Evidence

[Namaste]

To me constructive debate requires the inquiry of evidence given by both parties. Even in such a case of pro and anti-evolution, it is possible to have a constructive debate because there IS evidence against evolution. I, for one, am a proponent of evolution by natural selection because of the MASSIVE amount of evidence in favor of it, but if people are attempting to argue against evolution with the proper sources and evidence, I believe we would all be for it. Having said so, the vast majority of creationists in this subforum have given no evidence or sources for their positions.

Maybe it's just because I am new to the forums, but in the threads i've read in this subforum the creationists rarely give any proper evidence for their claims. If one doesn't provide evidence, how can they support an argument? I encourage the creationists to give proper evidence simply to provide for a better learning environment, I really do. As well as providing for a better learning environment, both citing sources and giving proper evidence (usually linking to other websites) could allow for the inquirer serendipitous conclusions.

It doesn't seem fair to denounce the evidence of others without giving the proper support to show why.

Thoughts?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is not a debate I would wish to enter again.
As you say the lack of evidence given by creationists leaves one side of the debate rather empty.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm not one of your typical creationists. I believe that evolution is absolutely at work. God isn't stupid. He created a system that mostly controls itself.

To me, every clue the scientists find just fills in a small piece of the great puzzle that is God's great creation.

 

[Willamena]

It's certainly more fun to argue against evidence than against another person's beliefs.

 

[Random]

I am always more concerned about the interpretation of evidence than the evidence itself.

 

[Valjean]

In a way the creationists and evolutionists are arguing different things. They're arguing at cross purposes and don't understand how the opposition can be so obtuse.

Creationism is an assertion of agency or efficient cause, Evolution, on the other hand, is a description of mechanism. It's a who vs how debate.

 

[PureX]

In a way the creationists and evolutionists are arguing different things. They're arguing at cross purposes and don't understand how the opposition can be so obtuse.

Creationism is an assertion of agency or efficient cause, Evolution, on the other hand, is a description of mechanism. It's a who vs how debate.

Very well said.

This happens often when "believers" discuss their concepts of reality with "non-believers". The two have very different ideas of what they consider logical, reasonable, evidence.

Rather than wasting time debating a specific issue, it might be more interesting to just address the differences directly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Creationism is an assertion of agency or efficient cause, Evolution, on the other hand, is a description of mechanism. It's a who vs how debate.

Nonsense. Creationists (as the term is typically employed) are fully invested in counterposing a superficial and literal rendering of scripture to the hows posited by science. On the other hand, one can easily be a theist/deist and embrace evolution. It is not who verses how, but dogma verses science.

 

[Valjean]

Inasmuch as the creationists generally consider their assertions non-falsifiable I'll agree that "dogma vs science" is a reasonable characterization.

 

[Papersock]

At least a couple of times I've noticed someone say "If you don't believe me, then you won't accept the evidence I could show you. So I won't bother showing it to you."

 

[Zeno]

At least a couple of times I've noticed someone say "If you don't believe me, then you won't accept the evidence I could show you. So I won't bother showing it to you."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUmuMhTsM

:help:

 

[mr.guy]

It's certainly more fun to argue against evidence than against another person's beliefs.

Funny, 'cause the other side thinks they're argueing against another set of beliefs...

 

[Papersock]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUmuMhTsM

:help:

...Wow.. I don't know what to say to that.

 

[PureX]

...Wow.. I don't know what to say to that.

It is pretty shocking, but not that unusual. We often project our own flaws onto other people as a way of denying them in ourselves. And as literal creationism involves a habit of willful denial, it's not surprising that such negative projection (the essence of prejudice) would follow close behind. It is pretty creepy, though, to see someone that out of touch with their own humanity, and that willing to blame their own defects of character on someone else. You can't help but wonder how far they would be willing to go in scapegoating other people to deny their own defects, and you know that the answer is that they'll go very, very far before they'll ever look at themselves as a culprit.

Spooky.

 

[Panda]

Its funny because he says he isn't arogant, yet that is the only message and get from him throughout that video.

 

[Fredx10]

I'm not one of your typical creationists. I believe that evolution is absolutely at work. God isn't stupid. He created a system that mostly controls itself.

To me, every clue the scientists find just fills in a small piece of the great puzzle that is God's great creation.

Dream on.