How to discuss Creationism - EFFECTIVELY

Patty · #1 12th July 2002, 11:47 PM

Hi folks,

I'd like to share with you an effective method for discussing Creationism.  It works.

First, I'd like to comment that the way the discussions usually go is they are very wordy.  The wordiness of one's discussions weakens one's position.  I suggest that any discussion of Creationism be kept simple.

Next, each key word that is used in your discussion is to be clearly understood and explained by the presenter.  Most of the posts I've seen on the topic employ abundant technical terms that the readers may not understand.  And, it would be nice to see that the presenter himself truly understands them.  Even nicer if he explains his use of these terms in clear and simple language.

I have solid proof of Creationism.  I'd love to share it, using what I've just stated.  If you'd like me to share it, let me know.  Please keep in mind that I choose to take it a simple step at a time, over several posts, so that the reader can digest what I say.

 

Patty

 

seebs · #2 12th July 2002, 11:52 PM

Depending on what you mean by proof, and what you mean by creationism, I'd be interested.

For starters, can you prove that the world wasn't created, complete, last Tuesday? I can't.

Patty · #3 12th July 2002, 11:58 PM

Seebs,
The first step in a discussion such as Creationism, or any other controversial topic, is to begin with what is known.

Establish a common basis of facts that both sides of a controversial topic can agree are important to the discussion.

I'll begin:

First: Life exists.
The world exists.
I exist, you exist.

Second: I did not cause life to exist.
Nor could I do that.
Nor could you do that.
Nor could any man or other being on this world do that.

Third: The challenge regarding when the world was or was not completed is begging the question. It's nowhere near relevant to the issue, particulary at this point.
If you'd like to discuss timeframes, first lay your foundation of facts.

Okay?

Patty · #4 13th July 2002, 12:00 AM

Seebs,

Also, as simple as my approach may seem, it works.

If you'd like to continue the discussion to a point where discovery of concrete evidence is made, I'll be happy to oblige.

seebs · #5 13th July 2002, 12:03 AM

I'm fine with going along, because I want to see your argument.

What do you mean by "cause life to exist"? Reproduction is easy. Do you mean new life? Presumably you don't want to count genetic engineering, but rather, the initial formation of life, which obviously can't be the result of intentional actions by that not-yet-existant life...

So, for now, I'll cheerfully grant that, so far as I know, at some point, some kind of life has to have come into being, without action by anything we could recognize as a kind of life.

chickenman · #6 13th July 2002, 12:07 AM

"Second: I did not cause life to exist.
Nor could I do that.
Nor could you do that.
Nor could any man or other being on this world do that."

Debatable, they just built a polio virus from scratch.

seebs · #7 13th July 2002, 12:11 AM

I think it's reasonable to assume, in context, that we're talking about the *first* life, which was presumably not formed by some other pre-existing life form; that would be contradictory.

chickenman · #8 13th July 2002, 12:16 AM

oh right, sure, I'll go with that,

i'm interested

1 dollar says this will be a rehash of the usual creationist arguments - I hope not, i'm sick of seeing them and sick of seeing them refuted - give us a new challenge

Patty · #9 13th July 2002, 12:16 AM

Seebs:

The point that I had referred to in my first post is this:
For a discussion to occur in an effective manner, keep it simple.
Explain what you are saying in a clear and simple manner.

I won't deviate from that.

I had said:
First: life exists.
The world exists.
I exist, you exist.

Second: I did not cause life to exist.
Nor could I do that....

Again, you beg the question by referring to reproduction. Reproduction does not cause life to exist. Reproduction is not Creation. Reproduction occurs as a result of something already existing, and existing in living form. The combining of egg with sperm is the combining of two already living things to result in an individual that can exist apart from the individuals whose bodies produced the egg and sperm in the first place.
Egg and sperm are the result of a life process that is continuing in the individuals aforementioned.

This discussion of reproduction, as I said, begs the question of establishing fundamental facts from which sensible discussion can proceed.

That, in my opinion, is why there's so much confusion in the discussions people have on this topic - and so many, many other.

Proper, precise communication is important to me. As elementary as some points may seem, it's well-worth taking them a step at a time to lay the right foundation of facts for engaging in good dialogue.

I have a saying: Moot must be proven true.

seebs · #10 13th July 2002, 12:19 AM

It is often impossible to express things correctly and simply, because some things aren't simple.

I think it's clear that, with technology we have today, we *can* create simple life, although it's rather hard. I'd guess we could create new stuff from scratch in another five or ten years, at this rate.

However, it seems reasonable to assume that this isn't how life came into being, so, *for purposes of this argument*, yes, we assume that no one around here can create life.

So... life exists, and we didn't do it. So?