There's really no chance of convincing him. Theories and data that has been obtained, approved, and had variations accounted for won't sway him. He is a man composed of shit, and shit has no brains.
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
Jesus might love you, but you're still a ****ing ****. A stupid one, at that. Considering I wasn't even making the argument, just citing where I had found the statistic, you can either learn2reading comprehension or die for the betterment of humanity.
What are some other means?
It demonstrates an order and design to things. Not scientific, of course, but I feel the entire "creation vs. evolution" debate is moot, anyway. One's not going to get an atheist to believe and one isn't going to stop a believer from believing.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Many biologists, especially those who specialize in evolution, refuse to debate against creationists (re: intelligent design advocates) simply because the debate itself gives credit to the idea that creationism even deserves to be discussed alongside real science.
Basically, this thread demeans the work of science because it is giving far too much credit to religious fanaticism. The debate creates an impression of a false dichotomy, where it actually seems like there are two sides to the evolution debate.
Existing structures find new uses. Also in simple cells, existing species can form permenant symbiotic relationships.
No one is arguing that some things in nature don't appear orderd, but a lot of things are extremely disorderd.
You also make the GRAVE mistake of associaliting a scinetific theory with religious preference. There is no relation. Its ok not to stone your daughter. Its also ok to accept the Bible as containing Gods word, not being it.
And again, when ignorance is indemic in society, you can ignore it or fight it. There is nothgin wrong in explaining that creationism comes from ancient perceptions that have been debunked in modern science.
I'd rather have constructive dialogue than an elite class and a perpetuating ignorant base. However, I also know most scientist don't want to politicize their work or their careers.
I would agree with you in theory, but the problem stands that to people who aren't knowlegable of the philosphy or fundamentals of science, they have no way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one, especially when it comes to counter-intuitive biology.
By arguing with the creationists, it seems like they might have a valid point. This is especially true in public debates where it is normally argumentative tactics and ideological saliency that determine what people believe at the end of it, not scientific fact.
If people don't understand why God affecting the Earth fails Occam's Razor, the point will be moot. Spending your entire debate trying to define terms that creationists don't want to understand gives them the advantage of setting the tone of the discussion, regardless of whether or not creation "scientists" can make any testable hypothesis.
Exactly, so why should scientists, or people working on their behalf, simply stand by and let the public hear all the bad arguments from the 17th C. Even if it "lends" credibility to creationists. I certainly see where you're comming from, unfortunately, I view the public as something too great to loose.
Occams razor is not a good legitimate precept, sometimes even in thoerizing. Applied to individual facts, it sucks. Creationists might not want to understand, they simple try to destroy science's credibility. However, this havs been going on for centuries and science is more alive than ever. I believe we have a civil respoinsibility to educate the public, regardless of whether they want to listen or not..if we reach some people...they reach others.
not arguing just proves the creationsist claims that scientists are out of touch with reality. A simple debate is a great way to destroy creationsits credibility, to make them look the fools they are, and to win the moderates, which is all we need.
"Find" new uses? As in, the structures exist and, due to an environmental change, a latent function becomes...uh...not-latent?
That's the point of the debates, though. It's to show proof of God existing, at least for creationists.
You'd be hard-pressed to do that with the learned ones.
I know that pretty much everyone on the forums treats creationists like retards--'cause they is, duurhuurh--but there are young Earth creationists out there who are learned men and women--they know their stuff. They know what evolution says, they've heard the arguments, and you know what? They aren't stupid.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Last edited by Zeal Ex Nihilo on Mar 29th, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Nobody is standing by. Nowhere have I argued that we stop teaching evolution. What I have said is that we should not address creationism or Intelligent Design as a science or in any scientific way.
It is nice that you think the public is too great to loose, but your understanding of how people believe seems to be off. You can't convince someone of something they don't already believe. When you encounter new and conflicting information, it initiates cognitive dissonance, not rational thought. Hearing ideas you agree with initiates mechanisms similar to drug addiction. Not to mention that the emotional salience of religious arguments makes them easier to remember and believe, and that when Micheal Behe stands up beside any learned evolutionary biologist, and says that the bacterial flagellum is proof of design, there is nothing the biologist can say to refute that.
Having evolution presented to the public as an option is not a good idea at all. Science is not very convincing.
Wow... I'd really appreciate it if you went into some painstaking detail about this... You might have revolutionized science... You'll win some major awards... Like Newton!!!!
But in all seriousness, not to just call this preposterous off hand, you are going to be hard pressed to refute Occam's Razor. Clearly it is a heuristic, but to call it illegitimate is ridiculous.
Education would be awesome. You will not educate anyone in a debate. Debate is shown to polarize opinions. Not to mention it creates the illusion of a choice in the matter.
Just the happiness one might receive when they think of themselves as designed may be enough to put enough emotional saliency on the memory that it outweighs the lame rational explanations. We are animals, emotional reactive responses are much more important than cognitive ones.
They look foolish to you because you don't believe what they are saying. To anyone who does, their beliefs have just been affirmed, polarized, and they have learned new memes to throw around in debates, which NEVER change, regardless of what scientific evidence is brought up (re:those 17c arguments).
Not to mention, there are some remarkably intelligent people who can make some beautiful sounding arguments about why the human brain shows design or what have you. The fact that these people are Doctors (NEVER in evolutionary biology) makes people believe that there is a real scientific challange to evolution. To debate them in a scientific forum confirms this, then they believe they get to choose which one is true to them.
Call people as rational as you want, but thats not how they seem when we study them.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Mar 30th, 2007 at 04:20 AM
KMC Community Forums
Mar 28th, 2007 04:45 AM
