|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: YECs - to debate or not?
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, but the perception of who "wins" a debate is based more on perception than the validity of statement. So your bubble people may be swayed by other than real information.
Bingo. Presidential debates are a good point of reference. People form views on who won or lost based on how convincing they sounded, and don't shift from that view even if you prove that every single point they made was untrue. Occasionally, a few floating voters sway one way or the other, but essentially everyone carries the same voting intentions even if they think the other side won.
Debates might not be a total disaster for the purposes of education if both parties were principled and respectful, and if the audience were entirely objective and rational. I don't even think I match up to those standards. I guarantee that most of Ham's points could be refuted in 30 seconds with an internet connection, but if the YECs present haven't bothered to exploit this great information resource to date, why would they start now?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I believe that the major paradigm shifts you describe above were made before the current system of peer reviewed journals. This is the point I am making.
Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in Annalen der Physik, which is peer reviewed. I'm less certain about the publication history of basic quantum mechanical theories, but since they're of later vintage it seems likely that they also went through the peer review process.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
This is of course the basic problem with ID. [/QB]
Yes, it's 'unintelligent design' isn't it. After all who puts the sewer beside the amusement park, and then awards babies as the prize for being well amused.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
This is of course the basic problem with ID.
Yes, it's 'unintelligent design' isn't it. After all who puts the sewer beside the amusement park, and then awards babies as the prize for being well amused. [/QB]
Freud put it in Latin, presumably so as not to shock people: 'neurotics take exception to the fact that "inter urinas et faeces nascimur"', ie. we are born between piss and shit. Some people positively celebrate it, e.g. Mozart, 'Leck mich im Arsch, g'schwindi' - lick me in the arse, but quickly!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Freud put it in Latin, presumably so as not to shock people: 'neurotics take exception to the fact that "inter urinas et faeces nascimur"', ie. we are born between piss and shit. Some people positively celebrate it, e.g. Mozart, 'Leck mich im Arsch, g'schwindi' - lick me in the arse, but quickly!
Nicely done.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's what Frau Mozart said.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Of course, I don't actually think there is any need to rethink the whole science. But as a philosophical point, that level of paradigm shift is very difficult to conceive.
You mean, like the transition from classical physics to quantum physics, or classical astronomy to general relativity?
The fact is, we've already done it. Not painlessly - plenty of careers foundered - but it was still done.
Also its physics that has worked like that. Biology has not historically involved those drastic shifts - lots of huge changes, (I could probably list about ten or a dozen) but mostly slow and overlapping rather than rapid and one after the other.
As for the question, I guess there are some arguments you get into for the sake of third parties and onlookers. There is probably no point in debating Christian YECcies in order to change their opinion but there might be in order to show others that not all Christians are YEC.
I suppose that if I ever found myself in a public debate with YECcies (something that seems pretty unlikely) I'd want to ignore or sidestep their pseudo-scientific soundbites (because they either really don't know what they are taking about,or else they are lying) and go straight for the theology. Start by talking about Jesus.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.
One of the main reasons that some Christians are Creationists is because they believe that since Jesus used the stories of Eden and Noah, then they must be historically true. And conversely, if you undermine the historicity of those events, you make the words of Jesus a lie.
By addressing the theology of storytelling (for example, are the parables also literally true?) you meet on common ground, as opposed to shouting at each other across a canyon.
Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
By addressing the theology of storytelling (for example, are the parables also literally true?) you meet on common ground, as opposed to shouting at each other across a canyon.
I've tried this as well. This is tricky for some as to determining the dividing line between illustrative concept and real event.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.
It is never my intent to undermine anyone's faith.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.
It is never my intent to undermine anyone's faith.
Sorry - that was just a general comment, not directed at you in any way.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Or tectonic plates in geology.
I wouldn't put too much faith in the current peer-review process as the gold standard of the scientific method. It's undergoing a change, in part because the commercialization of the journals have made the journals less than impartial and thorough in negative reporting. It will probably change to open source as budgets continue to decline.
I enjoyed hearing Stephen Gould at a public lecture and he replied to a question about Intelligent Design. The evidence for evolution has been evaluated and this is no longer a scientific argument of any interest. However when evolution is challenged, it has to be defended, over and over and over again. Otherwise, those challenging it will claim the debate. Yes it does give credibility to join the debate, but the alternative is worse.
What makes this so tiresome is not that the YEC are bringing any new evidence but are driven by a belief in scriptural inerrancy which they have mostly learned to conceal. A great question to ask a YEC is what evidence would convince them of the truth of evolution.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.
One of the main reasons that some Christians are Creationists is because they believe that since Jesus used the stories of Eden and Noah, then they must be historically true. And conversely, if you undermine the historicity of those events, you make the words of Jesus a lie.
By addressing the theology of storytelling (for example, are the parables also literally true?) you meet on common ground, as opposed to shouting at each other across a canyon.
Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.
The singer I mentioned based his arguments ultimately on the hypothesis that if Genesis falls, so do the words of Christ, and what could he then believe. For him personally, his relationship with Christ kept him, he said, from committing sins. I challenged him on this, as he gave me no indication of being a man tempted to serious malfeasance and holding himself back from it (and he wasn't one of those people whose testimony is that they were a worse sinner than anyone else, either). As far as I could make out, it wasn't the tiny sins are as bad as causing the deaths of millions argument either, but most probably that he had considered being unfaithful.
I couldn't see, if there were an experienced relationship with Christ, how that would be nullified by the person he knew having used as a narrative example something proved to be inaccurate, but that is what he believed. I had the impression that he had been taught to believe this, rather than trusting in his own experience.
I do not have a very high opinion of those who peddle these ideas and trap people in ignorance. I don't think I would be so open to any prompting not to pursue the issue further if I were to meet one.
BTW, the argument that their god is revealed to be a liar in placing the appearance of age in his universe is answered by claims that what appear to be proofs of age are due to our misunderstanding the evidences of rocks, stellar light, codes in the DNA and so forth because we have not yet looked at them properly, or have been misled by the deliberate lies of those setting out to destroy faith. If the people challenged have read that far in the Big Website of How to Defeat the Ignorant Scientists.
[ 09. January 2014, 22:51: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As for the question, I guess there are some arguments you get into for the sake of third parties and onlookers. There is probably no point in debating Christian YECcies in order to change their opinion but there might be in order to show others that not all Christians are YEC.
I suppose that if I ever found myself in a public debate with YECcies (something that seems pretty unlikely) I'd want to ignore or sidestep their pseudo-scientific soundbites (because they either really don't know what they are taking about,or else they are lying) and go straight for the theology. Start by talking about Jesus.
I can see sense in this from a Christian point of view, as an internal squabble over the true meaning of a shared religion (depending on the nature and composition of the audience), but as stated, if you'll forgive the phrasing, it seems to be more like a turf war and advertising. Is there any reason for a hypothetical atheist scientist to debate, or is the motivation entirely based on fighting over that shared identity?
Also, would you say that scientists shouldn't engage, because they're playing into YECs' hands by allowing them to play their own pseudoscience in a Gish Gallop of bollocks?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.
Well I guess you might go for the reality of the Incarnation. I mean "guess" I never really tried this because I have never been in the situation of having to debate such things on stage. The Incarnation is real, not some kind of stage-show or fake. God creates an objectively real world in which to be incarnate. "God so loved the world" and all that. Jesus really lived and really suffered and really died. This needs a real world to do it in, one that has internal consistency, one that is more than some sort of projection of the mind of God, one that is separate and distinct from God (that's one of the things we mean by the holiness of God) God does create such a world. Its the one we come from (we are made from the dust of the earth) and the one we live in, and the one Jesus was born as one of us in.
YEC implies that the world is a kind of fake, special-effects, a sort of virtual reality, some illusion got up to look like one thing when in fact it is another. That would not the kind of world that needs Jesus to be born and live and suffer and die to redeem it. It would not be the kind of world in which Jesus could come in the flesh, because there would be no real flesh to it at all. Its the kind of world imagined by some kinds of Hinduism or ancient Gnosticism, not the world described in the Bible. YEC makes God out to be a liar. It is blasphemous.
As the Apostle John wrote about the Gnostics of his day:
quote:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
As to the pseudoscientific Gishery, I'd be tempted to just tell the truth. Say quite clearly that the stuff they are quoting is lies, they are deceived, they need to hold to what is true, not what is false. The only way to debate a lie is to call it a lie.
They might claim that they have scientific evidence that the world looks young not old (which is more or less the only point at issue, all the rest is irrelevance) The honest response is to treat it with the contempt it deserves: "That's a lie. The person who wrote it wasn't telling the truth. Its made up. Either they were lying or they were deceived. If you say you believe it then either you are lying - in which case you need to repent and confess your sins to almighty God and trust in the saving power of Jesus for forgiveness - or else (as I sincerely hope) you simply don't understand it, in which case you need to go back to school. And a school that teaches real science, not made-up bollocks. Either way I can't help you."
Be straight and blunt and honest. Its the only way to deal with lies.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Also, would you say that scientists shouldn't engage, because they're playing into YECs' hands by allowing them to play their own pseudoscience in a Gish Gallop of bollocks?
I have met palaeontologists who have been ambushed by YECs. Tricked into stage-managed "debates" with packed audiences and fixed agendas in which they were not given a chance to say their piece, and where they were lied to and later lied about, deliberately misquoted to provide fake soundbites for the YEC media circus. They had no desire to ever get trapped like that again.
Also why should scientists (whether Christians or non-Christians) debate the science with them? Apart from perhaps some states in the USA where local education has been hijacked by right-wing anti-science campaigners posing as Christians, scientists have nothing to fear from YEC any more than they need worry about phlogiston or the Philosophers Stone. The arguments have been over for eighty years. (The most important one, about the age of the Earth, has been over for a hundred and eighty years). If a few people choose to believe some nonsense, what inconvenience is it to them?
I think YECcies don't realise how little of a threat they are to working biologists and palaeontologists. In most times and most places they aren't even on the radar. Their views are not being censored - they are aren't even being noticed. The scientists are no more likely to debate "Flood Geology" versus "Intelligent Design" over the lab bench or a pint in the pub than politicians are likely to discuss the contest between the Guelfs and the Ghibellines.
Christians (whether scientists or not) might want to argue with young-earthers because the immorality of the YEC bosses, and the absurdity of some of what they demand other Christians believe, are an insult to other Christians and to Jesus Christ himself. But that's not really a scientific debate. because there isn't a scientific debate to have. The world really does look old. Its a done deal. No-one seriously doubts it any more.
[ 10. January 2014, 16:16: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think YECcies don't realise how little of a threat they are to working biologists and palaeontologists.
Except, potentially, for funding.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Quetz
quote:
Yes, it always reminds me of the old joke about wrestling with a pig - you end up covered in shit, and the pig loves it
And there's always the pigeon: Arguing with a creationist about evolution is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how well you play, the pigeon will knock the pieces over, shit all over the board and then strut about as if he's won a fabulous victory.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it's peer-reviewed material which really counts, and I know that some creationists have a kind of conspiracy theory here, that their work is not accepted in scientific journals. Well, yes, there are good reasons for that, namely that they don't follow standard scientific methods.
Yes, I think the basic obstacle is that creationists don't trust scientists.
Fundamentally, any attempt that anyone, however brilliant, makes to refute creationism is going to depend on what some scientists observed in the lab or in the field. If the creationists don't trust those scientists then you have no argument that will convince them.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
