I Hate People.

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?

well after reading this whole wall of text there is only one thing to say

No U!

The internet is an ongoing war of Christians and atheists sparing with eachother.

Most people I know never argue such things and, when they do, do it calmly and with civility.
I'm protestant, my friends are atheist, agnostic, catholic, and even a Buddhist, and when we discuss things, we tend to keep it light and take the conversation another direction when a couple of people start getting a little too heated.

The power-Christians and mega-atheists HAVE to go on the internet and circle jerk, because that's the only place where they can. Everywhere in real life, people are like "Okay, whatever." *walks away*

I don't hate people.
I just hate you.

The internet is a place where everybody can openly hate each other without the consequences of that such hate would bring if shown in real life.

This is why I hate forums on the internet (not sure why I'm using one though)

Come a little closer to the truth?

We dont need to. Most of us here already know the truth when it comes to evolution vs creation.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Come a little closer to the truth?

We dont need to. Most of us here already know the truth when it comes to evolution vs creation.

Problem is , do you REALLY know , or just assuming based on logic? There is always the possibility you are wrong . There is also the possibility they are wrong . There is no problem believing one or the other , live and let live . The problem is when you a) belittle someone else for believing something or b) tell yourself there is no possibility you could be wrong .

OT : CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

spartan231490:
Why can't we as a people admit that maybe the other side has some valid points

Why? Because creationism doesn't have evidence.

The whole argument is based on "if you can't prove it, God did it", rather than finding proper evidence to support their claims.

Objectivity and subjectivity. People can't respect one another's opinions anymore, especially on the internet. They can't accept solid facts that even slightly disprove their own divine opinions, even when those opinions are based on incredibly flawed logic or non-existant truths.

We all want to be right but some people just can't handle being wrong.

krazykidd:

OT : CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

no because that would be far less entertaining

krazykidd:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Come a little closer to the truth?

We dont need to. Most of us here already know the truth when it comes to evolution vs creation.

Problem is , do you REALLY know , or just assuming based on logic? There is always the possibility you are wrong . There is also the possibility they are wrong . There is no problem believing one or the other , live and let live . The problem is when you a) belittle someone else for believing something or b) tell yourself there is no possibility you could be wrong .

I really know. Just like I really know I have a penis. I guess I could just be imagining that thing between my legs and by some weird coincidence no one else noticed theres nothing dangling between my legs, but thats fucking crazy.

Now please, dont come with the "But herpa derpa, you dont REALLY know" shit. If you are going to argue that I am going to argue that you are, in truth, nothing but a massive can of sprite who has deluded itself into thinking it is a human. Go on, prove the contrary. ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD!

belittle someone else for believing something or

Well, I dont go out and ask random people in the street if they are a Christian, then belittle them if they are, but if someone mentions they are a creationist, hell yeah im gonna poke fun at them! Not on these forums since I would get banned, but you get the gist.

tell yourself there is no possibility you could be wrong

There is absolutely no possibility I am wrong.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

krazykidd:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Come a little closer to the truth?

We dont need to. Most of us here already know the truth when it comes to evolution vs creation.

Problem is , do you REALLY know , or just assuming based on logic? There is always the possibility you are wrong . There is also the possibility they are wrong . There is no problem believing one or the other , live and let live . The problem is when you a) belittle someone else for believing something or b) tell yourself there is no possibility you could be wrong .

I really know. Just like I really know I have a penis. I guess I could just be imagining that thing between my legs and by some weird coincidence no one else noticed theres nothing dangling between my legs, but thats fucking crazy.

Now please, dont come with the "But herpa derpa, you dont REALLY know" shit. If you are going to argue that I am going to argue that you are, in truth, nothing but a massive can of sprite who has deluded itself into thinking it is a human. Go on, prove the contrary. ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD!

belittle someone else for believing something or

Well, I dont go out and ask random people in the street if they are a Christian, then belittle them if they are, but if someone mentions they are a creationist, hell yeah im gonna poke fun at them! Not on these forums since I would get banned, but you get the gist.

tell yourself there is no possibility you could be wrong

There is absolutely no possibility I am wrong.

Well then, i hope for your sake you're right .

Also : some of the biggest mistakes in history were made by people who believed there was no way they could be wrong . Good day.

It's always important to remember that this creationist attack on evolution could, with very little rewording, be used as a athiest attack on creationism. Hence, as you point out, hypocrisy. The "to admit defeat is to deny self-identity" line is interesting to me, because if both sides truly believe what they're saying, then they do not consider defeat a possibility since they are defending the truth instead of a subjective view, and their identity thus cannot be denied, at least to themselves.

I choose science as the more persuasive side in the argument, but I hold no illusion that current theories will be the final conclusion of science (if such a thing as a final conclusion of science is possible). Not too long ago, we had very different views on the structure of atoms or the nature of disease and so on, but due to improvements in technology providing more advanced tools and methods, we have a better understanding of atomic structure and the existence of bacteria and viruses. In another hundred years, technology will have advanced even further and will likely change our understanding again.

Your argument about the polystrate trees views the conclusions as either evolution or creationism. A good scientist would say "Ok, where are these trees and how often do they occur and what do we know about the region's geological history and so on" and if a conclusion is arrived at which does not fit perfectly with our current understanding of evolution and the Earth's geology, he alters existing theories or develops a new one to try to explain the new evidence. He does not conclude that such a view is a point for creationism because he has no further evidence that they're right either. If both sides are working backwards from a conclusion, then the science might end up a little dubious.

Long story short, evolution and creationism aren't a dichotomy. Other possibilities are available, and science cannot be closed minded towards them. People debate whether evolution or science should be taught in science class. Science should be taught in science class, and repeated evidence shows that currently, physics, chemistry, and evolution are the most fitting examples of science.

10 posts. made it longer than I thought it would tbh. By about a factor of 4.

And to all the people who are saying there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, you should also be aware that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Darwinist evolution is either wrong, or at the very least only a very small part of the actual truth.

spartan231490:

And to all the people who are saying there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, you should also be aware that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Darwinist evolution is either wrong, or at the very least only a very small part of the actual truth.

Please enlighten us then on this evidence. I'm legitimately curious as to what it is.

And as for your strong opinion in this matter, which horse are you betting on? Because you seem very "none of the above" in the creation v evolution debate, but I see that as a little bit of a cop out on the topic. You tell us what we should be skeptical of, but you don't present any vision of what we should be looking at instead

TLDR (both parts) I skimmed it a bit and here is what you need to do: point and laugh at how silly it is.

spartan231490:
10 posts. made it longer than I thought it would tbh. By about a factor of 4.

And to all the people who are saying there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, you should also be aware that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Darwinist evolution is either wrong, or at the very least only a very small part of the actual truth.

The problem kind of is the lack of evidence for creationism, of any kind.

Creationism is a hypothesis and a pretty flimsy one at that.

I'm curious, how does a tree being buried in an atypical manner have any bearing on creationism being true?

teqrevisited:
Objectivity and subjectivity. People can't respect one another's opinions anymore [...] We all want to be right but some people just can't handle being wrong.

Exactly how is this different from past ages? At least now we don't try to exterminate each other over our differences.

spartan231490:

And to all the people who are saying there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, you should also be aware that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Darwinist evolution is either wrong, or at the very least only a very small part of the actual truth.

This doesn't change the fact that there isn't evidence for creationism. As for Darwinist evolution, yes, the original theory formulated by Darwin had flaws but the thing about the scientific method is that it is about refining itself, and a lot to that effect has been accomplished since the 1800s.

Science is about seeking to explain the universe we see. Creationism is about seeking to frame religious texts as scientific by people to whom faith alone is no longer enough somehow.

Hoplon:

spartan231490:
10 posts. made it longer than I thought it would tbh. By about a factor of 4.

And to all the people who are saying there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, you should also be aware that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Darwinist evolution is either wrong, or at the very least only a very small part of the actual truth.

The problem kind of is the lack of evidence for creationism, of any kind.

Creationism is a hypothesis and a pretty flimsy one at that.

there is no evidence because the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't wish there to be any!!!

IT'S IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!!

Launcelot111:

spartan231490:

And to all the people who are saying there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, you should also be aware that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Darwinist evolution is either wrong, or at the very least only a very small part of the actual truth.

Please enlighten us then on this evidence. I'm legitimately curious as to what it is.

And as for your strong opinion in this matter, which horse are you betting on? Because you seem very "none of the above" in the creation v evolution debate, but I see that as a little bit of a cop out on the topic. You tell us what we should be skeptical of, but you don't present any vision of what we should be looking at instead

I believe in evolution. It's pretty hard to look at the evidence and not believe in evolution. But I also believe that the evidence shows that natural selection and mutation cannot be the only factors. This sunday when I have time again I'll try to put some of that evidence here, but if you want to see it just look at that evolutionisalie.com link in the OP. The vast majority of what is on there is just blatantly wrong, but it does also have the legitimate problems with the current theories on there.

