Table Salt
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2013, 09:00 AM
Table Salt
I have always wondered Drinking Beverage why creationists have such a difficult time comprehending evolution, with its myriad of evidence, but don't question some of the other sciences.

The example I like to use is table salt. NaCl. I mean wtf? In their elemental forms, one is a highly explosive, reactive metal, and the other is a poisonous gas. Together they become a tasty seasoning. Hobo

When I ask this, their eyes glaze over and they begin the tirade of 'well we just don't have evidence for evolution,' or 'well, were you there?!'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jaguar3030's post
03-12-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Table Salt
They don't question those sciences when they either support their world view, or at least don't contradict it. They also don't question any pseudoscience that supports their world view. This is why I've run into a non-zero number of people who don't believe in gravity, because that violates their views on geocentricism. Seriously.

Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-12-2013, 10:00 AM
RE: Table Salt
Quote:When I ask this, their eyes glaze over and they begin the tirade of 'well we just don't have evidence for evolution,' or 'well, were you there?!'

The ironic thing about that is that they weren't "there" when their magical sky-daddy poofed everything into existence, either.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 09:00 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  I have always wondered Drinking Beverage why creationists have such a difficult time comprehending evolution, with its myriad of evidence, but don't question some of the other sciences.

The example I like to use is table salt. NaCl. I mean wtf? In their elemental forms, one is a highly explosive, reactive metal, and the other is a poisonous gas. Together they become a tasty seasoning. Hobo

When I ask this, their eyes glaze over and they begin the tirade of 'well we just don't have evidence for evolution,' or 'well, were you there?!'
It's a matter of definitions of science and scientific evidence, and also a PC issue.

Many people would see nothing wrong with accepting the science of salt, but questioning aspects of sociology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 02:00 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:00 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  I have always wondered Drinking Beverage why creationists have such a difficult time comprehending evolution, with its myriad of evidence, but don't question some of the other sciences.

The example I like to use is table salt. NaCl. I mean wtf? In their elemental forms, one is a highly explosive, reactive metal, and the other is a poisonous gas. Together they become a tasty seasoning. Hobo

When I ask this, their eyes glaze over and they begin the tirade of 'well we just don't have evidence for evolution,' or 'well, were you there?!'
It's a matter of definitions of science and scientific evidence,

Yes, creotards would LOVE to get away with defining science and evidence in a way that allows them to do an end run around their burden of proof.


Quote: and also a PC issue.

Hobo

Quote:Many people would see nothing wrong with accepting the science of salt, but questioning aspects of sociology.

Um, evolution isn't sociology.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 03:48 PM
RE: Table Salt
I'm failing to see how your example supports evolution and/or the science behind evolution.

It seems rather non-sequitur to me.

I mean, how is identifying a specific incident in science giving credence to evolution?

It just seems like it's a smoke screen tactic.

"I don't believe in evolution."
"What about salt?"
"WTF?"
"Bam. That's what I thought."

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like kingschosen's post
03-12-2013, 04:03 PM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 03:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm failing to see how your example supports evolution and/or the science behind evolution.

It seems rather non-sequitur to me.

I mean, how is identifying a specific incident in science giving credence to evolution?

It just seems like it's a smoke screen tactic.

"I don't believe in evolution."
"What about salt?"
"WTF?"
"Bam. That's what I thought."

I thought it was more "why accept some parts of science but ignore other parts" than "salt supports fish with legs."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DemonicLemon's post
04-12-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 03:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Um, evolution isn't sociology.
Um, it isn't chemistry either, yet the OP makes that comparison. Neither is it gravity, yet that comparison is frequently made.

Why don't you hear evolutionists say, "Yeah, evolution is only a theory like structural functionalism is only a theory!"? Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 10:36 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 04:03 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 03:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm failing to see how your example supports evolution and/or the science behind evolution.

It seems rather non-sequitur to me.

I mean, how is identifying a specific incident in science giving credence to evolution?

It just seems like it's a smoke screen tactic.

"I don't believe in evolution."
"What about salt?"
"WTF?"
"Bam. That's what I thought."

I thought it was more "why accept some parts of science but ignore other parts" than "salt supports fish with legs."

But that's non-sequitur and is also a failure to understand your opposition.

People who don't believe in evolution don't consider it "science". They consider it a "theory" at best.

If you're going to debate the subject, you can't have varying definitions. Using this tactic on a Creationist is pointless because their definition is different.

A proper tactic would be asking them if they use antibiotics, and if so, why do they rely on the science of evolution for antibiotics but deny evolution.

This establishes that evolution has scientific credence.

Questioning the science of table salt doesn't prove or disprove the science of evolution and the tactic makes no sense to a Creationist.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
04-12-2013, 10:37 AM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 10:24 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 04:03 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  I thought it was more "why accept some parts of science but ignore other parts" than "salt supports fish with legs."

But that's non-sequitur and is also a failure to understand your opposition.

People who don't believe in evolution don't consider it "science". They consider it a "theory" at best.

If you're going to debate the subject, you can't have varying definitions. Using this tactic on a Creationist is pointless because their definition is different.

A proper tactic would be asking them why if they use antibiotics, and if so, why do they rely on the science of evolution for antibiotics but deny evolution.

This establishes that evolution has scientific credence.

Questioning the science of table salt doesn't prove or disprove the science of evolution and the tactic makes no sense to a Creationist.


I agree. If you're going to argue/debate a Creationist you can only do so looking through their eyes and work from that mode (which is very difficult). The moment you argue from a logical position - you've already lost them and the whole thing is pointless. The only hope you have is tearing Genesis apart word by word; which is tedious and generally met with "God is mysterious". It's quite pointless really. But if you stick to the bible you can at least debate. Shoving facts at them (like salt) just makes them chalk you up as "impossible" or "duped". I've found even arguing medical breakthroughs (which Creationists have benefited from) cannot sway them.

As long as they continue to view science as able to falsify information there's no meeting in the middle as far as I can see.

Your thoughts?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WitchSabrina's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: