The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The struggle between evolution and creation: an American problem > Comments

The struggle between evolution and creation: an American problem : Comments

By Michael Ruse, published 13/5/2008

Why does the evolution-creation debate persist, and why in America?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. 27
  12. All
...Continued

Also, to claim that you are a “seeker of truth” is simply laughable considering that you actually believe the 'Noah's Ark' story. There are a few events that archaeologists strongly suspect that this story comes from. To claim that you are seeking the truth, at the same time as believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible is demonstratively and undeniably absurd.

You're certainly not being honest with yourself here.

<<I believe in the effectiveness of healthy debate in helping people to see things from different view points and thus help truth come to the fore.>>

Then why don't you listening to anyone?

<<I feel my generalist education well enables me to investigate areas that interest me and assess their value.>>

Yes, it does. It's pity though, that you're not yet taking advantage of that. Just a little hint... It helps if you look at both sides of a story.

<<I am curious to know why people might believe in evolution>>

They don't. They accept it.

To put your curiosities to rest though... All the evidence supports evolution and absolutely nothing supports Creationism.

<<I’m happy to discuss any real evidence if presented with some.>>

You've been presented with plenty. From the logical reasoning put forth to you, to the links provided with indisputable facts that back it.

Here we come back to the slipperiness and dishonesty of Creationists... It doesn't matter what evidence they're presented with, they'll simply say it's not enough - which is why you won't define “useful”.

So to claim that you are seeking the truth, or that you're happy to discuss any real evidence is a flat-out lie (either to yourself or everybody else).

<<But for now I’ll wait in expectation of the next wave of flat denials, familiar rhetoric, and name calling.>>

Firstly, none of your opposers have had to deny anything – nothing factual anyway.

And secondly, no one has called you names. Although you do receive a bit of ridicule due to the incoherent, illogical and uneducated arguments you've put forth.

You're making this far too easy, Dan. Try again...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:20:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: "I enjoy participating on OLO."

This is something we have in common. I consider all your observations about OLO are pretty close to the mark. Posts on OLO are subject to moderation and some are deleted without notice, but it is done with a very light and remarkably unbiased hand.

Dan S de Merengue: "I may as well reveal my (limited) science background."

Since we are all doing that ... I have a tertiary education which included some maths and science, but have no formal quantification relevant to this discussion and I didn't study biology. That said, I do like it. If I hadn't taken my current career path, I probably would of chosen entomology instead.

Dan S de Merengue: "I would unashamedly describe myself as a seeker of truth"

And now onto business. Your words remind me of a sign I see everyday I ride my pushy to work. It says: www.TillingForTruth.org. For me the world is what I can perceive (see, hear, touch ...), and what I can deduce from that. The rest is a matter or faith. My trust in faith was never very high to start with and it has dropped over time, precipitously so recently as I have read the posts of those who proclaim to have faith here on OLO. For example, if you want a lesson in name calling, look at this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7528#116955

Frankly Dan, we atheists treat you very kindly in comparison. But back to TillingForTruth. It doesn't exist now, but when it did I doubt I would of found anything on there I would recognise as the "truth". I suspect that you Dan, on the other hand, would. So, Dan how do you recognise the truth when you see it? And do you think its possible that you and I could ever agree on a way of determining the truth, or at least some part of it?
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 11 July 2008 12:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you want to know the meaning of the word ‘useful’, look it up in the dictionary.

For the words: slippery, dishonest, deceitful, and liar, in the thesaurus, they are categorised alongside slander and insult, not logic and argument.

I hope you can manage your language better in the future.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,
You ask about the nature of truth, and whether an atheist and Christian could ever agree on any part of it.

Agreement in one sense is impossible, as Christianity is inseparable from the Bible, whereas an atheist would recoil after reading its first few words (In the beginning God…).

On the other hand, atheists and Christians share many timeless truths in line with their common humanity. Making reference to either conscience or simple logic, intuitively we hold certain laws or values to be self evident or natural e.g. murder is wrong, charity is good, etc.

Atheists (if I may presume momentarily to speak for them) might appeal to a pure form of logic as a basis for assessing truth. However, within our human limitations, we will never figure everything out. There will always be some mystery, something beyond our ability to know. Absolute knowledge is a pipe-dream.

The Christian says that finite man cannot hope to comprehend the infinity of God. That is, unless God first takes the initiative to explain himself and reveal his true nature. We call this action of God ‘revelation’.

Therefore, conscience, investigation of the natural law, and even science, are stepping stones helping us move towards recognising and understanding truth. All these should lead us towards that place of clarity, with our consciences bearing witness to the Biblical revelation. Yet ultimately, I cannot presume to determine truth. It stands above me, like a judge, and in a sense, determines me.

In Christian theology, truth is not a precept, but a person. He is Jesus, the author and creator, culmination and conclusion of all human history. This is vividly portrayed in Mel Gibson’s film ‘The Passion of Christ’, where the Roman governor (perhaps symbolic of the educated European) is in direct conversation with Jesus (his face battered, bruised, and bleeding, and about to be sentenced). Pilate asks, “What is truth?” The irony being that he was staring right at him who is the truth.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:27:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: "we will never figure everything out."
Dan S de Merengue: "man cannot hope to comprehend the infinity of God."

This is the same conclusion, reached from the two different viewpoints. Not that its relevant to this discussion, but its interesting to see.

Dan S de Merengue: "If you want to know the meaning of the word ‘useful’, look it up in the dictionary."

From the dictionary definition of 'useful', learning how to metabolise citrate would be right up there Dan. You implied it wasn't, which is why you are asked to define it. It was not an unreasonable request. But you are familiar with the arguments on both sides, so I presume you know this definition this is the Achilles heal in the "mutations can never create something new" argument. So you refuse.

Which I guess serves to illustrate what I think your position is. You pay lip service to truth and logic, but should they conflict with your faith and the bible then religion must triumph over science. As you know, science can't work like that. When facing irreconcilable differences the polite thing to do is to agree to disagree, and get on with our lives - perhaps pointing out the disagreement when the opportunity arises, as it did at the start of the thread.

But do you do that? No. Like the big kid in the sandpit, you demand to have it all. You dress up your religion as "creationism", try to bully the rest of us into calling it science, and seek to have laws passed to teach it in science classes. You know, not even Richard Dawkins treats religion that way. He is quite happy to let it coexist with science. He would never dream of dressing up some scientific theory as religion and demanding it be given equal time in the religious education classes. Yet, you seek to do that to science.

If I continue here then I am the fly, banging against the pane of glass that calls itself Dan S de Merengue. Its time to move on. Goodbye.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 10:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Before I continue, I want to make it very clear to you that in no way do I view you as an inherently dishonest person. A little slippery with your arguments because you're defending the indefensible – but not a deliberately dishonest person. Like I said earlier... The dishonesty in your arguments comes from what you read on the intensionally misleading websites such as www.creationontheweb.com. It is the scientists on these kinds of websites who are the real “false prophets”.

Moving on...

Since you're happy to go along with the dictionary definition of “useful”, how do you explain your acceptance of adaptation and microevolution? This is a good example of how dishonest claims eventually become unstuck with their contradictions.

Here is a video done by a scientist that explains just some of the many beneficial mutations that we see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

And here's another video done by the same scientist that explains just how rich and (surprisingly) complete the fossil record actually is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

<<For the words: slippery, dishonest, deceitful, and liar, in the thesaurus, they are categorised alongside slander and insult, not logic and argument.>>

I'm not sure which thesaurus you're looking at, because I certainly didn't see the words “slander”, “insult”, “not logic” or “argument” any where near “slippery”, “dishonest”, “deceitful”, or “liar”.

“Slander” means to make FALSE claims in order to damage the reputation of someone. So it is wrong to claim that I am “slandering” you. Especially since I have clearly demonstrated why your arguments are so dishonest and slippery. Therefore, I think it is you who needs to manage their language better.

As for “insults”, well, I'm sorry that you feel insulted, Dan. But if you make claims that are dishonest and slippery, then “dishonest” and “slippery” is what I will label them, as I am the kind of person who calls a “spade” a “spade”, and for that, I cannot apologise.

But I suspect that you're merely trying to 'play the victim' here (another slippery and deceiving tactic), because Christians often make the fundamental mistake that good = correct and bad = incorrect.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. 27
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy