The evidence is overwhelming, but you are still talking yourself blue in the face until dmz answers this one, simple question...
I realize your point and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I just had some time to kill so I decided to post (didn't take much actually --copy/paste that's basically it).
I posted it for shits and giggles, you know.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Is anyone else interested in the answer before we continue?
I think we all already know what it's going to be judging by DMZ's record....
I have a philosophy exam in two weeks. One of the possible topics is scientific theory, but I don't think I'm gonna do that... Anyway, this discussion is all very interesting. I hope I can exposit theories of knowledge and ethics even half as well as some posters here have set forth the theory of evolution.
shetline: what i was trying to say, and perhaps didn't make obvious enough, is whatever evidence/theory/logic/.. you present to the deeply religious, will not convince the [religious]. they are not swayed by it. creationsits, and similarly religous/"scientific" will engage whatever evidences suit them. that these evidences are not convincing to you doesn't invalidate them into themselves. they look to their own sources, and where they contradict, their faith supercedes. a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible. you can't convince dmz. just like he can't convince you. its a futile campaign. this whole thread is an exercise in futility. perhaps in the same as me trying to convince you all that the debate is unendable.\
a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible. you can't convince dmz. just like he can't convince you. its a futile campaign. this whole thread is an exercise in futility.
If you measure of progress by on-the-spot conversions, yes, all effort is probably futile.
With a case like dmz, expecting progress by any measure is probably futile.
But I have seem some movement in people's positions and some growth come out of conversations like this. In defending my own viewpoints, I've learned a lot, and have gained insights both into my own belief structure and those of other people. I've occasionally learned a particular point I've tried to make wasn't all that good, or have gotten someone else to abandon a particular losing attack.
You don't have to convince a creationist that evolution is right to convince him or her that certain particular attacks on evolution don't stand up well. At least that's something. I've made that much progress before, although that has been in spoken conversations where I could more easily deal with deliberate evasiveness.
shetline: what i was trying to say, and perhaps didn't make obvious enough, is whatever evidence/theory/logic/.. you present to the deeply religious, will not convince the [religious]. they are not swayed by it. creationsits, and similarly religous/"scientific" will engage whatever evidences suit them. that these evidences are not convincing to you doesn't invalidate them into themselves. they look to their own sources, and where they contradict, their faith supercedes. a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible. you can't convince dmz. just like he can't convince you. its a futile campaign. this whole thread is an exercise in futility. perhaps in the same as me trying to convince you all that the debate is unendable.\
I think what invites debate is the odd conflation of religious belief and mangled science.
It would be one thing if a person professed that they believe in the infallibility of the bible and thus simply rejected out of hand the assertions of evolutionary theory, because they can not be made to square with that infallibility.
What draws us in is the attempt to discount evolution by means of pseudo-scientific sound bites and fake "conundrums" which purport to put evolution on the spot but do nothing of the kind.
When you say:
Quote:
...that these evidences are not convincing to you doesn't invalidate them into themselves. they look to their own sources, and where they contradict, their faith supercedes. a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible.
you are describing a category confusion so thorough as to be unintelligible.
"Evidence" and "weighing sources" have no part in this, and it important to remember that. There is no process of investigation here, no discovery, no system at all. There is only the story of the bible, taken as true.
Trying to tart-up a non-scientific, internally contradictory history of the world by tricking it out with bits and pieces of scientific sounding gibberish, as if you were putting eyeglasses on a pig because you thought it made him look smart, is not an act that calls for a discussion of "faith". This has nothing to do with "faith", which does not require justification.
This is about the abuse of language, and critical thought , and I think that always calls for a vigorous defense of both, whether or not there is any chance of persuading anyone of anything.
Etymology: Middle English werk, work, from Old English werc, weorc; akin to Old High German werc work, Greek ergon, Avestan var&zem activity
1 : activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something: a : sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result b : the labor, task, or duty that is one's accustomed means of livelihood c : a specific task, duty, function, or assignment often being a part or phase of some larger activity
wipe the corners of your mouths....
AND LET ME GET MY FRIGGIN CRAP DONE!!!
....more later
*slams door indignantly an ACTUALLY GETS SOME WORK DONE*
It would be one thing if a person professed that they believe in the infallibility of the bible and thus simply rejected out of hand the assertions of evolutionary theory, because they can not be made to square with that infallibility.
What draws us in is the attempt to discount evolution by means of pseudo-scientific sound bites and fake "conundrums" which purport to put evolution on the spot but do nothing of the kind.
This is such a great point. If one is to accept based on personal faith that the good Lord created all life in six days, why is it necessary to rationalize that belief with "science?" if someone believes that creationism is an absolutely fundamental part of their faith, why find a need to justify it? especially with such horribly weak science versus an exhausting amount to the contrary.
this leads into my second point: creationists tend to believe that science has an agenda to disprove the bible. this is not the case. science tries to explain the world/universe around or within us through exhaustive testing, logical progressions, etc...science does not care what this answer is, so long as it is logically sound. so, on one hand we have creationists with a mile-high agenda to justify their faith AND debunk scientists; on the other hand, we have scientist who do not seek to debunk creationists (the only literature against ID speaks to clarify fundamental scientific flaws in ID logic, not to prove them "wrong") but merely try to explain. from an objective standpoint, who is able to maintain a stronger case?
now i have done a full circle back to the point made in addabox's post: creationism does not hold up under scientific scrutiny, and the believers in it should neither expect it to, be dissapointed when it does, or attempt to debunk it on scientific grounds.
as a final remark, i find my belief in god to be strengthened by science and evolutionary theory, not contested or weakened. but then, i also believe that when jesus said "love your enemies," he probably meant don't kill them
while folks like to call creationism versus evolutionism a debate, there really is no debate in the scientific arena. it isn't as though scientists are split or any growing number find creationism scientifically credible. occassionally someone with a degree or two from bob's bible college will hold a public "debate" with the evolutionist being some guy with a bachelors in biology, but there is no true academic debate in this matter
you are describing a category confusion so thorough as to be unintelligible.
"Evidence" and "weighing sources" have no part in this, and it important to remember that. There is no process of investigation here, no discovery, no system at all. There is only the story of the bible, taken as true.
ah, but u presume all evidence and sources must be met with the rigors of scientific method. you are looking at the such things through science colored glasses. to a man of faith, evidence doesn't require your rigors. that is my point. the faithed won't be convinced because to them really strong evidence is from the bible. bible followers, in my experience though limited and jaded as it may be, seems to follow scientific rigors where it suits them. where it interferes with the almighty word, they follow the bible. perhaps i am wrong in thinking they all the same along these lines. but nontheless, it is most definitely a vain exercise to convince someone of such a fundamentally held belief, particularly over the internet.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
But I have seem some movement in people's positions and some growth come out of conversations like this. In defending my own viewpoints, I've learned a lot, and have gained insights both into my own belief structure and those of other people. I've occasionally learned a particular point I've tried to make wasn't all that good, or have gotten someone else to abandon a particular losing attack.
to the end of discovering new ways of approaching the issue, i suppose its intellectually stimulating. but i strongly believe you cannot shake the fundamentally faithful from their strong point. i doubt, in person or on the net, you, or anyone, could convince someone that the fundamental beliefs they hold so dear are based on bunk.
that is my point. the faithed won't be convinced because to them really strong evidence is from the bible. bible followers, in my experience though limited and jaded as it may be, seems to follow scientific rigors where it suits them. where it interferes with the almighty word, they follow the bible. perhaps i am wrong in thinking they all the same along these lines. but nontheless, it is most definitely a vain exercise to convince someone of such a fundamentally held belief, particularly over the internet.
to the end of discovering new ways of approaching the issue, i suppose its intellectually stimulating. but i strongly believe you cannot shake the fundamentally faithful from their strong point. i doubt, in person or on the net, you, or anyone, could convince someone that the fundamental beliefs they hold so dear are based on bunk.
I agree with you on most of this, although I'd quibble with your argument that for believers, evidence comes from the bible. That suggests an exegetical tradition going back to the first century (if Elaine Pagels is right about all of this), which is very much a rigorous and scientific approach to the text. That being said, I would actually argue that we cannot ignore the role of divine revelation/inspiration among these folks. How can we know, in the end, whether or not God himself spoke to Preacher Bob and told him that some element of science is wrong? Certainly, such claims of revelation can be used to mask (and make more palatable) political decisions (I would actually argue that it is all politics, but that's just my approach to the world).
What gets me about all of this is something much more fundamental (no pun intended): I don't attack people for holding religious beliefs. I don't look down on them. And to a degree, I can understand how, on an emotional level, they believe what they believe.
But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I simply cannot understand how someone believes these things. Even worse, many times when I am arguing with a believer about all of this, there's a part of me that just can't believe that I'm hearing the arguments I am. There's a part of me that always suspects that the person is simply pulling my leg or trying to see what they can get away with saying in their argument.
This, at least on my end, is the real problem with this discussion. And for me, I have always considered it an intellectual failing on my part, not a weakness of theirs. I suppose I'm like David Hume on this.
Well, the thread is firmly back on "all creationists are complete idiots" footing. Great.
You are all dodging the key issue here with no small skill; 1st class rehtoric---I must admit--to give the devil his due.
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
What systems exactly are dependent solely on the baleen of a whale? Baleen whales can probably still be fed fish if their baleen has been removed, so what is your point? What creationist fail to understand is that there is a great deal of redundancy in all of our systems.
There is alot systemically invested in the Baleen, humback lunge feeding, EFFICIANCY [a critical factor] of feeding in that manner, etc. I actually think there one whale that "roots" on the sea floor for shellfish and has baleen. *checks google* its a gray whale "130-180 overlapping rows of baleen the fray into the hairs that trap bottom crud for food."
If you removed this whale's baleen you would disrupt everything associated with it's feeding habits.
I'm assuming you all think that we "started" with a small, prototype whale-like creature(?) that "slowly" developed what?---teeth, and then baleen? baleen and then teeth? no teeth? no mouth? no navigation systems? no sense to locate food? You have to start WITHOUT any and ALL of these interdependent systems and build them into the cretaure, one at a time---one "mutation" at a time. Assuming you have started with a prototype that works---a circular assumption, in and of itself.
This is not a problem? You DO NOT see mutations adding nifty features to animals. You DO see screwed up conflagrations of misapplided DNA, you DO see fantastic uses and adaptablility of existing DNA---and a huge amount of speciation.
All of which is running down, DNA getting torn up through exposure to the elements, with more and more introduced error, generation, by generation, by generation.
You guys want MILLIONS of years of immaculate DNA building itself into pinnacles of design---constantly beeing weeded out for even better designs that "just happen" to elbow their way into both the physical stucture of the creature and the DNA molecule itself.
What BLOWS ME AWAY is that you want TENS OF MILLIONS of species of flora and fauna doing this---not only in concert and harmony with each other, but you want this HYSTERICALLY improbable scheme to happen in only several hundred million years. The amount of faith it takes to stomach something this illogical and improbable is considerable. A couple of buttons short of a keyboard.
You have great faith in the completly improbable---I respect your decsion--I think it's dead wrong---creation is telling you something quite different, but that's your decsion.
"I don't understand the science and I won't be convinced no matter what evidence is presented so it must be god."
The difference between you and me (aside from the fact that I wouldn't be such a bastard to my daughter if I had one) is that my belief system hinges upon "I don't know let's find out" while yours is founded on "LA LA LA LA GOD DID IT GOD DIT IT LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Comments
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
The evidence is overwhelming, but you are still talking yourself blue in the face until dmz answers this one, simple question...
I realize your point and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I just had some time to kill so I decided to post (didn't take much actually --copy/paste that's basically it).
I posted it for shits and giggles, you know.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Is anyone else interested in the answer before we continue?
I think we all already know what it's going to be judging by DMZ's record....
Anyone?
Originally posted by thuh Freak
a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible. you can't convince dmz. just like he can't convince you. its a futile campaign. this whole thread is an exercise in futility.
If you measure of progress by on-the-spot conversions, yes, all effort is probably futile.
With a case like dmz, expecting progress by any measure is probably futile.
But I have seem some movement in people's positions and some growth come out of conversations like this. In defending my own viewpoints, I've learned a lot, and have gained insights both into my own belief structure and those of other people. I've occasionally learned a particular point I've tried to make wasn't all that good, or have gotten someone else to abandon a particular losing attack.
You don't have to convince a creationist that evolution is right to convince him or her that certain particular attacks on evolution don't stand up well. At least that's something. I've made that much progress before, although that has been in spoken conversations where I could more easily deal with deliberate evasiveness.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
shetline: what i was trying to say, and perhaps didn't make obvious enough, is whatever evidence/theory/logic/.. you present to the deeply religious, will not convince the [religious]. they are not swayed by it. creationsits, and similarly religous/"scientific" will engage whatever evidences suit them. that these evidences are not convincing to you doesn't invalidate them into themselves. they look to their own sources, and where they contradict, their faith supercedes. a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible. you can't convince dmz. just like he can't convince you. its a futile campaign. this whole thread is an exercise in futility. perhaps in the same as me trying to convince you all that the debate is unendable.
I think what invites debate is the odd conflation of religious belief and mangled science.
It would be one thing if a person professed that they believe in the infallibility of the bible and thus simply rejected out of hand the assertions of evolutionary theory, because they can not be made to square with that infallibility.
What draws us in is the attempt to discount evolution by means of pseudo-scientific sound bites and fake "conundrums" which purport to put evolution on the spot but do nothing of the kind.
When you say:
...that these evidences are not convincing to you doesn't invalidate them into themselves. they look to their own sources, and where they contradict, their faith supercedes. a man of faith will weigh scientific evidence less strongly than his bible.
you are describing a category confusion so thorough as to be unintelligible.
"Evidence" and "weighing sources" have no part in this, and it important to remember that. There is no process of investigation here, no discovery, no system at all. There is only the story of the bible, taken as true.
Trying to tart-up a non-scientific, internally contradictory history of the world by tricking it out with bits and pieces of scientific sounding gibberish, as if you were putting eyeglasses on a pig because you thought it made him look smart, is not an act that calls for a discussion of "faith". This has nothing to do with "faith", which does not require justification.
This is about the abuse of language, and critical thought , and I think that always calls for a vigorous defense of both, whether or not there is any chance of persuading anyone of anything.
Pronunciation: 'w&rk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English werk, work, from Old English werc, weorc; akin to Old High German werc work, Greek ergon, Avestan var&zem activity
1 : activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something: a : sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result b : the labor, task, or duty that is one's accustomed means of livelihood c : a specific task, duty, function, or assignment often being a part or phase of some larger activity
wipe the corners of your mouths....
AND LET ME GET MY FRIGGIN CRAP DONE!!!
....more later
*slams door indignantly an ACTUALLY GETS SOME WORK DONE*
Originally posted by addabox
It would be one thing if a person professed that they believe in the infallibility of the bible and thus simply rejected out of hand the assertions of evolutionary theory, because they can not be made to square with that infallibility.
What draws us in is the attempt to discount evolution by means of pseudo-scientific sound bites and fake "conundrums" which purport to put evolution on the spot but do nothing of the kind.
This is such a great point. If one is to accept based on personal faith that the good Lord created all life in six days, why is it necessary to rationalize that belief with "science?" if someone believes that creationism is an absolutely fundamental part of their faith, why find a need to justify it? especially with such horribly weak science versus an exhausting amount to the contrary.
this leads into my second point: creationists tend to believe that science has an agenda to disprove the bible. this is not the case. science tries to explain the world/universe around or within us through exhaustive testing, logical progressions, etc...science does not care what this answer is, so long as it is logically sound. so, on one hand we have creationists with a mile-high agenda to justify their faith AND debunk scientists; on the other hand, we have scientist who do not seek to debunk creationists (the only literature against ID speaks to clarify fundamental scientific flaws in ID logic, not to prove them "wrong") but merely try to explain. from an objective standpoint, who is able to maintain a stronger case?
now i have done a full circle back to the point made in addabox's post: creationism does not hold up under scientific scrutiny, and the believers in it should neither expect it to, be dissapointed when it does, or attempt to debunk it on scientific grounds.
as a final remark, i find my belief in god to be strengthened by science and evolutionary theory, not contested or weakened. but then, i also believe that when jesus said "love your enemies," he probably meant don't kill them
while folks like to call creationism versus evolutionism a debate, there really is no debate in the scientific arena. it isn't as though scientists are split or any growing number find creationism scientifically credible. occassionally someone with a degree or two from bob's bible college will hold a public "debate" with the evolutionist being some guy with a bachelors in biology, but there is no true academic debate in this matter
Originally posted by progmac
but then, i also believe that when jesus said "love your enemies," he probably meant don't kill them
It's sad so many people forget this.
Originally posted by dmz
*slams door indignantly an ACTUALLY GETS SOME WORK DONE*
Originally posted by addabox
you are describing a category confusion so thorough as to be unintelligible.
"Evidence" and "weighing sources" have no part in this, and it important to remember that. There is no process of investigation here, no discovery, no system at all. There is only the story of the bible, taken as true.
ah, but u presume all evidence and sources must be met with the rigors of scientific method. you are looking at the such things through science colored glasses. to a man of faith, evidence doesn't require your rigors. that is my point. the faithed won't be convinced because to them really strong evidence is from the bible. bible followers, in my experience though limited and jaded as it may be, seems to follow scientific rigors where it suits them. where it interferes with the almighty word, they follow the bible. perhaps i am wrong in thinking they all the same along these lines. but nontheless, it is most definitely a vain exercise to convince someone of such a fundamentally held belief, particularly over the internet.
Originally posted by shetline
But I have seem some movement in people's positions and some growth come out of conversations like this. In defending my own viewpoints, I've learned a lot, and have gained insights both into my own belief structure and those of other people. I've occasionally learned a particular point I've tried to make wasn't all that good, or have gotten someone else to abandon a particular losing attack.
to the end of discovering new ways of approaching the issue, i suppose its intellectually stimulating. but i strongly believe you cannot shake the fundamentally faithful from their strong point. i doubt, in person or on the net, you, or anyone, could convince someone that the fundamental beliefs they hold so dear are based on bunk.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
that is my point. the faithed won't be convinced because to them really strong evidence is from the bible. bible followers, in my experience though limited and jaded as it may be, seems to follow scientific rigors where it suits them. where it interferes with the almighty word, they follow the bible. perhaps i am wrong in thinking they all the same along these lines. but nontheless, it is most definitely a vain exercise to convince someone of such a fundamentally held belief, particularly over the internet.
to the end of discovering new ways of approaching the issue, i suppose its intellectually stimulating. but i strongly believe you cannot shake the fundamentally faithful from their strong point. i doubt, in person or on the net, you, or anyone, could convince someone that the fundamental beliefs they hold so dear are based on bunk.
I agree with you on most of this, although I'd quibble with your argument that for believers, evidence comes from the bible. That suggests an exegetical tradition going back to the first century (if Elaine Pagels is right about all of this), which is very much a rigorous and scientific approach to the text. That being said, I would actually argue that we cannot ignore the role of divine revelation/inspiration among these folks. How can we know, in the end, whether or not God himself spoke to Preacher Bob and told him that some element of science is wrong? Certainly, such claims of revelation can be used to mask (and make more palatable) political decisions (I would actually argue that it is all politics, but that's just my approach to the world).
What gets me about all of this is something much more fundamental (no pun intended): I don't attack people for holding religious beliefs. I don't look down on them. And to a degree, I can understand how, on an emotional level, they believe what they believe.
But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I simply cannot understand how someone believes these things. Even worse, many times when I am arguing with a believer about all of this, there's a part of me that just can't believe that I'm hearing the arguments I am. There's a part of me that always suspects that the person is simply pulling my leg or trying to see what they can get away with saying in their argument.
This, at least on my end, is the real problem with this discussion. And for me, I have always considered it an intellectual failing on my part, not a weakness of theirs. I suppose I'm like David Hume on this.
Cheers
Scott
You are all dodging the key issue here with no small skill; 1st class rehtoric---I must admit--to give the devil his due.
Originally posted by billybobsky
What systems exactly are dependent solely on the baleen of a whale? Baleen whales can probably still be fed fish if their baleen has been removed, so what is your point? What creationist fail to understand is that there is a great deal of redundancy in all of our systems.
There is alot systemically invested in the Baleen, humback lunge feeding, EFFICIANCY [a critical factor] of feeding in that manner, etc. I actually think there one whale that "roots" on the sea floor for shellfish and has baleen. *checks google* its a gray whale "130-180 overlapping rows of baleen the fray into the hairs that trap bottom crud for food."
If you removed this whale's baleen you would disrupt everything associated with it's feeding habits.
I'm assuming you all think that we "started" with a small, prototype whale-like creature(?) that "slowly" developed what?---teeth, and then baleen? baleen and then teeth? no teeth? no mouth? no navigation systems? no sense to locate food? You have to start WITHOUT any and ALL of these interdependent systems and build them into the cretaure, one at a time---one "mutation" at a time. Assuming you have started with a prototype that works---a circular assumption, in and of itself.
This is not a problem? You DO NOT see mutations adding nifty features to animals. You DO see screwed up conflagrations of misapplided DNA, you DO see fantastic uses and adaptablility of existing DNA---and a huge amount of speciation.
All of which is running down, DNA getting torn up through exposure to the elements, with more and more introduced error, generation, by generation, by generation.
You guys want MILLIONS of years of immaculate DNA building itself into pinnacles of design---constantly beeing weeded out for even better designs that "just happen" to elbow their way into both the physical stucture of the creature and the DNA molecule itself.
What BLOWS ME AWAY is that you want TENS OF MILLIONS of species of flora and fauna doing this---not only in concert and harmony with each other, but you want this HYSTERICALLY improbable scheme to happen in only several hundred million years. The amount of faith it takes to stomach something this illogical and improbable is considerable. A couple of buttons short of a keyboard.
You have great faith in the completly improbable---I respect your decsion--I think it's dead wrong---creation is telling you something quite different, but that's your decsion.
The difference between you and me (aside from the fact that I wouldn't be such a bastard to my daughter if I had one) is that my belief system hinges upon "I don't know let's find out" while yours is founded on "LA LA LA LA GOD DID IT GOD DIT IT LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
very close
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
This thread is close to extinction.
And it is not showing any signs of evolving into a worthwhile discussion, either.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
And it is not showing any signs of evolving into a worthwhile discussion, either.
I tried. Just above. I really did try to turn it in a profitable direction.
Cheers
Scott