Subjective vs objective subjects

[DanieltheDragon]

You don't understand evoluion. No. I do understand.
You don't understand the Bible. No. I do understand.
You have preconceived religious ideas. No. I do not.
You have preconceived evolution ideas. No. I do not.
You are not thinking rationally. You're not thinking sensibly.
And back and forth we go.

How can we understand whether someone understands something about a subjective topic?

How can we understand whether someone understands something about an objective subject?


The bible has spawned thousands of different sects many claiming to be the one true interpretation. If one does not agree with any one particular sect can one not understand what they are saying?

Can we understand what someone is saying and not agree?

The theory of Evolution has an accepted set of principles that have stood the test of falsification and expirementation. It is objective in the sense that what is outside these principles would not be considered evolutionary theory.

If one contends a principle is part of the theory of evolution when it is clearly not does one show an understanding of said subject?




Perhaps this merry go round we are on rests on understanding each other. Where we come from and how we view things. While no one can know everything would it not be best to try and understand each other's positions so we can get off the merry go round?

[Neatras]

If one contends a principle is part of the theory of evolution when it is clearly not does one show an understanding of said subject?

No. It's a Creationist tactic to try and pull the wool over our eyes. They frame their position as, "Well, if we apply evolution's principles logically, then we get some unfounded proposition that attempts to sound absurd." This tactic is intended to make it seem as if nobody has ever thought of such a thing. Creationists tend to believe that they can completely confound scientists all over the earth because they can leap to conclusions that sound rational to them.



Problem is, the theory of evolution has very clear parameters and conclusions drawn from data. Creationists who believe they've found some mistake are looking for mistakes to begin with, because their focus is on trying to make secularism seem inadequate. It's a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect, to be sure. An assumption of knowledge and expertise without any foundation comes off as simply contrarian when they scramble to find anything that justifies their already stone-set beliefs.

[marco]

Can we understand what someone is saying and not agree?

Regularly.

The larger problem is to understand why they are saying it. Sometimes we can deduce that a certain viewpoint makes the holder feel more comfortable and life more tolerable. I have no problem understanding that when one pours one's personality into a GOOD God, then necessarily one comes away feeling good. If the idea is to get through life with as much warmth as possible, then there's a lot to be said for seeing God as a friend. I'm not sure that, were I in that situation, I'd want to debate it. He doesn't seem to have furnished his believers with the appropriate documents for his incontestable identification, which is a pity.