Are we accomplishing anything?

[Aggie]

As some of you probably know, I came to this forum as part of a much larger goal of winning support for evolution, which as I explained here I consider to be very important. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1601746 . However, after seeing what goes on here for about three weeks, I'm starting to wonder whether or not the tactics we're using here are effective.

The YECs who post here are recycling arguments that have already been refuted. In the three weeks that I've been here, they have brought up the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of themodynamics five times. Each time they did so it was refuted, (I was involved in three of them, such as here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1679311 ) so the YECs moved on to other claims that had been previously refuted until a few days had gone by before they mentioned their thermodynamics argument, at which point they brought it up again.

At first I thought that each time it was brought up, it was by someone who hadn't mentioned it before, but now I've begun to see these old arguments being used by the SAME people to whom they were refuted before. Even when it's being brought up by someone who hasn't brought it up before, they aren't bothering to look at the places we've already dealt with this argument.

The evolutionists also sometimes take the initiative, and it's usually to provide a detailed explanation of a branch of science and how it supports evolution or an old earth. God Fearing Atheist and I have done this about the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds, Jet Black has done it about astronomy, and LorentzHA and Frumious Bandersnatch have done it about geology. The YECs generally try to disprove our claims, and eventually give up.

Well, that should mean we're making some progress, right? Unfortunately no. Eventually the YECs either ignore our claims or forget about them, so they revert to saying that the evidence supports young-earth-creationism more strongly than evolution or an old earth, that there's no evidence for old earth/evolution, that these theories have been disproven, and things like that. When we ask for specific examples of what they're talking about, they revert to the claims that we periodically re-refute.

It seems like we aren't getting anywhere. I think we may need a new strategy, but I'm not sure what else we can do.

A potential soluton I'd like to suggest is that there culd be two "index" threads here: one is an index of links to the threads where evolutionists have described evidence that specifically supports evolution, meaning that evolution is the only existing theory that can provide an explanation for it, which can be disputed by creationists on the threads that are being linked to, but should only disputed on the index thread by posting links and very brief summaries of the pages linked to. There would also be a thread where creationists post links to the threads that provide evidence specifically for creationism. When I mean specifically, I mean more something other than attempts to disprove evolution--I mean something that can be explained by young-earth creationism and no other existing theory. Evolutionists can post links there to the threads where they try to refute these claims, but the rebuttals should not themselves be in the index.

I'll give some examples to make it clearer:

Something that could go in the evolution evidence thread: links to threads about vestigial structures whose presence can only be explained by the theory of evolution.
Something that SHOULDN'T go in the evolution evidence thread: links to thread about there being too many species of animals in the world to fit on Noah's ark.

Something that could go in the creationism evidence thread: links to threads about evidence that all groups of animals migrated to their current homes from some point in the middle east within the last 10,000 years. (I haven't seen any good evidence of this yet, but if you find some this is the place to put it.)
Something that SHOULDN'T go in the creationism evidence thread: links to threads about structures in organisms that may be too complex to have evolved.

If either group makes a claim in their index thread that the other group has a problem with, the other group can respond to this claim with a link to a thread where they refute it. The body of the rebuttal should not be in the other group's index thread, however. And as I said before, each group's own index thread should be about supporting their OWN theory rather than disproving the other group's theory.

I'm looking for a solution to the fact that creationists are perpetually ignoring our claims and recycling their own even when they're refuted. Creationists may think that evolutionists are guilty of the same problem, so it is my hope that they would also approve of this method as a way of making that less likely to happen.

This may not be the best possible solution, but I think SOME sort of change is needed. The current method just isn't working.

Does anyone else have any suggestions?

 

[PhantomLlama]

While we are not accomplishign anything with most creationists who post here, there are many lurkers who I hope are gaining something.

Also, run a search for SC&E threads started by 'My Saviour'.

EDIT: That's odd, I cant find it now. Anyway, My Saviour was a creationist who came here filled with fire to destroy evolution, and left an enlightened person.

I think this proves that it depends more upon the nature of the person. Your idea, while good, I feel is unlikely to help because the creationists on this board have problems stemming from their own pride rather than scientific ignorance. I honestly don't think there is much we can do for them, but we must keep up the fight to help the open-minded.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Not affecting anything? Far from it.

Perhaps those who are viewing the boards may gain some insight into scientific knowledge. Knowledge outweighs all wealth. If not that, at least we are furthering a cycle of hatred and distrust.

 

[Jet Black]

well I am learning an awful lot by being here. There is nothing like dispute to get you learning I think.

 

[Aggie]

Your idea, while good, I feel is unlikely to help because the creationists on this board have problems stemming from their own pride rather than scientific ignorance. I honestly don't think there is much we can do for them, but we must keep up the fight to help the open-minded.

I would still expect that having an index of all the evidence for evolution, and another of all the evidence of creationism, would make it easier for people to tell which of the two is stronger. Any of them who really DO believe this would easily be able to see that it isn't true.

And even if the YECs don't stop making their claims about the evidence for creationism being stronger than the evidence for evolution, it would be harder for them to fool other people into believing that this is the case if there's an easy way for people to evaluate which is stronger.

Or do you think that there already isn't a danger of people being fooled? It's hard to tell because we don't have a good way of finding out how many people believe what the're saying.

 

[Jet Black]

well there is www.talkorigins.org that is pretty comprehensive. The thing is that most creationists don't take any notice of it. Blame Morton's Demon. I think at the end of the day, that is all we can do. Just continually present the evidence, and let it speak for itself.

 

[JGMEERT]

Well, here's another viewpoint. I would say (after some 8+ years of doing this sort of thing) that we are going to influence very few people to change their views. It does happen (rarely), but that is not the prime focus. Many of the creationists who post here, then run off after a while, are the same ones who go before school boards etc to get education changed. I suspect that a more significant number of them realize how vacuous the arguments for YE-creationism really are after a few posts. That means they are less likely to stand in a public forum and make the same silly arguments. To me, that's a big victory. I also think that it's important for scientists to take an active role in educating the public about how real science is done and how we 'know' things. Like most other professions, scientists can be shielded from the general public and that's to our detriment. People like Sagan (who I absolutely love), Dawkins (who is a bit crass towards religion), HAwking, Gould etc have done a great service to their scientific peers by taking the time to explain science to the public. Sadly, many of them are looked upon with some disdain for taking time away from 'professional' publication to write popular books. Anyway, I'm here not to change creationists minds on their beliefs, but to let them know that silly claims are going to make them look silly if they 'try' them in a more important public arena.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Aggie]

well there is www.talkorigins.org that is pretty comprehensive. The thing is that most creationists don't take any notice of it. Blame Morton's Demon. I think at the end of the day, that is all we can do. Just continually present the evidence, and let it speak for itself.

Unfortunately, TalkOrigins now has a creationist site devoted to counterracting its claims: http://www.trueorigin.org .

Most of TrueOrigin's claims are false, but there are enough people who won't be able to tell that for it to still accomplish its purpose: making it look like TalkOrigins' claims have been disproven, or at least that there's a tenable alternative viewpoint. Creationists don't get to post articles supporting their viewpoint at TalkOrigins, so there's never any sort of side-by-side comparison between creationism and evolutionism that TrueOrigin won't be able to convince people is biased.

There are plenty of creationists now who think that TalkOrigins is just as biased and inaccurate as we consider THEIR websites to be. And without the sort of compilation of evidence this board currently lacks, I don't think we'll be able to convince them that it IS any better. They won't consider TalkOrigins to be a good indicator of which side is stronger if they won't trust it from the beginning.

The sort of side-by-side comparison that I'm proposing, with each side's claims open to rebuttal from the other side if they are is able to refute it, may be able to provide an indicator of which side is better-supported that creationists will trust more than TalkOrigins. Both sides will be operating under exactly the same rules, which is the trait that TalkOrigins lacks that prevents most creationists from trusting it.

 

[Jet Black]

indeed. I did my usual search for atavism/atavistic, and see that they intentionally obfuscate the word with vestigial, and make no menton of atavistic whale hind legs. at least AIG give it a go, although they seem to miss the actual evidence and post a picture of a whale with a bony disease, rather than the 3 foot long atavistic hind leg that was actually found on a whale.

remember that many creationists will only believe what supports their pre defined views. so the second they hear of moon dust, they take it in, but the second you illustrate the refutation and evidence, they ignore you. Morton's demon strikes again.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I would still expect that having an index of all the evidence for evolution, and another of all the evidence of creationism, would make it easier for people to tell which of the two is stronger. Any of them who really DO believe this would easily be able to see that it isn't true.

And even if the YECs don't stop making their claims about the evidence for creationism being stronger than the evidence for evolution, it would be harder for them to fool other people into believing that this is the case if there's an easy way for people to evaluate which is stronger.

Or do you think that there already isn't a danger of people being fooled? It's hard to tell because we don't have a good way of finding out how many people believe what the're saying.

I think you make a good point here. I have changed my mind, it would perhaps be useful in sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of new creationists.

I also move we coninually bump Ashibaka's FAQ thread to the top of the forum. It will be useful to point new creationists to.

 

[Kathryn]

Why is this an issue? Frankly, evolution does take place on some scale. Viruses, for example, have evolved right before our eyes over the last 50 - 100 years. Macro evolution has very good supporting evidence and it is a logical conclusion for that evidence, but it has it's holes as well. There are lots of assumptions and cooralatory events and we still don't know where those cosmic particles came from in the first place or why they exploded and the transitional fossils are sparse and not very conclusive. But, that is what the scientific community believes, so that is what should be taught in a "science class" otherwise you are neglecting the education of our children. Not to mention the fact that the subject is facinating and includes well documented evolution of complex elements, even amino and ribonucleic acids, from just a few simple ones. To neglect that education is a sin in my mind. But why do you feel the need to 'convert' creationists?

On the other hand, why does evolution threaten Christian faith? Let's say the whole evolution theory is correct, why does that threaten what you believe? Let's say God did use chemical and genetic evolution to create life on earth, how do you think He would have explained that to people 3 or 4 thousand years before Christ? What if Genesis said "In the beginning there was a primordial soup..."? What if God tried to explain Mendelian theories to those people? Do you think we, even to our generation, could understand what really happened on a molecular level, or even a level still not known, if He explained it? It is very possible that He explained it to a people in the way that they could understand it. How do you explain things to your children? You dumb it down. If you didn't you would overwhelm them and they wouldn't be any closer to understanding their world then before they went to you for that understanding. Have faith people that God is even bigger than your Bibles, not contrary to it, but open your mind to know that He is bigger than the limitations that your concepts of doctrine place on Him.

Personally, I'm a Bible-believing Christian that loves Graham Handcock's ideas. Anyone heard of him? Not to mention some evidence in the Bible that suggests the world was created before 'our' creation.

 

[Jet Black]

the transitional fossils are sparce and not very conclusive.

well the therapsids are very very well documented and provide pretty conclusive evidence of reptile -> mammal evolution.

 

[Kathryn]

well the therapsids are very very well documented and provide pretty conclusive evidence of reptile -> mammal evolution.

Most transitional fossils indicate dead ends in evolution. "Missing links" are hard to come by. That is, at least, according to my secular biology professor who's specialty and 'doctrine' is evolution.

 

[Jet Black]

yeah, but that takes nothing away from the impressive nature of the therapsid lineage.

 

[JGMEERT]

Most transitional fossils indicate dead ends in evolution.

JM: NOt to be flippant here, but most fossils are 'dead ends'. I don't see the relevance of this claim.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Kathryn]

JM: NOt to be flippant here, but most fossils are 'dead ends'. I don't see the relevance of this claim.

I can't tell if you are joking here or not, but what I mean by 'dead ends' is their lineage stopped and did not continue to evolve into what we have today.

Jet Black wrote:

yeah, but that takes nothing away from the impressive nature of the therapsid lineage.

The whole study is impressive! This part is new to me, I'll look into it.

 

[Jet Black]

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/410Cynodontia/410.000.html

there is one good site. It is worth poking round on google I think.

 

[Kathryn]

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/410Cynodontia/410.000.html

there is one good site. It is worth poking round on google I think.

Thanks, Jet Black!

 

[MartinM]

Macro evolution has very good supporting evidence and it is a logical conclusion for that evidence, but it has it's holes as well. There are lots of assumptions and cooralatory events and we still don't know where those cosmic particles came from in the first place or why they exploded and the transitional fossils are sparse and not very conclusive

The underlined part has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[MySavior]

As some of you probably know, I came to this forum as part of a much larger goal of winning support for evolution, which as I explained here I consider to be very important. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1601746 . However, after seeing what goes on here for about three weeks, I'm starting to wonder whether or not the tactics we're using here are effective.

The YECs who post here are recycling arguments that have already been refuted. In the three weeks that I've been here, they have brought up the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of themodynamics five times. Each time they did so it was refuted, (I was involved in three of them, such as here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1679311 ) so the YECs moved on to other claims that had been previously refuted until a few days had gone by before they mentioned their thermodynamics argument, at which point they brought it up again.

At first I thought that each time it was brought up, it was by someone who hadn't mentioned it before, but now I've begun to see these old arguments being used by the SAME people to whom they were refuted before. Even when it's being brought up by someone who hasn't brought it up before, they aren't bothering to look at the places we've already dealt with this argument.

The evolutionists also sometimes take the initiative, and it's usually to provide a detailed explanation of a branch of science and how it supports evolution or an old earth. God Fearing Atheist and I have done this about the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds, Jet Black has done it about astronomy, and LorentzHA and Frumious Bandersnatch have done it about geology. The YECs generally try to disprove our claims, and eventually give up.

Well, that should mean we're making some progress, right? Unfortunately no. Eventually the YECs either ignore our claims or forget about them, so they revert to saying that the evidence supports young-earth-creationism more strongly than evolution or an old earth, that there's no evidence for old earth/evolution, that these theories have been disproven, and things like that. When we ask for specific examples of what they're talking about, they revert to the claims that we periodically re-refute.

It seems like we aren't getting anywhere. I think we may need a new strategy, but I'm not sure what else we can do.

A potential soluton I'd like to suggest is that there culd be two "index" threads here: one is an index of links to the threads where evolutionists have described evidence that specifically supports evolution, meaning that evolution is the only existing theory that can provide an explanation for it, which can be disputed by creationists on the threads that are being linked to, but should only disputed on the index thread by posting links and very brief summaries of the pages linked to. There would also be a thread where creationists post links to the threads that provide evidence specifically for creationism. When I mean specifically, I mean more something other than attempts to disprove evolution--I mean something that can be explained by young-earth creationism and no other existing theory. Evolutionists can post links there to the threads where they try to refute these claims, but the rebuttals should not themselves be in the index.

I'll give some examples to make it clearer:

Something that could go in the evolution evidence thread: links to threads about vestigial structures whose presence can only be explained by the theory of evolution.
Something that SHOULDN'T go in the evolution evidence thread: links to thread about there being too many species of animals in the world to fit on Noah's ark.

Something that could go in the creationism evidence thread: links to threads about evidence that all groups of animals migrated to their current homes from some point in the middle east within the last 10,000 years. (I haven't seen any good evidence of this yet, but if you find some this is the place to put it.)
Something that SHOULDN'T go in the creationism evidence thread: links to threads about structures in organisms that may be too complex to have evolved.

If either group makes a claim in their index thread that the other group has a problem with, the other group can respond to this claim with a link to a thread where they refute it. The body of the rebuttal should not be in the other group's index thread, however. And as I said before, each group's own index thread should be about supporting their OWN theory rather than disproving the other group's theory.

I'm looking for a solution to the fact that creationists are perpetually ignoring our claims and recycling their own even when they're refuted. Creationists may think that evolutionists are guilty of the same problem, so it is my hope that they would also approve of this method as a way of making that less likely to happen.

This may not be the best possible solution, but I think SOME sort of change is needed. The current method just isn't working.

Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Yes, you are accomplishing A LOT!! I was an ignorant as they come (but thought I knew alot, creationist!) Now I am a TE and enrolled in college! My YEC church always talked down about education. Now I love it and have left that church!! Jesus lives and so does education and fact!!