Table Salt
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 01:41 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  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.
Some of the more conservative christians would say that evolution is not science because science can only test repeatable experiments and evolution, according to them, cant be tested in a lab.
i recommend creating doubt in the bible and its inerrancy is the way to go for most conservative crhstians as the science stuff is going to fly over their heads

“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
05-12-2013, 10:19 PM
RE: Table Salt
(04-12-2013 11:05 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  For the most part, Creationists can be very logical

In what alternate fucking universe.

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
06-12-2013, 07:12 AM
RE: Table Salt
Sorry for being a troll, but sodium is not explosive Smile

An explosion happens, when the reaction yields much more product molecules than educt molecules. For instance, TNT:
2 C7H5N3O6 → 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C
Every 2 molecules (solid) are converted into 22 molecules.

When you throw sodium into water, you form a lot of hydrogen gas, which leads to a splash, that could be called "explosion". Also the reacton is very exothermic, providing the heat.

Sorry for being a troll again Tongue

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 12:42 PM
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.

This isn't going to work.

The problem IS NOT that they are not logical and rational, the problem is that their model of the universe, their world view is so radically different. I tried this with my father (on a matter of physics, but it does apply). I see the universe and rational, logical, and orderly; as something that we as human being can understand and figure out. He sees the universe and reality as capricious and inconsistent, where what is true one moment might not be true a moment later, or in another place.

According to MY view of the universe, A is A, no matter where it is (outside a quantum scale, I don't want to hear about probability right now). According to his, we can never know if A is A unless we are able to look at it directly. If you put it in California A might turn out to be Tuna.

I might sound like a pessimist, but I don't know if there IS a way to approach this. If we can't look at something and agree about its basic fundamental nature then we have no foundation for discussion. The people who argue against evolution don't see the world in the same way, they don't see it as logical and rational. They see everything as inconsistent and relying solely upon the whim of some omnipotent being. Does he want salt to taste good? Then it does! Does he want it to be a green goop that turns food into monsters? Then it'll do that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Table Salt
(06-12-2013 12:42 PM)natachan Wrote:  This isn't going to work.

The problem IS NOT that they are not logical and rational, the problem is that their model of the universe, their world view is so radically different. I tried this with my father (on a matter of physics, but it does apply). I see the universe and rational, logical, and orderly; as something that we as human being can understand and figure out. He sees the universe and reality as capricious and inconsistent, where what is true one moment might not be true a moment later, or in another place.

According to MY view of the universe, A is A, no matter where it is (outside a quantum scale, I don't want to hear about probability right now). According to his, we can never know if A is A unless we are able to look at it directly. If you put it in California A might turn out to be Tuna.

I might sound like a pessimist, but I don't know if there IS a way to approach this. If we can't look at something and agree about its basic fundamental nature then we have no foundation for discussion. The people who argue against evolution don't see the world in the same way, they don't see it as logical and rational. They see everything as inconsistent and relying solely upon the whim of some omnipotent being. Does he want salt to taste good? Then it does! Does he want it to be a green goop that turns food into monsters? Then it'll do that.
Speaking of illogical and irrational, you're making sweeping generalizations from a sample size of one. I'm a YEC and I see the universe as orderly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 07:22 PM
RE: Table Salt
My father is an agnostic, he just connected the final dot for me. He isn't a creationist. He does share the sort of rational inconsistency that they do.

As to your claim I don't know. Remember that orderly =\= rational. The idea of god setting up the universe to make it look several billion years old isn't rational. It may be orderly, but it's logical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 07:44 PM
RE: Table Salt
(06-12-2013 07:22 PM)natachan Wrote:  As to your claim I don't know. Remember that orderly =\= rational. The idea of god setting up the universe to make it look several billion years old isn't rational. It may be orderly, but it's logical.

It's functionally identical to Last Thursdayism. That is also pretty much the same as Last Tuesdayism, but we all know that Last Tuesdayism is bullshit. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
06-12-2013, 07:56 PM
RE: Table Salt
I just realized my autocorrect messed up the last sentence of that. I hope you can understand what I meant. (It isn't to it's)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 09:29 PM
RE: Table Salt
(06-12-2013 07:56 PM)natachan Wrote:  I just realized my autocorrect messed up the last sentence of that. I hope you can understand what I meant. (It isn't to it's)

I knew what you meant, and I'd hoped it was obvious.

Unless you actually think I believe in Last Thursdayism. Blink What? You can't technically prove it wrong...





Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Table Salt
(06-12-2013 01:05 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 12:42 PM)natachan Wrote:  This isn't going to work.

The problem IS NOT that they are not logical and rational, the problem is that their model of the universe, their world view is so radically different. I tried this with my father (on a matter of physics, but it does apply). I see the universe and rational, logical, and orderly; as something that we as human being can understand and figure out. He sees the universe and reality as capricious and inconsistent, where what is true one moment might not be true a moment later, or in another place.

According to MY view of the universe, A is A, no matter where it is (outside a quantum scale, I don't want to hear about probability right now). According to his, we can never know if A is A unless we are able to look at it directly. If you put it in California A might turn out to be Tuna.

I might sound like a pessimist, but I don't know if there IS a way to approach this. If we can't look at something and agree about its basic fundamental nature then we have no foundation for discussion. The people who argue against evolution don't see the world in the same way, they don't see it as logical and rational. They see everything as inconsistent and relying solely upon the whim of some omnipotent being. Does he want salt to taste good? Then it does! Does he want it to be a green goop that turns food into monsters? Then it'll do that.
Speaking of illogical and irrational, you're making sweeping generalizations from a sample size of one. I'm a YEC and I see the universe as orderly.

Although I don't think you can invoke induction to describe the Universe. For instance, you cannot induce, despite apparently repeatable and consistent observations, that snakes cannot talk. Lol.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: