Table Salt
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 10:37 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 10:24 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  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?

I don't necessarily agree.

Addressing and tearing apart Genesis is non-sequitur as well.

For the most part, Creationists can be very logical and attacking their rationale isn't a good tactic either.

The best way to interact in this debate is to understand the belief system and the person's assumed beliefs in regards to the science of life.

Challenging that person using their own beliefs is the best way to cause the person to think about what they believe and delve deeper into their own personal understandings.

Challenging a Creationist on Genesis... or evolution that directly conflicts with their beliefs is futile. The argument will go no where.

You have to cause that person to question how they can logically believe this and logically believe that.

This is why the antibiotic example is so good. It forces them to try and explain how they can rely on evolution science to cure sickness yet they deny the existence of that science. This argument completely ignores any religious text as it's not necessary for the debate. In that, it prevents any distractions and smoke screens from entering the argument because the theology aspect isn't part of the question.

Then the question gets isolated to, "If I accept this how can I accept that?"

This is the proper way to debate. You play by their rules; their terms, and in that, you secure yourself and your position from any other outside argument that they could use as leverage or a smoke screen.

It goes the same for when atheists argue Christians about the existence of God. A common and futile tactic for atheists is trying to prove the Bible false. A more proper tactic is assuming the Bible is true (when debating a Christian) and debating the characteristics of God and not His actual existence.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
04-12-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 11:05 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 10:37 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  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?

I don't necessarily agree.

Addressing and tearing apart Genesis is non-sequitur as well.

For the most part, Creationists can be very logical and attacking their rationale isn't a good tactic either.

The best way to interact in this debate is to understand the belief system and the person's assumed beliefs in regards to the science of life.

Challenging that person using their own beliefs is the best way to cause the person to think about what they believe and delve deeper into their own personal understandings.

Challenging a Creationist on Genesis... or evolution that directly conflicts with their beliefs is futile. The argument will go no where.

You have to cause that person to question how they can logically believe this and logically believe that.

This is why the antibiotic example is so good. It forces them to try and explain how they can rely on evolution science to cure sickness yet they deny the existence of that science. This argument completely ignores any religious text as it's not necessary for the debate. In that, it prevents any distractions and smoke screens from entering the argument because the theology aspect isn't part of the question.

Then the question gets isolated to, "If I accept this how can I accept that?"

This is the proper way to debate. You play by their rules; their terms, and in that, you secure yourself and your position from any other outside argument that they could use as leverage or a smoke screen.

It goes the same for when atheists argue Christians about the existence of God. A common and futile tactic for atheists is trying to prove the Bible false. A more proper tactic is assuming the Bible is true (when debating a Christian) and debating the characteristics of God and not His actual existence.



No - you're right. I really have had no luck with the medical argument though. Probably me and not the information or tactic that's at fault. Sometimes it's not the message but the messenger. Generally, for everyone's sake I steer clear of creationists. That they (let me qualify - SOME) believe dinosaur bones were buried to create havoc by satan worshipers is just a tad more than I can take.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: Table Salt
I think it depends on the type of Creationist that you encounter.
I've heard Christian Radio Talk Show Host, Todd Friel say that even if science definitively proves Evolution to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the christian should hold to the bible above what science may say. I was a believer at the time I heard him say this and it taught me an interesting part of the creationist mind. This type of creationist in my opinion is more concerned with theological questions rather than scientific ones and to talk science to this type of creationist is to talk to the wall. I think this type of creationist only responds to theological debate and will crack only if the idea of the bible being infallible and inerrant falls in their mind. Then the other chips may fall where they may.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 10:24 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  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.

I agree fully with your assessment of not fudging definitions, although in this specific case, they would likely counter by segregating evolution into micro and macroevolution, and then go on to say that antibiotics illustrate the former.

In that specific case, it's an example of they trying to have their cake and eat it too: they don't want to be ignorant of science, but they still have a belief system that science is violating. Such is the realm of pseudoscience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:35 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 11:05 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 10:37 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  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?

