Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 32 of 485 (568519)
07-06-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Big_Al35
07-06-2010 9:31 AM


Hi, Big Al.
Big_Al35 writes:
Evolutionary thinking however is very pessimistic. They believe in survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, anything goes. Success is measured in terms of still being around to see the death of all those around you.
I have a direct ancestor who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, others who were Southern slave owners, and another who was a polygamist that married at least one fifteen-year-old girl.
Upon reading these facts, do you then think that I pessimistically advocate white-supremacy, slavery, polygamy and child marriage?
I doubt that you were thinking that as you read it.
Yet, when an evolutionist argues that his/her direct ancestors are a series of winners of a billions-years-long, cutthroat struggle for survival, you apparently interpret this as his/her arguing that survival-of-the-fittest is a policy to live by.
It sounds like it’s more your failure to read information about evolution in the same way that you read other kinds of information than evolutionists doing a poor job of selling their story.
Edited by Bluejay, : "others who were"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Big_Al35, posted 07-06-2010 9:31 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 167 of 485 (570146)
07-25-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
07-25-2010 5:50 PM


Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
...it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.
Marc, I want to lodge two complaints about this statement.
  1. I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website. Atheists only rarely think of the world as meaningless: they often perceive a meaning for the world and for their lives that is as profound and as deep as any meaning that you and I, as religious folks, perceive.
    This is another example of a creationist not understanding how an evolutionist thinks.
  2. I am a family man. I have a son who is almost three years old, and my wife is five months pregnant with my first daughter. I am content and happy with my family life, and have no interest in looking for sex anywhere else. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if I underwent andropause right now. I seek no sexual liberation.
    In addition, I don’t really pay much attention to politics. I have voted Democrat more often recently, simply because I greatly prize education, and Democrats are friendlier to education. But, my general political philosophy is to not rock the boat too much and not ask for too many favors from people. I seek no political liberation either.
My interest in evolution stems only from what I feel are its logical merits. I do not view the question of meaning as having anything to do with my acceptance of evolution. I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis because I have never been able to glean any success from a faith-based approach to life, and am struggling to understand why a being like God would place such high importance on faith, anyway.
Your comments seem to be written through Christian-tinted glasses. I understand what it feels like to perceive the world from a Christian perspective, because I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago. I still cannot understand fully atheistic perspectives on life, and I can’t grasp the concept of myself without having some sort of inner soul, but I think I understand enough to at least accept that they are sincere and that their view is not the same as mine.
Since I acknowledge that I am no the most reliable source of information, I consequently also acknowledge that I may have no idea how stupid my perspective is. I think the world would be a much better place if everybody also acknowledged this, and approached every conversation as if they acknowledged this.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 07-25-2010 5:50 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by subbie, posted 07-25-2010 10:13 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 172 of 485 (570306)
07-27-2010 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 11:36 PM


Hi, Bolder-dash.
Bolder-dash writes:
If he would have said more clearly, that 90% of NAS scientists are either atheist or agnostic, would you have still called this nonsense?
I think showing an ability to distinguish between atheists and agnostics would go a long way toward demonstrating that one can understand how they think.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 196 of 485 (570474)
07-27-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
07-27-2010 12:27 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Hi, Chimp.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
What is "non-materialistic evidence"?
Don't you even dare go there.
I hope Straggler's not lurking on this thread.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-27-2010 12:27 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 272 of 485 (570908)
07-29-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


The search for meaning
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
I don’t think this is accurate. Certainly it seems like this would be the case from our perspective, and I’m certainly not a good example in which this isn’t the case, because my personal move away from strict theism was spurred by my conversion to evolutionism; but, I don’t think this is a general rule for all atheists, and I don’t think it’s fair of you to assert it as such without their permission.
Here’s what Crashfrog wrote in Message 201:
crashfrog writes:
Evolution certainly implies a lack of meaning in the natural world, but it hardly necessitates meaninglessness in the human world. It just entails the realization that humans are the source of their own meaning.
I certainly don’t claim that I get this. It doesn’t sound like meaning to me. But, who gets to decide what meaning is, or where it comes from? I don’t feel comfortable designating myself as that authority, and I certainly don’t like when people who disagree with me do feel comfortable designating themselves as that authority.
So, in what way is it right for us to claim a monopoly on meaning?
You might be right that they view the world as meaningless, and have just deluded themselves into to thinking otherwise, but you don’t really get anywhere in debates by simply refusing to engage people about their personal views on their terms. So, what point is served by these blunt assertions of yours? I argue that no point at all is served.
-----
marc9000 writes:
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists...
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim?
I have known many creationists who seem to say just that. I suppose I haven’t actually pursued the topic with anybody, so I can’t say for certain: but, if it isn’t true, I think there are a lot of creationists who would do well to make it clearer than they do.
And, I certainly can imagine creationists making that claim.
-----
marc9000 writes:
But if you’re saying that this point in your life is when you’re first becoming most interested in accepting Darwinism and questioning Christianity, I believe it’s rare, I think it is more common in younger people.
How old do you think I am? I think my birth date is listed on my member profile.
-----
marc9000 writes:
That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous thing for a Christian to do.
It’s not uncommon in many subjects for a conclusion to be established at the beginning, and then evidence formed to fit that conclusion.
I have now sat here for about thirty minutes, trying to figure out how to respond to the fact that you just juxtaposed those two statements.
If I am not allowed to even consider altering my conclusion, how can I possibly consider my pursuit of knowledge anything but the epitome of what you said in the second sentence above?
I have convinced myself that honesty, even if it is misguided, is more important than the particular conclusion at which I arrive. I am at a loss to explain why God would punish me for that.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition from "so, what..." to "...is served."

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by marc9000, posted 07-31-2010 9:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 429 of 485 (571842)
08-02-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by marc9000
07-31-2010 9:37 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
Francis Crick, an atheist, has asserted it, and I think it is a general rule, so why should I be shy about asserting it?
You should be shy about asserting it because it is the very point under discussion here.
Imagine a discussion in which the point of debate was whether my father’s shirt is blue or green.
Your comments could be parelleled within this shirt discussion as the simple comment: It’s blue.
A parallel of my response would be, What do you hope to accomplish by simply asserting it like that? I submit that you will accomplish nothing.
It would not be hard to envision the discussion between you and someone else using your tactics to proceed thus: It’s blue. No, it’s green. No, it’s blue.
I ask again: what purpose is served by asserting things like this?
-----
marc9000 writes:
Are Christians supposed to be above blunt assertions?
Yes. Why shouldn’t they be?
-----
marc9000 writes:
In swaying opinions and winning philosophical wars, blunt assertions work.
But, in finding truth, blunt assertions are absolutely useless, and are, in fact, more likely to be counter-productive.
If you think this is just a philosophical war that you have to win, I will bow out and leave you to it.
But, if you are interested in finding truth (or at least in finding the best approximation of the truth possible), then I urge you to do something more than bluntly assert your position.
Perhaps to be more in line with the topic, do you think atheists and evolutionists view this whole debate as simply a philosophical war of swaying opinions, the way you have clearly revealed that you view it?
Some do, I’m sure. Some would do well to make it clear that they don’t.
I think evolutionists and atheists would do well to make it more clear to creationists what their thought processes are. For reference, reread Otto Tellick’s Message 365 for the analytical/empirical approach and thought processes that I perceive as the real basis for evolutionist worldviews. How often does this type of thinking come out in the posts of evolutionists? Not often enough, I’m afraid.
If anything, I would hope this thread would be a good place for us all to drop our assertions and our personal opinions, and focus on learning the differences. But, it seems apparent to me that that may be too much to ask from any of us, given the history each of us has with the others.
-----
marc9000 writes:
It’s like any physical conflict, when facing machine guns, smiling and making nice in opposition usually doesn’t win.
I didn’t ask you to smile and make nice: I asked you to support your claims and to tailor your arguments to your audience.
If you just want to win, keep shouting your opinion until the moderators close the thread down, and you can claim that you won, and will likely have a lot of people on your side who agree that you won.
But, if you want to learn something, stop shouting and back up your arguments.
-----
marc9000 writes:
I don’t think ANY creationist, if directly asked, is going to claim that religion answers every question they have.
And, I repeat my former statement: they would do well to make it clearer to non-creationists that this is actually the case.
And, I feel, in this case, you’ve extrapolated a literary point beyond its intended meaning.
-----
marc9000 writes:
There’s nothing about Christianity that encourages it to be put to the test.
Perhaps there should be. What purpose is served by forbidding inquiry? You said yourself that forming a conclusion before finding evidence to support it is an invalid means of gaining knowledge.
How then can Christianity be anything but an invalid means of gaining knowledge? No evidence is ever required, and is, according to you, in fact discouraged.
-----
marc9000 writes:
My belief is, concerning the Bible’s several warnings about false teachers, that scientific speculation about millions of years falls under the test category.
Why is testing bad, Marc?
-----
marc9000 writes:
In exactly the same way, there is no indication in science that Darwinism is encouraged to be put to any tests.
I submit that this is because you did not pursue a degree in the biological sciences. I took a class called Evolutionary Biology, which, due to the fact that it was given at a Christian university, was basically a semester of demonstrations of the veracity and explanatory power of evolution.
Every class period proceeded as followed: Here is a study that was done by _____ and ______ in ______. If evolution were true, we would expect result A. If evolution were not true, we would expect result B. Which result do you think happened?
I feel that, during my education, I was encouraged, and even explicitly asked, to test the specific claims of evolution (to the extent that I had the materials and capacity to do so), to consider it rationally, and form my own conclusion on it, in every course I took.
So, I explain your views on the subject as your being unaware that you lack sufficient experience within the field to know what is encouraged and what isn’t. Maybe we could do a better job of making it clear that this is what we’re doing, and maybe some of us could do a better job of actually doing this, but your views about our overall community’s demeanor exist at a considerable cant to reality.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by marc9000, posted 07-31-2010 9:37 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 9:49 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 456 of 485 (572260)
08-05-2010 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by marc9000
08-02-2010 9:49 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
Why do you think I was out of line by quoting Francis Crick?
I didn’t say that. But, since you ask, and since I do disagree with your Crick quote, here is why I think you were out of line:
The assertion that I objected to was this:
marc9000 writes:
An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
In the cited page from Francis Crick, no mention of meaning or meaningless is made, so it doesn’t even relate to the assertion that I found objectionable.
I admit that my response in Message 272 was problematic, and probably led directly to your using Francis Crick as a counter-example. I think that was the result of some horrible editing on my part (I make that mistake a lot). I apologize for confusing the issue with a poorly worded response.
-----
marc9000 writes:
marc9000 writes:
Are Christians supposed to be above blunt assertions?
Bluejay writes:
Yes. Why shouldn’t they be?
Because evolutionists make no attempt to be above it. There is a logical fallacy called argument by emotive language...
There is also a logical fallacy called tu quoque: you just committed it.
Perhaps even more ironically, your tu quoque argument was you commit the logical fallacy of argument by emotive language too.
So, that means you just used a logical fallacy to justify your logical fallacy.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Do you deny that evolutionists use [blunt assertions] quite often on these forums?
No, I don’t. But, before you posted on this thread, I didn’t see any that seemed worth responding to. Now that I’ve gotten involved in this discussion with you, I haven’t put as much effort into reading other posters’ posts, and, unlike you, I’m not good at dealing with swarms of opponents (I take forever to compose a post), so I didn’t want to take on any more tasks on this thread.
It’s possible that I’m a bit biased toward empiricists. When I see an evolutionist posting something, I see the logical reasoning that I used as the impetus behind what they think.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Evolutionists certainly imply that science answers every question they have.
I think they’ve made it pretty clear that science doesn’t tell them what the meaning of life is. Let me know what you think they should do to make this clearer, and I’ll gladly tell them to clarify in the ways requested (within reason, of course).
-----
marc9000 writes:
Bluejay writes:
Why is testing bad, Marc?
Beware of False Teachers (The Bible Speaks:Subtopic)
That link is about false teachings, not about testing ideas.
All those scriptures seem to be more about evil, stubborn people who don’t test their ideas than about people who do.
Why is it bad to test an idea before running with it?
-----
marc9000 writes:
So you think the starter of this thread, with his assertion that evolutionists possess a superior thought process to creationists wasn't typical of the evolutionists community's demeanor?
I think Tomato was being antagonistic in his OP, and that he overgeneralized in one or two cases.
But, judging by the nature of his posts, Tomato doesn’t seem to be the bad-tempered type, and maybe it was just his ironic sense of humor that made it sound that way to me.
At any rate, I view the OP as essentially Tomato presenting (in a far less tentative voice than I think he should have used) his explanations for some of the common creationist arguments that are made on this board. His voice indicated to me that he wanted his evolutionist buddies to discuss his new hypothesis with him, and his language in subsequent posts seems to confirm this to me.
Also, I don’t think he asserted that evolutionist thought processes were superior to creationist thought processes. I certainly implied it, but he spent his whole time focusing on the differences, and how those differences might explain why he can’t figure creationists out.
-----
Last thought. Remember when you said this:
marc9000 writes:
It’s like any physical conflict, when facing machine guns, smiling and making nice in opposition usually doesn’t win.
?
Well, I can’t help but notice that I seem to have gotten more attention than everybody else (you’ve made more responses to me than to anybody else), even though I’ve been pretty boring in my mildness so far.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 9:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 458 of 485 (572336)
08-05-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by GDR
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Hi, GDR.
GDR writes:
The current evidence points to something beyond the natural.
If you define "natural" to mean "what we currently know about the way the universe works," then I'd say you're right: the current evidence clearly points beyond that.
But, if you define "natural" to mean "things that occur through the basic processes that define the universe," then I'd say you're wrong: the current evidence clearly points to something we don't understand and can't identify, and thus, can't assign to either the "natural" or "super-natural" categories.
Make sense?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM GDR 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