South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 14, 2019, 15:59:38 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

External Hot Spots

 (Read 4964 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2014, 22:38:37 PM »

Yeah, I think I hear you Rigil - debating with these guys usually ends up all about semantics - word games that really turns out to be meaningless dribble depending on how far they try to bend over backwards.

One thing is for sure, debates are never about changing the opponent's view, but offer a chance for the independent observer, the audience to listen to both sides and make up their own minds, the only problem with that when it comes to religion is that especially fundies are never really objective or independent enough to really listen to the  opposing camp's argument and when the YEC camp speaks, they always aim to affirm dearly held convictions of the sheeple and are not there to prove or to disprove anything.
 
So as Mefiante, says, it's a bad idea to do debates on their home turf, they'll surely be "beyond reach" there, I fear that as far as the public is able to sniff out the fact from bullshit goes however depends more about how open the audience really is and not just amen behind their camp leader and clam their ears shut and go into some spiritual trance-like deaf state when the other half speaks.

 
But I really like what you (Mefiante, Brianvds) have to say about concentrating on keeping the other side on the defensive by asking for scientific proofs for their claims, usually this is never the way these "debates' go, they always keep you on the defensive.

In anyway, if I don't want to get dragged into these debates, I usually stop at admitting that I do't "believe in evolution" but that I accept it as the best scientific explanation we currently have, then they will always ask if you don't care or wonder where we come from and some such - my reply - in a word no, as long as the wheels on the bus goes round and round...

it's admittedly a bit of a cop-out, but it usually stops them in their tracks.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Online Online

Posts: 1866



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2014, 04:30:28 AM »

And now, it is surely time for a "best of" post, of the comments that were posted under that article....

Kees Kwaksalwer Kwakernaak -.

Gaan kyk watter deurbrake is daar gemaak in die afgelope 8 jaar in DNA en die programmerings kodes wat dit bevat wat alle lewe bepaal.

Evolusie word nog net geglo deur n baie klein handjie vol mense..

Vra maar enige rekenaar programmeerder waar kom enige rekenaar taal vandaan ...van intelligensie af....agter intelligensie is n brein.



Carl Botha -
1.

Evolusie is onmoontlik, hier volg 'n verduideling wat aantoon dat daar bloot nie genoeg tyd is/was vir die spesies om te ontwikkel nie:

Die mens bestaan (blykbaar) uit 3.2miljard genome, maar kom ons gebruik in die voorbeeld 52 genome.

Die aantal permutasies is
80,658,175,170,943,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Die Big Bang het 14,000,000,000 jaar gelede plaasgevind, en in SEKONDES is dit
441,504,000,000,000,000

Selfs al sou 'n permutasie vorm elke sekonde, is dit ooglopend dat dit uiters, uiters onwaarskynlik is dit lewe random uit ewekansigheid kon ontwikkel.



Jannie Koekemoer
Lekker ou Jan - lyk my jy het niks anders om te doen as om vir die koerante te skryf nie - heeltyd in die Volksblad en nou ook Rapprot. 'n Teorie is nog nie bewys nie - en verduidelik vir jouself hoe kon 'n walvis kwansuis 'n olifant geword het? en jy sal sien hoe belaglik dit is!



Eddie Davey - September 14, 2014 om 06:51RapporteerKommentaarbeleid
Eisj, nooit kan ek aanvaar dat ons as mense sou kon evoleer uit 'n Big-Bang oerknal of een of ander aap nie - hoewel daar baie ape onder mense vandag is. Huh?




Jan van Niekerk - September 14, 2014 om 07:02RapporteerKommentaarbeleid
Evolusie is net 200 jaar oud. Die skepping is goeie paar duisend jaar oud. Hierie jong verskynsel van evolusie het baie geesdriftige navolgers, maar is filosofies swak. Die navolgers maak ook geen erens van die argumente teen hulle posisie, soos by voorbield hierdie artikel, wat onbewus is van 'n wêreldwye katastrofiese vloed.



Desire Uys - September 14, 2014 om 12:41RapporteerKommentaarbeleid
Evolusie is die grootste leun wat die duiwel gebruik om mense wat die Here dien te laat twyfel in sy skeppingsdaad. Moet nooit dit glo nie. Dit is ook nie die evangelieboodskap nie. Dit gaan nie jou siel red of jou in die hemel bring nie. Dis heeltemal onbelangrik.



Megan de Beer - September 14, 2014 om 13:36RapporteerKommentaarbeleid
evolusie is n leun uit die diepste donker hel waarheen julle sataniste heen gestuur sal word waar julle elke sekonde gepuinig gaan word tot in alle ewigheid.daar sal n geween en gekners van tande wees....ek gaan jul ook nie jammer kry nie.ek gaan jul ook nie mis nie..ek gaan net bly wees om ver van jul satan aanbidders verwyder te wees..dan kan jul en jul ou vrotsel papa lucifer in die vlamme dans en vir mekaar vra hoe dit gebeur het.dom sataniste.



Centurion Officer - September 14, 2014 om 20:45RapporteerKommentaarbeleid
Evolusie is onmoontlik want dit is nie moontlik vir die heelal met sy sterre en die aarde met al sy lewe daarin om te ontstaan het uit niks sonder dat dit deur God geskep was.
Dit is net moontlik vir dieselfde soorte diere om voort te plant en wetenskap kon nog nooit dit anders bewys het nie. So jy moet GLO dit is\was anders moontlik gewees soos evolusie dit voorstel, daarom is evolusie n geloof.
Fosiele is n bewys dat n dier dood is, en nie n bewys vir evolusie nie. As al die renosters uiteindelik dood is, is dit dan n bewys vir evolusie?
Dinosourise is groot reptiele wat uitgeroei is deur die jare en daar is genoeg bewyse in geskiedenis boeke en opgrawings dat hulle saam met die mense geleef het.
Berge, riviere en woestyne is almal bewys van n jong aarde. As die aarde biljoene jare oud was sou die hele aarde n plat woestyn gewees het. So moet dit nie probeer gebruik ten gunste van jou gekloof nie
Die kontinente dryf nie op die see soos sekere wetenskaplikes voorstel nie, want op die bodem van die see is nog vasteland, en n klip dryf nie op water nie.




Etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum - a veritable pagent of willful ignorance..... :-)
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2014, 09:57:09 AM »

May I suggest another thing to keep driving home, until the cows come home: evolution is not abiogenesis!. This not only drives the 3rd party observer to realize how these idiot's arguments are fundamentally just WRONG to begin with, It gives them something that you've said that they can verify quickly, lending more credibility to your side of the argument.

IMHO one of the points missed by our creed during debates is not being only correct. But also being able to convince other people that you are correct.

People who raise this point must be woefully unpractised in the art of debating evolution. If you can't even get the first point correct, you set yourself up to look like an ignorant fool. And that is exactly what you want to exploit. If one keeps pointing this little snafu out to them whenever the talk comes around to the subject of "origins".

As for scientific literacy, Ken Ham has an interesting approach: Redefine science! The focus is usually not on providing scientific proof for their assertions since they know there lay dragons. No, the usual approach is subverting the trust people put in science. If you keep hammering them to provide proof, they'll simply switch to their usual dating-denial, fossil-denial, etc strategies to undermine the word "science" as a valid concept. Better be prepared for when that happens.
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2014, 10:46:46 AM »

Meh, I hoped you guys would have come up with a retort for seeing the splinter in one's own eye when I only focused on the religious not being open-minded, thought that might've created some fun Grin Even if we assume we know we are all openminded, because well I am, if there were sufficient and appropriate evidence to back up alternative explanations, hell I'll even start believing in gods if there were evidence for that Grin

Just don't take me to the likes of a Derren Brown event for an instant road-to-damascus eperience, then I'll just be converted again without evidence or for any good reason whatsoever Grin

LOL
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2014, 11:00:26 AM »

Also, Big Bang cosmogony isn’t part of biological evolution either.

It’s interesting that you should mention Ken Ham.  The latest trick up his sleeve is to draw an artificial and indeed arbitrary distinction between what he calls “observational” and “historical” science.  His shtick is that “observational” science is real science because it involves direct testing and observation of phenomena.  In contrast, Ham says that “historical” science, where we make inferences about past events based on present-day observations, is entirely unreliable if not impossible.  This includes, among others, evolution, palaeontology, natural history, geology and cosmogony.  His curt dismissal of all “historical” science is a smug “Where you there?

Of course, Ham misses a few crucial points.  First, if his “observational/historical” jive had any merit, all forensic sciences would be entirely untrustworthy.  Second, many phenomena in nature are only observable via the effects they produce, i.e. indirect observations must be used to infer the character and properties of many of the things we probe.  Third, if looking backward into the distant past is insurmountably problematic then so must looking over great spatial distances be because the two are effectively the same when studying our cosmos.

'Luthon64
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2014, 11:41:33 AM »

It’s interesting that you should mention Ken Ham.  The latest trick up his sleeve is to draw an artificial and indeed arbitrary distinction between what he calls “observational” and “historical” science.  His shtick is that “observational” science is real science because it involves direct testing and observation of phenomena.  In contrast, Ham says that “historical” science, where we make inferences about past events based on present-day observations, is entirely unreliable if not impossible.  This includes, among others, evolution, palaeontology, natural history, geology and cosmogony.  His curt dismissal of all “historical” science is a smug “Where you there?
'Luthon64
I'd add to that any belief in the historical nature of Jesus, because well, was he there?
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2014, 12:13:47 PM »

His curt dismissal of all “historical” science is a smug “Where you there?

That's exactly why I brought him up, his argument rests on dismissing large swathes of science as unreliable. Then holds up ancient texts written by simple-minded desert people with a bronze-age mentality as completely 100% reliable. As cr1t points out, the hypocrisy is staggering.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2014, 15:30:02 PM »

Why do we rent our clothes and cast ash upon our brows for these religiots? they cannot and will never accept evolution, scientific method, proof. reason etc. (and neither are they capable of doing so) Let's concentrate on how we can sell our ideas and values to those who really matter, i.e. the undecideds, the ones who are disillusioned by religious promises, terror and domination. and then the children......blank sheets all at young ages...how can we ensure that their minds are not contaminated by bullshit? Sunday Schools are the seedbeds of most religions....can we offer an alternative session where kids are allowed to ask questions without feeling pressured by peers to conform? Do we have access to technologies that kids can access to ask these questions?  Do schools offer debates that seriously allow open discussion on these issues? (I guess some do).
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2114



« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2014, 07:41:41 AM »

Why do we rent our clothes and cast ash upon our brows for these religiots? they cannot and will never accept evolution, scientific method, proof. reason etc. (and neither are they capable of doing so) Let's concentrate on how we can sell our ideas and values to those who really matter, i.e. the undecideds, the ones who are disillusioned by religious promises, terror and domination. and then the children......blank sheets all at young ages...how can we ensure that their minds are not contaminated by bullshit? Sunday Schools are the seedbeds of most religions....can we offer an alternative session where kids are allowed to ask questions without feeling pressured by peers to conform? Do we have access to technologies that kids can access to ask these questions?  Do schools offer debates that seriously allow open discussion on these issues? (I guess some do).


Small things make a difference.  I am grateful for the wave of "religious" movies making its debut at the moment.  Reason being is that movies are generally fiction, and when a movie such as Noah is screened with its wonderful CGI and storylines, it presents itself as just another blockbuster and moves the story itself into the realm of mythology, futher cross pollination in other movies such as Hercules - where a scene depicts him chained to two pillars which he then pulls down to collapse a building (temple), robs Samson of his tale and firmly confirms it as myth.  Most if not all 6/7 year olds will grow up remembering Hercules rather than Samson simply because of this.  Ditto with computer games such as Black & White, the more the merrier in my opinion.

In my experience kids are like spunges and until its been beaten out of them, question everything and everyone, when it comes to religion (or witchcraft, demons, general woo), and I have the opportunity, I pose them an entirely different scenario to think about which is age appropriate, or for example -as in the case with my in-laws - when the 7 year old lad told me that "God wont be happy with you if you dont eat all your food", I simply countered that FSM would be as I should righfully not eat anything but spaghetti.... A long discussion (was actually quite interesting) followed where I explained to him about my god as opposed to the one being shoved into his head.  He thought the flying spaghetti monster to be a far more interesting god than the one he's been exposed to up to date and he has not forgotten, he's 9 years old now and with every family gathering comes stand with us when the usual pre-meal prayer is performed (we do not partake) - it might be deference to us and not practice for him when at other social gatherings, but the fact remains that he does it at all.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: google waar bly dinosourise


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.339 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 06, 2019, 19:14:38 PM
Privacy Policy