For the most part, Creationists can be very logical and attacking their rationale isn't a good tactic either.

The best way to interact in this debate is to understand the belief system and the person's assumed beliefs in regards to the science of life.

Challenging that person using their own beliefs is the best way to cause the person to think about what they believe and delve deeper into their own personal understandings.

Challenging a Creationist on Genesis... or evolution that directly conflicts with their beliefs is futile. The argument will go no where.

You have to cause that person to question how they can logically believe this and logically believe that.

This is the proper way to debate. You play by their rules; their terms, and in that, you secure yourself and your position from any other outside argument that they could use as leverage or a smoke screen.

It goes the same for when atheists argue Christians about the existence of God. A common and futile tactic for atheists is trying to prove the Bible false. A more proper tactic is assuming the Bible is true (when debating a Christian) and debating the characteristics of God and not His actual existence.

The difficult aspect of all these conversations is that science will always contradict extraordinary claims in scriptures; therefore, it most definitely will go nowhere as long as one can say "i belive this" or "because it says this". And to approach the denate with logic will certainly backfire since it is not applicable when dealing with an "assumed belief" as you stated.

I have always wondered if it could at all be possible for a Christain to acknowlege evolution, when the principles directly contradict how god created man and animals according to the holy scripture.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:51 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 12:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 10:24 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  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.

I agree fully with your assessment of not fudging definitions, although in this specific case, they would likely counter by segregating evolution into micro and macroevolution, and then go on to say that antibiotics illustrate the former.

In that specific case, it's an example of they trying to have their cake and eat it too: they don't want to be ignorant of science, but they still have a belief system that science is violating. Such is the realm of pseudoscience.

The idiocy of macro/microevolution is dependent observable adaptation and whether or not life can speciate.

We have numerous documented cases of life speciating; thus, negating micro/macroevolution. Evolution is evolution.

If subject matter is presented in this way, then it forces the Creationist to rethink his position.

It is absolutely crucial for the Creationist to not have life speciate during adaptation. If it does, then it moves from microevolution to macroevolution.

In the form of antibiotics, this happens regularly.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
04-12-2013, 12:51 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 12:35 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I have always wondered if it could at all be possible for a Christain to acknowlege evolution, when the principles directly contradict how god created man and animals according to the holy scripture.

lol.

It is very, very possible.

More possible than I think you realize.

It's so possible it's staring you in the face.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 12:35 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I have always wondered if it could at all be possible for a Christain to acknowlege evolution, when the principles directly contradict how god created man and animals according to the holy scripture.

It really depends on the Christian and how commited they are to biblical inerrancy

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 11:05 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This is why the antibiotic example is so good. It forces them to try and explain how they can rely on evolution science to cure sickness yet they deny the existence of that science. This argument completely ignores any religious text as it's not necessary for the debate. In that, it prevents any distractions and smoke screens from entering the argument because the theology aspect isn't part of the question.

Then the question gets isolated to, "If I accept this how can I accept that?"
I would hope the person would respond that antibiotics weren't invented by "evolution science."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 01:15 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 12:35 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I have always wondered if it could at all be possible for a Christain to acknowlege evolution, when the principles directly contradict how god created man and animals according to the holy scripture.

It really depends on the Christian and how commited they are to biblical inerrancy

I understand this, and it just another aspect of faith that fascinates/frustrates me in that one can accept or discount topics in the book of which your foundation for life is based on. I am a chemist and do not pick and choose what to take as truth while looking at my organic chemistry textbook on my desk here at work. Somebody needs to provide a clear explanation to me how the science behind evolution, along with the tales in the christian bible, can both be considered truth.

I am not looking to start another "science vs religion" or "creation vs evolution" debate in this thread, but the OP topic of selective reasoning is a good one.

I will try to take the antibiotic route next time I find myself in the midst of such a discussion, but I do not hold much hope for opening anyone's mind to the power of scientific evidence over what the pastor says on Sunday mornings.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: