Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What creationists don't understand...

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:25:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

This is difficult, as creationists rarely fail epically on only a simple point.

I general, though the problem is the big picture.

There is never a comprehensive argument that addresses all forms of dating methods and evidence, the whole nested hierarchy, genetics, the fossile record as a whole, common phylogeny and 'just good enough' biology.

Most creationists, even the smart ones, have a bit of a poke at one specific aspect of one specific part of evolution, or old earth at a time, without seeing how the bigger picture of evidence that completely goes against their statement.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:30:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

Science. That may come off insulting, but I've never met a YEC who actually understood the basic philosophy of science; they see it as similar in kind (get it?) to how they view religion, an authority stating information that has to be taken on faith, when in fact that's not how it works.

And the principle that attacking a competing theory does nothing to establish their own theory.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:36:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:30:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

Science. That may come off insulting, but I've never met a YEC who actually understood the basic philosophy of science; they see it as similar in kind (get it?)

HAHAHAHAH! Hahahahahaha! Hahahaha... haha... ha...

XD
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:47:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.

Exactly. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue is going to have a vested interest, in that they are protecting their worldview, which determines how they interpret the evidence.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:53:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:47:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.

Exactly. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue is going to have a vested interest, in that they are protecting their worldview, which determines how they interpret the evidence.

This is the sort of irrational point of view that allows you to dismiss objective evidence as subjective.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:54:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:53:09 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:47:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.

Exactly. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue is going to have a vested interest, in that they are protecting their worldview, which determines how they interpret the evidence.

This is the sort of irrational point of view that allows you to dismiss objective evidence as subjective.

Indeed...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:58:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

This is difficult, as creationists rarely fail epically on only a simple point.

I general, though the problem is the big picture.

I don't think that has anything to do with misunderstanding anything (though it is certainly possible that we can misunderstand particular details within the overall argument). I think it's just a general disagreement as to what the big picture shows.

There is never a comprehensive argument that addresses all forms of dating methods and evidence, the whole nested hierarchy, genetics, the fossile record as a whole, common phylogeny and 'just good enough' biology.

Right, it's a many faceted discussion. I guess I meant to ask if there are certain facets that creationists generally don't understand well enough.

Most creationists, even the smart ones, have a bit of a poke at one specific aspect of one specific part of evolution, or old earth at a time, without seeing how the bigger picture of evidence that completely goes against their statement.

Disagreement about that big picture doesn't mean misunderstanding.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:09:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:58:01 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

This is difficult, as creationists rarely fail epically on only a simple point.

I general, though the problem is the big picture.

I don't think that has anything to do with misunderstanding anything (though it is certainly possible that we can misunderstand particular details within the overall argument). I think it's just a general disagreement as to what the big picture shows.

I don't think it's misunderstanding, I think it's ignorance.

When you argue that one radiometric date being in accurate, even though we know it can be innacurate in somecases, shows it's invalid as a whole ignores the big picture of many different methods of dating all in broad agreeance.

The same goes for fossile evidence, genetic evidence and many others. It is the massive broad agreeance of many forms of data, in almost all branches of science that makes it possible for us to not simply reject evolution on the grounds that there are a handful of specific situations that we can't Proove (yet)


There is never a comprehensive argument that addresses all forms of dating methods and evidence, the whole nested hierarchy, genetics, the fossile record as a whole, common phylogeny and 'just good enough' biology.

Right, it's a many faceted discussion. I guess I meant to ask if there are certain facets that creationists generally don't understand well enough.

The problem is that creationists tend to know MANY of the facets, but seem to focus on one specific part at a time, without considering the correlation between all the facets which is important when talking about evolution.

Most creationists, even the smart ones, have a bit of a poke at one specific aspect of one specific part of evolution, or old earth at a time, without seeing how the bigger picture of evidence that completely goes against their statement.

Disagreement about that big picture doesn't mean misunderstanding.

I'm no talking about the big picture of 'common descent', but the big picture of evidence, theory and the relationsps between all branches that it is built upon.

You can reject, for example, the old earth big picture, but can't reject all the broad agreeance of multiple dating methods, and the physics that shows the key process behind it hasnt changed that led to the conclusion of an old earth. Arguments often go along the lines of picking tiny holes:

'dating methods give wrong answers, trees grow multiple rings, carbon dating is innacurate', but ignores the big picture that we know that they can give wrong answers sometimes, but all broadly agree in the entirety of their use throughout geology and biology.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:30:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

Science. That may come off insulting, but I've never met a YEC who actually understood the basic philosophy of science; they see it as similar in kind (get it?) to how they view religion, an authority stating information that has to be taken on faith, when in fact that's not how it works.

Come on, Blade. There are scientists who are YEC's. Are you trying to say that you understand science and scientists don't??

And the principle that attacking a competing theory does nothing to establish their own theory.

We're fully aware that we can't prove God's existence via the scientific method, so I don't think disproving common descent proves God's existence. Can evolution not be challenged on it's own merits??
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:17:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:54:41 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:53:09 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:47:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.

Exactly. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue is going to have a vested interest, in that they are protecting their worldview, which determines how they interpret the evidence.

This is the sort of irrational point of view that allows you to dismiss objective evidence as subjective.

Indeed...

For example, when objectively comparing fossiles to build a tree, it is subjective whether a transitional form is closer to one species or another, because the differences are normally small, or not clear.

This is not the same as suggesting a dog could be interpreted as a fish, which is the implication.

The whole purpose of science is that it is the evidence is objective.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:18:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:15:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:30:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

Science. That may come off insulting, but I've never met a YEC who actually understood the basic philosophy of science; they see it as similar in kind (get it?) to how they view religion, an authority stating information that has to be taken on faith, when in fact that's not how it works.

Come on, Blade. There are scientists who are YEC's. Are you trying to say that you understand science and scientists don't??

The basic philosophy? Yup. In the same way that there are religious leaders who choose to molest, even though I can say that they're bad.

The philosophy behind science is that you go where the evidence takes you. YEC has a conclusion they want to reach, and choose to interpret the data to fit it. That's the antithesis of the philosophy of science.


And the principle that attacking a competing theory does nothing to establish their own theory.

We're fully aware that we can't prove God's existence via the scientific method, so I don't think disproving common descent proves God's existence. Can evolution not be challenged on it's own merits??

Most YECs I've encountered feel that if only they could disprove evolution, that would prove creationism. It wouldn't.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:53:09 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:47:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.

Exactly. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue is going to have a vested interest, in that they are protecting their worldview, which determines how they interpret the evidence.

This is the sort of irrational point of view that allows you to dismiss objective evidence as subjective.

And it's the same irrational viewpoint which causes you to pass subjective evidence off as objective...lol
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:20:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:18:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:


And it's the same irrational viewpoint which causes you to pass subjective evidence off as objective...lol

What subjective evidence?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:25:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:18:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The philosophy behind science is that you go where the evidence takes you. YEC has a conclusion they want to reach, and choose to interpret the data to fit it. That's the antithesis of the philosophy of science.

Science requires interpretation of the evidence. There's always going to be some bias on both sides.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:28:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:25:05 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/15/2013 12:18:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The philosophy behind science is that you go where the evidence takes you. YEC has a conclusion they want to reach, and choose to interpret the data to fit it. That's the antithesis of the philosophy of science.

Science requires interpretation of the evidence. There's always going to be some bias on both sides.

Certainly an interpretation is subjective. But medic said subjective evidence, and I was wondering what he was talking about.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 1:32:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues??
Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

1. Science.
2. Appropriate number of question marks.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 2:14:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:18:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:53:09 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:47:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:37:47 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:34:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:16:12 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

I suppose this question can be reciprocated as well. A thought...

Are you saying that there are issues in the argument that the evolutionist doesn't understand??

Not necessarily arguments they don't understand. More or less concepts they refuse to endorse. I see it the same on the flip side with creationists. We (evolutionists/creationists) tend to view a 'big picture' and then pick and choose what practices/ideas 'fit' into that big picture. I suppose you can say our worldview determine how we interpret the data.

Exactly. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue is going to have a vested interest, in that they are protecting their worldview, which determines how they interpret the evidence.

This is the sort of irrational point of view that allows you to dismiss objective evidence as subjective.

And it's the same irrational viewpoint which causes you to pass subjective evidence off as objective...lol

Nice
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 2:21:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What the hell is subjective evidence? Evidence is objective. Its interpretation is subjective.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 2:32:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 1:32:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues??
Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

1. Science.

Who needs science when we have the Bible?? :)

2. Appropriate number of question marks.

Anal retentive much???
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 2:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 2:32:39 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 1:32:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues??
Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

1. Science.

Who needs science when we have the Bible?? :)

Anyone who doesn't want to come off looking like a fvcking mental reject when they try to inject themselves into discussions that are obviously beyond their capacity to comprehend.


2. Appropriate number of question marks.

Anal retentive much???
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 2:49:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:18:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 12:15:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:30:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues?? Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

Science. That may come off insulting, but I've never met a YEC who actually understood the basic philosophy of science; they see it as similar in kind (get it?) to how they view religion, an authority stating information that has to be taken on faith, when in fact that's not how it works.

Come on, Blade. There are scientists who are YEC's. Are you trying to say that you understand science and scientists don't??

The basic philosophy? Yup. In the same way that there are religious leaders who choose to molest, even though I can say that they're bad.

The philosophy behind science is that you go where the evidence takes you. YEC has a conclusion they want to reach, and choose to interpret the data to fit it. That's the antithesis of the philosophy of science.

It's obvious that they believe the evidence supports their beliefs so how are they violating the philosophy of science?? Seems to me that is just disguising the argument that anyone who disagrees with your view must be ignorant.

And the principle that attacking a competing theory does nothing to establish their own theory.

We're fully aware that we can't prove God's existence via the scientific method, so I don't think disproving common descent proves God's existence. Can evolution not be challenged on it's own merits??

Most YECs I've encountered feel that if only they could disprove evolution, that would prove creationism. It wouldn't.

Though I believe if evolution were disproved it would make it easier for people to turn to belief in a creator, I would agree with you in that simply disproving evolution would not ultimately prove creationism.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 3:03:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 2:39:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/15/2013 2:32:39 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 1:32:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues??
Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

1. Science.

Who needs science when we have the Bible?? :)

Anyone who doesn't want to come off looking like a fvcking mental reject when they try to inject themselves into discussions that are obviously beyond their capacity to comprehend.

That's nice, dear. I've always found the "Agree with me or I'll call you names" argument totally irrefutable.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 3:49:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 2:49:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:

It's obvious that they believe the evidence supports their beliefs so how are they violating the philosophy of science?? Seems to me that is just disguising the argument that anyone who disagrees with your view must be ignorant.

They have constructed a conclusion, and they only accept the evidence that supports it. Science, on the other hand, changes its conclusion to fit the facts. To the YEC, that is a failing of science, because "you keep changing your definition!", but to the scientist, that's how we learn what the truth is: we see what's going on, we figure out what we think the reason is, and we test it, and if we get an unexpected result, we change our conclusion to fit the facts.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 5:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 3:49:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 2:49:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:

It's obvious that they believe the evidence supports their beliefs so how are they violating the philosophy of science?? Seems to me that is just disguising the argument that anyone who disagrees with your view must be ignorant.

They have constructed a conclusion, and they only accept the evidence that supports it. Science, on the other hand, changes its conclusion to fit the facts. To the YEC, that is a failing of science, because "you keep changing your definition!", but to the scientist, that's how we learn what the truth is: we see what's going on, we figure out what we think the reason is, and we test it, and if we get an unexpected result, we change our conclusion to fit the facts.

That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but isn't how it worked with evolution. First came the idea, then the explanation of how every piece of evidence further proves it.

"Given a large mass of data, we can by judicious selection construct perfectly plausible unassailable theories"all of which, some of which, or none of which may be right.
" Paul Arnold Srere
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 5:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 3:03:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 2:39:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/15/2013 2:32:39 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/15/2013 1:32:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/15/2013 11:09:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This question is being posed to evolutionists. What is it that you think creationists aren't able to understand, that hinders their ability to discuss the issues??
Since it often comes up in the discussion how the evolutionist has such a greater understanding, then what exactly would you like to see creationists be more knowledgeable of, before engaging in the discussion??

1. Science.

Who needs science when we have the Bible?? :)

Anyone who doesn't want to come off looking like a fvcking mental reject when they try to inject themselves into discussions that are obviously beyond their capacity to comprehend.

That's nice, dear. I've always found the "Agree with me or I'll call you names" argument totally irrefutable.

LOL, you asked what we expect creationists to know, I answered it and you decided to troll. Since your level of sincerity is precisely DICK, I don't see why I should grant you any sort of niceties.

Besides, I didn't say you were a retard with the scientific acumen of a rock, I just said you look like one. Maybe that's what gets you off. No judgement.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 6:34:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone trying to claim that evolutionists aren't looking for more evidence to support evolution is probably deluding themselves. A creationist like myself is looking for evidence in favor of creationism just as much as people here defending evolution is.

But guess what? It doesn't f*cking matter. All that f*cking matters is that we stay intellectually honest and, when faced with evidence we don't like but don't know how to refute, admit it instead of pretending it doesn't exist and calling each other names!
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...