Problem with creation / evolution debates?

[Greyd]

One thing I've noticed is that these debates turn into major flamewars. One person insults the other side and the bickering begins. Generally, that's why I dont' like to join in on them. There have been some times where I have been able to have actual,decent intellectual discussion between the two sides going on. It was VERY interesting and informative. Is it too much to hope for an intellectual debate? Too much to ask for? Another thing, I've seen people bashing claims of Creationism that are ridiculous claims themselves. (ex. satan put fossils to fool people,etc) Before assigning these claims as being of the majority or even considered credible to Creationism, is it too much to ask for well reasoned debates and rebuttals, instead of assigning the most extreme and absurd views in order to make Creationism look bad?

Anyways, one thing I also noticed was the fact that there seems to be some type of misconception that Creationism needs to be the proof of God. This is not so. If God / Christ are to be "proved" in their claims, the investigation should not be scientific per se, but based on history and other disciplines more so than empirical science. This would point to the investigation of the claims of the person. This generaly also includes the Bible. If one were to study the Bible in depth, taking into account aspects of history, literary criticism,etc. - one would realize that there is an incredible uniqueness about it that makes it stand out. When searching for truth (absolute), one would presumable search for that which is unique. Anyways, that's a whole other discussion.

In the end, evidence or proof can only POINT toward the existence / claims of God. The final step of "belief" is one that is one of Faith. Anyone see Contact? Great movie about faith in religion and science.

Eh, or is this all wishful thinking?

 

[Greyd]

Maybe one thing that would help would be to place stances or arguments but leave out all the personal feelings and opinions. Then it might possbile and hopefully become an actual intellectual debate.

 

[Greyd]

One more thing..sorry. I would love to see both sides, even though i believe in God and Creationism. In some debates I learn and ponder over stuff I never knew before. Doesn't mean I'll agree with it, but ut helps me to learn more on both sides.

Thanks

 

[FoBoT]

check this -> Flamers Bible

#12 applies

The twelve commandments of flaming

1.Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

2.Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy."

3.Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4.Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't possibly be that you're a fuckhead. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.

5.Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha."

6.Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

7.Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "vini, vidi, vici," and "fetuccini alfredo."

8.Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic' ."

9.Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a fascist, or both.

10.Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11.Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.

12.When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables."

 

[bizmark]

Well this is something that I've wanted to say for a long time and I haven't. Tonight I've got a few drinks in me, but not enough to make me incoherent (I hope), so here goes.

I just wanted to make a point about one part of your statement. I think that there's no excuse for a religion in which you are able to "reason" yourself out of believing. A true religion should be the opposite; the more you find out about the world, the more truths about the Universe you discover, the more your religion should make sense to you. Any religion which is otherwise must necessarily be false IMO. What kind of God would *want* his followers to be stupid/naive/gullible/unquestioning/etc? What kind of God would *want* the smartest people in the world to easily be able to talk themselves out of believing in His religion? What kind of God would *want* for there to be inconsistencies in his stories, and between his stories and the real world? Why would any God actually try to push people away from Him (or, the equivalent statement assuming an omnipotent God: why would any God do things such as to allow people to drift away from Him)?

 

[Greyd]

Ahhh.... so tru so tru. Hahaha, it looks like so many flamewars Ive seen on subjects from the inane to the most intellectual.

PS This is in reply to Fobots post..just so ya know.

 

[Greyd]

Goo dpoint Bizamrk and I agree.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
check this -> Flamers Bible

#12 applies

The twelve commandments of flaming

1.Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

2.Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy."

3.Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4.Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't possibly be that you're a fuckhead. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.

5.Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha."

6.Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

7.Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "vini, vidi, vici," and "fetuccini alfredo."

8.Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic' ."

9.Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a fascist, or both.

10.Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11.Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.

12.When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables."

ROFLMAO

On a serious note, many people want proof that evolution exists. Well what about proof for creationism? You can say that Satan put the fossils in but did anyone see Satan do it? Or was his interview put up on CNN??? As rational people, we have to search for solutions that make sense and advance the cause of science, not some religious crap.

 

[glen]

It is really thinly disguised class warfare.
The more educated folks are familiar with literature and have a much richer understanding that the Bible is not to be taken literally. The more recently or more poorly literate folks don?t know otherwise, and take it literally. Think I am being mean?
Look at the denominations that take it literally, like Southern Baptists, Pentecostal, Holiness, Jehovah?s Witness and the one that don?t, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans.

 

[Greyd]

On a serious note, many people want proof that evolution exists. Well what about proof for creationism? You can say that Satan put the fossils in but did anyone see Satan do it? Or was his interview put up on CNN??? As rational people, we have to search for solutions that make sense and advance the cause of science, not some religious crap.

No, no I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I'm saying is that many times when Creationism is bashed on, it seems like the most obscure and ridiculous aspects of it are touted as being an actual part of that theory. (satan and his fossils - don't u think this is a little ridiculous? I definately think so)

But my point is this, lets debate, but a REALY intellectual debate, not a flamewar.

 

[GoodToGo]

THe only way to prove evolution is for someone to stick around for more than 1 million years and record the changes in a unicellular organism and watch it change from a simple being to a complex multicellular organism. Of course that is not possible and in the absense of any concrete proof, people will just accept whatever their illiterate, simple minds can comprehend, which in this case is creationism.

 

[Greyd]

Glen, interesting point. But the biggest proponents of Creationsim that I've read or seen tend be very intellectual. Philip E. Johnson is one example. As a law professor at U of C at Berkely, he wrote a book called "Darwin on Trial", a very thorough and scientific work. I've read works by intellectuals like Ravi Zacharias (who I had an opporutnity to listen to - he has spoken at Harvard, Princeton and Oxford University) and Lee Strobel. i've been amazed at the level of academia that these speakers tend to work at - too much for me at times. Maybe its certin sociological groups rather than class? I'm not sure, but iteresting thought.

 

[glen]

There are exceptions, but the beliefs correlate predictably with education level or generation of literacy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
THe only way to prove evolution is for someone to stick around for more than 1 million years and record the changes in a unicellular organism and watch it change from a simple being to a complex multicellular organism. Of course that is not possible and in the absense of any concrete proof, people will just accept whatever their illiterate, simple minds can comprehend, which in this case is creationism.

You do realize that you have just called the followers of a book (which you have probably never read) illiterate, right?

 

[Greyd]

Here's an interesting link on a debate between Johnson and Gould.
Text Interesting read.

 

[FrustratedUser]

I have to jumo in here too.

I started the other thread to understand how the creationists think and see their point of view. I agree that I stretched it a bit but the purpose was to stir up the discussion.
There have been some really good posts in the latter part of the thread and I try to keep it clean.

2 thumbs up for Maetryx who made a very good post and explained his point of view, which if I am not completely out of bounds, actually makes some sense. His 'version' or belief does not exclude evolution from creation. His point was that the 'Big Bang' could be seen as 'Creation' and the only difference between Creationists and Evolutionists in this case is what was going on BEFORE the 'Big Bang' / 'Creation.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
THe only way to prove evolution is for someone to stick around for more than 1 million years and record the changes in a unicellular organism and watch it change from a simple being to a complex multicellular organism. Of course that is not possible and in the absense of any concrete proof, people will just accept whatever their illiterate, simple minds can comprehend, which in this case is creationism.

You do realize that you have just called the followers of a book (which you have probably never read) illiterate, right?

Well these people mostly get their version of the book from a third party like priest, mullah etc. You dont necessarily have to read the book to follow it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
THe only way to prove evolution is for someone to stick around for more than 1 million years and record the changes in a unicellular organism and watch it change from a simple being to a complex multicellular organism. Of course that is not possible and in the absense of any concrete proof, people will just accept whatever their illiterate, simple minds can comprehend, which in this case is creationism.

You do realize that you have just called the followers of a book (which you have probably never read) illiterate, right?

Well these people mostly get their version of the book from a third party like priest, mullah etc. You dont necessarily have to read the book to follow it.

As I am well aware of. Neither do you seem to have to read it in order to refute it. Ignorance, it seems, makes experts out of all of us...