Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
I've never understood why this argument goes on and on as it always does. If I met a man who claimed that an apple was a bowling ball, and I knew he believed what he claimed, I would just walk away. What point would there be in arguing with him? He has obviously rejected reason in favor of his ridiculous belief, and what else could I offer him but reason?

And yet every time this subject comes up on TOL the posts go on and on into the hundreds. And when this thread dies, there will soon be another.

Can any of you tell me why you keep arguing about this? Isn't it apparent that neither position will accept the other?
 
Tyrathca

Tyrathca

New member
PureX said:
I've never understood why this argument goes on and on as it always does. If I met a man who claimed that an apple was a bowling ball, and I knew he believed what he claimed, I would just walk away. What point would there be in arguing with him? He has obviously rejected reason in favor of his ridiculous belief, and what else could I offer him but reason?
Click to expand...
The difference is I don't have to meet these people, it's all on the internet so I control the engagement.

Why do I continue? (This goes for most of my debates on this forum, not just Evolution vs Creationism)
> Partly because I find it fun, I've intentionally sort out people who hold a viewpoint far from mine because it makes debates more interesting (for me).
> It is also useful. If I can't articulate my own beliefs to someone well then there is something wrong with my beliefs. And in the process of articulating my beliefs I am often forced to look up details that I find myself unacceptably ignorant of, so I learn things in the process (never seems to be what the creationists want me to learn though!)
> These two combine into a game of how to make my viewpoint as hard to rebut as possible (this may require changing my viewpoint). It's a challenge and I get a kick out of when I think I have done well (whether the other people agree with me is irrelevant)
> Finally just because they will never agree doesn't mean they should go unchallenged. By not challenging them it gives the impression that they aren't challengable, which makes it more likely those on the fence will be swayed the wrong way simply because they haven't heard the rebuttals.
> Finally I also just enjoy making people look stupid. Not a great character trait I'm sure but hey, that's me (and I rarely get to do it in real life. I'm too polite there)
 
M

Monk316

New member
PureX said:
I've never understood why this argument goes on and on as it always does. If I met a man who claimed that an apple was a bowling ball, and I knew he believed what he claimed, I would just walk away. What point would there be in arguing with him? He has obviously rejected reason in favor of his ridiculous belief, and what else could I offer him but reason?

And yet every time this subject comes up on TOL the posts go on and on into the hundreds. And when this thread dies, there will soon be another.

Can any of you tell me why you keep arguing about this? Isn't it apparent that neither position will accept the other?
Click to expand...

I honestly look for answers. If an something is found that challenges my current thinking, I evaluate it. I'm not looking to convince others. I'm looking for truth.
 
6days

6days

New member
Monk316 said:
Yeah creationist usually do a much better job of arguing their point and using their evidence. The evolution usually resorts to trying to poke holes in Christianity. They get away from their evidence quickly because of the amount of faith it takes to believe it.
Click to expand...
In the 70's & 80's there were more debates than we see nowadays. Creationists were winning most debates. So. Evolutionists and groups such ad NCSE then started preaching 'don't debate creationists, it gives them legitimacy'. :)

So of course creationists were able to claim that evolutionists were afraid of the science. This didn't sit well with people such as Richard Dawkins. Dawkins the. Started selecting weaker opponents to debate. Dawkins has been harshly criticized for this tactic even by some of his fellow evolutionists. I suspect he has a fear of losing and that's why he is criticizing Bill Nye for accepting this debate.

I think Ken Ham will do well but not sure if either side will win. Who will really win is people who are able to listen openly.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Tyrathca said:
The difference is I don't have to meet these people, it's all on the internet so I control the engagement.

Why do I continue? (This goes for most of my debates on this forum, not just Evolution vs Creationism)
> Partly because I find it fun, I've intentionally sort out people who hold a viewpoint far from mine because it makes debates more interesting (for me).
> It is also useful. If I can't articulate my own beliefs to someone well then there is something wrong with my beliefs. And in the process of articulating my beliefs I am often forced to look up details that I find myself unacceptably ignorant of, so I learn things in the process (never seems to be what the creationists want me to learn though!)
> These two combine into a game of how to make my viewpoint as hard to rebut as possible (this may require changing my viewpoint). It's a challenge and I get a kick out of when I think I have done well (whether the other people agree with me is irrelevant)
> Finally just because they will never agree doesn't mean they should go unchallenged. By not challenging them it gives the impression that they aren't challengable, which makes it more likely those on the fence will be swayed the wrong way simply because they haven't heard the rebuttals.
> Finally I also just enjoy making people look stupid. Not a great character trait I'm sure but hey, that's me (and I rarely get to do it in real life. I'm too polite there)
Click to expand...
I appreciate the honest response, but don't all these reasons boil down to further entrenchment? Sort of like saying; "I just want to be as right as I can be". So that when two already entrenched people meet, they stand and debate on and on so that they can further entrench themselves.

What a strange phenomena! And surely I have done it many times, myself.

Now days, though, I seem to have become more interested in these kinds of debates as a form of 'polemic entrapment'. Where the way out is the opposite of what we would think: instead of endless debate resulting in deeper and deeper entrenchment, the solution is to try and understand the opposing view well enough to incorporate it with our own, so as to become two aspects of the same greater whole.

In this case, maybe try to see how creationism is an integral expression of the evolution of consciousness. Or from the creationists perspective, maybe try to recognize that both the creation story and the evolution story might be different ways of telling the same story.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Monk316 said:
I honestly look for answers. If an something is found that challenges my current thinking, I evaluate it. I'm not looking to convince others. I'm looking for truth.
Click to expand...
One thing I have learned in my time on this Earth is that almost no one is really looking for truth. What we're looking for is the illusion of being right. Because in that illusion, we feel secure. And yet the more intently we chase after that illusion, the more insecure we actually become.

It's like an addiction. The more "feel good" we get, the more "feel good" we need, because it's a false "feel good". It doesn't last, and it takes more and bigger illusions to maintain the effect.

The real solution to our insecurities is to face them down: to look our ignorance and vulnerability right in the face and accept them as an inevitable part of the human condition. Once we find the courage to do that, we will find the courage to let go of our need for entrenchment. Our need to be "right". And the need for absolute totems like a literal interpretation of the Bible, and a 6 day Genesis.
 
6days

6days

New member
Monk316 said:
Yeah creationist usually do a much better job of arguing their point and using their evidence. The evolution usually resorts to trying to poke holes in Christianity. They get away from their evidence quickly because of the amount of faith it takes to believe it.
Click to expand...
In the 70's & 80's there were more debates than we see nowadays. Creationists were winning most debates. So. Evolutionists and groups such ad NCSE then started preaching 'don't debate creationists, it gives them legitimacy'. :)

So of course creationists were able to claim that evolutionists were afraid of the science. This didn't sit well with people such as Richard Dawkins. Dawkins the. Started selecting weaker opponents to debate. Dawkins has been harshly criticized for this tactic even by some of his fellow evolutionists. I suspect he has a fear of losing and that's why he is criticizing Bill Nye for accepting this debate.

I think Ken Ham will do well but not sure if either side will win. Who will really win is people who are able to listen openly.
 
M

Monk316

New member
PureX said:
One thing I have learned in my time on this Earth is that almost no one is really looking for truth. What we're looking for is the illusion of being right. Because in that illusion, we feel secure. And yet the more intently we chase after that illusion, the more insecure we actually become.

It's like an addiction. The more "feel good" we get, the more "feel good" we need, because it's a false "feel good". It doesn't last, and it takes more and bigger illusions to maintain the effect.

The real solution to our insecurities is to face them down: to look our ignorance and vulnerability right in the face and accept them as an inevitable part of the human condition. Once we find the courage to do that, we will find the courage to let go of our need for entrenchment. Our need to be "right". And the need for absolute totems like a literal interpretation of the Bible, and a 6 day Genesis.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you learned all that good stuff. It has nothing to do with me and why I enter debates on this specific topic.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Monk316 said:
I'm glad you learned all that good stuff. It has nothing to do with me and why I enter debates on this specific topic.
Click to expand...
No, it was about pursuing illusions of righteousness. Which is something I see people on both sides of this debate doing, often. And it's why I think people become trapped in the polemic of it.
 
doloresistere

doloresistere

New member
Tyrathca said:
The difference is I don't have to meet these people, it's all on the internet so I control the engagement.

Why do I continue? (This goes for most of my debates on this forum, not just Evolution vs Creationism)
> Partly because I find it fun, I've intentionally sort out people who hold a viewpoint far from mine because it makes debates more interesting (for me).
> It is also useful. If I can't articulate my own beliefs to someone well then there is something wrong with my beliefs. And in the process of articulating my beliefs I am often forced to look up details that I find myself unacceptably ignorant of, so I learn things in the process (never seems to be what the creationists want me to learn though!)
> These two combine into a game of how to make my viewpoint as hard to rebut as possible (this may require changing my viewpoint). It's a challenge and I get a kick out of when I think I have done well (whether the other people agree with me is irrelevant)
> Finally just because they will never agree doesn't mean they should go unchallenged. By not challenging them it gives the impression that they aren't challengable, which makes it more likely those on the fence will be swayed the wrong way simply because they haven't heard the rebuttals.
> Finally I also just enjoy making people look stupid. Not a great character trait I'm sure but hey, that's me (and I rarely get to do it in real life. I'm too polite there)
Click to expand...

You enjoy making people look stupid? I've run into far too many of your kind in my life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top