Converting a creationist: worth the bother?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well if you can convert him into Gold tell me.

or ALternately if you Convert him into Soylent Greem don't tell anyone, espcieally not on the internet.

[IDMR]

Uh, you know I was exaggerating, right. Quite frankly, it's just a philosophical debate with no real importance. I don't see how knowing the evolutionary family tree on man and what ape he evolved from really matters in daily life. It's not important enough to squabble over with your sister. If your sister was doing something to hurt herself, yeah, I'd make a big deal out of it. But this creationalist/evolution thing isn't what I'd a big priority.

If you were exaggerating, what do you think *I* was doing?

[Darth Wong]

The world isn't going to spontaneously combust or the gravitational constant of the universe isn't going to spike up and collapse everything into a blackhole because your sister believes the earth is 10,000 years old. Let her believe what she wants, and don't lose any sleep over it. Whether she believes the earth is 10,000 or 5 billion years old isn't going to make her a better or worse person.

Wrong. It will make her either stupid/ignorant or intelligent/knowledgeable. It will define whether she is part of modern civilized society, or regressive, reactionary, uncivilized savagery. People who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old are absolute morons, and anyone who would let a sibling fall into the trap of mindless dogma would be a lousy brother. If my brother started walking down that path, you can bet your ass I'd be trying to stop him.

As for us making a big deal out of this, you must not have kids, otherwise you would fear for the future of their education, as the system is currently under assault from lunatics who want to rewrite textbooks to fit their religious beliefs. There is a very good reason that any parent of young children would want to become an activist and fight creationist stupidity wherever it sprouts its mottled head.

[ArthurDent]

Intolerance is a wonderful thing, apparently...

[Wicked Pilot]

Intolerance is a wonderful thing, apparently...

What are you implying?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Intolerance is a wonderful thing, apparently...

What are you implying?

Correcting people is a bad thing even if in doing so you actually help that person understand something and get with the programme.

I would hate to see a day when all the schools taught creationism and dismissed evolution.

[IDMR]

Intolerance is a wonderful thing, apparently...

What are you implying?

He is of the opinion that one should extend tolerance to the terminally ignorant - and their views should be given equal representation, if not greater.

[Wicked Pilot]

He is of the opinion that one should extend tolerance to the terminally ignorant - and their views should be given equal representation, if not greater.

Actually, I'm waiting for Mr ArthurDent to reply himself. Let's see if he's willing to extrapolate on his statement. For you see, I think we have a creationist within our mist.

[Gil Hamilton]

AutherDent is here? This is going to be excellent. Very excellent. *gets out popcorn*

[Resident Creationist]

However, fence-sitters who are easily swayed by "moderate" arguments such as "intelligent design" can also be swayed back by cold, hard logic. At the very least, you put doubt into their minds, and doubt may eventually blossom into full-fledged rejection.

well, I don't tihnk you should close your midn to everything, I personally have good reasons for my Protestant belief, but I haven't completely decided on things such as the age of the earth, and so forth, though I do NOT believe it's only 10,000 years old. I personalyl think it's more like 100,000 years old, but this particular point isn't criticial to my belief one way or the other.

I've lost count of the number of E-mails I've gotten from my "creationism vs science" website

I always find it interesting how people say "creationism vs science", it makes it sound as if they reject all science, when in fact, they simply reject a single aspect of the scientific community (evolution).

which say something like "your arguments are very convincing; I still believe there's something out there, but you've given me a lot to think about." People like that are people who still believe in God, but are smart enough to realize that creationism is an intellectual dead-end street.

Yeah, they aren't completely mutually excusive, althugh there are some significant holes in both theories, however, at this point I'm leaning toward the creationist/intelligent design model myself.

[Antediluvian]

(Yeah, they aren't completely mutually excusive, althugh there are some significant holes in both theories, however, at this point I'm leaning toward the creationist/intelligent design model myself.)

What significant holes are there in evolution?

[Mr. B]

well, I don't tihnk you should close your midn to everything, I personally have good reasons for my Protestant belief, but I haven't completely decided on things such as the age of the earth, and so forth, though I do NOT believe it's only 10,000 years old. I personalyl think it's more like 100,000 years old, but this particular point isn't criticial to my belief one way or the other.

Explain how the earth is 100,000 years old.

[The Yosemite Bear]

No, I want to know what the Mayan and Chinese Calender's go back so much FURTHER then the young earth types say the earth has been around for?

[Meghel]

As for us making a big deal out of this, you must not have kids, otherwise you would fear for the future of their education, as the system is currently under assault from lunatics who want to rewrite textbooks to fit their religious beliefs. There is a very good reason that any parent of young children would want to become an activist and fight creationist stupidity wherever it sprouts its mottled head.

So much for my intention to emigrate to Canada.

Can you give me some examples of this happening in Canada, Mr. Wong?

I would be much obliged.

Meghel


PS: I am on your side in this case.

[Gil Hamilton]

Originally posted by Resident Creationist
well, I don't tihnk you should close your midn to everything, I personally have good reasons for my Protestant belief, but I haven't completely decided on things such as the age of the earth, and so forth, though I do NOT believe it's only 10,000 years old. I personalyl think it's more like 100,000 years old, but this particular point isn't criticial to my belief one way or the other.

There is very little difference in saying that the Earth is 10,000 or a 100,000 really. Both are way less than any dating method you can name says it is.

I always find it interesting how people say "creationism vs science", it makes it sound as if they reject all science, when in fact, they simply reject a single aspect of the scientific community (evolution).

They also reject geology, astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, and just about anything else that doesn't comply with their world view. Creationism is very much anti-science.

Yeah, they aren't completely mutually excusive, althugh there are some significant holes in both theories, however, at this point I'm leaning toward the creationist/intelligent design model myself.

See above. Creationism tends to divorce itself from reality and science entirely.

[Nick]

However, fence-sitters who are easily swayed by "moderate" arguments such as "intelligent design" can also be swayed back by cold, hard logic. At the very least, you put doubt into their minds, and doubt may eventually blossom into full-fledged rejection.

well, I don't tihnk you should close your midn to everything, I personally have good reasons for my Protestant belief, but I haven't completely decided on things such as the age of the earth, and so forth, though I do NOT believe it's only 10,000 years old. I personalyl think it's more like 100,000 years old, but this particular point isn't criticial to my belief one way or the other.

If the point isn't critical, why not just go with the accepted scientific theory?

I mean, these are the two options:
1. Evolution and a universe which is billions of years old is correct. Whether or not God had a hand in it anywhere along the way is irrelevant, since our observations would be the same regardless.

2. God deliberately planted a whole heap of evidence to make it look like the universe was billions of years old and that humans developed by means of evolution. Why would he do that? Umm, dunno. To gloat later on, saying 'Ha ha, fooled you!"?

If you think I'm creating a false dilemna, give me a third choice (the option 'God didn't know we'd misinterpret things' is so ludicrous I barely feel it is worth mentioning. . .)

I've lost count of the number of E-mails I've gotten from my "creationism vs science" website

I always find it interesting how people say "creationism vs science", it makes it sound as if they reject all science, when in fact, they simply reject a single aspect of the scientific community (evolution).

As others have already mentioned, it is very tough to 'reject a single aspect of the scientific community'. The scientific method, and its abiding respect for empiricism, runs through all the disciplines. For many theories, supporting evidence comes from a whole raft of disciplines (as mentioned, evolution and the ancient universe are supported by archaeology, biology, geology, astronomy, particle physics, and probably a bunch of others I've forgotten)

In rejecting evolution (something which the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of), they must be rejecting the whole of science - since the theory of evolution is directly supported by the application of the principles of science to observations of the real world. Either that, or they're just too dumb/indoctrinated to get it.

which say something like "your arguments are very convincing; I still believe there's something out there, but you've given me a lot to think about." People like that are people who still believe in God, but are smart enough to realize that creationism is an intellectual dead-end street.

Yeah, they aren't completely mutually excusive, althugh there are some significant holes in both theories, however, at this point I'm leaning toward the creationist/intelligent design model myself.

Damn, you must think God is a complete goose who couldn't design his way out of a paper bag then.

"Hey, Metatron, I just had a great idea! We'll cross the food pipe over the air pipe! That way, if they accidentally breath in while swallowing, they'll choke and die! Isn't that a great design concept?!"

So, perhaps you'd care to explain these holes in evolution theory, then? (I hope it's not the "How did consciousness evolve?" one. That one stumped me for a few years - as it turns out there are quite a few possibilities for how it could have happened).

[IDMR]

well, I don't tihnk you should close your midn to everything, I personally have good reasons for my Protestant belief, but I haven't completely decided on things such as the age of the earth, and so forth, though I do NOT believe it's only 10,000 years old. I personalyl think it's more like 100,000 years old, but this particular point isn't criticial to my belief one way or the other.

I am glad that it is not, for there are a lot of evidence suggesting that the world is rather older than a hundred thousand years old. The existence of heavy element, for instance. I would also be interested to know you reasoning regarding the figure, as well as did you just believe that to be the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, or that the two is one and the same.

I always find it interesting how people say "creationism vs science", it makes it sound as if they reject all science, when in fact, they simply reject a single aspect of the scientific community (evolution).

Oh, but it is an aspect of science amply supported by many aspects of science at large, from geology to microbiology, physiology to paleontology. Whilst it is perhaps not against all science, it does challeng a sufficient chunk of it for the description to be quite sound.

Yeah, they aren't completely mutually excusive, althugh there are some significant holes in both theories, however, at this point I'm leaning toward the creationist/intelligent design model myself.

Perhaps you would care to outline the 'holes' in the theory of evolution? You might be surprised at how easily they can be answered.

[ArthurDent]

"Correcting people is a bad thing even if in doing so you actually help that person understand something and get with the programme."

That's what you think I said? Upon what is that based?

"He is of the opinion that one should extend tolerance to the terminally ignorant - and their views should be given equal representation, if not greater."

Wow! You got all that from the few words I wrote? It's nice to know that you don't jump to conclusions.

"Actually, I'm waiting for Mr ArthurDent to reply himself. Let's see if he's willing to extrapolate on his statement. For you see, I think we have a creationist within our mist."

You would be correct in the sense that I believe our world, indeed our universe, was created. By what process and over what period of time I do not know...nor do I really care. How I came to be makes no difference to me at all. The fact is that I'm alive today, regardless of origin.

As for my earlier comment, it relates to the attitudes that many display in regards to others and their beliefs/opinions. You may not like them. You may vehemently disagree with them, but they have the same rights as you or I to think what they will and to vocalize it. Some here believe that to be religious makes one lesser...and therefore respect goes right out the window. And as soon as you judge people because of their belief system you become a religious bigot...which is evident in how some talk about others here.

That is to what I spoke. Those who posted as if they know me or to what I reffered are incorrect.

[Darth Wong]

As for my earlier comment, it relates to the attitudes that many display in regards to others and their beliefs/opinions. You may not like them. You may vehemently disagree with them, but they have the same rights as you or I to think what they will and to vocalize it.

Please lay off this fucking strawman!

No one is saying that creationists don't have the right to vocalize their scientifically ignorant and hopelessly irrational opinions. Do you see anyone on this board calling for people to be banned because they're Christian? No. Do you see me banning anyone because they're Christian? No. Do you even see me granting "village idiot" status to people because they're Christian? No. The only thing we are saying is that creationism is irrational. Creationism is scientifically ignorant. That is a fact, and all of your moaning won't change it.

Some here believe that to be religious makes one lesser...and therefore respect goes right out the window. And as soon as you judge people because of their belief system you become a religious bigot.

Bullshit. It is not necessarily wrong to judge someone based on his belief system. As he wrote in "Mein Kampf", Hitler believed that aryans were created by God, but blacks and Asians were evolved from monkeys, so one race is divine and the other race is not. Is it wrong to judge him by that belief system? Of course not!

There is nothing wrong with judging someone by his belief system, so long as you can meet the following criteria:

1. You find out what his beliefs actually are, rather than making a host of assumptions based only on a label.
2. You can actually explain why those beliefs are either stupid, irrational, or evil (depending on what criticism you choose to hurl at them), instead of simply attacking them for being different than yours.

A typical religious bigot does not meet either of those criteria; your average fundie he will typically form a host of assumptions about someone's moral and ethical beliefs based purely on the fact that he is not Christian (or in the more extreme cases, Christian but not fundamentalist), without bothering to find out what he or she actually believes. Your average fundie is incapable of explaining why it is bad to accept science or disbelieve in God, so he tends to resort to bizarre leaps in logic such as "godless = evil".

Please drop your ridiculous blanket generalization that it is wrong to criticize someone's belief system. Many beliefs are profoundly abhorrent and/or stupid, and deserve to be criticized. You are confusing bigotry (hasty generalizations and negative characterizations based on group association) with legitimate criticism (pointing out ethical or logical or factual flaws in certain beliefs).

[Genovas Project]

Bleh, in many cases, convincing a fundamentalists or Christian towards the contrary of they're presumed beliefs is redundant.

You see, after years of engaging and losing debates, they involuntarily form a shelled callous that develops from agitated tissue that is sick of being knocked up with common sense in their head. This allows him/her to become a steel stuffed arse hole, whilst exposing him/her the bliss of ignorance which they reside comfortably in. How do I know this? Because I have just had one surgically removed, alas, allowing me to think logically, and become a self-professed atheist.

Edit: In case this has been received as an ad hominem attack by creationist, I would like to share that it is purely satirical, not meant to take the offensive.

[Resident Creationist]

They also reject geology, astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, and just about anything else that doesn't comply with their world view. Creationism is very much anti-science.

well, in rejecting evolution, for example, you could say they have to reject biology, but it's not entirely true. Most of the concepts of biology, such as how organisms function, and reproduce, and so forth are perfectly well accepted. But regarding the origin of the species, they interpret the findings differently.

I am glad that it is not, for there are a lot of evidence suggesting that the world is rather older than a hundred thousand years old. The existence of heavy element, for instance. I would also be interested to know you reasoning regarding the figure, as well as did you just believe that to be the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, or that the two is one and the same.

when I say age of the Earth, I mean just that. The age of the universe I believe is billions of years old. In Genesis, for example, it gives no time duration between the creation of the universe, and the formation of earth from lifeless rock.

As for how I arrived at that date, is because first off, there's actually some historical evidence dated back far enough to counter the counting-of-the-geneologies model (6-10,000 years). Of course, geneologies weren't meant to be counted up, and usually weren't complete. (oftentimes they'd simply put down inportant or prominent generations)

Also, taking into account that some things on Earth were started off at a somewhat "matured" state, meaning trees full grown, animals, and humans at maturity after Creation, not just starting from infancy for everything. Next, the flood would give an even more skewed appearance of things.

Also, I believe that is long enough for humankind to devolve from the state they were in toward the beginning, where they had better genes to begin with. This is my belief, as if they were created, it wouldn't really make sense to give them flawed genes to begin with.

As for the holes in evolution theory, I'd say just to get things started that abiogenesis seems highly unlikely (this isn't technically evolution theory, but is a necessary step), what "selection methods" do you have before you arrive at life? even to get to the simplest self-replicating equivalent of an RNA strand, the probability of that happening randomly in chemicals are astronomical, (you may see, I've been swayed by the intelligent design theory.)

I have seen some sites which have explained this to a degree, but even those leave holes, such as going from some hydrocarbon that can replicate itself perfectly, to a simplified RNA in a couple of "steps".

I gotta sign off now, so I'll just start you off with that, I'll be back for more later.

[Wicked Pilot]

well, in rejecting evolution, for example, you could say they have to reject biology, but it's not entirely true. Most of the concepts of biology, such as how organisms function, and reproduce, and so forth are perfectly well accepted. But regarding the origin of the species, they interpret the findings differently.

When you reject any sicence in favor of a religious explaniation, you are rejecting all of science. Science is not some kind of set beliefs, it is a simple, rational, and logical method of discovering the workings of the universe. Not 2000 year old dogma dependent on appeals to athority like religion is.

when I say age of the Earth, I mean just that. The age of the universe I believe is billions of years old. In Genesis, for example, it gives no time duration between the creation of the universe, and the formation of earth from lifeless rock.

So you believe that age of the earth is only 100,000 years because Genesis says so. Do you also believe in a goecentric universe? Do you believe pi is exactly three?

As for how I arrived at that date, is because first off, there's actually some historical evidence dated back far enough to counter the counting-of-the-geneologies model (6-10,000 years). Of course, geneologies weren't meant to be counted up, and usually weren't complete. (oftentimes they'd simply put down inportant or prominent generations)

There is no evidence the earth is that old. All the geological evidense points to a billions of years old world.

Also, taking into account that some things on Earth were started off at a somewhat "matured" state, meaning trees full grown, animals, and humans at maturity after Creation, not just starting from infancy for everything. Next, the flood would give an even more skewed appearance of things.

What part of your ass did you pull this from?

Also, I believe that is long enough for humankind to devolve from the state they were in toward the beginning, where they had better genes to begin with. This is my belief, as if they were created, it wouldn't really make sense to give them flawed genes to begin with.

Ah, you believe. Did I mention that I believe that I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

As for the holes in evolution theory, I'd say just to get things started that abiogenesis seems highly unlikely (this isn't technically evolution theory, but is a necessary step),

It's not a necessary step. Abiogenesis could be refuted tomorrow, and evolution would still be valid.

what "selection methods" do you have before you arrive at life? even to get to the simplest self-replicating equivalent of an RNA strand, the probability of that happening randomly in chemicals are astronomical, (you may see, I've been swayed by the intelligent design theory.)

It's your ignorance of chemistry that is astronomical. Chemical reactions are not random. Any high school chemistry student can tell you that.

I have seen some sites which have explained this to a degree, but even those leave holes, such as going from some hydrocarbon that can replicate itself perfectly, to a simplified RNA in a couple of "steps".

Wow, scientist don't know everything! Dude, I never knew this. Thanks for uncovering this revelation for us. Would you like a cookie?

I gotta sign off now, so I'll just start you off with that, I'll be back for more later.

Better dig in folks, we got more bullshit on it's way!

[ArthurDent]

Please lay off this fucking strawman!

Strawman in regards to what?

No one is saying that creationists don't have the right to vocalize their scientifically ignorant and hopelessly irrational opinions.

Their opinions being "scientifically ignorant" and "hopelessly irrational" is your opinion...but my post was not about your opinion, but rather how people are treated here. The tone here is predominantly hostile towards those who believe in creationism. There is even a thread about invading another board simply because many creationists post there.

Do you see anyone on this board calling for people to be banned because they're Christian? No.

I didn't claim that people were calling for Christians to be banned from your site.

Do you see me banning anyone because they're Christian? No.

I didn't make the claim that people were banned from this site for being Christian.

Do you even see me granting "village idiot" status to people because they're Christian? No.

I did not make any comments at all about your "Village Idiot" labeling of people.

The only thing we are saying is that creationism is irrational.

In your opinion, which is not universal. You also lump all creationism into one big bucket, ignoring that fact that there are different branches of thought about creationism...some of which include evolution as a creator's tool.

Creationism is scientifically ignorant.

Which branch? Why? Why do some scientists believe in creationism?

And here's the big question: why does it matter?

Why do you guys get so riled up because someone chooses to believe in something different than you? How does it change your life? If the guy's sister chooses to become a Jehova's Witness, how does that change his life other than the fact his sister has made her own choice?

That is a fact , and all of your moaning won't change it.

I wasn't moaning about your views on the origin of our species. I was talking to the fact that some had shown a lack of respect for others. But think what you will...

Bullshit. It is not necessarily wrong to judge someone based on his belief system.

Really? As the sole basis for judgement? You will make the judgement that someone is ignorant or naive simply because they have chosen to live their life by a different standard than you? What happened to trying to learn about them before sticking a label on them? And for that matter why label them at all?

As he wrote in "Mein Kampf", Hitler believed that aryans were created by God, but blacks and Asians were evolved from monkeys, so one race is divine and the other race is not. Is it wrong to judge him by that belief system? Of course not!

You say this, which I think means that we're supposed to judge a person by their totality (and not just because of one thing), and then say this:

There is nothing wrong with judging someone by his belief system , so long as you can meet the following criteria:

You find out what his beliefs actually are, rather than making a host of assumptions based only on a label.

You can actually explain why those beliefs are either stupid, irrational, or evil (depending on what criticism you choose to hurl at them), instead of simply attacking them for being different than yours.

Those two statements seem contradictary to me. First you say don't, then you say do. Which is it?

And why can't you be happy for people who are content to live thier life by a different standard than you? Instead you want to "hurl" criticisms at them because you happen to disagree with them.

A typical religious bigot does not meet either of those criteria

A bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own." Notice that the definition, from Dictionary.com, doesn't include the two qualifiers you listed above. If one makes judgements about someone based solely on their religion, then he/she is being prejudiced. It mentions nothing about level of knowledge of their belief system or one's ability to call them stupid, ignorant, etc. The very fact that one would treat someone differently simply because of their beliefs makes that person a bigot.

your average fundie he will typically form a host of assumptions about someone's moral and ethical beliefs based purely on the fact that he is not Christian

And I would call that "average fundie" (whatever that is) prejudiced and bigoted as well. But I hardly see how that relates since no "average Fundies" have made any such statements in this thread.

without bothering to find out what he or she actually believes.

The beliefs are irrelevant. If one looks down upon another based simply on their beliefs, that is prejudicial. You wouldn't want me to make claims about you based soley on your heritage/ethnicity, then why is it OK for others to make claims based on beliefs?

Your average fundie is incapable of explaining why it is bad to accept science or disbelieve in God, so he tends to resort to bizarre leaps in logic such as "godless = evil".

So? I have yet to find a good reason why evolution, if proven, would disprove God. The Bible indeed says that we were created, but it does not say how, or by what means. It also doesn't give us definitive times. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that God used an evolutionary process to create man "out of the dust."

Please drop your ridiculous blanket generalization that it is wrong to criticize someone's belief system.

I did not say that it is wrong to criticize someone's belief system. What I said is that it is wrong to think lessor of someone and treat them differently based soley on their belief system. For example, it would be wrong of me to berate/talk down to homosexuals because they are homosexual. I am not gay and I do not support their claims to unique legal status, but I recognize (tolerate) their right to live their lives as they choose. The same should go for religion, race, gender, whatever.

Many beliefs are profoundly abhorrent and/or stupid, and deserve to be criticized.

OK, criticize away. It is possible to criticize a subject without attacking the individual on the other side of the table. I'm only asking that you guys show a little respect for others.

You are confusing bigotry (hasty generalizations and negative characterizations based on group association) with legitimate criticism (pointing out ethical or logical or factual flaws in certain beliefs).

Calling someone stupid or talking down to someone for holding certain beliefs is prejudiced/bigoted. Talking about the beliefs is not. [/b][/quote]

[Sothis]

I think the issue is not so much that people believe in Creationism, but that people want to see Creationism taught as a scientific theory, which it clearly isn't. It's a religious theory and a matter of faith, as opposed to hard fact, or even scientific theory. Therefore if it belongs in schools at all, it only belongs in Religious Education, explained alongside other religious theories from other religions.

[ArthurDent]

Sothis, I totally agree with that. Creationism should not be taught in a science class.