|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Where to start with creationists ... ?
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I didn't think there were any 6 day creationists left in the UK, but one of my friends on FB turns out to be one.
He has put this poster up and is asking for questions (spoiling for a fight/discussion, I would think!)
I wonder what would be the best questions to ask him and the best refutes of the idea?
Would my clever Shipmates would help me with this one? I know that evolution is the best explanation of how we came to be and that the earth is billions of years old. But I don't really know the science or arguments for.
The fact is that I haven't met a six day creationist for years!
But I do think it gives Christianity a bad name to let such nonsense go unchallenged.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I wouldn't start with the science, Boogie. ISTM that the basic reason why creationists cast doubt on evolution by natural selection, geology, radiology etc. etc. is that they feel the Christian faith is at stake. They don't conceive of Genesis 1-3 being non-historical, so they seek out every weakness and flaw in evolution etc. and magnify them into insurmountable problems.
So I'd start with the poetic, polemical nature of the Genesis creation account - how it stands in opposition to other creation accounts of the time (e.g. the Enuma Elish), particularly in terms of the role and purpose of humanity and of the proper focus of our devotion. The Genesis creation narrative article on Wikipedia looks like a good starting point to me, if you're not already familiar with this stuff.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder what would be the best questions to ask him and the best refutes of the idea?
Would my clever Shipmates would help me with this one? I know that evolution is the best explanation of how we came to be and that the earth is billions of years old. But I don't really know the science or arguments for.
Who are you witnessing to, or trying to convince here? Your tactics will be slightly different if you're trying to convince him evolution is true, trying to convince him that good Christians can believe evolution is true (the best you can hope for, I think), trying to convince onlookers evolution is true, or trying to convince sceptical onlookers that good Christians can believe evolution is true.
Ken always used to say that if creationism makes out God to be a liar, because creation makes it look so much like evolution and ancient cosmology are true.
So questions I might ask...
1) Why does so much of creation make it look like evolution is true?
2) Did you know that there were Christians who weren't young earth creationists and rejected the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 even before Darwin?
This is probably a good time to wheel out the quote from
Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram, beginning, "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."
3) If the writer of Genesis wanted us to take Genesis 1 literally, why did they put so many prima facie inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? (I'm not saying they can't be reconciled; I'm asking why you have to stretch the text to do so, when it would be so much easier just to make plain what was supposedly meant?)
4) Creationists have a history of asking evolutionists how could (the eye, the whale, etc) possibly evolve. Every time evolutionists have come up with an answer. Why should this time be any different?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Is it worth arguing with them? I mean, I don't suppose anyone's going to go to Hell for it. They're harmless enough so long as they keep to themselves. But much more important, I'd have thought, to oppose them whenever they stick their heads above the parapet, for the sake of those who might otherwise get a rather mistaken and discreditable (and indeed incredible) idea of what Christianity is about.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Thank you all!
I have started by saying -
"Also, remember there are plenty of good, Bible loving Christians who don't believe in 6 day creation."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
On the science side, this article by Scientific American is a good backgrounder:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Excellent article; thanks for posting.
My one quibble is that I think "nonsense" is an inaccurate term. If something is truly nonsensical you can't refute it; there's nothing in it to hold on to. "Brk zyngmn orfle" is nonsense. "God created life by placing DNA in natural molecule clusters" is not nonsense because it can be talked about, dissected, and refuted.
Also "nonsense" is an unnecessarily emotive and inflammatory word, and this subject really doesn't need that. It may make scientists (or more likely their fans like most of us here) feel good about themselves, but it is unhelpful and adds nothing of value to the discussion.
[ 12. July 2014, 15:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Don't know if this is any use, but the Catholic Church allows her faithful a wide latitude of belief in the matter of evolution:
quote:
In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.
[...]
The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. [A]ny believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God.
Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.
Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Occurs to me that one starting question to ask a creationist might be not 'why do you believe it?' but 'why do you think it matters?'
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Just nod, smile, and eye up your route to the door.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Where to start with creationists ... ?
4005 BC and work backwards from there...? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't think there were any 6 day creationists left in the UK, but one of my friends on FB turns out to be one.
Unfortunately, there are no lack of 6 day creationists in the UK.
As has been said, don't make science the battle ground. It's the nature of science to not be able to answer all questions and provide an account that is 100% correct on all points - otherwise research scientists would be on the dole queue. That means that there are lots of points a canny Creationist can pick up on and ask "what about ...?". A lot of the stuff on the internet and in popular Creationist books/talks is twaddle - representing a complete misunderstanding of something, repeating something from decades old science that has since been studied in greater detail, or just plain untruth - but, Creationists sometimes pick up genuine minor inconsistencies in the science, admittedly greatly inflating them. Even if you're qualified to address such points with authority you'll have to be a very good communicator of science to explain it, and even then a simple "you're wrong, because the Bible says ..." will tend to convince a Creationist to simply ignore it. Creationists will pick any little point of science that supports their position and dismiss everything else.
As has been said, good points to start are the relative novelty of young earth creationism. You'll be addressing evangelicals, and we can have a rather unfortunate tendency to simply dismiss people from other traditions as "not quite proper Christians", so citing bunches of Catholics or others who accept evolution is unlikely to carry much weight (though, if in addressing a Creationist your intended audience is those who are watching from the sidelines, such an approach can be useful in presenting the "not all Christians have left their brains in neutral" message).
Places to start would be to ask about the authors of the "Fundamentals" series of books at the turn of the 20th Century. None (I repeat, none) of those authors accepted what we would know as Young Earth Creationism (some authors were anonymous, but their essays in the Fundamentals didn't support YEC). An example, James Orr wrote several of the essays on science and the opening chapters of Genesis, he accepted what he called "theistic evolution", that God created new forms of life over hundreds of millions of years.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Is it worth arguing with them? I mean, I don't suppose anyone's going to go to Hell for it. They're harmless enough so long as they keep to themselves.
I can say from over here in the US that the rigid 6000-year-Earth worldview has caused immense damage. Perhaps it's a sort of anti-science mindset that goes along with it; I don't know. But I've noticed that it seems to go hand in hand neatly with things like disbelieving in man-made climate change, and thus in doing anything to stop or slow down ecological destruction.
I'm not making this up. Yikes. Freaking world superpower that SHOULD be helping lead the way to fix catastrophic destruction, and if these people get their way, we'll just kill the world faster. GRRRRR.
As for going to Hell, no, I don't think that someone will go to Hell over it. Alas, there are a fair number of YEC people who believe the opposite--that if you claim to be a Christian but don't believe in Genesis literally, you are at best on a slippery slope out of the faith, and at worst not really believing God, and that you can't be a real Christian and believe in evolution.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's always good to point out that you disagree and the evidence for why science has a different view of creation. However it's unlikely your friend is going to change his mind based on facts you point out.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
Talks about why people discount evidence against their beliefs, and indeed dig in even when what they believed has been clearly demonstrated false (e.g. predictions of earth-ending events). Has direct application to this discussion.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
They aren't going to feel the need to do anything about climate change if they believe we are in the End Times, now are they?
And I've tried conversion on two, and they aren't going to change anytime soon.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
When I hear about "intelligent design", I wonder why the design isn't better. Any engineer could look at the human body and point out some inefficiencies.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I have heard the design of the human body argued as evidence for creationism - if we'd evolved we would be as specialised as ducks or other animals, the fact that we aren't means we are created.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have heard the design of the human body argued as evidence for creationism - if we'd evolved we would be as specialised as ducks or other animals, the fact that we aren't means we are created.
Wow, what an argument. Surely humans are generalists, and not all animals are narrowly defined in their diet and habits. For example, crows are great generalists, they will eat biscuits or dog-shit.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have heard the design of the human body argued as evidence for creationism - if we'd evolved we would be as specialised as ducks or other animals, the fact that we aren't means we are created.
Interesting. So does that mean ducks and pandas evolved, but rats and raccoons are special creations?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have heard the design of the human body argued as evidence for creationism - if we'd evolved we would be as specialised as ducks or other animals, the fact that we aren't means we are created.
Evolution causes specialization in stable isolated environments. If the environment is constantly changing, either in weather or the presence of varying other species a generalized species is more likely to survive.
I have heard that the design of the human body is evidence of evolution; things like the appendix or the fact that our optic nerves cross from left to right on the way to the brain.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have heard the design of the human body argued as evidence for creationism - if we'd evolved we would be as specialised as ducks or other animals, the fact that we aren't means we are created.
Evolution causes specialization in stable isolated environments. If the environment is constantly changing, either in weather or the presence of varying other species a generalized species is more likely to survive.
I have heard that the design of the human body is evidence of evolution; things like the appendix or the fact that our optic nerves cross from left to right on the way to the brain.
No God who was all-loving and all-powerful would have made our knees the way they are.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
They aren't going to feel the need to do anything about climate change if they believe we are in the End Times, now are they?
I think one could argue very strongly that even if the End Times are near, we have a responsibility to act right and stop causing the harm that's visibly happening to God's creatures even without climate change. Heck, there's even Matthew 18:7: "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Even if it's all going to end, being part of the problem is still not the right thing to do, and one should go down fighting on the right side. (I've sadly actually heard some religious people say that because Jesus says that the poor will always be with us, we shouldn't do what we can to eradicate poverty... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) )
I mean, for heavens' sake, if we just worked on the stuff we're already doing without reference to climate change (destroying rainforests and killing all sorts of animals, wiping out bees, fracking with what appears to be increasingly horrible effects (like earthquakes!), etc.) we'd probably make some positive differences on climate change in the process. But that doesn't seem to be a point some people will accept either because dominion over the Earth or something I guess. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 15. July 2014, 02:45: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have heard the design of the human body argued as evidence for creationism - if we'd evolved we would be as specialised as ducks or other animals, the fact that we aren't means we are created.
Evolution causes specialization in stable isolated environments. If the environment is constantly changing, either in weather or the presence of varying other species a generalized species is more likely to survive.
I have heard that the design of the human body is evidence of evolution; things like the appendix or the fact that our optic nerves cross from left to right on the way to the brain.
No God who was all-loving and all-powerful would have made our knees the way they are.
Any second-year engineering student could design a better erect biped.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I must admit the argument that humans were generalists and evolution led to specialism so therefore humans were created did somewhat stun me at the time, and I did comment that foetal development and DNA showed some evidence for evolution but the person involved is pretty impervious to science and scientific explanation.
Same group that told teenagers that "some Christians even believe in evolution". It's where I heard most of my wacky ideas. Although I also worked with someone else who was equally adamant about creationism and was unconnected with this group.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
They aren't going to feel the need to do anything about climate change if they believe we are in the End Times, now are they?
I think one could argue very strongly that even if the End Times are near, we have a responsibility to act right and stop causing the harm that's visibly happening to God's creatures even without climate change. Heck, there's even Matthew 18:7: "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Even if it's all going to end, being part of the problem is still not the right thing to do, and one should go down fighting on the right side. (I've sadly actually heard some religious people say that because Jesus says that the poor will always be with us, we shouldn't do what we can to eradicate poverty... )
I mean, for heavens' sake, if we just worked on the stuff we're already doing without reference to climate change (destroying rainforests and killing all sorts of animals, wiping out bees, fracking with what appears to be increasingly horrible effects (like earthquakes!), etc.) we'd probably make some positive differences on climate change in the process. But that doesn't seem to be a point some people will accept either because dominion over the Earth or something I guess.
You have my agreement there. And to adjust a certain parable, if the landlord comes back to look at the way the tenants have left his property and finds that they have done nothing to maintain it, or to repair their own damage, because they knew he was coming back, he's not going to be very happy, is he? I don't think dominion was ever intended to mean we can do whatever we want including trashing the place.
[ 15. July 2014, 08:32: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
They aren't going to feel the need to do anything about climate change if they believe we are in the End Times, now are they?
And I've tried conversion on two, and they aren't going to change anytime soon.
Both YECs and ACC deniers share a common "I'm right and I've already decided I can ignore the contrary arguments" position. In both cases I think there are useful avenues where conversation can take place, but repeating almost universally accepted science won't be. It'll be banging heads on walls all the way. As I said, it can be useful for any audience to the conversation if you can avoid the temptation to get frustrated and start being irrational (otherwise you both look as bad).
For Creationists, as I said, ways in are Evangelical Christians who accept evolution, and discussion of what the texts actually say.
For ACC deniers, I think the general approach of taking care of the world for future generations works if you don't start with climate change is bad. Go with limited resources (eg: oil is vital to our lifestyle as feedstocks for plastics, pharmaceuticals and other products, isn't it a waste of that limited resource to simply burn it when there are means of reducing fossil fuel use?), pollution, degradation of soil productivity, reduced availability of clean drinking water etc. Those appeal to almost everyone (there is a very small minority who are only interested in themselves and don't care at all about what's left after they die). If talking to Christians then the stewardship and caring for the world God has given us is an approach.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There was an Earth Sciences tutor at the first OU summer school I went to who was a YEC! And a student in the group I was with who held that it was OK to give the expected answers in order to get a degree, even when one was a YEC.
Apart from the dishonesty, I could never get my mind round two lots of "knowledge" and using each one in the right place.
One of the guys I know genuinely believes that if he abandons Genesis (and AIG, where he learns his stuff really well) he must abandon the NT because Jesus refers to Genesis, and that if he does, he will start to behave in a terrible way. I have told him that from observation I cannot believe this, but he is sure that he would sin. So I have stopped arguing, and going to places where I would meet him. I can't not argue when he sings songs dissing Darwin, but I can't argue when winning would endanger his spiritual well being.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
MOST Christian.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is the RCC saying that the creatures that were phenotypically identical to A&E, for hundreds of thousands of years before them, weren't ensouled?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
I'm not convinced that you can argue against creationism usefully with a creationist, because for the vast majority of them the position does not come from a place of science or reason or logic.
I had a phase, back in my teens, of trying to convince myself to become a creationist. It went something like this: "I'm in a church that teaches that this is the truth, and all my friends here think that this is the truth, and some people I really admire think a bit less of me for trying to dispute it, so clearly it's the right thing to do and I should just tell myself the story firmly and remember that it's right."
In my case it didn't really hold. But I think that might be what a lot of people do.
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's very common PH. Letting people believe the unbelievable, the unnecessary for us. Vast swathes of Christianity do that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't think there were any 6 day creationists left in the UK, but one of my friends on FB turns out to be one.
Hate to break it to you, but apparently there's more than just the one in Cardiff [cite].
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I did have a brief period when, partly due to some poor and unimaginative arguing by a geology teacher (Me: "Why do we assume uniformitarianism?" Him: "What else could it be?" Me, thinking: "My God, almost anything, especially if the Fall affected the physical processes of matter...") and partly because of the college Christian group I hung out with, I flirted with this kind of creationism, but I honestly just wasn't convinced of it. I do think that there are more things in heaven and on Earth than a lot of people dream of (and I am sure that God cares about every triceratops and trilobite as he cares for every sparrow), but I honestly think, on the physical level, the evidence for billions of years and such is pretty conclusive. (I trust--and pray--that we'll get all the wonderful beasties we missed out on in the new creation, and that the velociraptor will lay down with the iguanadon, but I don't believe they were alive at the same time as humans. Which, in some cases, is probably just as well...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't think there were any 6 day creationists left in the UK, but one of my friends on FB turns out to be one.
Hate to break it to you, but apparently there's more than just the one in Cardiff [cite].
I've added to their counter! Aargh!
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I think before the question "Where to start" you should ask yourself "Where do I want to go?"
Do you want to convince him creatonism isn't true? You won't succeed, no matter how good your arguments are.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EXACTLY LeRoc. I went through attacking the anti-scientific absurdity upon absurdity, the lies in creation by the Creator necessary to sustain 'truth', which doesn't work, to attacking the weakness of the faith, which makes YECists go quiet. One can take the war to the enemy and 'win' thereby, but it's the nuclear option: they never come back.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It is well to remember the maxim; If you argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell you apart. State the facts and then leave quietly when they ignore the facts.
[ 17. July 2014, 20:50: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The point is, simply, to let people know that Christians - the vast majority of Christian denominations - are in good standing with God and have no problem with evolutionary theory. And it is the Creationists who are in error (I would go further to argue that YEC is heretical, but that charge needs to be aimed at those who promulgate YEC, not those they delude).
That's it. There's very little point in going any further in a YEC-organised meeting.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I would not want to argue.
The problem with a choice between God or science is it is a lose, lose situation.
Arguing with creationists, and anti creationists, is futile.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Robert Heinlein: quote:
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I would not want to argue.
The problem with a choice between God or science is it is a lose, lose situation.
Apples and spanners. And that is where YEC's fundamentally fail.
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Arguing with creationists, and anti creationists, is futile.
Odd way to phrase this. Christians are by definition creationist, hence the necessity of adding the Y and the E to a certain subset.
An anti-creationist would by an atheist, or someone belonging to a religion or philosophy which did not ascribe the formation of the universe to a conscious force.
IME, arguing religion to the non-religious is more successful than arguing science to a science denier, if only ever so slightly.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Karen Anderson in A Short History of Myth argues that fundamentalism is a category error that results from jettisoning mythos in favor of logos. If you accept that the Genesis accounts are mythos, the literal or historical truth of the accounts is moot. But if you insist on reading the whole Bible as logos, as (potentially) verifiable fact, and you further insist that one has to believe those facts to be saved, then any supposed facts that contradict the Genesis accounts are not really facts and can and should be dismissed.
She thinks that this mythos/logos confusion came in with the Reformation, and resulted in the sacraments being taken to be mere symbols, not symbols participating in the thing signified; not mysteries, not mythos. She argues that the ability of every person to have and read their own Bible freed the Bible from the devotional and sacramental context of the Church, and thus moved it out of the realm of mythos and into the realm of logos.
Dunno if I agree, but it is an interesting lens through which to view the whole thing. I had previously been used to seeing fundamentalist literalism as a result of dichotomizing of the Enlightenment. This may repay more thought.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I've been following this thread for some time and remained convinced that it is a waste of time to 'start' with them at all.
Ignorant people won't budge and it is a waste of breath trying to show them where they are wrong.
I don't know if someone has said this already in which case I apologize, but the aphorism that comes to mind here is, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason."
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IME, arguing religion to the non-religious is more successful than arguing science to a science denier, if only ever so slightly.
Or there would never be any conversions, and yet we know there are, on occasion. OTOH I suppose you could argue that some, most, or all of these conversions are not caused by argument, but by some kind of experience that the pre-converted person concludes is of divine origin or import.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
I usually fall back on my standard reply: God's existence can't be proven, it's a matter of faith. Since no experiment exists (that I know of) to prove God's existence I let my belief be separate from Science. And that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I still believe in God and I still believe in Science. I wonder if Creationists are worried that if we don't mention God in every single thing, God is going to get His/Her feelings hurt and smite somebody? "Oh, boo hoo hoo! My children don't believe I exist! They think they crawled out of the primordial ooze all by themselves! That just hurts, you know?!" I'm sure God really gives a damn whether He makes the pages of the scientific journals.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Argh! Despite my better judgement I've got into a pissing contest with one on Facebook. Idiot, idiot, idiot!
The problem these days is that all the standard lines of evidence are well known the the Lying Creationist Weasel Websites and they have ready-made (albeit bullshit and often dishonest) answers. The average Creationist knows too little science to understand why those answers are bullshit, and why they're dishonest. Like the one I've got at the moment, who thinks Creation.com has debunked the mainstream account of endogenous retro-virus insertions because some of them are functional...
[ 13. August 2014, 10:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
This is why I wring my hands at the passage "Find yourself a believing wife".
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I usually fall back on my standard reply: God's existence can't be proven, it's a matter of faith. Since no experiment exists (that I know of) to prove God's existence I let my belief be separate from Science. And that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I still believe in God and I still believe in Science. I wonder if Creationists are worried that if we don't mention God in every single thing, God is going to get His/Her feelings hurt and smite somebody?
No. They worry that if every sentence in Genesis isn't literally, potentially-verifiably true, it proves it's not God-breathed, and therefore isn't Scripture, and therefore God may not really exist, at least as Scripture portrays him, in which case their faith, and the life they have based on it, is a lie.
Creationism is based on misunderstanding and over-applying a pseudo-bifurcation based on the writings of the Enlightenment, making there two categories of ideas: the literally true, and the wholly false. Clearly if literalism is the only way for something to be true, the Bible has to be literally true, and if Science contradicts that, then Science has to be wholly false.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Argh! Despite my better judgement I've got into a pissing contest with one on Facebook. Idiot, idiot, idiot!
Oi, that's my friend you're talking about!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. They worry that if every sentence in Genesis isn't literally, potentially-verifiably true, it proves it's not God-breathed, and therefore isn't Scripture, and therefore God may not really exist, at least as Scripture portrays him, in which case their faith, and the life they have based on it, is a lie.
Creationism is based on misunderstanding and over-applying a pseudo-bifurcation based on the writings of the Enlightenment, making there two categories of ideas: the literally true, and the wholly false. Clearly if literalism is the only way for something to be true, the Bible has to be literally true, and if Science contradicts that, then Science has to be wholly false.
Amen to both paragraphs. I've known people like that and I have found it very sad. Indeed, I have had experiences in which at one point they were fundamentalists and were looking at me as a woolly-minded not-quite-Christian-enough person, trying to convince them that there were other ways to approach things, and then later when they gave up the faith entirely. The idea that maybe they, or their church, or their understanding of the Bible, could be mistaken on some points, but that Jesus is real and they could trust Him anyway just didn't seem to be on their radar. Whatever happened to "seeing through a glass darkly" being accepted as our status quo in this time here on Earth?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
