Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2018 9:34 AM
213 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Stile, Straggler, vimesey (7 members, 206 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,283 Year: 17,106/29,783 Month: 1,094/1,956 Week: 91/506 Day: 27/64 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 61 of 144 (448805)
01-15-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-31-2007 2:26 PM


Re: dealing with the wall
"(1) change the subject - common
(2) accuse you of lying - less common, but happens often enough
(3) disappear from the argument (while telling themselves they won -- see NJ & Buzz on the Pattern recognition thread) - also common
(4) move the goal-posts (a variation of (1)) where they try to redefine the argument - also common

When it comes to actually confronting the evidence on the other side of their cognitive dissonance wall people become functionally stupid, because they are not able to fit the information into their world view. Not only that, they don't see the wall."

Well evolutionists do the same exact thing. If they don't want to hear what a creationist has to say they just say that it's a lie or they through out a big fat PRATT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2007 2:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Quetzal, posted 01-15-2008 10:20 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded
 Message 63 by jar, posted 01-15-2008 10:24 AM theLimmitt has responded
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2008 8:31 PM theLimmitt has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 62 of 144 (448807)
01-15-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by theLimmitt
01-15-2008 10:11 AM


Re: dealing with the wall
Well evolutionists do the same exact thing. If they don't want to hear what a creationist has to say they just say that it's a lie or they through out a big fat PRATT.

I suppose you have some examples of this? I'd be interested to see a creationist propose either an argument in favor of creationism or against evolution that doesn't consist of misunderstandings, misrepresentations, infantile caracatures of evolution, or PRATTs of one form or another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:11 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 63 of 144 (448808)
01-15-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by theLimmitt
01-15-2008 10:11 AM


No culture of Ethics in Creationism
Well evolutionists do the same exact thing. If they don't want to hear what a creationist has to say they just say that it's a lie or they through out a big fat PRATT.

I think this really needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, there is no culture of ethics in Creationism. That is quite different than in science. In science, if you are caught fudging data or repeating things that have been falsified, you are sanctioned.

That is NOT true in Creationism.

The reason there are such things as PRATTs, Points Refuted a Thousand Times, is that lack of Ethics mentioned above. Those folk marketing Creationism simply do not acknowledge things that have been refuted and continue to post them on their sites. Unsuspecting folk then pick such things up as though they had any merit and charge in here thinking they are armed only to find out all they have are blanks.

Until Creationism develops some culture of Ethics and makes sites remove all the PRATTs, what you describe will continue.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:11 AM theLimmitt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:37 AM jar has responded

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 64 of 144 (448809)
01-15-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


quote:
In this thread I want to hear what evidences it would require to disprove creationism to our EvC creationists. This is referring specifically to the theory of special creation, creation Ex Nihilo. I am thinking of this thread like those university quizzes at the beginning of the semester where the professor is polling the class to find out what they know. I want creationists to tell, in detail, what kind of evidence they would need to show them wrong, what would convince the individual.

You'd have to prove, not theorize, the origins of the universe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2008 8:48 PM ThreeDogs has responded

  
theLimmitt
Junior Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 65 of 144 (448814)
01-15-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
01-15-2008 10:24 AM


Re: No culture of Ethics in Creationism
But you have to realize that creationist have no way of testing our "theories" but every day a evolutionist is testing something different. Then when they have 1 successful test they say that it's been proven, they do small experiments and use them as base for evolutionary life. Things work differently on a large scale than on a smaller scale. The things from long times ago are different than the things we have today. They have matured and micro-evolved to survive in new environments, the world is constantly changing. Look at a river a thousand years ago. Now it has either dried up or has grown. There is no way to know what happened at the beginning of time. So it's just crazy to "prove" something by doing modern experiments and call it fact!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 01-15-2008 10:24 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 01-15-2008 10:43 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded
 Message 74 by nator, posted 01-16-2008 10:40 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 66 of 144 (448816)
01-15-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by theLimmitt
01-15-2008 10:37 AM


Re: No culture of Ethics in Creationism
However science does not prove something, there is always tentativity. But certainly things in the past CAN be determined with a very high degree of confidence.

But nothing in your post really addresses the issue. Until Creationism develops a culture of Ethics, until the rank and file Creationists hold the marketers of Creationism to some ethical standards, there will be a continuing stream of gullible, ignorant Christians who read the utter crap such sites post and accept it as Gospel.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:37 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19674
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 67 of 144 (448984)
01-15-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by theLimmitt
01-15-2008 10:11 AM


Re: dealing with the wall
Welcome to the fray theLimmitt.

"(1) change the subject - common
(2) accuse you of lying - less common, but happens often enough
(3) disappear from the argument (while telling themselves they won -- see NJ & Buzz on the Pattern recognition thread) - also common
(4) move the goal-posts (a variation of (1)) where they try to redefine the argument - also common

When it comes to actually confronting the evidence on the other side of their cognitive dissonance wall people become functionally stupid, because they are not able to fit the information into their world view. Not only that, they don't see the wall."

There are much easier and better ways to do quotes on this forum than using <h5>(quoted verbiage)</h5>, such as either:

[qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

most people use the shorter 'qs' form for quoting other posts and the longer 'quote' form for quoting articles to substantiate their positions (and in science threads, substantiation is expected while in faith and belief they let you get away with totally unsupported ad hoc assertions ... for a while).

Well evolutionists do the same exact thing.

Well of course they do. Everyone does. You did notice that I said "people" and not "creationists" didn't you?

This reaction to cognitive dissonance applies to all people without regard to belief, bias or education. The only difference is what beliefs individual people hold that are challenged by actual hard facts and evidence of objective reality.

If they don't want to hear what a creationist has to say they just say that it's a lie or they through throw out a big fat PRATT.

You do realize that "PRATT" means "Points Refuted a Thousand Times" and further that the requirements for refutation are to actually demonstrate with actual hard facts and evidence of objective reality ... ie those substantiation issues mentioned earlier ... that the points are wrong or misleading or logical fallacies. A typical one is:

"If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?"
You can also refer the person to a "PRATT List" where someone else has already answered the PRATT in question, complete with refutation.

This is one example:
Talk Origins, Index to Creationist Claims (see Claim CC150 for the example given above).

This is another:
Answers in Genesis, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (Note that these are PRATTs that creationists think are just too embarrassingly wrong to keep using ... such as the ape question above.)

I am not aware of any lists of similar arguments made by evolutionists, and would like to increase my awareness: can you provide me some examples if not a compiled list?

I have also found that there is a substantial difference in what constitutes "evidence" for an evolutionist and a creationist, and this leads me to question what you use to validate your concepts, to "ground truth" them.

Do you compare them to reality or to some preconception?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:11 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19674
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 68 of 144 (448988)
01-15-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ThreeDogs
01-15-2008 10:25 AM


Now can we try something a little more practical?
You'd have to prove, not theorize, the origins of the universe.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of the argument that this cannot be proven (one way or the other), so we can assume that either it occurred naturally (method unknown) or the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago (method unknown), and thus the issue is not resolved by this test.

Got another one?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-15-2008 10:25 AM ThreeDogs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-16-2008 9:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 69 of 144 (449044)
01-16-2008 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
01-15-2008 8:48 PM


For the sake of the argument?
quote:
Okay, let's assume for the sake of the argument that this cannot be proven (one way or the other), so we can assume that either it occurred naturally (method unknown) or the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago (method unknown), and thus the issue is not resolved by this test.

Let's not assume, let's know for sure.

To occur naturally, the wherewithal needed to be present and come together just for the hell of it (and at the right moment, and something intelligent to give the get-go) to see what would happen and make sure all the right stuff is present in the right formula in the right weights and measurements, for a spontaneous combustion and we would have had a big bang, naturally. (Method unknown) You probably won't see the illogic of such an event.

Much less creation. Which is predisposed to claims that it requires certain unmeasurable attributes in the human mind to accept that it happened without proof ever entering the conversation. Personally, I dismiss the former as incongruous, understand the struggle it contains, and hope you fellows will find what you can reasonably accept as facts. Being of one mind, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2008 8:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 01-16-2008 9:41 AM ThreeDogs has responded
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 01-16-2008 9:58 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2008 11:55 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 144 (449046)
01-16-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ThreeDogs
01-16-2008 9:29 AM


Re: For the sake of the argument?
ThreeDogs

To occur naturally, the wherewithal needed to be present and come together just for the hell of it

This is a contradiction in terms sir. To come together naturally is to do so without the addition of an external agency which is what you then imply by the phrase "the wherewithal needed".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-16-2008 9:29 AM ThreeDogs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-16-2008 9:52 AM sidelined has responded

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 71 of 144 (449052)
01-16-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by sidelined
01-16-2008 9:41 AM


Re: For the sake of the argument?
quote:
This is a contradiction in terms sir. To come together naturally is to do so without the addition of an external agency which is what you then imply by the phrase "the wherewithal needed".


You must have the chemicals, etc., to come together naturally, and you must have them at the right moment in proper proportion. Even the making of something from nothing, has agents to make it. I see no contradiction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 01-16-2008 9:41 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 01-16-2008 9:55 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded
 Message 75 by sidelined, posted 01-16-2008 10:41 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Rahvin, posted 01-16-2008 11:00 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 72 of 144 (449054)
01-16-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ThreeDogs
01-16-2008 9:52 AM


Re: For the sake of the argument?
You must have the chemicals, etc., to come together naturally, and you must have them at the right moment in proper proportion.

Not quite. You need to have sufficient quantity and the proportions are determined by the chemical bonds themselves.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-16-2008 9:52 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17882
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 144 (449056)
01-16-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ThreeDogs
01-16-2008 9:29 AM


Re: For the sake of the argument?
Hi Three Dogs,

You initiated participation in this thread saying:

ThreeDogs in Message 64 writes:

You'd have to prove, not theorize, the origins of the universe.

Let's assume that when you say "prove" you mean "support with evidence". If the scientific view is supported by sufficient evidence, what more could you want?

There are several misconceptions in your Message 69:

To occur naturally, the wherewithal needed to be present and come together just for the hell of it...

While one of the possibilities is that the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch where everything coalesced together, it is just a possibility, and not a widely accepted one at this time. There is much evidence that tells us that all the matter in the universe once existed in a very tiny space often referred to as a singularity. The most obvious evidence was originally discovered by Edwin Hubble when he found that for the most part galaxies are all receding from one another, with recession speed proportional to distance. If you project the velocities of all the galaxies backward in time, they were once all in the same place about 13.7 billion years ago.

...(and at the right moment, and something intelligent to give the get-go)...

While we have some plausible possibilities, we do not know at this time what initiated the Big Bang. That it happened is supported by much evidence. What caused it to happen isn't something that is well understood at this time.

...to see what would happen and make sure all the right stuff is present in the right formula in the right weights and measurements, for a spontaneous combustion...

There was no "spontaneous combustion" as we commonly use the term. The very early universe was a very rapidly expanding plasma of quarks, other fundamental particles, and photons. Permanent atoms, mostly hydrogen and helium, are thought to have condensed out of the plasma after about two or three hundred thousand years.

Which is predisposed to claims that it requires certain unmeasurable attributes in the human mind to accept that it happened without proof ever entering the conversation.

Again, if by proof you mean "supported by evidence", then since you say "without proof" that would leave only faith. I don't think anyone here objects to beliefs based upon faith. Disagreements usually arise only when it is claimed that faith-based beliefs also have scientific validity, which can't be true when no evidence is involved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-16-2008 9:29 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 144 (449064)
01-16-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by theLimmitt
01-15-2008 10:37 AM


Re: No culture of Ethics in Creationism
quote:
But you have to realize that creationist have no way of testing our "theories" but every day a evolutionist is testing something different.

Of course Creationists can test their "theories".

Just because they do not choose to subject their theories to the rigors of real scientific testing doesn't mean that they can't.

They don't seem to have any interest in doing any research whatsoever, actually. They spend the majority of their time and money on PR campaigns and lobbying efforts.

quote:
Then when they have 1 successful test they say that it's been proven, they do small experiments and use them as base for evolutionary life.

There are actually many, many, many successful tests of Evolutionary theory. Millions, perhaps billions.

Every time a new fossil is found to be located in a place it was predicted to be found, that is a test of the theory, for example.

quote:
Things work differently on a large scale than on a smaller scale. The things from long times ago are different than the things we have today. They have matured and micro-evolved to survive in new environments, the world is constantly changing. Look at a river a thousand years ago. Now it has either dried up or has grown. There is no way to know what happened at the beginning of time. So it's just crazy to "prove" something by doing modern experiments and call it fact!

So, do you believe that events from long ago never leave evidence of having happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:37 AM theLimmitt has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 144 (449065)
01-16-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ThreeDogs
01-16-2008 9:52 AM


Re: For the sake of the argument?
ThreeDogs

You must have the chemicals, etc., to come together naturally, and you must have them at the right moment in proper proportion.

I thought we were referencing the origin of the universe.At the beginning of the universe chemical elements were not yet a part of things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-16-2008 9:52 AM ThreeDogs has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018