OP, they worship a series of fantasy novels, what do you expect :P

The OP points out how stupid two people having an evolution vs creationism debate is and what do people do? HAVE A CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION DEBATE! Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Seriously, is there some part of the Human mind that makes it so that we're hotwired to start arguing anytime something that we don't believe in 110% is brought up? The guy was just pointing out people being annoying and you're starting to throw around the "I'm right you're wrong" arguments. A self demonstrating article if I ever saw one.

erttheking:
The OP points out how stupid two people having an evolution vs creationism debate is and what do people do? HAVE A CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION DEBATE! Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Seriously, is there some part of the Human mind that makes it so that we're hotwired to start arguing anytime something that we don't believe in 110% is brought up? The guy was just pointing out people being annoying and you're starting to throw around the "I'm right you're wrong" arguments. A self demonstrating article if I ever saw one.

I blame it on the lack of pirates in modern day society... lack of pirates is also causing global warming

erttheking:
The OP points out how stupid two people having an evolution vs creationism debate is and what do people do? HAVE A CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION DEBATE! Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Seriously, is there some part of the Human mind that makes it so that we're hotwired to start arguing anytime something that we don't believe in 110% is brought up? The guy was just pointing out people being annoying and you're starting to throw around the "I'm right you're wrong" arguments. A self demonstrating article if I ever saw one.

It's because it's like showcasing an argument between someone saying the Earth is flat and someone saying it isn't. Maybe he wanted to make a point about these particular people being stupid, but the argument as a whole is pretty damn one sided as far as real evidence goes.

Am I the only one bored with christians vs athiests? I want something out of left field like voodoo vs sikh or pagan vs jewish. Just me?

oh cool it's started snowing here

so you read about a bunch of Christians and atheist arguing and decide you hate people?
over reaction much?

Liquidacid23:

krazykidd:

OT : CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

no because that would be far less entertaining

Brother Liquid's got a point here. It's funny to watch Atheist stereotypes and Christian stereotypes butt heads. Not to say all Christians and Atheists are stereotypes but that those that are stereotypical are friggin' hilarious. Of course I being an agnostic could care less which is more right, I prefer to think that science kinda proves that evolution is true. Also god doesn't give two shits about us humans! I mean, if you had the omnipotent ability to warp the universe to your own will why obsess over homo sapiens that are just going to kill each other in a couple millenniums? You could be using black holes as your own milkshake processors!

erttheking:
The OP points out how stupid two people having an evolution vs creationism debate is and what do people do? HAVE A CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION DEBATE! Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Seriously, is there some part of the Human mind that makes it so that we're hotwired to start arguing anytime something that we don't believe in 110% is brought up? The guy was just pointing out people being annoying and you're starting to throw around the "I'm right you're wrong" arguments. A self demonstrating article if I ever saw one.

Kind of like how there's a thread about a University Shooting, and it will immediately dissolve into a Gun-law debate

Because people are programmed to think they are right. Even when they aren't. It's unfortunate, but basically most people will refuse to change their mind about anything. I would try to look up the studies, but by this post you probably already know this, plus I'm feeling lazy today :P

Well, pretty much everyone are hypocrites. It's part of human nature. But yeah, humanity and the world's pretty shit, but there's nothing we can do about it. Unless you want to commit suicide. Although you probably shouldn't do that.

Completely disagree.

Competition is fun, be it physical or intellectual.

In this example, there is no way that a middle ground compromise would make sense. Evolution is fact, that's well established at this point. The opposition can use sneaky language and argue semantics until they're blue in the face, but they reveal themselves when they take their antibiotics and line up for their vaccinations with the rest of us.

They're wrong, most of them just have no idea why.

krazykidd:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Come a little closer to the truth?

We dont need to. Most of us here already know the truth when it comes to evolution vs creation.

Problem is , do you REALLY know , or just assuming based on logic? There is always the possibility you are wrong . There is also the possibility they are wrong . There is no problem believing one or the other , live and let live . The problem is when you a) belittle someone else for believing something or b) tell yourself there is no possibility you could be wrong .

OT : CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

well....only because after a certain point arguing against it is as productive as bashing ones head againt a brickall (but that still causes less of a headache)

generally I dont care..I dont argue it in real life or the internet..

BUT its when they start trying to spread their misinformation..thats a problem

after a certain point I dont give a fuck about "resepecting somones belifs" if respecting somones belives means im OK with them not teaching science or WILLFULLY not actually understanding anything..then fuck it

if a whole bunch of scientists managed to disprove evolution...oh usre, I might sit up and take notice

but is religion ever going to provide the ansers?....no fucking way, its not on the same level and its insulting they seem to insist it is

yeah..mabye thats arrogant...but its so fucking hard not to be

*sigh*....hence why I dont argue this..theres no point

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked