Attacks on religion have no pertinent part of this thread. If you are going to make a sincere effort to argue your opponent’s position, simply deriding the basis of her belief, (particularly with a number of straw man arguments), has nothing to do with actually finding the best way to present her position. If you wish to discover some form of Creationism that you wish to defend, then claiming that you need to cut out the bases of your argument is silly. You would do much better to discover the underpinnings of the beliefs of Creationism and discover how to present them, (in a way that you can subsequently dispatch, of course).
Of course, if you have no intention of making an honest effort to argue the position of your opponent, then making up cardboard images of beliefs she does not hold and “accidentally” knocking them down around you would be one way to approach the issue.
And it is always possible to hijack one’s own thread when one decides that the shiny object over on the side would simply be a more interesting activity than what one originally set out to do.
Stick to the discussion of Creationism–YEC, OEC, ID, or something from some other culture–and leave the religion bashing for a separate thread.
Note, ashman, that Tom is solidly Roman Catholic. Despite the claims of any number of Christian sects, he believes he is a Christian and reacts accordingly. My is a sop to Tom, whom I have always considered a friend, but the RCC policy regarding evolution (acceptance, but with divine intervention; just like my own faith, ELCA, but with more adherence (and much less by me–I make a crappy Lutheran), but with him it sometimes leaves him unable to dismiss obvious falsehoods as offensive. This thread is about (what’s the title?) “Evolution vs Creationism.” It not only involves “(attacks) on religion,” it REQUIRES THEM!
Tom, you are demanding a TOTALLY unrealistic requirement.
The title of the OP is not explanatory. Read the text of the OP, which concludes
He set the standards. As Mod, I’m just holding him to them.
I’m quite willing to close down this thing on the grounds that his agreement was silly and this thread fruitless and let him open one more “let’s all us fundies, atheist and theist, duke it out one more time” thread. But based on the stated intent of the OP, I am disinclined to allow the hijack, particularly when the hijack is bassed on the A.D.(H.)D. defense.
Yes, I know you’re quite willing to shut this down; that’s your pattern. “Someone has said something and I’m offended, so I’ll silence it.”
But, taken from your own quote is the following language:
What are the best argument(s) supporting the alleged Intelligent Design “Theory”?
I guess to discuss this, we have to pretend that no religion invented it, paid for, and is trying to shove it down our throats. It just sprang into existence fully formed as it is today . . . oh wait, that does sound like them!
It’s also curious how to define my intent, he cut out about 2/3 of my reasoning. That’s awesome. I believe quote mining is what it’s called; it’s quite common among the religious apologists to do, so it’s unsurprising in the least.
Another aspect that I recently heard is that any science that studies a physical object can determine certain facts, but once you get to origins and theory about the past, you step into someone’s believe system, one that is the ultimate sham, able by definition to fit every observation into it’s explanation. If a fortune teller used this method they would be quickly labeled a fraud, though it is the very heart of the scientific method, make up a story and then change it to include every piece of evidence that contradicts it.
I agree that anyone who sets out with the idea that any observation will prove a theory is a fraud. Consider this from the creation camp: “No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” *Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science *(1970) p.32-33 This is precisely why ID is a fraud, unlike science.
But you are right on one thing: it is the nature of science, when confronted with countervailing evidence, to abandon a theory for a better one. Because, you know, it would be ridiculous to keep arguing for something in spite of the evidence. Thus, when confronted with new evidence, scientists reject the theory. When confronted with new evidence, creationists reject the evidence.
Threads get closed when they violate the rules or turn into brawls or are deliberately hijacked. I don’t have a problem with you posting attacks on religious belief; I simply expect you to respect your own thread and not use it as a platform to flit from one topic to another. (If you think that I agree with every thread that has not been closed in this forum, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.)
I did not cut out “2/3 of your reasoning.” Your first three paragraphs in the OP simply set the stage, explaining the events that led up to the debate along with your description of your relative views. Your next paragraph, admitting that the idea might be a bad one, notes that you proposed that each of you take your opponents’ position with the single claim that forcing your opponent to research and defend science might open her eyes to reality. That is not “2/3” of your reasoning, it is easily discovered by clicking on the arrow in your quote that I provided, and it is not relevant to the point I made. Finally you posted the actual request of the OP, which I have quoted in full. That is not quote mining and you are squirming away from your actual statements.
You claimed that you needed to find workable arguments to support Creationist belief, particularly ID. Knocking religion hardly provides you with that argument. Of course, ID fails on scientific method without ever dragging religion into it and its proponents claim, (erroneously or falsely, depending on the source), that ID is not based on religion, so if you are really supposed to be presenting ID, you should be avoiding any reference to religion, not hijacking your own thread for a bit of atheist proselytizing.
and reacts accordingly. My