Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 226 of 255 (293775)
03-09-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
03-09-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
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:
  1. You want evolutionists to honestly evaluate your points.
  2. You want them to be more careful in trying to understand what creationists believe.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 8:10 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 227 of 255 (293779)
03-09-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 1:11 PM


Re: molecular?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:11 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 8:09 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 03-10-2006 8:26 AM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 228 of 255 (293780)
03-09-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
03-09-2006 8:05 PM


Re: molecular?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 8:05 PM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 229 of 255 (293781)
03-09-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
03-09-2006 7:45 PM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 7:45 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 03-10-2006 3:33 AM Faith has replied
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 03-10-2006 10:27 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 230 of 255 (293842)
03-10-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
03-09-2006 8:10 PM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 8:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 10:35 AM PaulK has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 231 of 255 (293875)
03-10-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by purpledawn
03-09-2006 8:11 AM


Re: Seeking Evolution's 2LOT
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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by purpledawn, posted 03-09-2006 8:11 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 03-10-2006 9:29 AM RAZD has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 255 (293890)
03-10-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
03-09-2006 8:05 PM


Re: molecular?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 8:05 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Wounded King, posted 03-10-2006 10:36 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 11:36 AM robinrohan has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3447 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 233 of 255 (293914)
03-10-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by RAZD
03-10-2006 7:14 AM


Re: Seeking Evolution's 2LOT
Creationist:Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood.
Evolutionist:But the ocean sea shells aren't just atop the mountains, they're *all through* the mountains. That because layers and layers of sea shells were deposited on ancient sea floors where they were gradually compressed into stone by the weight of the layers and water above. Later these sea floors were pushed up by tectonic forces into mountains. Not only will you find sea shells atop these mountains, but dig as deep as you will and you'll continue to find sea shells.
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2006 7:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2006 11:18 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3447 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 234 of 255 (293924)
03-10-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
03-09-2006 8:10 PM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 8:10 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 255 (293927)
03-10-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by PaulK
03-10-2006 3:33 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
It's half a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 03-10-2006 3:33 AM PaulK has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 236 of 255 (293928)
03-10-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by robinrohan
03-10-2006 8:26 AM


Re: molecular?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 03-10-2006 8:26 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by robinrohan, posted 03-10-2006 10:44 AM Wounded King has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 255 (293931)
03-10-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Wounded King
03-10-2006 10:36 AM


Re: molecular?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Wounded King, posted 03-10-2006 10:36 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Wounded King, posted 03-10-2006 11:38 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 242 by ramoss, posted 03-10-2006 11:42 AM robinrohan has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4666 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 238 of 255 (293952)
03-10-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
03-09-2006 7:43 PM


Re: How the fossils got there
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 7:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 11:37 AM LinearAq has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 255 (293956)
03-10-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by robinrohan
03-10-2006 8:26 AM


Re: molecular?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 03-10-2006 8:26 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 11:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 240 of 255 (293957)
03-10-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by LinearAq
03-10-2006 11:27 AM


Re: How the fossils got there
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by LinearAq, posted 03-10-2006 11:27 AM LinearAq 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