- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Evolution vs. Creationism
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
*SIGH* I dont know why I ever bother arguing. I never get all of my points across to people and it just ends up sounding terribly muttled.
This is how my thoughts look in my head:
This is what happens when I try to speak them:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/DNA_orbit_animated.gif
IndigoSensor, Pictures tell us an awful lot. I have said what I wanted to say with a pic thanks to your post. Others may not understand what I mean by it. It will not look like busted eggs when the picture can only be a picture. While the picture could be altered, its perfection will most likely never change. They used to say a pic was worth a thousand words. I could write a thousand word paper on this pic or animation, but the paper would not say what I wanted to say. You are not the first or the last infj that is often misunderstood.
IndigoSensor, Pictures tell us an awful lot. I have said what I wanted to say with a pic thanks to your post. Others may not understand what I mean by it. It will not look like busted eggs when the picture can only be a picture. While the picture could be altered, its perfection will most likely never change. They used to say a pic was worth a thousand words. I could write a thousand word paper on this pic or animation, but the paper would not say what I wanted to say. You are not the first or the last infj that is often misunderstood.
It's likely it's because people are hooked on a religion which tells them it has all the answers. They think faith is actually a virtue, when they don't realize that faith is only a virtue when it is backed up with inductive example (do you loan strangers money because you have faith in them or do you loan your friend money, when she's paid back before, because you have faith in her?), otherwise it's a vice...and a dangerous one at that.
People think that scientists "have faith" in science. So to them, it's about having faith in science or religion (and even though religion isn't necessary for a Creationist hypothesis, they're invariably linked in the mind of society). One promises eternal life in a heaven, promises of a God coming down and annihilating evil, etc. The other promises cold, hard truth about reality. It's easy to see why they might pick the former.
Now, I'm sure this isn't the only explanation, and it's only a hypothesis, but I have observed many people saying that you just have to "have faith" in science, when this very notion is ludicrous as science itself is based in philosophy, where the answers for justification in science are in constant debate (with some very good answers). Science bases itself in reason at all times, faith is not part of it. If any scientist claimed to have faith in a principle, and that's why he regards it as true, he'd be dismissed right out of hand in the scientific community.
I always love to hear the argument that "most scientists actually believe in God." Well, sorry, but (I can find the study, I don't have it right off hand though) only about 7% of scientists believe in God. Yes, that's right, only 7% of intelligentsia believe in the supernatural. The other 93% are atheist or agnostic. Of the world population, roughly 16% do not adhere to a religion, while 84% do.
To me, this is disturbing...smart people generally don't believe in the supernatural, while the world total is overwhelmingly in favor the other way. I know what I just said isn't exactly what the studies say, but that very conclusion seems to gnaw at me.
No offense, but arguments like this don't help. This is generally a Red Herring, as it has nothing to do with the validity of Creationism or religion. While it's true that religion has caused a lot of lack of progress, even regression, this does not speak for its validity.
Well, in the specific case of Evolution vs Creationism, there are relatively conclusive answers, and evolution comes out a CLEAR winner. There is no scientific basis for creationism...so it doesn't belong in science class. Debate only exists in this case because a bunch of uneducated people want to make age-old arguments that have over and over proven to be bad ones. It only exists because one side doesn't know that they lost.
Last edited:
To be honest, and a bit insensitive, yes, uneducated. Check out Nova's documentary on the Dover School Board trials. The judge went into the case completely uneducated in biology (and btw, he was a very very conservative, religious judge). He returned a decision in complete favor of evolution, stating how that he is now educated on the subject, he understands that creationism/ID is not science and it has nothing of value to true inquiry. So yes, it's generally the uneducated (and education just doesn't come from a school...most schools indoctrinate and not educate anymore), from my observations, that try to bring up creationism as being an actual issue.
Depends on what you mean by changing it. Changing what actually happened is impossible, while changing the interpretation of what happened, yes.
First, and foremost, they are not the first or last human being that is misunderstood. Remember: We're people before we're types. =D
I have been incorrectly corrected. The statement was directed at an individual that is an infj......and by golly a person, too.
It is insensitive to judge anyone as being uneducated simply because of the way a person sees things.
Please note: neither have I corrected either of the two of you, nor have I called anyone insensitive or even wrong.
Similarly, is it not better to hate the evil one does than to hate the one doing evil? My posts will not become assaults on those here. Never.
The older we get, the more experience we have. Most folk go to the experienced for specific reasons that may vary greatly. To think of oneself as being more educated than another when one does not know anything about the other is to assume.
It is very difficult for me to assume a DNA motor crawled out of a mud puddle. Let me get back into my helicopter and try to catch that car again in the math section.....maybe throw a new challenge in there after a day or two of thought. Have a good evening.
...Everyone does realize that evolution is not exactly as strongly supported as we think it is, right? I mean, even after just mulling it over for a while; although you can rationalize it to the point where it does make sense (as was also done with the geocentric universe), when you look at it from retrospect, there are a lot of holes.
Arguments:
Scientific Christian: http://njbiblescience.org/handouts/top.htm
Christian: http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html
Scientific: http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
I am skeptical of both creationism and evolution.
Arguments:
Scientific Christian: http://njbiblescience.org/handouts/top.htm
Christian: http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html
Scientific: http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
I am skeptical of both creationism and evolution.
I thought there were a lot of holes until I did some specific research on a few examples of supposed "irreducible complexity" and found that we do in fact have solid explanations (complete with examples of the stages present in the fossil records or still around in living species) for how complex parts evolved. There is no valid reason to believe that evolution is impossible, and considering the vast amount of evidence for the process, I'm not left with much doubt. Every single piece of evidence pertaining to biology is consistent with the theory evolution. That's why upwards of 99% of biologists accept it.
Creationism, by contrast, has very little supporting evidence. Almost all of the "evidence" that I have seen for it has been proven false (having been produced by dishonest or scientifically defunct methods), or is irrelevant. It has been disproven many times over, by geology, biology, and astronomy.
Creationism, by contrast, has very little supporting evidence. Almost all of the "evidence" that I have seen for it has been proven false (having been produced by dishonest or scientifically defunct methods), or is irrelevant. It has been disproven many times over, by geology, biology, and astronomy.
If we all did this, no one would grow as a person, and society as a whole would never progress.
Woah, sweetheart, chill.
No point in getting worked up like that over a correction. If people didn't correct eachother, where would we be? I second-guess myself a lot and I am just as skeptical with other people. If I fuck up, I expect you to correct me. I'm just treating others as I would like to be treated. And who was calling anyone insensitive? I didn't even see that word thrown around. If anything, I'm the insensitive one here.
I'm kind of high right now and easy to confuse. And, honestly, I have no idea where you just went with that. Talking about DNA, mud puddles, challenges, math, cars, helicopters. The last thing you need are dinosaurs... Then, that post would resemble Jurassic Park. Awesome movie, don't you agree? One of a kind, really... Well, I s'pose it's three-of-a-kind. Lord of the Rings was a pretty good trilogy too. Pretty boring though. I couldn't make it through the first one... I kept falling asleep. Ah, I remember those LotR references in Clerks II. Hilarious movie but Clerks was totally better.
I actually watched Clerks II with my family and friends on my eighteenth birthday. Just ate cake, drunk a bit and watched a movie. Good times.
Oh.
Right.
... What?
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I understand. I am sure you have noticed by now, debating frusterates me to no end. Usually I just sit back and listen and edit what I think acordingly. Cause as I said above, if I try to speak it, it sounds like mush.
Maybe the reason you don't do well is confidence. You try hard to convince people that you're so bad at debate that you've probably long convinced yourself. Now, INTPs are supposed to be Fe inferior, but I know I can understand peoples' feelings pretty well when I make the effort.
I'd suspect you just don't want to put the effort into debate, and it's not that you're bad at it. It sounds like a normal behavior for types that have Ti as a tertiary or inferior...they just don't like using that function, and it's not that they're necessarily bad at it. I'm the same way, I often just don't care about feelings and I often think they're unimportant to the current situation. I just feel more comfortable looking at the world as a big equation.
Forming a good argument is really not terribly difficult. It helps to have an intuition for it, sure, but understanding what it basically is, and then where people tend to go wrong in argumentation is all you need to really know.
An argument is just the logical conclusion given certain premises. If all the premises are taken as true, does the conclusion logically follow? That's the first question you have to ask. If the conclusion does not logically follow from the given premises, then the argument is logically flawed in some way. Normally people aren't just purely illogical, but instead when their argument fails it's because they commit an informal fallacy. Basically, their premises are just irrelevant to the conclusion...such as an ad Hominem (Well, you're not a biologist, so you don't know if evolution is true or not; therefore, evolution is wrong) and argumentum ad populum (Well, the majority of Americans are Christian, so God must exist).
After that it helps to question the premises...are they true? If one or more of the premises is questionable, then you point it out. If one of them is actually false or unknown, then the argument probably falls (unless the premise was irrelevant and the other premises alone prove the conclusion).
Last edited: