Evolution Facts

[Esquilax]

the scientific community has earned that trust, where the religious one has not.

Says you. Creationists would point to scientific predictions 40 years ago that we were entering another ice age versus scientific warnings now about global warning. Were they lying then, or are they lying now?

I would say that there's more options than just lying/not lying. They were just wrong before, but at least they were wrong based on the evidence they had at the time. There's no shame in being retroactively wrong when new information comes to light; the fact that creationists might require that scientists be perfectly right all the time or completely invalid only shows their willingness to demand unreasonable standards from everyone who might disagree with them.

It's also telling that those same creationists will still trust the scientific community insofar as it benefits them. Their special pleading is what makes this argument unconvincing.

You would answer that those very reversals prove that science is open and religion is closed. He would laugh. I on the other hand, would simply advise care in being absolutely certain of anything...

Here we agree: absolute certainty is a childish thing to profess, outside of a few very basic things.

...and THAT'S perilously close to being a reverse argument from authority, isn't it? If Ken Ham says the sun rose in the east yesterday, he might actually have a point.

Okay, let me rephrase, I was being quick to save time. It's very similar to Ham's "observational/historical science" nonsense, or his "were you there?" question, the idea that you have no strong basis to believe a claim unless you directly observed it. I hope I don't have to explain why that's a problematic stance to take for a logically consistent human being.

[popeyespappy]

the scientific community has earned that trust, where the religious one has not.

Says you. Creationists would point to scientific predictions 40 years ago that we were entering another ice age versus scientific warnings now about global warning. Were they lying then, or are they lying now? You would answer that those very reversals prove that science is open and religion is closed. He would laugh. I on the other hand, would simply advise care in being absolutely certain of anything...

Then those creationists should be shown (not that it would do any good) what the scientific community was really saying in the 70s about climate change as opposed to what was being reported in the media. There were 68 papers dealing with climate change published in peer reviewed journals from 1965 through 1979. Seven of them predicted cooling. Another 19 were neutral on the future of the climate. 42 predicted the climate would warm. Most of the latter attributed anthropogenic CO2 as the main driving factor.



Another question your creationists should ask themselves about the papers predicting cooling before dismissing the scientific community at large because a few scientists got it wrong is were the conclusions reached in those papers valid based on the data they contained? The answer to that question is probably yes. The conclusions were valid based on the data examined. They just didn't consider mitigating factors such as increases in greenhouse gasses.

The physics of climate change are really pretty straight forward. It is all about energy balance. Our planet receives energy from the sun and radiates energy back into space. When the Earth radiates more energy into space than it receives the climate cools. When it radiates less energy than it receives the climate warms.

Increasing the level of energy absorbing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere results in less energy being radiated into space. This will cause the temperature to increase unless some mitigating factor elsewhere that increases the energy being radiated back into space. Currently the available evidence indicates there are no mitigating factors that can account for the energy absorbed by the additional greenhouse gases therefore the climate will continue to warm.

[Dawsonite]

There were 68 papers dealing with climate change published in peer reviewed journals from 1965 through 1979. Seven of them predicted cooling. Another 19 were neutral on the future of the climate. 42 predicted the climate would warm. Most of the latter attributed anthropogenic CO2 as the main driving factor.

This is not a discussion about climate change; it's a discussion about evolution, evidence, and faith. But you make my point. A Creationist would ask why we should believe your so-called scientists when their so-called facts disagree with each other!

I keep saying it: Both the Creationists and we scientifically-oriented folks are mostly doing nothing but arguing from authority. We're just as human and biased as they are. We're never going to convince them any more than they're going to convince us.

[Tonus]

I keep saying it: Both the Creationists and we scientifically-oriented folks are mostly doing nothing but arguing from authority. We're just as human and biased as they are. We're never going to convince them any more than they're going to convince us.

Those are two very different versions of 'authority' and 'faith.'

We understand that humans are fallible, and it is normal for scientists to disagree or have their theories changed or even discarded. It's how we progress in knowledge and understanding-- we challenge what we know and when we learn something new we incorporate it into that base of knowledge. The authority of scientists is not absolute, and neither is our faith in them. We know they'll get things wrong. We count on it.

God (as worshiped by most people today) is an ultimate and absolute authority. The knowledge and understanding he provides is complete and perfect, hindered only by human limitations. There is no room for further progress through human efforts because there is no reason to turn to a fallible source when there is a perfect one. Faith in god must be complete and absolute; he does not tolerate doubters, threatening them with dire punishment. If god is wrong, the reaction must be denial or loss of faith. His followers know he cannot be wrong, they count on it.

[Esquilax]

We're never going to convince them any more than they're going to convince us.

My fiance- she's another mod here, goes by the name Luckie- used to be a creationist. Taught in religious schools or homeschooled, faith healing, the whole nine yards. And this is her thread.

This board is rife with ex-religionists that were convinced by secular arguments and science, in fact. Meanwhile, the creationists can point to... who? Anthony Flew, maybe?

Don't count us out just yet, coach.

[popeyespappy]

This is not a discussion about climate change

Then what fuck did you bring it up for, asshole?

[Dawsonite]

This is not a discussion about climate change

Then what fuck did you bring it up for, asshole?

Good question, although I think most would understand that I brought it up as an illustration, not as a topic to be debated per se -- that would be off-topic, wouldn't it?

But feel free to demonstrate your superior debating skills and the superiority of the atheist world-view by engaging in vulgar ad hominem. I'm sure that will work for you. As those vile Creationists say, civility in debate is so overrated.

[LastPoet]

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

[popeyespappy]

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

Apparently not.

Then what fuck did you bring it up for, asshole?

Good question, although I think most would understand that I brought it up as an illustration, not as a topic to be debated per se -- that would be off-topic, wouldn't it?

But feel free to demonstrate your superior debating skills and the superiority of the atheist world-view by engaging in vulgar ad hominem. I'm sure that will work for you. As those vile Creationists say, civility in debate is so overrated.

My point, which you apparently missed when you got lost in the details, is that when debating someone, and they bring up something so wrong as the scientific community predicted global cooling in the 70s. You correct them with facts and try to show where their logic is flawed.

In this case the scientific community wasn't predicting global cooling in the 70s a few scientists were. The fact that few scientists got it wrong wasn't a problem with the scientific method. Rather a failure on their point to consider all the available data before they reached their conclusion. The latter being part of the issue with YECs. Their biggest problem though is conformation bias. For most YECs everything must be interpreted through the rose colored glasses of their goat herders mythology.

As far as my superior debate skills go I don't claim any. However since you are apparently so proud of yours perhaps you should take Poet's comment to heart and learn your logical fallacies before you start throwing them out there.

As far as my vulgarities go if you don't want to read the work fuck you are probably on the wrong forum. If you don't want to be called an asshole you should probably stop acting like one.

[coldwx]

But feel free to demonstrate your superior debating skills and the superiority of the atheist world-view by engaging in vulgar ad hominem. I'm sure that will work for you. As those vile Creationists say, civility in debate is so overrated.

What exactly is an "atheist world-view" and how does that have anything to do with evolution or climate change or debating skills?

It's almost if........