SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For over a decade I have enjoyed debating with creationists who are capable of intelligent, rational conversation. Currently I am attempting to share my viewpoints with a coworker who is particularly intelligent and rational, but who is at this point a young-Earth creationist. We take turns posing questions and formulating replies, and have not once lost our cool with each other. At this point I would very much like to share with him what I learned on evolutionofdna.com some years ago while researching for a previous debate, but the site has apparently been down for some years with no sign of returning. Does anyone know a way of retrieving an archive of it, or obtaining what it once held through other channels? If so I would be deeply grateful.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday September 08 2014, @12:31PM
By any measure, aren't the terms "rational" and "young earth creationist" mutually exclusive? The willful denial of repeatedly-demonstrated scientific evidence is certainly irrational.
(Score: 1) by cout on Monday September 08 2014, @12:34PM
We are all a quirky mix of rational and irrational.
(Score: 1) by eapache on Monday September 08 2014, @12:34PM
Rationality does not require empiricism as a premise. In fact the older philosophical schools contrasted the rationalists with the empiricists as entirely different approaches.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 08 2014, @01:13PM
Or alternately, it is quite possible to make perfectly logical arguments with bad premises.
One of the first instances of an irrational response to a scientific argument: One of the Pythagoreans, probably Hippasus, demonstrated conclusively that the ratio of the hypotenuse to the sides of an isosceles right triangle was an irrational number. When he ends up dead (possibly at the hands of said Pythagoreans), it is attributed to divine punishment for his presumption.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @01:21PM
Depends on how much they have really looked into the issue. One can be ignorant but still rational. Inform them gently and they might not have a knee-jerk rejection of the facts.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 08 2014, @05:53PM
You are assuming that God couldn't have created the Earth and made the rocks to appear to be millions of years old. He created Adam as a full-grown Adult. Another possible explanation of the rocks appearing to be "millions" of years old could be the Flood. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/ [answersingenesis.org] Call me crazy, but assuming something like the Flood happened. The Earth would have gone through a Lot of Stresses. Which accounts for animals being buried almost instantaneously and preserved (Fossils/Dinosaurs) and definitely has something to do with the layout of the earth as it is now. Again, assuming you believe in the Bible. Another thought that has run across my mind from time to time is what, if the planet was more or less here already. God just took the planet and molded it to his liking and bam you have Earth. Genesis 1 verse 2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." That verse makes it sound like there was something there. How long had the planet been there, before God did something with it? Millions of years? Perhaps.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:53AM
So I should assume that this "god" is perfectly capable of not only being an absentee landlord, but a liar and fraudster as well? That certainly opens up a whole new can of circular logic, doesn't it?