The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Goddamn Creationists
Passerbye
I am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered User regular
I am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered User regular
There are two Creationists that I've been poking at in Deviantart (since we all need a hobby). This particular cry for help has to do with both of them "Serena-Kenobi" and "seacebedo". Here's a link to the "debates" in question (starting with Aloha353 and seacebedo respectively). Here's the sections in particular that are relevant.
Serena-Kenobi:
seacebedo
I can make appropriate responses to their arguments based on logic and a basic understanding of science and evolution, but my responses just aren't detailed enough to really, well, lay the smack down on their sorry Creationist asses (which is what I would really really love to do). I figure many of you know something about what Aquinas actually had to say about intelligent design which is something I feel this SK really needs to hear. Also, if you could give me any relevant science facts too that'd be great, since seacebedo needs to learn what evolution really states.
Thank you in advance.
Serena-Kenobi:
Serena-Kenobi: "I bet they also teach Creationism there instead of Science."
Right, 'cause evolutionists can FULLY explain how we were created, and their theories NEVER change. Evolution is SO reliable.
Me: Evolution doesn't got against the teachings of the Bible whereas Creationism goes directly against reality.
SK: Um... sure evolution doesn't go against the Bible.
Except for the part where it completely takes God out of the picture and says that the universe created itself without a Creator.
Look, think about it. Why is the universe being created in a "big bang" more believable than someone actually creating the beautiful world around us?
Evolution is based on the fact that things can mutate in a positive way, over billions of years. But this goes against nature itself - NO mutations have EVER been positive. Only negative.
Unless you count the X-Men.
Right, 'cause evolutionists can FULLY explain how we were created, and their theories NEVER change. Evolution is SO reliable.
Me: Evolution doesn't got against the teachings of the Bible whereas Creationism goes directly against reality.
SK: Um... sure evolution doesn't go against the Bible.
Except for the part where it completely takes God out of the picture and says that the universe created itself without a Creator.
Look, think about it. Why is the universe being created in a "big bang" more believable than someone actually creating the beautiful world around us?
Evolution is based on the fact that things can mutate in a positive way, over billions of years. But this goes against nature itself - NO mutations have EVER been positive. Only negative.
Unless you count the X-Men.
seacebedo
seacebedo: i take offense to this...
mainly because you are making the assumption that there is no science in creation
actually, scientists are finding more and more evidence every day that is suggesting creation rather than the formation of our world by some funky chance
the reason that this information has not reached the masses is because of the liberalists who make sure that that that information is considered biased and should not be made available for everyone to make their own educated decision on the creationism debate
instead, the children in our schools are taught to believe a THEORY that is losing more credibility everyday, all because of the liberal belief that creationism would be teaching religion...wrong
it sounds like your school needs to do a better job of educating you, my friend
Me: Um, I call BS. Scientists, real scientists, are finding more and more evidence for Evolution every day.
For example, if humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, why aren't we finding human and dinosaur skeletons on the same archaeological levels?
Oh that's right, I forgot. Creationism is bunk.
seacebedo: archaeological levels? those have proven not to be accurate. how? with your archaeological levels. fish and aquatic dinosaurs have been found at the top of mountain dig sites. explain that...
Me: Geological shifts happen but they do not disturb the archaeological layering. Fish and aquatic dinosaurs occur in the same layers because they existed at the same time where as humans and dinosaurs will never occur in the same layers because they didn't exist at the same time.
mainly because you are making the assumption that there is no science in creation
actually, scientists are finding more and more evidence every day that is suggesting creation rather than the formation of our world by some funky chance
the reason that this information has not reached the masses is because of the liberalists who make sure that that that information is considered biased and should not be made available for everyone to make their own educated decision on the creationism debate
instead, the children in our schools are taught to believe a THEORY that is losing more credibility everyday, all because of the liberal belief that creationism would be teaching religion...wrong
it sounds like your school needs to do a better job of educating you, my friend
Me: Um, I call BS. Scientists, real scientists, are finding more and more evidence for Evolution every day.
For example, if humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, why aren't we finding human and dinosaur skeletons on the same archaeological levels?
Oh that's right, I forgot. Creationism is bunk.
seacebedo: archaeological levels? those have proven not to be accurate. how? with your archaeological levels. fish and aquatic dinosaurs have been found at the top of mountain dig sites. explain that...
Me: Geological shifts happen but they do not disturb the archaeological layering. Fish and aquatic dinosaurs occur in the same layers because they existed at the same time where as humans and dinosaurs will never occur in the same layers because they didn't exist at the same time.
I can make appropriate responses to their arguments based on logic and a basic understanding of science and evolution, but my responses just aren't detailed enough to really, well, lay the smack down on their sorry Creationist asses (which is what I would really really love to do). I figure many of you know something about what Aquinas actually had to say about intelligent design which is something I feel this SK really needs to hear. Also, if you could give me any relevant science facts too that'd be great, since seacebedo needs to learn what evolution really states.
Thank you in advance.
Passerbye on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
But in any case I would hardly expect to make any headway with these sorts of people. They're pretty much rooted in their beliefs and no amount of evidence or sound arguments will change their mind or stop them spouting the usual creationist rhetoric.
steam
"NO mutations have EVER been positive. Only negative."
... I donno man. It's really hard to debate with people like this. Also, often not really worth it.
Actually, no, keep on doing it. I like talking about how sickle cell anemia makes a person reistant to malaria.
You are in way over your head. First, you clearly misunderestimate what it means to have blind religious conviction. For a true believer, "God created the universe" and "evolution is a myth" are stored in the same place in the brain as "water is wet" and "the sky is blue." You're not going to be persuasive through rational argument here. In general, it helps very much if people with such beliefs are exposed to evolution in a very tactful, careful way in a classroom setting, none of which you can provide.
For an excellent and thoughtful article on the subject of teaching evolution to those predisposed to reject it, read this. Once again, the Gray Lady has some marvelous content.
Second, I think it's a little more important for you to educate yourself. Go down to the bookstore and get copies of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene and read them. Those are a good start. After you get through the surface issues, there are a lot of more substantive issues within the general area of evolution that are covered by deeper, more scientific (and less "popular" literature).
PS: Reading half a page of what you linked made me realize the true fact of what deviant art really is. It's sole purpose seems to be to have countless posts praising all art, no matter how horrid it may be. To everyone on that site, everything is amazing. Even the anime.... THE ANIME.
This may not be the help or advice you want, but it's the best I can offer.
Seriously, you won't be able to make them change their mind. Ever. They won't experience the moment of epiphany where they realize that you are right and they are wrong, because they will choose to ignore any argument you put forth that questions what they believe to be correct.
I'd give the same advice to any creationists arguing with evolutionists.
Arguing on the internet with strangers about this type of thing anywhere other than a forum specifically and with great care crafted to be a forum of open discussion and exchange of ideas(much like asking for help or advice anywhere except boards like here is probably not a great plan) is a bad idea. That's sugar coating. It's stupid. Like playing in a street blindfolded stupid.
Factor in that there's a good chance you're arguing with 13 year olds who are quoting google results for "why creationism is true" on deviantart and it upgrades to smear yourself with honey and lay on an antpile stupid. I recommend minesweeper when bored at night. Or books.
Well, actually...
"Evolution is based on the fact that things can mutate in a positive way, over billions of years. But this goes against nature itself - NO mutations have EVER been positive. Only negative."
As best I can tell, this is a degraded form of the argument that evolution cannot carry information, and only loses information over time, which if true would mean evolution causing new species and the like isn't psosible, one of the various arguments crafted by creationist debaters and spread online, so they may well have seen this on some random site a while back and tried, horribly, to recreate it (wasn't too good of an argument to begin with).
---
I think the best things you can learn from these sorts of online debates are:
1) Some people grow up in vastly different environments; people can be totally opposite you.
2) Debating someone else is a good way to show what you don't know about your own beliefs, so that you can actually learn more about them. On that note, potholer54 has excellent videos on evolution, scientific method, and general creationist arguments against science.
3) There are three main types of online debates: Refusal to argue seriously, One side is a better debater, and Refusal to accept other side's position no matter what.
On this point, Making generalities means nothing; it is simply each side attesting to their differences in culture/upbringing, which both sides are not likely to abandon just because the other side is different; therefore, evidence clearly laid down is the best bet, although you still run into the 2nd type of debate where one side may be better at communicating and so the other side devolves to the 1st type of debate, or the 3rd type of debate where even when it has been a fairly good debate in terms of evidence, arguments, and analysis, the other side feels that to accept the other side would be to reject a part of themselves, and so refuse to through any means, intelligible justification or not.
It's a mugs' game most of the time.
I speak as someone who is strongly against the LDS (Chruch of Mormons). Both of my half-brothers were raised into the religion, I was not. My two brothers and I lived together in a condo for awhile a few years back and the debates we had would get VERY heated, they would try to convert me, I would try to make them see reason, truth. I eventually stopped and would not discuss it with them anymore because I know it would lead no where, they would not change their opinions and I wasn't ever going to change mine.
A person is only going to change their beliefs if they want to and it's not something forced upon them. One of my brothers left the mormon church last year. I was shocked. I never thought I would see the day when one of them would come to see the truth (as I see it). What it took for him was a lot of internet research and debate, he recently got married and had kids etc and began to question his faith and turned to the internet. The way he explained it to me; "I eventually had to make a choice. Laugh and ridicule, dismissing the athiest point of view blindly as my faith (Church) had taught me, or to accept it." And he finally decided he had to accept it after reading enough about atheism vs religion/creationism. His family does not support his decision at all and he's accepted that. I only bring this up as proof that people can change, if they want to. Again it's not something you can force upon someone.
All this aside, I've always enjoyed this website; http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Point being, as others have said, arguing is pointless... even if you aren't arguing about religion...
Grammar is a freemason plot to take down religion. Weren't you paying attention in the opening seminar?
Arguing on the internet is pointless anyway. It's much more fun in real life. :winky:
Everybody has their own set of core beliefs and values. Let them live their lives they way they want to. I can understand how feeling there will be an afterlife could improve your quality of life, but you're not in any position to try and change them.
That's my H&A. Drop it and move on.
There's a thread in D&D for this. It isn't called for in this one.
-The Boston Transcript
The point of the chapter?
I know I hate it when people try and convert me to their religions, so I don't do it to people who don't come asking for it.
Nothing will change their minds unless they want it to.
agree
There is no logic in the world that will make you convince them otherwise. I would know; I'm a creationist :P
To be effective, first, learn all you can about your own point of view. Learn its in and outs, study the arguments, take the knowledge into yourself. Be able to build and reason with different arguments and different points of view. Know many different ways to accomplish a single goal. Be able to discern that which is personal perspective from actual truth. Learn from many sources, and establish a foundation of knowledge and skill which trancends any one specific view, and yet is capable of speaking to all of them.
When you reach a point of study where you have all the basics down pat, an active understanding of the advanced concepts in play, and are currently seeking out mastery in specific areas of that knowledge, then you can go teach others the basic principles and expect that knowledge to be received. As your own knowledge progresses, so will your abilities to share that information effectively with others.
As you're finding out, being 'right' is not enough - everybody thinks that they are correct in thier own thinking, just as you do. Everybody, even if it is challenging to see, has thier own methods of evaluating the truth and taking in new information. Learning how to adjust your approach to suit the person or circumstance in order to tap into that personal evaluation method and have one's own information received is perhaps one of the most important elements of persuasion.
Sometimes, conviction will be impossible. The best outcome in such a case is mutual understanding, not mutual agreeance. You will find a wall within each person separating what they really think and what they are willing to share, and many of their core beliefs will be isolated from argument. There will be an unwillingness to expose fragile thinking to attack, just like any other part of the body.
In general, anonymous arguments fall somewhere in the middle, the personas feel more empowered to share their thoughts than they would in face to face conversation, but at the same time the walls governing a change of thinking are sharper and more defined. Because of this, persuasion is much more exciting on line, but is actually far less effective in producing actual change.
Personally, I rarely bother trying to convince a person of 'truth' in an online debate, I simply have them explain their argument. It doesn't matter who beleives what, I don't need people to think my way in order to find some kind of cosmic validation. What matters is that the information, information that is often secreted away, is placed out on the table for study and examination. In that way, I can find and discover the truthful elements for myself and decide on what I want to apply to the knowledge I already have, improving the working model I hold of the world, making me more effective as a sentient entity.
That's what I find to be important; discovering everything and delighting the differences. I find very little value in trying to make everything the same. What a boring world it would be if we all thought along exactly the same lines. There is enough boring stuff in the world already, why would you actively go about trying to make more?
water spirals the wrong way out the sink
Actually there's still a lot of debate about whether viruses are alive or not. Basically boiling down to, are they complex enough to be considered lifeforms?
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH