Creationism vs reality

[Villain]

What's subjective about it? It's a collection of things that happen, reality isn't subjective.

 

The fact that it happens is irrelevant to your subjective view of it being a negative thing.

[Ringer]

The fact that it happens is irrelevant to your subjective view of it being a negative thing.

I said, "negative effects on people". Death is a negative effect on a person. Droughts, flooding, not making enough resources, etc. are negative effects on people. What is subjective about that?

[Villain]

I said, "negative effects on people". Death is a negative effect on a person. Droughts, flooding, not making enough resources, etc. are negative effects on people. What is subjective about that?

 

Death is only a negative if you're pro life.

[too-open-minded]

There are multiple variables as to why people have religion. I would say it's mostly due to patching up a subconscious fear, as the thought of death can cause people to need something. Something that reassures a narcissistic mindset. A mindset that nature has instilled in us to survive. We survived off a mindset like this. Now the Homosapien does not need it as much as say something else in our evolutionary history.I find it that some just have a hard time making the transmission, I think we as a species needs certain types of activity to stimulate a healthy brain. Being brainwashed doesn't help either and I completely agree with that.

 

All the same, we mustn't mess with environmentally shaped crazy folks. If you absolutely must discuss discuss logic with them, be sure they can understand some of it first.

[Delta1212]

I said, "negative effects on people". Death is a negative effect on a person. Droughts, flooding, not making enough resources, etc. are negative effects on people. What is subjective about that?

Qualifying anything as positive or negative is inherently subjective unless you believe in an objective morality woven into the fabric of the universe, generally put there by some sort of deity.

 

You can objectively state that something happened. You can't objectively state that it is good or bad that it happened, except insofar as it is an objective fact that it is good or bad within the context of a given, subjective, framework of values.

[Ringer]

Qualifying anything as positive or negative is inherently subjective unless you believe in an objective morality woven into the fabric of the universe, generally put there by some sort of deity.

 

You can objectively state that something happened. You can't objectively state that it is good or bad that it happened, except insofar as it is an objective fact that it is good or bad within the context of a given, subjective, framework of values.

I am not making any statement about morality, ethics, or anything philosophical. Would you feel better if I would have said, "unless you gaining a satisfaction from the loss of life and the loss of the ability of many to survive is objectively a greater gain to the whole of humanity than being able to survive and survive happily as a whole species the loss of life, resources, and available living area is a net negative effect on people so long as we exclude very specific arguments such as overpopulation, suicide to ease death, etc."?

[MonDie]

To the OP

 

I think directed evolution isn't mentioned enough in debates with creationists. It proves that you can get a brand new protein with a desired function simply by applying selective forces. Scientists use the technique because they don't know enough about protein function to design one themselves.

 

I just found some free-to-read articles on the subject from NIH.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424333/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465795

If someone has stunted their own critical thinking skills by ignoring reality in favor of a literal interpretation of their religious texts, I think the best way to approach it is to point out the lies. Start by showing that what is being taught about science isn't true. Knock down one lie, show that what's being taught isn't the truth, and hopefully you'll at least show that science has been misrepresented.

I think this is great advice. I stopped believing in astrology when I realized how stupid and/or double-thinking most of the others were.

 

Show the creationist that their stupid and/or dishonest role-models blatantly misrepresent our position. Attack the authority they appeal to.

Edited June 9, 2014 by MonDie

[MonDie]

 

 

[snip]
After all, it is very hard for a young earth creationist to become a supporter of evolution - the world view of such people is based entirely on one undeniable axiom - that the Torah/Bible/Quran is true and is true above everything else. To make a difference, you have to make them doubt the validity of this axiom which is an almost impossible task.
[/snip]

The transcendental arguments for God put the cart before the horse because you can't read the Bible unless you trust your senses. You read with your senses, acquire language with your senses, and most importantly, observe the real world with your senses.