Devil's advocate

I propose a topic in which "evolutionists" must argue FOR creation and "creationists" must argue FOR evolution, thereby increasing the understanding of each others ideas.I will begin.It is a pre-conception that fossil evidence will support evolution, as Darwin and Wallace had much reduced evidence when they originally theorised the concept. As such, all fossils AFTER Darwin and Wallace's ideas became generally accepted were expected to fit - and therefore lead to a bias in the interpretation.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Apparently no-one wants to take on the challenge.Perhaps everyone is too arrogant to consider wasting their time looking at the other viewpoint?

Perhaps you are being arrogant in assuming that it is simply a matter of looking at a different viewpoint.The usual creationist viewpoint relies on - knowingly or unknowingly - misrepresenting science. Thus I cannot argue like an honest creationist (since I know too much to do so honestly) and arguing as a dishonest creationist is not going to help much, is it ?Equally an honest creationist would lack the knowledge to accurately represent the arguments for evolution. So they aren't going to learn anything because their own misconceptions would trip them up.

I couldn't tell if Paulk's last comment was a 'Devil's argument against his own YEC or Evo position; it sounded pretty arrogant though, I think the lurkers would agree.Here are some doubts and fears about my own YECism (being a YEC). I'll play the Evo-shrink:1) As a podiatrist I cut a lot of stinky fungal toenails: WHAT HAPPENED to THOSE FEET?! Would ID allow those nails to rot as such? I mean pleeeze.
2) Business is SO COMPETIVE with freaky ads and TV-mania; there is no sense, no love, no metaphysics, and no God!
3) There is chemical attraction (harmones) that hold the "marriage" together. (Of course there is a measure of sarcasm and arrogancy of bias here)I may continue after hearing a few other better jokers than myself.

In my mind, you just proved PaulK's point with your message.None of the three things you put forth as Evo arguments would ever be argued by an evolutionist. So it doesn't seem you know enough about evolution science to put forth a reasonable argument.If you can put out a reasonable evolutionist argument, then please do so.

I tried. You haven't. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was honestly trying to put myself in the Evo-Camp.What about you pink sasquatch? What do you have to lose, your pride? Put yourself in a YECs shoe if you dare. No one cares if you're right or wrong here. I see 727 replies; that tells me you have doubts and fears about your Evo position. Lighten up and try to respond appropriately.

And if your reply was honest and serious it indicated exactly what I said. That you lack the knowledge to make a good argument for evolution.Of course if it was a joke or dishonest it still supports what I said.

OK,
1) I speculate that because of homology and succession, man evolved from something 'lower' (quoted because this word seems a mishap)
2) There are are phylogenetic trees out there that defy probability.
3) There are finches on the G-islands that seem to have a common ancester.
4) There are marsupials in Australia that seem incredibly similar in their sexual niche.Now is your turn, pink sasquatch.This message has been edited by Philip, 11-16-2004 04:44 PM

Ah come on PaulK,Judging by your 2626 questionable replies, you can do better than this; quit bluffing and PLAY JON'S PURPOSE OUT. It's an easy request. Learn something and play the devil's advocate. This is a great learning tool and I beg you to play.This message has been edited by Philip, 11-16-2004 04:52 PM

Honestly, I can't come up with an YEC argument that wouldn't be destroyed in a reply or two due to its irrationality. Again, perhaps you should reread PaulK first post in this thread - he hit the nail on the head:- I don't argue from faith or incredulity, so I can't put myself in YECs shoes. (What am I supposed to say, "Goddidit!", or "Science has gaps!"? Do you have any suggestions?)- You can't argue from a rational scientific viewpoint (I'm basing that on your "toenail fungus", "freaky ads", and "harmones" arguments that somehow in your mind favor evolution). Silly. I see you have 388 replies - does that mean you have half as many doubts about your Creo position as I have about my Evo position? You seem to be the one who needs to "try to respond appropriately" if you think attacking my number of posts is germane to this discussion.Or maybe it's that rational vs. irrational difference showing its face again...

OK,
1) God did it.
2) God did it.
3) God did it.
4) God did it.Now is your turn, Philip.(By the way, your arguments don't make any scientific (or grammatical) sense...)

I've already given reasons why I cannot usefully go ahead with Jon's proposal.I will try to allow that there might be some honest thinking creationists out there. Sadly, the fact that you choose to dismiss my entire posting record when you cannot even answer the posts I have mde to this thread shows that you are not one of them. I suppose I could try to mimic the prejudice and egotism I see in all too many creationists but why try ? It would only reinforce the conclusion I had already reached.

This topic has already been done, and I participated with utter glee.It can be found here: http://EvC Forum: Devils Advocate, a little game of role reversal -->EvC Forum: Devils Advocate, a little game of role reversalI argued the creationist side for a while. I found that the best tactics for arguing the side of creationism are:1. Ignore all scientific findings of the last 500 years.
2. Make up your own theories regardless if they are supported by any evidence or even refuted by evidence.
3. Equate an attack on creationism with an attack on God (call those anti-creationists "Satan's Little Helpers").
4. Keep reiterating the same assertions over and over, even if refuted, until everyone gives up.Follow the recipe above and you can argue like a creationist.

quote:

---

I will try to allow that there might be some honest thinking creationists out there.

---

There is such a thing. They are called theistic evolutionists (otherwise known as biologists who go to church).