No, this is not another "I've lost Faith in Humanith" thread. This is about stupid, hypocritical, ignorant crap I see all the time.
Rant incoming: tldr at bottom
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml
That's a webpage written by a Creationist, arguing against Evolution. I was reading it because I have nothing to do for 2 hours and stumbled upon this website: https://www.evolutionthelie.com/Public/Home.aspx and thought it might be good for a laugh. Now, this webpage is pointing out some things about another webpage that I also read.
The Creationist author states: "It is important for Christians to recognize the method of debate most evolutionists and atheist use. It is also important to recognize that they are not going to win the debate in the eyes of an atheist. Because atheism is a religion of pride ? or self worship, to admit defeat is to deny self-identity. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They draw self-identity and self-worth from their claims of intellectualism. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify in not answering the evidence."
The funny thing, is that he then proceeds to do the exact same thing to the website he is talking about. Now, WTF dude. Hypocrisy much? I actually agree that the author you are talking about did those things, but to then do the same thing back is annoying and stupid. I hate you.
Which brings me to my next point. In neither of these articles do either of them actually make a definitive argument. They both throw around generalizations that could either be true or untrue in this particular case. WTF? Obviously one of you should have some actual evidence to support your case, use it.
Like this line, from the Atheist: "This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not."
Completely true, but it also says nothing about this particular incident. These were not the first two articles I came across on this subject, and several of the others pointed out that the trees often penetrated a level of coal, which is impossible under the theory proposed by the atheists. Nowhere in his article did the atheist offer any argument against this, which is the hinge-pin of the Creationist argument. Until you explain this, the Creationist argument will continue to have weight.
The Creationist points this out and has this to say: "This argument craftily avoids the issues while claiming to explain them. The issues in question are:
How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?
How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution?s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?
This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being knocked down for millions of years. The layers of strata have fossils representing different time periods according to the evolution model. It DOES pose a huge problem for evolution. If the tree was buried rapidly as Dawson hints toward and as creationists have said all along, evolution is out the window. If all layers were deposited together, then there is no such thing as millions of years. That would mean that all fossils were laid at the same time."
All pretty much true but, just like the Atheist argument above, this offers no actual evidence. He doesn't show any evidence to suggest that the layers these trees intersperse represent millions of years(some of the other pages I looked at did, but that's besides the point).
And I am just so fucking sick of "intellectual arguments" that are really just excuses to insult the other side. If you actually approach it as an intellectual argument then you might actually fucking learn something, instead of wasting your own time as well as the time of anyone who listens to you. If either of these two boneheads had taken two minutes to stop insulting the other side and actually just presented the facts and the evidence, then maybe one of the webpages would have had merit.
tldr: It seems like any "intellectual discussion" I take part in or witness devolves almost instantly into two sides acting like children and throwing things at each other and no one ever just looks at the evidence. Why? Why can't we as a people admit that maybe the other side has some valid points, even if their conclusion is flawed, and realize that if we listen to them and actually examine what they are saying, that it might make our side stronger in the end? Why don't we realize that by actually having a discussion, instead of a pseudo intellectual shit-storm, we might actually come a little bit closer to the truth?
Any thoughts on why this happens, or any experiences you want to share about when this kind of thing has either happened to you, or you've seen it happen from the sidelines?
Rant incoming: tldr at bottom
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml
That's a webpage written by a Creationist, arguing against Evolution. I was reading it because I have nothing to do for 2 hours and stumbled upon this website: https://www.evolutionthelie.com/Public/Home.aspx and thought it might be good for a laugh. Now, this webpage is pointing out some things about another webpage that I also read.
The Creationist author states: "It is important for Christians to recognize the method of debate most evolutionists and atheist use. It is also important to recognize that they are not going to win the debate in the eyes of an atheist. Because atheism is a religion of pride ? or self worship, to admit defeat is to deny self-identity. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They draw self-identity and self-worth from their claims of intellectualism. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify in not answering the evidence."
The funny thing, is that he then proceeds to do the exact same thing to the website he is talking about. Now, WTF dude. Hypocrisy much? I actually agree that the author you are talking about did those things, but to then do the same thing back is annoying and stupid. I hate you.
Which brings me to my next point. In neither of these articles do either of them actually make a definitive argument. They both throw around generalizations that could either be true or untrue in this particular case. WTF? Obviously one of you should have some actual evidence to support your case, use it.
Like this line, from the Atheist: "This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not."
Completely true, but it also says nothing about this particular incident. These were not the first two articles I came across on this subject, and several of the others pointed out that the trees often penetrated a level of coal, which is impossible under the theory proposed by the atheists. Nowhere in his article did the atheist offer any argument against this, which is the hinge-pin of the Creationist argument. Until you explain this, the Creationist argument will continue to have weight.
The Creationist points this out and has this to say: "This argument craftily avoids the issues while claiming to explain them. The issues in question are:
How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?
How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution?s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?
This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being knocked down for millions of years. The layers of strata have fossils representing different time periods according to the evolution model. It DOES pose a huge problem for evolution. If the tree was buried rapidly as Dawson hints toward and as creationists have said all along, evolution is out the window. If all layers were deposited together, then there is no such thing as millions of years. That would mean that all fossils were laid at the same time."
All pretty much true but, just like the Atheist argument above, this offers no actual evidence. He doesn't show any evidence to suggest that the layers these trees intersperse represent millions of years(some of the other pages I looked at did, but that's besides the point).
And I am just so fucking sick of "intellectual arguments" that are really just excuses to insult the other side. If you actually approach it as an intellectual argument then you might actually fucking learn something, instead of wasting your own time as well as the time of anyone who listens to you. If either of these two boneheads had taken two minutes to stop insulting the other side and actually just presented the facts and the evidence, then maybe one of the webpages would have had merit.
tldr: It seems like any "intellectual discussion" I take part in or witness devolves almost instantly into two sides acting like children and throwing things at each other and no one ever just looks at the evidence. Why? Why can't we as a people admit that maybe the other side has some valid points, even if their conclusion is flawed, and realize that if we listen to them and actually examine what they are saying, that it might make our side stronger in the end? Why don't we realize that by actually having a discussion, instead of a pseudo intellectual shit-storm, we might actually come a little bit closer to the truth?
Any thoughts on why this happens, or any experiences you want to share about when this kind of thing has either happened to you, or you've seen it happen from the sidelines?
