Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

Missed this in all the excitement, but I like it.

quote:

---

Creationist:

Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood.

Evolutionist:

But the ocean sea shells aren't just atop the mountains, they're *all through* the mountains. That because layers and layers of sea shells were deposited on ancient sea floors where they were gradually compressed into stone by the weight of the layers and water above. Later these sea floors were pushed up by tectonic forces into mountains. Not only will you find sea shells atop these mountains, but dig as deep as you will and you'll continue to find sea shells.

---

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Are you saying that someone's "evidence" should not be countered just because it is evidence enough for them?

---

No that's not what I'm saying.If you've got a scientist who has laid out a great scientific argument, counter in like kind; but when you have a nonscience person like me, keep it simple.If the assertion is simple, counter simply. The ball's in their court then.The analogies that Ringo (Message 51) and Mark24 (Message 39) and the response by Percy (Message 60) are my idea of more productive responses to general assertions or opinions.

quote:

---

So the truth is not important, only that which satisfies is important.

---

On this forum I think everyone who posts thinks what they have written is the truth.If one person gives me information I can check and the other one doesn't or their information doesn't check out, I can discern the truth. Why waste a post saying someone is wrong when your post should show it. You just get into personal battles.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So we get to another question. Can a superficial statement of the evidence be considered "staggering" evidence at all, unless it is something very exceptional?

---

Nope. The evidence is what it is no matter how many adjectives are used. What is staggering to one person is not so staggering to another.I don't really worry about someone living up to their adjectives.Fortunately we can ignore bully type behavior and Admins take care of the rest.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I'm glad you appreciate my motives here, but as much as I disliked their approach in the Flood thread, I'm not liking your approach in this thread.What you are doing right now is really undermining what I've been trying to do.I'd appreciate it, if you sincerely want to discuss something more than what you have already said in the Flood thread, go to that thread and continue discussing calmly.Please don't continue discussing the flood issues in this thread.And please don't make me regret stepping in. I really don't want to have to eat crow.
They are so not purple.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So while it might be considered evidence for the Flood in a very loose way it's the sort of evidence that has no significance and can reasonably be dismissed...

​

Of course, the very fact that Faith is reduced to insulting her opponents for refusing to unquestioningly accept her word shows she is in no position to assert that any of the items on here list are significant - let alone "staggering" evidence for the Flood. If they were then she could eplain why they should be considered so signifcant - and she can't.

---

I understand what you're saying.Just for the record, I don't believe that the flood was world wide. My evidence, if I can call it that, is in the text though, not necessarily science. On the science side though, since I grew up on a farm with cattle and hogs, I do have a good idea of the problems involved with the concept that only two animals per species were used to repopulate the earth.I also didn't grow up in a fundamentalist family or church. Our church didn't really press the world wide flood as a reality.

quote:

---

Of course, the very fact that Faith is reduced to insulting her opponents for refusing to unquestioningly accept her word shows she is in no position to assert that any of the items on here list are significant - let alone "staggering" evidence for the Flood. If they were then she could eplain why they should be considered so signifcant - and she can't.

---

I understand the frustration of both sides of this debate. Besides a clash of ideas, we have a clash of tactics. You (science people) respond to what you consider general assertions. Instead of presenting a general response like the one Percy wrote in this thread, you seem to be more intent (this is from my viewpoint) in making your opponent come up with your caliber of evidence or walking them through your side of the argument to make them understand.Your opponent doesn't want to be walked through your evidence. In the end, they make the same general response. IOW, your current approach isn't working and IMO your message is lost.Makes me think of a political campaign. Your opponents message is out there due to sheer repitition. Short and sweet. But, your message is lost in the fine print at the bottom of the screen.Now from the journalist side of my brain. One thing we learn is to put the important information of the story at the beginning of the piece. This is because stories can get cut short, literally, due to space available in the newspaper.When I start reading a thread, I don't like reading through a battle to get to the gist of the science view.So if the goal is to get your information in front of the people, try a new approach when responding to general creationist claims.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Statement: Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood.

quote:

---

You also need to mention that the species will vary with different sediments, that there is a "sorting" of species with specific sediment layers within the mountains, it is not a homogeneous distribution of fossils.

---

IMO, unless the general statement brings out species, your statement would be better served in subsequent responses depending on the direction of the discussion and questions asked.In the initial response it doesn't make the point any stronger.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

You also need to mention that the species will vary with different sediments, ...

​

IMO, unless the general statement brings out species, your statement would be better served in subsequent responses depending on the direction of the discussion and questions asked.

​

The problem is that people will not ask in this direction becasue they are satisfied that "Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood" and don't need to look further without prodding.

---

Or they are satisfied with the evolutionist answer and don't need to look further. Remember, I'm thinking of nonscience people and not necessarily fundamentalists.If this tactic hasn't been used before how do we know what direction the debate will go?Can you speculate what the creationist rebuttal would be to the evolutionist paragraph above?Tectonics can easily be looked up and is generally easy to understand, IMO. Getting into the species, sorting, sediment, etc. takes more explanation and could be more confusing than not, depending on the level of your reader. I don't think it will hurt the paragraph, but I don't feel that it adds either. Of course that's just my opinion. I do understand its importance in your position, but your side of the argument has a lot more meat to digest than the other side. From a nonscience standpoint the species comment doesn't seem to address original statement.You want your readers to understand your side through reasoning. So give them small bites and let them chew on it. Better for the digestion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Do you enjoy verbal conversations where people repeat themselves?When my daughter was in school, she got upset when she couldn't understand what the teacher was teaching.I talked with the teacher to try and see what the problem was. The teacher said she answered my daughter's questions whenever she asked.As our discussion continued I found out that the teacher never changed her answer. IOW, when my daughter didn't understand, the teacher just repeated what she had already said. If my daughter didn't understand the first time the teacher said it, why did the teacher think saying the same thing the exact same way would help her understand any better?Sometimes the approach needs to be changed and not just repeating the same words.Just as their responses need to address what you have said, your responses need to address what they have said. That's when you actually have a discussion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz