Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=74705)

madmatt621 08-3-2007 04:59 PM

New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
I just listened to the radio show Biblically Correct Tours in the series Soundprint. In it, I heard a creationist strategy new to me: appropriating "skepticism" and the demand for "evidence" to undermine evolution in a way that, well, makes me sick from its dishonesty. The following excerpts are paraphrased in good faith from memory:

We hear a creationist lecturing to small children. He tells the children to always ask, "How do you know this is true?" and each time, demands the children repeat the phrase as if it were some kind of religious service. Then he tells the kids they should be skeptical and demand evidence of whatever they are told. Sounds pretty Randi, but here's the twist:

He continues, "How do we know that life came about from non-living chemicals?

"Science involves collecting evidence and making observations. According to evolutionists, life coming from non-life happened only once, no one was there to observe it, and there is no evidence for it. Therefore, evolution is not science. On the other hand, what evidence do we have that god created life? We have the bible! Who was there to observe it? God was there to observe it! So, biblical creation is science."

In another part of the program the children, who have just been indoctrinated in creationist nonsense, get to ask an evolutionist any question they want. One kid asks, "Why do you teach false facts?"

The "Soundprint" web site promises the program will soon be online as an mp3.

Discuss...

Kilroy_x 08-3-2007 05:43 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Good. More stupid people means less competition in my line of work. :p

It's not hard to convince children or even the average person of things if you're good at it. All it would take to set these kids on the right track again is someone equally savvy as that guy who actually knows what they're talking about.

Verruckter 08-3-2007 07:46 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
That doesn't even make any sense.. Rofl.

jewpinthethird 08-3-2007 09:03 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Verruckter (Post 1706009)
That doesn't even make any sense.. Rofl.

Yeah...Evolution is not the theory of where life came from. It's the theory that all living organisms change over time, favoring those organisms that are better fit for their environment.

Evolution != Spontaneous Generation/abiogenesis.

There is observable evidence that evolution takes place.

However, I applaud them for teaching skepticism. Hopefully, it'll back fire in their faces once they start questioning the validity of a magic spaceman who created the Universe.

cry4eternity 08-3-2007 10:51 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
God was there to witness it..... uhhh.... So can't i say that the first creatures that "came about from non-living chemicals" were there to witness their own creation? I'm not saying that i support either theory... but I smell faulty logic here.

Go_Oilers_Go 08-3-2007 11:47 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
As a Christian I do not deny the theory of micro-evolution, as in the case of some finches on an island chain. However, there has been scientific evidence collected that proves Darwin's theory of evolution to be incorrect. And as for evolution not being a "science", considering that it was essentially scientists that proposed it, I cannot see it as being anything short of a science. Therefore, it can be scientifically disproved by scientific evidence, as has been proven true with other theories over the centuries.

purebloodtexan 08-3-2007 11:56 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Alright, I'll execute some of my skepticism:

Who observed God's observation(s), and where is the proven documented facts that his observations occured?

Maid 08-3-2007 11:58 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
If they didn't have this strategy*cough* what else you would have the creationists do?

purebloodtexan 08-4-2007 12:03 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
For my fellow Christians out there, I've been comfortable with the belief (I said belief, not fact) that evolution occured, but under God's influence. You don't have to deny your faith, and you can realize that evolution was much more likely, given the piles and piles of evidence, compared to the followings of books that haven't been edited on a large scale for a few millenia.

I'll be back in a minute. I'm looking up defintions that will benefit us all.

Go_Oilers_Go 08-4-2007 12:04 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Christianity is based on faith. The idea of such a divine being as God is extremely difficult for the human mind to comprehend. And therefore, most people turn to aetheist beliefs since they think that science can explain the origins of mankind. However, in the Christian faith we believe in the idea of a divine Creator. I guess we'll find out one day which viewpoint is correct, through Judgment Day or something else... that's your opinion.

Reach 08-4-2007 12:25 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go (Post 1706345)
As a Christian I do not deny the theory of micro-evolution, as in the case of some finches on an island chain. However, there has been scientific evidence collected that proves Darwin's theory of evolution to be incorrect. And as for evolution not being a "science", considering that it was essentially scientists that proposed it, I cannot see it as being anything short of a science. Therefore, it can be scientifically disproved by scientific evidence, as has been proven true with other theories over the centuries.

There is currently no evidence against evolution. All of it is supportive, though there are still things left to be explained. If there was evidence to show it as false it wouldn't still be a theory =/ I'd like to see some of this 'scientific evidence' that proves the theory incorrect ;)

And there is no theory of microevolution. Microevolution is just a way of describing evolution on small time scales. Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing and function based on the exact same mechanisms. You cannot believe one or the other. They're either both right or both wrong in some way.


As for the topic itself, I've heard plenty of things like this before. Common creationist tactics to try and confuse the minds of the young ;(

purebloodtexan 08-4-2007 12:29 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
I'll do my best to avoid discussion of the presence or absence of evolution and try to stick to the discussion of faith.

These are are straight from dictionary.com. No editing, no changing, no nothing.

Quote:

faith - noun. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
Ah, belief; that so happens to be my next definition.

Quote:

belief - noun. something believed; an opinion or conviction.
Opinion. Shall we delve further into these definitions?

Quote:

opinion. noun. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
I'm sure that we've gone far enough into these definitions.

I know that I (among a handful of people) say it a lot, I know that it gets on peoples' nerves, but I still cling onto those words.

Trust me, these next paragraph was hard to explain, so feel free to question if you're confused:

The faiths, beliefs and opinions are, as you saw in the last definition, personal; I don't think that you need a dictionary to know what that word means. In a nutshell, this means that people have the freedom to believe what they want to*. So why do we force these beliefs on people if one side cannot prove the other false? We can't prove that God doesn't exist (Atheists), nor can we prove that he does (Chrisitans/Islams/Buddhists/Baha'i/Whatever the hell you are), but we act as if they're facts. To me, that's the reason why a lot of hate is generated from side to side - especially when one side hasn't even attempted to directly offend or claim the other side's argument false.

Considering the fact that I believe that evolution evolution occured, but was influenced by divine powers, I get this a lot:

Situation 1: The atheism extremists.

"Dude, evolution occured, science rules, there was no God."
My response: "I can't deny the evidence that science brings, but I believe that a higher calling influences us."
"That's bull****."

Situation 2: The overbearingly religious.

"Creationism occured, God is everything."
"I can't ignore the fact that there's a lot of evidence showing that [scientific theory/fact] is true and that [Unrealistic divine powers] is not."
"You shall burn in hell!"

So tell me honestly: Other than my actual friends, will I get any benefit from either side of the Faith Line if both sides keep attacking at each other, despite the words that couldn't be any clearer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The first paragraph(s) of the Bill of Rights, copied from Wikipedia.

* Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, I lied. You can make it even simpler:

Quote:

Believe whatever the hell you want, you don't get punished for it, we'll deem neither side wrong.
I'm going to leave CT for a while. Maybe I'll have better posts in the morning.

*Any American citizens that deny this need an ass-kicking.

Go_Oilers_Go 08-4-2007 12:33 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
You can't say that micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing. Micro-evolution is a small change that occurs within a species that may benefit the species. So evolution is present in that respect, yes. But macro-evolution suggests that almost everything you see around you is the result of a single celled blob that barely deserves the title of an organism. Forgive me if I seem to be forcing my Creationist beliefs upon you, I am merely stating what I believe.

Ichiro_Suzuki_desu 08-4-2007 12:38 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Microevolution doesn't change the identity of a species. Macroevolution does. Macroevolution involves adding information that the animal will benefit from. Microevolution involves selecting information from what is already present. Therefore, I believe the two are different.

Also, if you believe large-scale evolution has occured, you must necessarily deny the Bible's account of creation. There is simply no connection between the two. Reading Genesis shows you exactly what I mean.

edit: oops....ninja'd

Reach 08-4-2007 12:50 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Let's not let this go all offtopic. If you want to reply to me try a PM.

Kind of interested in the Mp3 of this program. Indoctrination of little children IMO is really unfair and I share dawkins view on this subject >_>

Quote:

You can't say that micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing. Micro-evolution is a small change that occurs within a species that may benefit the species. So evolution is present in that respect, yes. But macro-evolution suggests that almost everything you see around you is the result of a single celled blob that barely deserves the title of an organism. Forgive me if I seem to be forcing my Creationist beliefs upon you, I am merely stating what I believe.
They function the exact same. They're just different ways of describing the same thing. Macroevolution is simply put, the compounded effects of microevolution over large periods of time. This is how it is agreed upon in the modern theory of evolution.

Macroevolution is just evolution at the species level. DNA mutations happen from one generation to the next, and there is no limit to how much a strand of DNA can mutate o_O

Quote:

Microevolution doesn't change the identity of a species. Macroevolution does. Macroevolution involves adding information that the animal will benefit from. Microevolution involves selecting information from what is already present. Therefore, I believe the two are different.
Yes, microevolution does change the identity of a species. Compounded microevolutionary changes are how one species proceeds to the next. Everyone around you is an intermediate form of species that undergoes microevolutionary changes over generations. Macroevolution is just a way of *describing* these changes over a time scale that recognizes what we call a 'species' moving onto another.


Anyway, enough of this. It kind of deviates from the point fo the thread. This debate has been in CT before and you can probably still dig up that thread. >__>

The fact is, Modern evolutionary synthesis states clearly that micro and macroevolution are only different ways of describing evolution, and are NOT seperate functioning forms of evolution.

If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm sorry but the burden of proof is yours not mine. I'm not going to defend my position any more because it is already clearly defended by the science.

Chromer 08-4-2007 02:50 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
As a Christian, there is no denying evolution. Living creatures evolve all around us to adapt to their enviroments. There is no getting around that. However, I do not believe in Creationary Evolution. I refuse to believe that I came from a monkey. Call me what you will, but that's my personal belief and no one said anyone else had to think the same as me.

omgwtfToph 08-4-2007 03:57 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ichiro_Suzuki_desu (Post 1706415)
Also, if you believe large-scale evolution has occured, you must necessarily deny the Bible's account of creation. There is simply no connection between the two. Reading Genesis shows you exactly what I mean.

edit: oops....ninja'd

yeah because the bible is definitely 100% literal and not figurative right

Relambrien 08-4-2007 01:32 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromer (Post 1706638)
I refuse to believe that I came from a monkey.

No offense, but anyone who believes humans came from monkeys doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

Evolutionists do not believe humans came from monkeys. We believe that humans and monkeys share a specific "common ancestor": a species we both evolved from, just in different ways. Who knows, perhaps the chimps of today look about as much like our common ancestor as cupboards do to badgers! (Stolen quote from devonin in a separate thread)

Regarding the argument of macroevolution vs microevolution, this is what it seems like to me:

Some people seem to believe that while advantageous characteristics can come out of DNA mutation, and thus create a larger population of creatures with those characteristics, there is a limit to how much DNA can mutate which prevents it from going beyond this. These people believe that species can only change slightly, and cannot become radically different over time due to the aforementioned limit on DNA mutation. These are the people who believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go
Christianity is based on faith. The idea of such a divine being as God is extremely difficult for the human mind to comprehend. And therefore, most people turn to aetheist beliefs since they think that science can explain the origins of mankind. However, in the Christian faith we believe in the idea of a divine Creator. I guess we'll find out one day which viewpoint is correct, through Judgment Day or something else... that's your opinion.

Divine beings are not at all difficult for humans to comprehend. After all, there are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, and 900 million Hindus in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions). I did not include Judaism because of its extreme minority. This means over 4.3 billion people, more than 2/3 of the world, believe in a divine being such as God. It's quite easy to say, "Hmm, it makes sense that there could be an omnipotent, omniscient being watching over the world, but not showing itself so as to not interfere directly with the world it created." I personally do not deny the existence of such a being, nor do I accept it. I accept its -possible- existence. If you must classify me, I am apatheist, or someone who just doesn't bother with religion.

So no, -comprehending- the idea of such a being is very easy, and even accepting it is done by over 2/3 of the world. Also, most people do -not- turn to atheistic beliefs; only 1.1 billion people are nonreligious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions). That's a little less than 1/6 of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan
So tell me honestly: Other than my actual friends, will I get any benefit from either side of the Faith Line if both sides keep attacking at each other, despite the words that couldn't be any clearer:

While people have the right to believe what they want, people also have the right to try and convince others to believe what they believe (within limits, e.g. coercion). Try and imagine what it's like for the hardcore evolutionists and the hardcore religious:

The evolutionists believe that they are helping you by enlightening you to the process of evolution, and by refusing it by saying that God is involved, you are denying yourself the chance to be released from your dependence on a divine being, and are voluntarily living a life of servitude to a being whose existence cannot be confirmed.

The religious believe that they are helping you by enlightening you to the process of creation, and by refusing it by saying that science properly explained it, you shall suffer eternal damnation for defiance of God. In their eyes, they're helping you reach heaven, and you are denying their help, essentially voluntarily sending yourself to Hell.

Does that clear things up? Both sides are trying to "save" you, and both sides believe that standing in the middle only ensures your inability to be saved.

TheDrizzle2010 08-6-2007 02:33 AM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by omgwtfToph (Post 1706757)
yeah because the bible is definitely 100% literal and not figurative right

Sorry for getting off topic, but ignorance is annoying. In Genesis, it CLEARLY states that what God created was, and saw that it was good. Period. How can such a statement even be taken figuratively?

That he created something, deemed it as good, but wanted it to later change?

devonin 08-6-2007 12:00 PM

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence
 
What if he created it with the eventual change in mind? What if there was an important reason known to God why things needed to start a certain way in order to end up a certain way?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution