Clarification

[BananaSlug]

This thread is not pointed to anyone in particular.

I've decided I wanted to clarify the reasoning of some of my information dense posts. In the realm of scientific debate evidence is the number one priority. If someone wants to engage in a scientific discussion about anything yet dreads having to read a post filled with (what I think is) scientifically valuable information then do not engage in a scientific discussion in the first place!

Despite my icon I have no problem with religion at all. People can believe in as many gods as they desire. However, I have a problem with people making up bizarre non-rational beliefs in order to justify a certain interpretation of their religion. Doing things such as this always creates a slippery slope when the evidence flies in the face of such antics. Ideas such as "embedded age," "hyperevolution," and the ilk are merely creations to attempt and explain why scientific evidence points away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is not sound theology.

Evolution is not about disproving the Bible or disproving God. Evolution and science are only against certain interpretations of any religious manuscript. Science can never disprove a creator being but it CAN disprove certain interpretations of religious beliefs.

I have my reasons for being an atheist that are apart from any
acceptance of evolution. Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural being that is based in logical problems and/or personal experiences. Evolution is merely a natural phenonmena of allele frequency changes over generational time, based on environmental factors, that can influence the form of living organisms. Whether or not God created this way is irrelevant because science cannot prove or disprove any supernatural creator being, though there are many Christians that accept evolution. However, there is pleny of evidence against a "special creation" based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

I know that some people on this site are so set in their ways that no amount of evidence will change their minds, they'll either try to explain it away or run away. But the evidence still stands. If they are trying to change our minds they need to be prepared to offer evidence in favor of their view because science is based on evidence. Bible quotes are useful in philosophical conversations but useless in scientific discussions (especially since many of us on here can easily refute a verse with another verse). If you have evidence of a global flood, show us. If you have evidence of only 6100 years of human history, show us. But be prepared to have to explain the evidence we show against such things.

And if the evidence definitely disproves a certain interpretation or extra-Biblical opinion, please be sure not to ever use it again or we'll just link the thread where you admitted defeat.

This concludes my half-hearted rant...

 

[Jester4kicks]

You get rep and a cookie.

 

[juvenissun]

This thread is not pointed to anyone in particular.

I've decided I wanted to clarify the reasoning of some of my information dense posts. In the realm of scientific debate evidence is the number one priority. If someone wants to engage in a scientific discussion about anything yet dreads having to read a post filled with (what I think is) scientifically valuable information then do not engage in a scientific discussion in the first place!

Despite my icon I have no problem with religion at all. People can believe in as many gods as they desire. However, I have a problem with people making up bizarre non-rational beliefs in order to justify a certain interpretation of their religion. Doing things such as this always creates a slippery slope when the evidence flies in the face of such antics. Ideas such as "embedded age," "hyperevolution," and the ilk are merely creations to attempt and explain why scientific evidence points away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is not sound theology.

Evolution is not about disproving the Bible or disproving God. Evolution and science are only against certain interpretations of any religious manuscript. Science can never disprove a creator being but it CAN disprove certain interpretations of religious beliefs.

I have my reasons for being an atheist that are apart from any
acceptance of evolution. Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural being that is based in logical problems and/or personal experiences. Evolution is merely a natural phenonmena of allele frequency changes over generational time, based on environmental factors, that can influence the form of living organisms. Whether or not God created this way is irrelevant because science cannot prove or disprove any supernatural creator being, though there are many Christians that accept evolution. However, there is pleny of evidence against a "special creation" based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

I know that some people on this site are so set in their ways that no amount of evidence will change their minds, they'll either try to explain it away or run away. But the evidence still stands. If they are trying to change our minds they need to be prepared to offer evidence in favor of their view because science is based on evidence. Bible quotes are useful in philosophical conversations but useless in scientific discussions (especially since many of us on here can easily refute a verse with another verse). If you have evidence of a global flood, show us. If you have evidence of only 6100 years of human history, show us. But be prepared to have to explain the evidence we show against such things.

And if the evidence definitely disproves a certain interpretation or extra-Biblical opinion, please be sure not to ever use it again or we'll just link the thread where you admitted defeat.

This concludes my half-hearted rant...

A post with abundant information is good, provided there is a focal issue which links all information together.
As I read your OP, there are A LOT of issues involved. To pick up one to discuss is not fair. To discuss all is impossible. That is why such an "informative" post (for discussion/debate) is bad, or to use an impolite, but practical term: junk.

 

[Naraoia]

A post with abundant information is good, provided there is a focal issue which links all information together.
As I read your OP, there are A LOT of issues involved. To pick up one to discuss is not fair. To discuss all is impossible. That is why such an "informative" post (for discussion/debate) is bad, or to use an impolite, but practical term: junk.

Uh. Do I understand you right?

(1) A post with lots of information must be focused.

(2) A post focused on one aspect of a complex topic is junk.

Isn't that, kind of, a... contradiction?

 

[Hespera]

Uh. Do I understand you right?

(1) A post with lots of information must be focused.

(2) A post focused on one aspect of a complex topic is junk.

Isn't that, kind of, a... contradiction?

Its useless when someone brings up so many points that its impossible to deal with them all. That isnt what banana did. Focus on one...if you are seeking debate... is better of course.

A lot of info on that one point is good, if available. I read fast, and I can keep track of the details.

What drives me nuts, is when people use sloppy English that might mean about anything. One of the people who responded to banana is particularly bad that way. Ambiguous or vague remarks, words used to mean whatever the poster cares to pretend they mean, that sort of thing make a realistic discussion nearly impossible. So does the total ilogic of if/then statements that have no if/then to them.

I think some people say things that are deliberately ambiguous, as a way of covering themselves, you cant really pin them down on any error because they can claim they meant whatever is convenient.

It would perhaps a good thing if a few others would care to write a sort of manifesto like banana did, maybe put it in their profile somewhere.

Maybe some people would even glance at it. Someone jumped me yesterday when I quipped that plate tectonics isnt objectionable because it doesnt claim we are descended form monkeys like evolution does. (I though it was funny, but he sure didnt know who he was jumping on abouat that!)

Anyway, banana, I had no trouble following what you said as a clarification

 

[Jester4kicks]

It would perhaps a good thing if a few others would care to write a sort of manifesto like banana did, maybe put it in their profile somewhere.

Maybe some people would even glance at it. Someone jumped me yesterday when I quipped that plate tectonics isnt objectionable because it doesnt claim we are descended form monkeys like evolution does. (I though it was funny, but he sure didnt know who he was jumping on abouat that!)

Don't worry, I had your back.

When that happens to me, I like to give people one of these:

 

[Hespera]

Don't worry, I had your back.

When that happens to me, I like to give people one of these:

noted and appreciated. I thought of trying to draw him in deeper, but I am working on trying to be nicer in here so its just as well for someone to have cut in.

 

[BananaSlug]

A post with abundant information is good, provided there is a focal issue which links all information together.
As I read your OP, there are A LOT of issues involved. To pick up one to discuss is not fair. To discuss all is impossible. That is why such an "informative" post (for discussion/debate) is bad, or to use an impolite, but practical term: junk.

I realized this. I also realize that in science independent evidence is the best evidence there is. For evolution, independent evidence can range fro the paleontological record, cladistics, embryology, genetics, etc. These different issues in science all focus on and verify the same topic; evolution. If many different tenets of science (though may seem "unfair" to dicuss a lot of them at once) show the same result then it is appropriate to discuss them.

 

[juvenissun]

I realized this. I also realize that in science independent evidence is the best evidence there is. For evolution, independent evidence can range fro the paleontological record, cladistics, embryology, genetics, etc. These different issues in science all focus on and verify the same topic; evolution. If many different tenets of science (though may seem "unfair" to dicuss a lot of them at once) show the same result then it is appropriate to discuss them.

Well, it depends on who do you talk to. (and unfortunately, there are people of all levels in this forum).

For example, you may give two examples (you gave many more in other posts), to make argument on one issue. This may be OK to people who does not know much about your example (or know as much as you do). But it would be confusing to people (like me) who can see your two examples are not internally consistent, or are not really relevant. In this case, the more example you give, the more confusing I would become. To you, the post is very informative (or information loaded). To me, you are simply make a fool on yourself, and I would have no idea on which piece of information to take to continue the argument. So, in general, it is a bad idea to give a bunch of information in a debate, when you are not quite sure about "side effects" of the information. It would be much better to just give ONE example, and put that is a question format.

You are doing the same thing as one of the earlier person did. (I could not even remember his name. )