PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism Hypocrisy
       Two inherent contradictions

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
vekk

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most young earth creationists I've spoken with or heard, believe evolution to be a lie from Satan, and that science is a flawed system. Each one of these people who make such claims participate in modern technology by using computers, driving cars, and living in houses. Surely if Satan is able to infiltrate evolutionary biology and cosmology he would infiltrate other branches of science also, such as engineering and medicine. Yet they take their kids to the hospital when they get sick and put their kids in modern schools. Only the parts of science that happen to contradict their holy book seem to be Satan-plagued, but the rest are perfectly fine? Then you have the so-called creation 'scientists.' These people are using science to argue their case? Wait, I thought science was Satan-infested and completely fallible? It makes no sense, yet people choose to ignore these contradictions and blindly follow what Kent Hovind and other crooks tell them. I wish people were smarter.



-------
Seek truth.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 02:52 AM on November 21, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While most people aren't consistent in their beliefs and actions, Creationists tend to be some of the worst. But that's what it takes to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis: willful ignorance.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 3:13 PM on November 21, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Only the parts of science that happen to contradict their holy book seem to be Satan-plagued, but the rest are perfectly fine?
Exactly!

I always think about that. I mean, they try to use (with flawed logic, as always) the second law of thermodynamics against Evolution.

Well what makes them think that the second law of thermodynamics isn't flawed?

I know what makes ME think that. But do they?

If some helium gets trapped in stones it's a valid evidence (in their minds) of a young Earth. The thousand other methods that say that it's very old are flawed.

They cling with desperation and bias to any hypothesis or result (or even a quote, which is particularly pathetic) that contradicts Evolution (in their minds), EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS CREATIONISM TOO!!!

Now that i think about it, it's pretty much the same with faith.

Their faith is ok, and it's true.
They say that Evolution is faith based, and that's very wrong.

Every single creationist that i know of seems to believe in the accuracy of every single attack on Evolution (no matter how many times they have been debunked).

Not even once i've come across any creationist who withdrew even one of these attacks.



I think that only shows desperation.

I mean, i don't subscribe EVERY attack on creationism or the biblical inerrancy.
For instance: "The bible says that insects have four legs". I don't subscribe this one. (Word usage doubt: Should i say "subscribe [b]to[/b"]?)

But i have faith in timbrx.

He doesn't show the levels of desperation and stubbornness that we can see in gluteus, for instance. He's as close as you can get to an honest creationist. Dubie and JSF16 are almost fine, but they cover their ears. I think they don't mean to, since they keep coming back (usually to say something, and not to answer, but still).

Please, timbrx. Show your lack of support for any of these. The easiest one. I don't know... That the TOE is 'just' a theory.

That's an easy one, right?

Or the second law of thermodynamics. Creationists say that you can only get deterioration, and that's only true about isolated systems. The Earth is not one (it obviously receives energy from the Sun).

Damn, it's so simple...

Timbrx, don't let me down. Show them you're better than that.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:38 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, your all partially right (in my opinion of course).
I believe that what vekk is referring to is anti-intellectualism. I am sure that many YEC's never give any thought to why they believe what they believe beyond what some pastor or priest told them. It is easy to be complacent. No matter how stubborn, shallow or obtuse you may think any YEC is, consider that at least the ones who post here are exercising their belief. They could be ignoring this debate all together and nothing would change. But at least we few are trying to flesh out our belief amongst critics who will gladly expose flaws in our belief system.

For wisp: ("subscribe to")

Wisp, I can't say whether I agree or disagree with any or all of these bingo points. I wish I could honor your faith in my intellectual honesty by saying that "X" of "Y" has been debunked enough for me. But I still have questions and observations about each one of those points. For example I'm still not satisfied that TOE can't be divided into sub sets (micro & macro?) and consequently evolution can't be a solid theory (micro) and an hypothesis (macro).

You know I like to really nail down what something ( a word for example) means. Some words don't quite cover the full meaning that is being expressed. Couple that with the give and take nature of debate which is prohibitive to drawn out discourse and we're off onto another topic without satisfying the one that got going in the first place. Very frustrating.

Here's one for you , wisp. I don't believe that Darwinism was responsible for Hitler/Nazis. Hitler may have used Darwinism like he used Catholicism and Judaism: as a means to an end.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:10 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that what vekk is referring to is anti-intellectualism. I am sure that many YEC's never give any thought to why they believe what they believe beyond what some pastor or priest told them.
In retribution to that, i'll admit that the same is true for a whole lot of 'evolutionists'. Specially in my vicinity.

Most of them just don't care. Well, that's an advantage... At least their carelessness is unbiased.

You know I like to really nail down what something ( a word for example) means. Some words don't quite cover the full meaning that is being expressed.
I admit that that's true. And 'vestigiality' is one of those words. It can be very confusing.

My simple solution to this is not getting confused by words. Words are inert. The facts are alive (specially in Biology, haha!).

Wisp, I can't say whether I agree or disagree with any or all of these bingo points. I wish I could honor your faith in my intellectual honesty by saying that "X" of "Y" has been debunked enough for me. But I still have questions and observations about each one of those points. For example I'm still not satisfied that TOE can't be divided into sub sets (micro & macro?) and consequently evolution can't be a solid theory (micro) and an hypothesis (macro).
Ok, so this is basically a semantic issue...

Seemingly your concept of "scientific theory" means that it has to be right (and you don't believe that's true about Evolution). Since macroevolution is wrong, you can't give it the status of scientific theory.

My response to that is that scientific theories explain facts and make predictions.

I'd say that it does it darn well, but even if you disagree, you can't (i think) deny that THAT's the TOE's function. And that makes it a scientific theory.

Anyway, my point was that "just a theory" doesn't say anything.

If you deny that it's a scientific theory, then you don't subscribe to this accusation. And if you accept that it's a scientific theory you know that the accusation is void.

Yes?

You know I like to really nail down what something ( a word for example) means. Some words don't quite cover the full meaning that is being expressed.
Perhaps no word ever has.

I know we have to use them. But only among ourselves. You can picture the hard facts behind the words.

"When someone points to the moon, the idiot looks at the finger."

Sorry, that's the phrase the way i know it. It's not my intention to insult you or anything. We all do this in some way or another.

I'm good with words, but i don't respect them too much. I know what they are. Ready to use human tags. Mental concepts.
They have developed in order to communicate things that were important for our survival. They have grown in complexity and abstractness, but their nature is evident.

Perhaps you're familiar with the fact that regular language is pretty useless when describing the subatomic world.
If the macroscopic world worked like that of the atom, we would have mental concepts that would explain things better.

Perhaps we wouldn't have a concept for "thing".

We would have never thought that Time is anything else than a dimension.

Anyway, i hope you believe me when i tell you that i make great predictions.
Like the legless lizard's vestigial limbs.

If Evolution wasn't true, that prediction would have been amazing, whether you find them some use or not.

Couple that with the give and take nature of debate which is prohibitive to drawn out discourse and we're off onto another topic without satisfying the one that got going in the first place. Very frustrating.
That's true. And it's really annoying.

Here's one for you , wisp. I don't believe that Darwinism was responsible for Hitler/Nazis. Hitler may have used Darwinism like he used Catholicism and Judaism: as a means to an end.
Haha! Ok... I'd like something more. Like saying that Evolution doesn't make you immoral.

I think it depends on your concept of immorality (words again).

The second law of thermodynamics then.
I don't recall you mentioning it, so perhaps you don't care much about it.

Things decay. Entropy grows.

The second law of thermodynamics is what gives Time it's special status among regular dimensions.

Entropy grows towards one direction of the temporal dimension. That would be towards the future.

Energy doesn't get lost, but dispersed.

If you put a half solved puzzle in a box and shake it, you know that when you open it it will not be more solved. That's entropy.

And that's what some creationist believe that prevents life from forming.

It is wrong.

We're dissipative systems. Dissipative systems can show spontaneous order. Because they have some energy input (that's what makes them -us- dissipative: orderly energy input -chemical, for instance-, disorderly energy output -heat-).

Our energy source is the Sun.

The Sun is decaying at a tremendous speed. It's energy is being constantly thrown towards empty space.

Fortunately we catch a little part of it. Well, plants do, mostly.
Then animals eat plants. A single animal needs a lot of plants.
Animals that eat animals need a lot of flesh to eat.

Energy is wasted in each step.

The Solar system is decaying indeed. But a little part of it can thrive. That would be us.

Isolated systems decay. That's true. But the Earth is not an isolated system. It receives energy from the Sun. So life can arise.
And if you don't believe that, it doesn't matter. Complex chemicals can arise. Snow flakes can arise. Crystalline structures can arise.

The Solar System can be seen as an isolated system (the vast majority of its interactions are with empty space). It is decaying indeed. It's agonizing. But little Earth is not.

Do you see what i'm saying?
Do you see why the thermodynamic attack is not valid?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:07 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, i remembered two creationist attacks on Evolution. One of them might help creationism, but the other one doesn't.

The first is that Evolution can't explain music/art. Creationism can explain it with the obvious "God's will".

The second one is that Evolution can't explain homosexuality (since it's not a successful reproductive trait it shouldn't exist, or so creationists believe).

Those are two very interesting questions (even if expressed as attacks). But the second one obviously doesn't help creationism. If Evolution can't explain it, neither can creationism.

Creationists should refrain from using this one if they really hope to... Well, i'm not sure of what they hope.
But if they can't explain something themselves, they better not use it against Evolution.
It's like another example of the attitude i pointed out in another thread ("If i fall i'll take you down with me"). Except that Evolution can explain everything. We just have to pay a lot of attention.

The truth be told, art and homosexuality amaze me. They always have.

I could make a long post in a new thread, but since creationists didn't bring it up, i guess i shouldn't...

I have come up with several hypotheses to explain homosexuality. I bet more than just one of them are accurate.

Why doesn't homosexuality just disappear? Don't we all have heterosexual parents, grand parents and great grand parents?
Well, yes and no.

Most societies put pressure on the individual to suppress homosexual tendencies.

We all know that in Athens (the world's most powerful and civilized city in the 5th century BC), homosexual behavior was very normal.

A cultural trait is not likely to make up such tastes, but develop what's already there.

Perhaps most of us would have indulged in homosexual behavior if we would have been born in a different culture.

To the question of why it doesn't disappear: oddly enough, homosexual discrimination increases the reproductive success of homosexual individuals.
Why?
Because lots of them hide it, and marry, and have children. Lots of them don't even admit it to themselves.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is 100% in the genes. But the environment always works on what's already there. I'm positive that there are homosexual genes, and heroic genes, and ass scratching genes.

In a tolerant society homosexuality would decrease.
But perhaps bisexuality would increase. Just for fun. Haha!

It's very clear that humans don't use sex just for reproduction. Couples use it to bind emotionally. It's a factor of cohesion.

MEET THE BONOBOS

Bonobos are our closest relatives.

They are matriarchal. They are quick to solve fights.
And they use sex as a factor of social cohesion.

From here:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now/article_view?b_start:int=1

Bonobos are darker-skinned and more slender than common chimpanzees and have markedly different lifestyles. “No deadly warfare,” de Waal says, “little hunting, no male dominance, and enormous amounts of sex.” Their promiscuity, he speculates, reduces violence both within and between bonobo troops, just as intermarriage does between human tribes. What may start out as a confrontation between two bonobo communities can turn into socializing, with sex between members, grooming, and play.

I don't know if it shows, but i love this cute little beasts (well, not as much as i love humans, who can be the cutest).

Apparently promiscuous bisexuality has arisen in order to counteract war.

Homosexuality could be a mistake or a byproduct of discrimination.

There are several other explanations, and they are not mutually exclusive.


(Edited by wisp 3/26/2009 at 08:56 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:43 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp
Haha! Ok... I'd like something more. Like saying that Evolution doesn't make you immoral.

True, evolution doesn't make you immoral. But it does offer an excuse for immorality. But than I guess that depends on how you define immorality? I think I see your point. This would be a useless argument (and I've used it... "I hereby officially recant!" ) because it is entirely subjective.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:31 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, evolution doesn't make you immoral.
Cool! Thanks!
But it does offer an excuse for immorality.
Yes indeed. It can (like racism). But so can religion.

The most atrocious acts have been committed in the name of God and Science. And National Security. And Social Justice. There are plenty of excuses out there.

But than I guess that depends on how you define immorality? I think I see your point. This would be a useless argument (and I've used it... "I hereby officially recant!" ) because it is entirely subjective.
Thanks! I appreciate it.

As for Evolution giving you the excuse to do some things, it can also:
1) Teach us why we do what we do.
2) Give us the understanding to overcome some of the unwanted things in our nature (i guess you think the same about your religion).

My hope is that the TOE can teach us how to overcome war, famine, sickness violence and overpopulation (to name a few).

As you can see (i guess you'll believe me), my intentions are good. I care about the future of mankind, and the rest of our planet. So i really care about the facts. That's why i indulge in no red herring.
I have no interest in defending something that's not true. My emotional investment is with knowledge, truth, peace, love, progress.
That's why i think your image depicting my stance is wrong.
I guess you mean it's not voluntary. But i don't see it. And knowing myself is one of my tenets.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:49 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.