I must admit I made several mistakes during last Fridays meeting. One, not limiting comment time to each participant and letting the creationist almost dominate or if to some dominate the proceedings. This also forced me to do a lot of the answers to him, as my training stressed thinking on ones feet and acting quickly if need be. I apologize for that and things have changed for MSS. Each person will be allowed 3 minutes to comment or ask questions and the next person will be called. I will not or try not to answer all the questions. In fact for the next meeting I am trying to get some experts on the economy to speak. The next was trying to understand them. I was a believer at one time, but now evidence has changed my mind and philosophically I am agnostic. So I have some sympathies. However, as you can see from previous post I gave the creationist answers to what would change his mind. The result was saying definitions are semantics. If two are going to debate or discuss topics they need to agree on definitions of terms so each knows what the other is talking about. That is why definitions are first described in contracts. The dictionary is the obvious choice for definitions. Next, by his comments I really don't believe he is interested in finding out about science or evolution. His only goal is to convince me of ID science. And it has been proven, specifically in the Dover case, that it is not science, next case. Next he wanted me to talk about the reliability of the bible. Again in my response I posited books that deal with that issue and its unreliability, next case. Then about revelation. Revelation of whos prophet. The scriptures. Revelations are nothing more than some thoughts that someone has and that someone convinces others that he was talking to god. Today we call someone talking to god schizophrenic and put them on medicine, to get the voices out of their heads. Other religions, not just christianity have had revelations, such as Islam, Hindism, Buddaism, and any other ism you care to mention. So who has the right revelation? There is no way to tell. Next case. So I made a mistake and did something that Dawkins and Gould said don't do. Debate with a creationist. They change the rules; and go off on tangets, they refuse to even aknowledge any evidence other than their own. Their goal is evangilize and convert the heathen athiest to christianity because that is the only right belief and religion in their minds. And being such be less than honest with others is fair. They want to put ID creationism into the schools as it is only fair to teach the controversy. Then they should have no problem teaching evolution in sunday schools to teach the controversy, and it is only FAIR.
Peace
Skeptical DoDo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As I mentioned, now with the internet it is possible that all children could be taught at home,this way we do not have to involve the courts to make decisions on what our children are taught but left to the individual parents discretion. I see no evidence to prove evolution in that there is a gain in information, only that there is a loss in information which can bring on a desirable trait or an undesirable one. This I believe would be called involution which I accept.
Your arguements have been tried in the past and answered very well. You keep coming up with the same old arguements that all have been showen to be fallacious. Home schooling is not the answer as that would deprive children of the knowledge they need, and you, to understand the world. Before you attempt to debate you need to know the prior arguements and responses. Again, look at the evidence. You deny it or don't know what evidence is, that simple. So the only thing left is faith, which is a poor substitute for knowledge. Again you have homework to do. I don't "believe" you want to know or be enlightened. So you try to be a pest as a substitute for knowledgable and carefully thought our responses.
I'm sorry I missed the meeting. I hope that the society does not get to bogged down in continous religious debate. It can be fun, but there will never be a resolution. I hope that we will continue to question those forces that attack and attempt to displace conventional science. One issue I would like to see us address is the confiscation of scientific terminology by pseudoscience. Astrology is the obvious canditate. "Study of the stars". They have absolutly no interest in actual star study. I recently had a conversation with a person who claimed to be a crystalologist. I have studied crystalography so I thought "wow" this will be an interesting conversation. I may learn something. I was dismayed when he began talking about how this type quartz crystal affected healing and that type crystal affected emotions. Like scientology, these disciplines cloak their false claims in scientific terms, and they steal scientific terms from true science. I would love to be able to say, I am an astrologer, and have it understood that I mean I like to go outside and look at the stars through my telescope.
Post a Comment