^
Thanks for posting that. It really is worth watching through from the beginning, which includes an introductory discussion between four presuppositionalising young-Earth creationists. I believe this helps to better situate the argument in its religious context.
As for the debate itself, I was pleased that Avalos restricted himself as much as possible to what he knows: he is a biblical scholar, and his arguments were primarily drawn from an historical critical study of scriptural texts. Having said that, I was disappointed that he wasn't more emphatic in his rebuttals of Valdes' incredibly weak responses. Two fundamental points were in the English renderings of Hebrew words, רקיע ,ברא ,בראשית, translated "in the beginning", "to create", and "sky" by most modern translations. Valdes effectively admitted that he doesn't know the language, and yet felt comfortable countering Avalos' arguments by claiming basically that "lots" of Bible scholars translate these words that way. Of course, he ignored (and sadly, Prof. Avalos did not correct him on this) the pivotal religious and political reasons for why modern Bible translations are often very slow to revise based on new, or current scholarship and discovery. In actual fact, those slow to correct (ESV, NASB, NIV) are hindered by a lot of dogmatic baggage. As Avalos showed, the most recent and most scholarly modern renderings ALL correct the text to reflect a more accurate understanding of the language.
It would have been good for him to have asked Valdes to provide an account of those "many scholars" who agree with the old translations of these words.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Hard to watch, not sure if it's low IQ or just something wired funny in the brain for these people.
Neither, it's the same cognitive biases as everyone else. I used to believe in a young earth. My IQ hasn't changed. My brain isn't wired funny either (or no more funny than is typical I don't think).
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Neither, it's the same cognitive biases as everyone else. I used to believe in a young earth. My IQ hasn't changed. My brain isn't wired funny either (or no more funny than is typical I don't think).
We both know you were under 12 at the time, you have since educated yourself and got away from the parents!
Hah I wish it was only when I was 12, not sure when I started to not buy the literal stories, but it was deep into my 20's at least. The only thing being smarter does is let you come up with much better reasons to justify your beliefs.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Hah I wish it was only when I was 12, not sure when I started to not buy the literal stories, but it was deep into my 20's at least. The only thing being smarter does is let you come up with much better reasons to justify your beliefs.
Would it be OK to label you as a late bloomer perhaps?
Is it possible to be a creationist and an evolutionist? I see merits in both sides, but also huge flaws in both sides. A lot of the time I just think it's people arguing to be right and not arguing to find out the truth, I mean isn't that the premise of a debate, you are supposed to pick a side. I think once you do that you pretty much eliminate critical thinking from the situation.
Is it possible to be a creationist and an evolutionist? I see merits in both sides, but also huge flaws in both sides. A lot of the time I just think it's people arguing to be right and not arguing to find out the truth, I mean isn't that the premise of a debate, you are supposed to pick a side. I think once you do that you pretty much eliminate critical thinking from the situation.
There is a big flaw in evolution?
And yes, it is possible to be both... I think Bill covered that quite nicely in the debate. He has no quarrel with them. It is those that believe there is a huge flaw with evolution (the "why are there still monkeys" crowd) that he takes issue with.
Would it be OK to label you as a late bloomer perhaps?
Heh, I don't think so, like I said cognitive biases are part of the human mind and everyone is susceptible to them regardless of if their conclusions are right are not. One can be right for the wrong reasons too.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Is it possible to be a creationist and an evolutionist?
Depends entirely on what one means by those words. There's enough variation that it's better to be more specific since creationist could mean a deist who thinks the universe was put in motion by a god, or a young earth creationist who believes the universe and all extant species were created in a literal six day period thousands of years ago.
Evolution usually refers to biological evolution in that context but I have seen people arguing against evolution use the word to refer to the Big Bang and solar system formation and abiogenesis and everything else.
But in general lots are people are both to one degree or another.
I see merits in both sides, but also huge flaws in both sides.
Merits and flaws can easily be a result of misconceptions and misunderstandings, of the cognitive biases I mentioned above and deliberate misinformation. So discussion is one way to dig through those and come to a better understanding, often if that happens people find they don't disagree as much as they had thought. I very often find the flaws people see in the "science side" (and I hate framing the conversation that way) are flaws in a misconception, not a flaw in what science is actually trying to say. Like Devils'Advocate's example of a common "flaw" some people see with evolution that isn't a flaw at all, it's just a complete lack of understanding.
Ultimately I think creationism has a basic flaw in that it is based on a way of knowing that cannot by definition be demonstrated to be true, and those that believe it either have to completely ignore everything we discover, or keep redefining their creationism as we understand more and more (depending on their definition of creationism).
The only "flaw" I see with the other side is that there's still things where the answer is "I don't know". Which isn't a flaw at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
A lot of the time I just think it's people arguing to be right and not arguing to find out the truth, I mean isn't that the premise of a debate, you are supposed to pick a side.
In terms of a debate, sure it's a contrived scenario that has two sides presenting and arguing their view. At best it's interesting, but a debate should never be viewed as a method to discover truth. They're arguing to try and convince others (or just for the sake of arguing I guess).
In terms of a forum discussion, again yeah sometimes it's just arguing for the sake of arguing, but again always it's not a good way to discover truth (though it is much better than a debate)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
I think once you do that you pretty much eliminate critical thinking from the situation.
For a debate yeah, the goal of a debate is to convince, not to discover truth. Rhetorical prowess alone can win debates, and the format favors superficial thinking and untruth. The universe can be complicated and it's easy to make a claim in a debate that would take an hour to explain why the claim is wrong. So gish galloping from one false claim to the next can easily look like winning.
Forum discussions have the potential to be different.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
