT, I have only one or two things to pitch in here.

First, it's my understanding that evolution is indeed a theory. A theory is (in layman's terms) a explanation for a series of observed facts. Then, if there are further facts discovered (by experiment or observation or whatever) they either fit the existing theory, or cause the theory to change to fit the new sum total of the facts. Evolution has been tweaked and fiddled with since it's inception. So the original theory has been disproved, and the current theory will be disproved, and the theory which comes from the new facts will eventually be disproved, but always leading to a new, more complete theory. Extremely (perhaps overly) simplified, but my understanding of the process.

Second, we are not talking about ultimate reality here, only about our perceptions of reality. As I've said before, arguing about whether ID or Creationism or Evolution or Spontaneous Generation is "Truth" is like arguing about the constellations. Are Greek constellations or Chinese constellations real? The stars don't care one whit how we arrange them. It is patterns of perception we are choosing to adopt. The patterns we use to interpret our reality.

You appear to have decided that the scientific method is the best (or only?) way to form these patterns. For Western civilization, that works best 99.99% of the time, if not more. But it's not the only pattern that works.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:41 AM

Citizen,

Normally, I would agree, but the problem is that people have made this into a debate, which itself is a tremendous corruption of the concept of debate.

Allow me to illustrate. We could have a debate about who was King of England in 1374. The Historinazis would say it was Edward III, but I choose to say it was Mickey Mouse. Hence, there is a debate. Now both sides can provide evidence, and be built up to equal levels and given equal weight. Ultimately, if I fail in my stubborn conviction that it was Mickey Mouse, by yielding no ground, I may instead decide to compromise, and eventually we may all agree that Mickey Mouse was at least Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for my concession than he was not actually King of England. If I have a large number of unquestioning followers, I may even get the rest of you to move from you position that it was Edward III in favor of Richard II.

If we allow this kind of corruption of the concept of debate, then suddenly there are no facts, and everything is simply a matter of opinion.

Which is not the case.

X number of people died in Iraq as the result of the US invasion. There is a truth out there, a fact, which we are seeking, it's not a matter of opinion. We may have different evidence and estimates based on those. People who are > half a million right now are looking pretty close. People < hundred thousand are looking not so close. But the guy who says "FIVE!" is nuts, as is the person who is sticking to their estimate of "ONE BILLION!" But ultimately, there is a right answer. Sure, a little grey area what is *because of* the war, but what is *in* Iraq, and what is *death* are not really up to debate, so somewhere there's a real number.

Whether Bush is morally justified is a matter of opinion. But while we have differing opinions on the total casualties, we all realize that there is a number, as the evidence rolls in, eventually someone is correct.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a label for an observed change. Natural selection is a theory that is pretty seriously proven. I don't think there is any room for debate.

DJ,

You're taking the soft argument here, the sort of thing that I think makes the democrats look weak and lose, ie the "We must win the war on terror" position of Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and HR Clinton. I think if the democrats said "There is no War on Terror" they'd be about 100% ahead of where they are now in earning the confidence of their own voters. This is basically why I bothered to make this post, because I think if we allow this kind of time wasting debate which is based on elaborately constructed misleading information, then we are essentially endorsing the idea that "the existance of evolution is an opinion which we choose to support" rather than reality, which is "evolution is a force of nature"

See, the democrats, from taking their weak position, have essentially validated the idea that "there is a war on terror" when in reality, war on terror is something Bush made up, and they go further to validate "war on terror is worth winning, hence, also, worth figthing."

Ergo, it's not always best to give the soft conflict-avoidance argument, because you may be allowing your opponent to redefine the rules in a way which does not conform to reality.

It's not that "the current models of evolution are carved in stone and will never be altered" I'm sure they will be altered. But this is a far cry from "evolution does not exist." Just like when Columbus said "the earth is 8000 miles around," didn't mesh with the final result of "the earth is 25000 miles around" but that alteration did not make the flat earth crowd any more right.

ANTIMASON

Friday, October 13, 2006 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

What I don't understand is why such a desperate need to debunk evolution? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't Science and spirituality coexist? Aren't there plenty of scientists who are also Christians?

certainly they do.. i dont think any creationist would argue that they exist seperately; but i think evolutionists hold scientific law supreme, and neglect what unseen force formed the law in the first place, which we have no way of knowing from our vantage point

Quote:
Wouldn't even those of you who are creationists agree that however God must have created the Earth, its way too complex for us to write it out? Couldn't you accept at least the possibility then that the Bible's Genesis is metaphor? A simple way of covering a vastly complex topic so as to get to the point?

well yah, but that should be obvious. when the bible says God spoke something into existence, that doesnt imply automatically that God has a tongue and voice box

Quote:
Why is there such an insistance on ruling out evolution that you would go to such lengths as to outright ignore empirical evidence?

we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant

Quote:
there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?

look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator

SIGNYM

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:41 AM

Anti: occultism= science?
If that's your opinion then you REALLY don't undertsand science!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 13, 2006 5:49 AM

Quote:
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant

If you're trying to apply "evolution" to the entire universe then you're applying the word in a way that SCIENTISTS don't use! No wonder you're confused!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 13, 2006 1:11 PM

Signym,

Yes, they do. Evolution is a statistical principle and it is used to describe how signals come out of noise. It can easily be used to describe the the nature of the universe, and frequently is done by scientists describing things like "the evolution of galaxies" or "the evolution of subatomic particles" and when they do so, it is not a misnomer. They are using the same principles of natural selection to guide their theories of creation. I happen to think they are correct. But whether they are or not, does not change the immutability of either the historical fact of the evolution of species, or the existance of the law of evolution as a statistical principle.

When it comes to galaxies, we really don't know. It's entirely possible that galaxies have actually existed forever, or at least far far longer than we think, and such static state theories are sometimes proposed and imho meet the existing data about as well as the expansionist theories. It's really anybody's guess.

Antimason.

Quote:
Antimason:

certainly they do.. i dont think any creationist would argue that they exist seperately; but i think evolutionists hold scientific law supreme, and neglect what unseen force formed the law in the first place, which we have no way of knowing from our vantage point

I think Christians and new age mystics alike greatly exaggerate what is unknown. It's not that we have a wild speculation about science. That's like saying there's a lot of speculation about the existance of language. I think it's pretty well known that language exists, not everything is really up to debate.

I agree, however, that scientists are often wrong, and often pig-headedly stubborn when they are wrong. Often they are even pigheadedly wrong about evolution.

Quote:
well yah, but that should be obvious. when the bible says God spoke something into existence, that doesnt imply automatically that God has a tongue and voice box

This is reasonable. But I think us on the evolution side run into a lot of folks who say "yeah, God literally spoke, becaue God is a man-like being because he made us in our image" (which imho sounds a little arrogant.)

Quote:
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant

This is also a reasonable argument. I think this is not the argument we are typically presented with. The "evolution didn't happen" argument, I hope you'll grant is a denial.

Why evolution happened, and why it has taken us to this point, is, sure, by all means, open to debate. That evolution happened is a matter of historical record. Or, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Quote:
look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator

That's not so. It's the other way around. Christians, other than you, are asking us to throw out what really happened in exchange for an elaborately constructed fantasy, an idea to which we are naturally resistant.

Personally, I don't believe there is a creator and a design, because if there is such, it's beyond my perception, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, it's just a speculation. But saying that there is - is not the argument which is causing so much trouble. The argument "evolution didn't happen" is one of "this event didn't happen because it's inconvenient for me, it doesn't match my world view," which is also why, godwin aside, "holocaust didn't happen" is such a problem. I would agree, however, that europes new law which says essentially "you can't question the holocaust" is wrong. For instance

SIGNYM

Friday, October 13, 2006 1:38 PM

Now for a cogent answer...

Creating controversy about settled topics is a well-known rhetorical tactic. If I said (to use your example) 2+2=4 and that answer was not to someone's liking, he would then say "No it's not! 2+2=22!" and consistently refer to 2+2=4 as "the controversial equation", creating a controversy where none exists and generating a rabid (if small) following who would thereafter challenge math at every turn. After all, there IS the "Flat Earth Society"... SOME people are willing to believe the most damn-fool things imaginable.

What to do?

GENERALLY, I'd say "Ignore them". and create your own discussion. In real-life politics it's difficult because (for a variety of reasons) people tend to avoid serious and complex discussions. But it's not impossible. The Civil Rights movement, environmentalism, women's rights... even animal rights... were "created discussions". It was done before, it can be done again.

But this is a discussion board. People here have passionate views, and SOME people have true emotional problems... issues that drive their viewpoints that have nothing to do with rationality. So for that reason I don't care WHAT view people bring to the board.

I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.

THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE