|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: This is a misrepresentation because although I do repeat my point to what has appeared to be a gallery of intentionally deaf ears, I do also usually expand on my point, reason for my point, try to bring in aspects of the situation that further the point. I didn't do much of this on mark24's thread because I didn't want to debate anything at all in the first place... Right. And the question is what is the proper response when someone takes the approach of declaring they've said all that needs to be said and won't address rebuttals. Keep in mind that this is contrary to the Forum Guidelines, and we're exploring whether there are any effective non-administrative responses.
I still don't think anybody has honestly thought through my endlessly reiterated points about the strata, and the evidence in this current side issue that evolutionists are willing to play fast and loose with what creationists believe about how fossils could have gotten there is an example of how evolutionists just don't care what creationists think. Okay, let me summarize your points:
About point 1, I think almost everyone on both sides of the debate is honest, but I think you're expressing a very human feeling experienced by both sides, one that is exacerbated by the nature of the on-line medium. About point 2, I think communication is a two way street. Clarity and accuracy in expression is as important as making the effort to understand. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
robinrohan writes: In other words, I don't believe that there is anthing we could find where we could reasonably conclude, "God would never have done this, it must have happened without his guidance." Yes, there is: fossils. But the premise was that "The Lord works in mysterious ways." There are many things in this universe that don't make sense or that appear unnecessary. And since God caused the flood that creationists believe left the fossils, does it really make sense to say that fossils happened without God's guidance? But whether or not God played a role in the creation of fossils is not the topic of this thread. Nor was much of my earlier post on-topic, and I can't think of a way to further explore the topic through the example of falsification. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The idea that God "caused" the Flood appears to be confused with Creation. I expect to discuss this on brennakimi's thread when it finally gets promoted. Nothing about the Flood happened in any way other than perfectly naturally, in accord with the laws of nature. Same with all other events after the Creation. The only ways God intervened were with miracles, all one-time events that left no evidence.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 08:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm normally pretty clear. But aside from that, what can I recommend but retracting the rule against repetition, or at least reducing it to a recommendation with some discussion of the whys and hows.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 09:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
From the actual progress of the thread it seems that strogner enforcement of the rule might have helped. Relaxing it would seem only to help people who want to avoid genuine discussion.
Is this a case of proposing a rule change for personal benefit ?v
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You also need to mention that the species will vary with different sediments, ...
IMO, unless the general statement brings out species, your statement would be better served in subsequent responses depending on the direction of the discussion and questions asked. The problem is that people will not ask in this direction becasue they are satisfied that "Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood" and don't need to look further without prodding. The problem is that you have pockets of marine fossils and pockets of non-marine fossils, and "cherry-picking" pockets to fit a concept without regard to timing, sediment layers, grouping of fossils, etc. leads to misconceptions of their meaning. If you actually assembled a collecetion of marine fossils from all over the earth you would end up with a ragged quilt with no consistency. And to claim that the quilt is all one color is just not a legitimate claim. There is another problem with the flood scenario as being the producer of marine fossils that has not even been broached, as far as I know. That is the length of time a marine environment needs to produce the elements that get fossilized -- while you only have a limited time period available. If the fossils are of fixed species (barnacles, corals, clams that live in the bottom muds, etc) then they need to have been there long enough for them to grow a number of annual "rings" in their shells -- and this is just not possible during the short (by comparison) period of the theoretical flood -- so all such fossils cannot be used as flood evidence. This eliminates most of the world wide "evidence" from being applicable to the flood theory, because they could not have grown to that level in the available time period. This is usually where the ad hoc dancing begins. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But the premise was that "The Lord works in mysterious ways." I don't know about that. But it seems to me obvious that if you make a list, you can easily see how one of these is much less reasonable than the others: 1. God created a reproductive process which makes us similar yet different. This we call imperfect replication.2. God created fossils. 3. God created a nested heirarchy of life forms. Therefore, fossils is the best evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: Or they are satisfied with the evolutionist answer and don't need to look further. Remember, I'm thinking of nonscience people and not necessarily fundamentalists. If this tactic hasn't been used before how do we know what direction the debate will go? Can you speculate what the creationist rebuttal would be to the evolutionist paragraph above? Tectonics can easily be looked up and is generally easy to understand, IMO. Getting into the species, sorting, sediment, etc. takes more explanation and could be more confusing than not, depending on the level of your reader. I don't think it will hurt the paragraph, but I don't feel that it adds either. Of course that's just my opinion. I do understand its importance in your position, but your side of the argument has a lot more meat to digest than the other side. From a nonscience standpoint the species comment doesn't seem to address original statement. You want your readers to understand your side through reasoning. So give them small bites and let them chew on it. Better for the digestion. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Do you enjoy verbal conversations where people repeat themselves?
When my daughter was in school, she got upset when she couldn't understand what the teacher was teaching. I talked with the teacher to try and see what the problem was. The teacher said she answered my daughter's questions whenever she asked. As our discussion continued I found out that the teacher never changed her answer. IOW, when my daughter didn't understand, the teacher just repeated what she had already said. If my daughter didn't understand the first time the teacher said it, why did the teacher think saying the same thing the exact same way would help her understand any better? Sometimes the approach needs to be changed and not just repeating the same words. Just as their responses need to address what you have said, your responses need to address what they have said. That's when you actually have a discussion. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's half a joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But it seems to me obvious that if you make a list, you can easily see how one of these is much less reasonable than the others It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. If special creation occurred, there would be no transitional fossils, for there would have been no evolution. If special creation occurred, there might very well be DNA. If special creation occurred, there might very well be a heirarchy of life forms. Is that clear enough? ABE: Hence, fossils are the best evidence for evolution. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-10-2006 10:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4704 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
When I asked why God couldn't have just put the fossils in the rocks, you stated..."Because Creation was finished in[sic] the sixth day. I don't see how this precludes God from putting fossils in the rocks when He built the Earth.
Faith writes: 2) It is out of keeping with the character of God in the Bible. And please don't ask me to prove his character as it is based on the entire Bible and would be a huge undertaking. I guess my starting another thread about God's character in the area of deceitfulness would not interest you then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But it seems to me obvious that if you make a list, you can easily see how one of these is much less reasonable than the others: Reasonable to you and I and Percy, certainly. The point that you seem to keep ignoring is that what is reasonable to us is no indication of what is reasonable to God. He might very well have done something completely unreasonable to us. That's what it means to be "ineffable."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When I asked why God couldn't have just put the fossils in the rocks, you stated..."Because Creation was finished in[sic] the sixth day. I don't see how this precludes God from putting fossils in the rocks when He built the Earth. You really don't? I guess some early creationists thought the same thing but they are now so clearly known to be lithified life forms {abe: the fossils I mean, not the early creationists}, I can't see how there is any question. But then I can't see God as anything but reasonable.
Faith writes: 2) It is out of keeping with the character of God in the Bible. And please don't ask me to prove his character as it is based on the entire Bible and would be a huge undertaking. ======= I guess my starting another thread about God's character in the area of deceitfulness would not interest you then. I usually try to avoid threads like that, yes. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 11:46 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024