Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 67 of 139 (535924)
11-18-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Blzebub
11-18-2009 3:19 AM


Because "debating" a really very stupid idea indeed gives that idea a veneer of credibility which it simply doesn't deserve. The reality is that there is no debate to be had, because all the evidence points one way.
We might as well debate whether or not Rome is in Italy.
So tell me. If the above is so then WHY are you debating this topic (evo-creo)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Blzebub, posted 11-18-2009 3:19 AM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Blzebub, posted 11-18-2009 6:01 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 68 of 139 (535930)
11-18-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dwise1
11-18-2009 3:54 AM


It doesn't matter to the creationist how incredibly false his claims are, just so long as he deems that it sounds convincing.
It does matter to the creationists because as christians we find it important not to lie. To lie is to sin against God which is the opposite of the way that christians are trying to live their lives. As a different subject, what compels an athiest to tell the truth and not lie? It may harm his career if he gets caught or he might "feel" that he shouldn't, but as such s/he does not have to subject him or herself to any higher authority except for what s/he decides if this is in their best interest. So an athiest is not "restricted" to telling the truth, they may "choose" to, but they are not compelled by anything other than what the "choose" to be compelled by (e.g. standing in scientific community).
As for a written debate check out link below.
http://aufiles.creation.com/.../skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2009 3:54 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 11-18-2009 6:17 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 72 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2009 6:25 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 74 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-18-2009 10:59 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2009 2:19 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 11-19-2009 2:06 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 4:26 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 75 of 139 (535965)
11-18-2009 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wounded King
11-18-2009 6:17 PM


Yes, christians "choose" to obey God. The argument however was that evolutionists are restricted to telling the truth. This is not true. They can choose to if they want to but there is no pressure or reason to do so, especially if you don't get caught. Coyote seems to have a "feeling" of hate towards errors, and so presumably he trys to avoid telling lies. However we are all capable of doing something that we hate if it suits our purpose for a larger goal. Anyway, i don't find the reason of a "feeling" very compelling. Afterall if we do it enough we can desensitize ourselves of the feeling. So in conclusion I don't think atheists have a compelling case as to why their belief compels them not to lie.
As for christians who have lied. Yes, it most certainly happens, but doing so is in conflict with their belief (while it isn't a conflict of beliefs for an atheist, as far as i know, feel free to convince me otherwise), so in other words it is hypocritical. Hence why christian's try to avoid lying. however we do live in a fallen world and are no longer perfect and so sometimes will give in to the temptation to lie.
But again i was wanting dwise to defend his comments. Your comment made no attempt to defend his comments but rather just threw some "mud" towards me. maybe it needs a new topic but it would be interesting to see atheists defending their moral positions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 11-18-2009 6:17 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2009 11:46 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 11-19-2009 8:57 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 119 by Otto Tellick, posted 11-20-2009 5:52 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 76 of 139 (535967)
11-18-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CosmicChimp
11-18-2009 10:59 PM


Again, what in your athiest belief compels you to respect someone. Yes, you may respect someone, but you don't need to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-18-2009 10:59 PM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-18-2009 11:45 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 81 by onifre, posted 11-19-2009 12:07 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 77 of 139 (535970)
11-18-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
11-18-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Is there a point to debate?
Yip, well said. we may come from opposite sides of the debate but i agree with what you said.
However I still don't understand why some people on here seem to think that there is no value in formal debate between prominent creationists and evolutionists. Surely these types of debates would be able to reach a far wider audience (more than just 76) of the undecided and those with niggling doubts. The people listening/reading/watching the debate could then also research further into the life and works of the presenters in the debate to test trust-worthiness, qualifications, etc. which is a bit harder to do on here.
btw, anyone read the debate i posted? Do you think this type of debate is a good idea? Was it done fairly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-18-2009 6:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-18-2009 11:53 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2009 7:02 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 98 of 139 (536098)
11-19-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NosyNed
11-19-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Comments on the "debate"
Yeah, i'd be keen for a great debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 11-19-2009 2:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2009 6:05 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 99 of 139 (536101)
11-19-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
11-18-2009 11:46 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Science is the exact opposite of lying and of unswerving belief in some particular dogma.
Perhaps, but are scientists?
Lies will be caught out
Unfortunatly, not always, also even if they are found out it is often too late to fully repair the damage that the lie has caused.
You seem to think that "we are all capable of doing something that we hate if it suits our purpose for a larger goal" -- but I hope you don't approve of that, or that you don't really believe it.
of course I don't approve of it. The point is that human beings have showen themselves quite capable of doing so anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2009 11:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 9:41 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 100 of 139 (536104)
11-19-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by onifre
11-19-2009 12:07 AM


what gives them any meaning at all is that we, by our own choosing, select them as good social skills.
So you have no problem with another group of people choosing a set of morals that might be in conflict with your morals?
Humans are social, and societies work best when there is order.
Great, what is wrong with anarchy? Does it really matter that civilisation and the earth remain for another 100 years? After you are dead you supposedly won't care anyway, because, well, you supposedly no longer exist. Why does society need to continue to exist even after you have died? You might think that it would be "neat", especially when thinking of all technological advances that humans could make in the future. But hey, you won't experince them anyway, if you're dead. There will probably be someone on the planet who thinks it would be "neat" if the world destroyed itself in a nuclear war tomorrow. Humans continue to try to keep an orderly society, but if atheism is true, then what is the point? Because it is "nice"?
Please note that I'm not suggesting that all atheists are anarchists or that if you are an atheist that you should consider becoming an anarchist, I'm just stating that there is nothing in atheism that would make it wrong for a person to do harm. There are no rules except the ones that you personally choose to make!!! These may be different and even conflicting from atheist to atheist. So what is wrong with an atheist choosing a rule that lying is ok if you don't get caught and it benefits you? Is it hypocritcal?
You need to in the same way you need to eat ... because there are consequences. Try not respecting people that you meet every day and see if you get along well; see if you don't need to be respectful to get along.
Firstly, you could always fake it when need be. You don't need to get along well with everyone. If you have some influence or power over a weaker opponent, you can become quite successful.
Coming back to my original post, I don't think it is possible to make the claim that atheists are "restricted" to telling the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by onifre, posted 11-19-2009 12:07 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2009 12:44 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 120 by Parasomnium, posted 11-20-2009 6:42 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 11-20-2009 7:37 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 127 by onifre, posted 11-20-2009 12:56 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 128 by Rahvin, posted 11-20-2009 2:09 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 102 of 139 (536109)
11-19-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
11-19-2009 4:26 PM


Sorry, i'm not in a position to defend their actions. Firstly, i'm not familiar with the situations, 2nd, I don't think you can just pick a few examples and then conclude that all creationists lie all the time.
The first sentence of your reply is good, but then i disagree with your second sentence.
For some reason the "they are lying" tactic seems to be a common accusation against creationists yet rarely is it supported with any evidence.
Here is a reply to an accusation that i just read recently if anyone's interested.
Creationists are liars (?) - creation.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 4:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 9:58 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 104 of 139 (536115)
11-19-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by dwise1
11-19-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Yes, there are many systems in place especially duplication which help in keeping standards. However, this doesn't mean that it is foolproof. Nor does it mean that it stops some results being promoted at the exclusion of others, for example. And as I said before, even if a scientist lies and he is found out, s/he may have already caused considerable damage, where their ideas persist even though it has been shown to be wrong.
The primary goal of the creationist community has nothing to do with learning the truth
You are coming at it from the angle that truth is unknowable. We KNOW that the bible is true, therefore we trust it, and we gain more confirmation of this every day as more scientific discoveries, historical corroboration, and supernatural experiences show that the bible is trustworthy. So, yes, we continue to work at bringing down the "evidences" for evolution, because many people feel that it has been "proven" that evolution is true, and find it hard to let go of the "mountains of evidence". If we can destroy the "mountain" with good science and logic, well....
As for just using "convincing-sounding" arguments for the sake of sounding convincing is also wrong, as far as i am aware. Feel free to convince me otherwise, this is the place to do so. The arguments sound convincing because they are convincing!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 9:41 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2009 4:35 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 105 of 139 (536118)
11-19-2009 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Coyote
11-19-2009 9:58 PM


Re: More creationist pap
Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's typical creationist pap.
Thanks, for doing so anyway.
As for your "fossil data" and "genetic data", this article wasn't written as an in depth analysis of these points. it was commenting on Prothero's claims. Keep looking round creation.com for articles that do go into these points in more depth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 9:58 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 11:50 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 108 of 139 (536130)
11-20-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by lyx2no
11-20-2009 12:44 AM


Is morality based on an opinion vote?
Recognizing that I must be responsible for what I believe, I have a choice. Do my part to make the would a better, kinder place, where me and mine can find peace and comfort; or, grab what I can when I can in a raucous, unending struggle wherein my survival is incumbent on how well I oppress my fellows.
YES!!! Finally!!! You have a CHOICE you are not RESTRICTED in atheism.
So I ask again, what makes a choice as in "grab what I can when I can in a raucous, unending struggle wherein my survival is incumbent on how well I oppress my fellows" "wrong"? Is it simply your opinion that it is wrong? Or maybe morality is just based on an opinion vote? But wait, isn't everyone allowed to form their own opinions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2009 12:44 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2009 9:57 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 125 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2009 11:49 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 109 of 139 (536131)
11-20-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Coyote
11-19-2009 11:50 PM


Re: More creationist pap
"Now I can go into the details if you wish, but among other gems this little paragraph has macroevolution, which creationists deny occurs (depends on what you are defining as macroevolution. Anyway, I think the point of the article was to show that the Homo species would be better classified as one species), happening several hundred times faster than paleontologists propose and in reverse! (YES!!!!) And then, for some unknown reason, stopping abruptly and all traces of these critters suddenly burrowed (eh?? never heard of that) down into geological layers tens to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years too old (they aren't that old)."
But I guess this belongs elsewhere on the forum.
Edited by Admin, : Change colored text to a readable color.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 11:50 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:43 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2009 4:42 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 112 of 139 (536134)
11-20-2009 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Meldinoor
11-20-2009 1:32 AM


Re: Is morality based on an opinion vote?
Hi Meldinoor
I've been away for a while, but will hopefully be hanging round here a bit more in the next while. Good to see you are still here. haven't read any of your latest posts but as far as I remember your posts tended to be quite good, so am happy to see you here.
As has been pointed out, christians have the bible which tells us what we should not do. So no, we don't really have a choice, unless we decide to disregard the bible. Also, sometimes we don't live up to the morals, however this doesn't mean that we don't try to live by them.
Respectfully as well,
Arphy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:58 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 11-20-2009 12:52 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 113 of 139 (536135)
11-20-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Meldinoor
11-20-2009 1:43 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Where's the research that shows that a genus can suddenly be treated as a species?
Not just any genus. Have a look at the link coyote provided for an example.
When the peddlers of creationism circumvent the scientific method to make wild assertions, that's pretty much equivalent to lying.
eh?? Please don't make wild assertions . Back it up with a example at least, preferably with some sort of reference as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:43 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 2:15 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024