Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 61 of 196 (575914)
08-21-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by nwr
06-27-2010 3:43 PM


Re: Laws of Physics Falsified - Nobel Prize!
Hello again nwr. I hope you’re staying cool in Illinois.
nwr in Message 57 writes:
I have held soldering irons, though usually not by the wrong end.
No scientifically literate person would equate power and heat.
Perhaps you missed Equation 4 in Message 48:
Equation 4: Heat calories = Power calories
Please provide an example where (I2R in kilo-Watts) is not exclusively manifest as heat in real time. Unfortunately, you cannot (unless you qualify for a nomination to a Nobel Prize in physics).
nwr in Message 57 writes:
In normal discussions, if somebody had equated power and heat I would let it pass as a typical non-scientists confusion. However, in Message 23 you went out of your way to criticize my scientific knowledge, all the while spewing scientific nonsense throughout that post. You set yourself up for criticism.
I welcome criticism when it’s valid. However, I’ll correct misinterpretations or misapplications of science (physics) at every turn in an effort to increase knowledge and understanding. Your second entry in this thread (Message 16) mused how interesting it was that Ohm’s law was conditionally false and well known to be false. That was the first time I had ever heard anyone make such a claim (under any conditions) and it was obvious you were attempting to critique when you didn’t understand everything you knew.
You and cavediver apparently are on the same straw-man trip. Of course, I never equated or said power was equal to heat in units. It’s a nice straw man though when there’s not much else to argue. Interested lurkers can review Messages 23, 42, and 48 to assess the facts.
My statement in Message 23 was Real power can be viewed as heat. According to equation 4 above, that’s true because the energy in Real power is totally and exclusively manifest in Heat any time all the time (including when you hold your soldering iron at the wrong end).
This stuff isn’t subjective and it’s not personal. It’s empirical. It’s just how physics works in the real world.
In keeping with the topic of this thread for a professional written publishable debate on the evidence for/against neo-Darwinian evolution, your status remains out unless you change your mind and commit. If Dr. Adequate is a firm commitment and gets his wish for a creationist debate opponent, your expertise may be needed. I’d like to see you committed in any capacity.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nwr, posted 06-27-2010 3:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 08-21-2010 7:28 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 62 of 196 (575915)
08-21-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nwr
06-27-2010 4:01 PM


Re: Not Qualified
nwr in Message 58 writes:
I am responding to this, because you are criticizing me by proxy, while ostensibly replying to (lyx2no in Message 53):
Eye-Squared-R replying to lyx2no in Message 53 writes:
nwr in Message 16 writes:
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false.
Apparently, nwr did not understand the proper application of Ohm’s Law which is the fundamental building block for electrical theory in physics.
Yes. Lyx2no inquired about the equations and the reference to you was appropriate because the equations addressed your earlier error. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, those equations didn’t help you understand how Ohm’s Law is actually applied.
nwr in Message 58 writes:
Apparently your problems are not limited to scientific literacy. You seem to have difficulty reading. That "Taken as saying ..." clause is a conditional, which you seem to be ignoring. The normal ("proper") application of Ohm's law does not follow that conditional assumption.
No worries, I read it just fine. Your problem is there is no conditional clause or conditional assumption relative to Ohm’s Law. All applications of Ohm’s Law are normal and proper. There is only one Ohm’s Law (V=IR) and it is applied for a specific purpose every day (even when reactance and variable current are present) despite your misconception.
nwr in Message 58 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 53 writes:
It’s unclear how nwr defines a snow job concerning reactance or a a silly mistake.
In Message 23 you (Eye-Squared-R) wrote "Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance" and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Yellow Emphasis by Eye-Squared-R)
No. I understand why you may think that about reactance but it’s incorrect.
There is no deviation from Ohm’s Law under any conditions. Ohm’s Law is always valid and reactance has no effect on Ohm’s Law. You have plenty of time to study and learn how Ohm’s Law is unconditionally true and how it is applied every day even in applications with reactance and alternating current. If you teach physics, I hope you take the time. I suggest you study the different types of electrical power, how they are determined, and how they relate to each other. One type of power utilizes Ohm’s Law exclusively in all conditions. It is always accurate and true — and it is exclusively and completely converted to heat.
nwr in message 28 writes:
Eye-Squared-R writes:
No offense nwr, but I recommend you use considerable caution when endeavoring to discredit someone with a quick Wiki reference on a topic that you may not fully understand.
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing. No, I did not attempt to discredit you with a quick Wiki reference. I just pointed out your obvious mistake, then added a Wiki reference to aid the casual reader of this thread (if there are any casual readers remaining).
If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I2R can also be viewed as Heat
Whoever wrote that wiki information evidently knows far more about the physics of electricity than you are capable of knowing. If you had understood the significance of what you just wrote about reactance, you would not have made such a silly mistake.
You apparently have a lot of confidence in your level of knowledge and understanding about the physics of electricity!
Not sure how you’ve confidently assessed what I am even capable of learning.
Sometimes the person with the most boasts is the one who doesn’t understand everything they know. It’s unfortunate but fairly common.
Aside from wailing away on a straw man, your claim that Ohm’s Law is conditionally false will eventually bring you either a strong dose of humility among knowledgeable lurkers - or a Nobel Prize.
Your own advice in Message 2 of the thread Dunning-Kruger Effect may be salient here.
nwr writes:
It all suggests that the first step in acquiring knowledge is to Know Thyself.
If you choose not to acknowledge and correct your error concerning Ohm’s Law, I will eventually present a complete detailed explanation. But I’m in no hurry. You have plenty of opportunity and time to examine your misunderstanding and correct it yourself. The manner of correction is your choice but it will eventually be corrected.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 06-27-2010 4:01 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 08-21-2010 7:47 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 63 of 196 (575917)
08-21-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2010 6:22 AM


Re: Dr Adequate's Inducement
Hello Dr.
Dr Adequate in Message 59 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 55 writes:
There is no need to rush from my perspective. I’m giving it a break for a while.
You mean you're not going to rush out and look for a creationist with a PhD and the cojones to engage in a written debate?
Why not? I don't think you can start this search too early.
Frankly, I was expecting more firm commitments among all the folks at EVC Forum who express such a high confidence level in their current interpretation of the evidence, including those in Zenmonkey’s thread referenced in Message 1.
I’m methodical and will not rush because this effort should be a quality endeavor in all respects even if it takes many months to realize.
Dr Adequate in Message 59 writes:
If, in the course of your quest, you should happen across the Holy Grail or the Fountain Of Youth, please let us know.
Humor’s good but I’m not interested in the Holy Grail or Fountain of Youth. However, there is interest in your professional presentation and defense of evidence that the DNA from a single celled specimen mutated randomly over time and ultimately (via natural selection) resulted in a fascinating intelligent specimen as lovely as my wife. Although unrelated, I’ll be sure to let you know if I should happen across the Fountain of Life — where a self-sustaining and self-replicating cell arbitrarily forms from a chemical soup of sorts.
In the meantime, would you please review the proposal described in Message 1 and confirm that you are firmly committed? Also, would you please try to recruit others with firm commitments to assist you, just in case the need arises? This is a rare opportunity to leverage the professed knowledge and confidence at EVC Forum to educate the majority of Americans who are evidently evolution unbelievers. There are lots of folks here at EVC Forum who believe the scientific evidence is clear and evident for neo-Darwinian evolution — but only you have expressed an interest or willingness to defend that belief in a professional publishable format!
I’m going to give it at least twelve weeks in hopes that you and others here will stand and deliver firm commitments to engage in this professional manner — including a public defense of your neo-Darwinian convictions. The publishable finished product could surely be leveraged to educate the majority of American evolution unbelievers.
If done right, I believe it could be BIG in the mass media Dr. Adequate — much bigger than Dr. Hook and his crew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of368QdosR0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zHfBs8DaQw&feature=related
All the Best to you,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2010 6:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 8:48 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 64 of 196 (575926)
08-21-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Eye-Squared-R
08-21-2010 6:23 PM


Re: Laws of Physics Falsified - Nobel Prize!
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Perhaps you missed Equation 4 in Message 48:
Equation 4: Heat calories = Power calories
By putting it in color, you only emphasize your mistake. Power is not measured in calories.
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Please provide an example where (I2R in kilo-Watts) is not exclusively manifest as heat in real time.
If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Your second entry in this thread (Message 16) mused how interesting it was that Ohm’s law was conditionally false and well known to be false.
Your inability to read is not an endearing quality.
Eye-Squared-R writes:
You and cavediver apparently are on the same straw-man trip. Of course, I never equated or said power was equal to heat in units.
Yet, in the very message that I am replying to, you said:
quote:
Equation 4: Heat calories = Power calories
That certainly has the appearance of saying that power is equal to heat in units. And you even did that in bold colors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 08-21-2010 6:23 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 65 of 196 (575932)
08-21-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Eye-Squared-R
08-21-2010 6:24 PM


Re: Not Qualified
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Yes. Lyx2no inquired about the equations and the reference to you was appropriate because the equations addressed your earlier error.
Since you seem to have a serious difficulty with reading, I shall try to explain it for you.
Message 41, the post of lyx2no that you refer to, is irony. It is full of sarcasm. lyx2no was laughing at you. In fact he was ridiculing you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 08-21-2010 6:24 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 66 of 196 (575943)
08-21-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Eye-Squared-R
08-21-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Dr Adequate's Inducement
Frankly, I was expecting more firm commitments among all the folks at EVC Forum ...
You were expecting more people to write a book for you? Without a hint of a flicker of interest from a publisher?
Your knowledge of human nature is ... unimpressive.
In the meantime, would you please review the proposal described in Message 1 and confirm that you are firmly committed?
It would be best if we cut out the section of the proposition in brackets: "Neo-Darwinism is (unequivocally true and scientifically verified fact -) essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes"
Many people would object on philosophical grounds to saying that about any empirical proposition whatsoever, and while I to some extent disagree with them on equally philosophical ground, I hope you would agree that the less philosophy the better.
Also, would you please try to recruit others with firm commitments to assist you, just in case the need arises?
I'm sure they'll chip in, should the need arise.
There are lots of folks here at EVC Forum who believe the scientific evidence is clear and evident for neo-Darwinian evolution — but only you have expressed an interest or willingness to defend that belief in a professional publishable format!
The world needs one more book?
I am interested because I feel that my rigorously hypothetico-deductive style of exposition does deserve a book.
---
About the format. Some things should be agreed in advance.
First, no Gish Gallops. This is just to make the thing readable. On an Internet forum, we cut people's posts up and quote them, so that it goes like this (in schema):
a creationist writes:
Error of fact #1. Error of fact #2. Error of logic #1. Error of fact #3. Error of logic #2. Complete gibberish #1. Error of fact #4.
To which it is necessary to reply:
an evolutionist writes:
Error of fact #1.
Fact #1.
Error of fact #2.
Fact #2.
Error of logic #1.
Identification of trivial fallacy #1
Error of fact #3.
Fact #3.
Error of logic #2.
Correction of trivial fallacy #2
Complete gibberish #1.
Request for translation into English, advice to learn the basic terminology of biolgy #1.
Error of fact #4.
Fact #4.
This is already tedious to read; and it is certainly unsuited to the format of a book.
The creationist should therefore be restricted to one mistake at a time, for the sake of the reader, so that the dialogue goes more like this:
Him: Error of fact #1.
Me: Fact #1.
Him: Error of fact #2.
Me: Fact #2.
... and so forth.
---
Moreover, you will have observed that creationists can generate any number of false statements about any given topic. They can, for example, spend a seemingly infinite amount of time whining about the terminology of biology, in which case we shouldn't get past the introduction.
I would therefore propose that the creationist should be limited to his top 5 favorite mistakes on any given subject (perhaps more or fewer depending on the importance of the point). After all, if his five favorite arguments turn out to be rubbish, is there really any hope that the arguments of which he is less enamored will turn out to be any better?
---
Any luck finding a creationist?
What steps have you taken to do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 08-21-2010 6:29 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 196 (584467)
10-02-2010 12:11 AM


I'll ask again:
Any luck finding a creationist?
What steps have you taken to do so?

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 196 (587800)
10-20-2010 10:26 PM


And I'll ask again.
You repeatedly implied that if no-one would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.
When I said that I'd write the darn book, you repeatedly implied that if only one person would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.
Now I should like to hear from the creationist side. How have you tried to induce them to write your book, and how are you getting on?
The silence is becoming deafening.
Now, let me make it plain. I'm not even asking whether any creationist has the cojones to debate me. Clearly so far the answer to that is no.
What I'm asking now is whether you had the cojones to ask any creationist to debate me. Did you even try, or are you certain that they all know that they'll lose?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 10-21-2010 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 72 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 69 of 196 (587875)
10-21-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2010 10:26 PM


Non creo drivel
I'm no creo but I sure can write creo drivel if you want to go halves on the book rights.
First Piece of creo drivel: blood clotting: how does that work? I don't know: therefor God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2010 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:17 AM Larni has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 70 of 196 (592782)
11-22-2010 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Larni
10-21-2010 7:14 AM


Is Larni in or out?
Hello Larni — and welcome!
Larni in Message 69 writes:
I'm no creo but I sure can write creo drivel if you want to go halves on the book rights.
First Piece of creo drivel: blood clotting: how does that work? I don't know: therefor God.
In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread, you neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question.
Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format...
I must ask - are you in or out?
And if out - please share with us your reason for declining if you don’t mind.
I appreciate your thoughts Larni.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 10-21-2010 7:14 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Larni, posted 12-07-2011 4:29 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 71 of 196 (592783)
11-22-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 8:48 PM


Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Hello Dr. Adequate,
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
Frankly, I was expecting more firm commitments among all the folks at EVC Forum...
You were expecting more people to write a book for you? Without a hint of a flicker of interest from a publisher?
Your knowledge of human nature is ... unimpressive.
As Ronald Reagan famously said to Walter Mondale in a presidential debate There you go again
I haven’t asked you to write a book for me doctor and that line is neither accurate nor professional. I addressed this canard in Message 13 and your response in Message 18 was Very well then
My objective remains to:
  1. Secure firm commitments from you and your peers in Zenmonkey’s thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) referenced in the OP along with other EVC experts.
  2. Ascertain the reasons those who will not engage in a professional written publishable debate are quick to judge and slow to help educate the majority of American unbelievers in evolution who are proclaimed to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
  3. Obviate all possible reasons for reneging commitment prior to commencement of (or during) a professional written publishable debate.
To reiterate, rather than asking you to write a book for me, the OP clarification from Message 10 is given here in part:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 10 writes:
With the expressed knowledge and competence at EVC, I’m interested in seeing big rocks turned over and sifting what lies underneath with a spotlight and a microscope - in a professional format. The nature of science is that it generally advances through disagreement, new information, testing, and nullification. Science has no regard for people’s personal philosophy or pride. Controversy and imputed evil toward "unbelievers" (such as the thread referenced in the OP, Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)) can linger indefinitely without focus, confrontation, and illumination. This is true of both sides in any big issue — see politics.
It’s not my intention for this thread to be unnecessarily provocative to either side of the issue but it seems a vigorous professional and publishable examination of the best and most recent evidence is appropriate to increase knowledge and understanding.
IF the Dawkins quote is truly justified with overwhelming evidence — then there is a tremendous educational opportunity for most Americans who reportedly do not believe in evolution.
IF the Dawkins quote is little more than his opinion and is not as strongly supported by the evidence, or is discounted by some evidence, then that offers educational value as well.
For further clarity, here’s what I’ve offered to you (and others) - excerpted from Message 13:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 13 writes:
I’m merely offering you and others an opportunity to present and defend your convictions in a professional and publishable format that could help educate a segment of society
If the opposing arguments (by neo-Darwin unbelievers) were weak (ignorant, deluded, dishonest), you could slam them out of the park and figuratively stroll around the bases with your arms raised in triumph!
I’m only inviting you to the ballpark with your big bat (of facts) in hand. I honestly don’t know how far it would go. But who knows, maybe we could turn on the lights and have a World Series and you could be a Star!
From my view, this offer serves to indicate:
1) Strength of Belief in evidence for your position, and
2) Importance You Attribute to influencing and educating society (outside EVC Forum) with your evidence.
Do as you wish but it may be helpful to evaluate yourself considering the two categories above on a 0-10 scale before making a decision.
The eventual results (assuming it happens) should be a reasonable measure of success or failure to validate your belief along with Dawkin’s assertion in the OP. Of course the audience will apply the same measures of performance to your opponent(s).
Aside from helping to educate the majority of Americans who are not believers in evolution Dr. Adequate who knows you could be on the Cover of the Rolling Stone (like Dr. Hook and his Medicine Show)!
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
In the meantime, would you please review the proposal described in Message 1 and confirm that you are firmly committed?
It would be best if we cut out the section of the proposition in brackets: "Neo-Darwinism is (unequivocally true and scientifically verified fact -) essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes"
Many people would object on philosophical grounds to saying that about any empirical proposition whatsoever, and while I to some extent disagree with them on equally philosophical ground, I hope you would agree that the less philosophy the better.
I believe you’re correct. Those who agree may conclude that Zenmonkey’s thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) is presumptuous passing judgments upon evolution non-believers on philosophical grounds. Regardless, I can edit it to suit the less dogmatic. I’m flexible if the process leads to an outcome that potentially helps educate a broad audience
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
Also, would you please try to recruit others with firm commitments to assist you, just in case the need arises?
I'm sure they'll chip in, should the need arise.
I’ve done enough investigation to know the need will arise. The subject matter will likely include several disciplines of science as evidenced by the topical categories listed at EVC Forum. Since I want you to have every opportunity and every possible resource available for a successful outcome, I’ll assist you in securing FIRM commitments in the various likely disciplines to be debated.
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
In case you disagree that you’ll need FIRM commitments from your most competent EVC Forum peers, I have two exercises for you later in this message.
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
About the format. Some things should be agreed in advance
Your thoughts may be helpful. However, assuming this process culminates in a formal agreement between you and a qualified creationist opponent, there should be ample time for negotiations in advance. As stated earlier in this thread, I will not be the opponent. Therefore, I cannot negotiate for or represent your opponent(s) in a contractual agreement. As I stated in Message 26:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 26 writes:
IF the process continues through step 2 with a commitment from an opponent, then there may be a period of negotiation including procedural agreements, a moderator, etc If the process proceeds, I’d like to see good science and education.
Now back to your requests
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
First, no Gish Gallops. This is just to make the thing readable. On an Internet forum, we cut people's posts up and quote them, so that it goes like this (in schema) (convoluted dialogue given).
The creationist should therefore be restricted to one mistake at a time, for the sake of the reader, so that the dialogue goes more like this:
Him: Error of fact #1.
Me: Fact #1.
Him: Error of fact #2.
Me: Fact #2.
... I would therefore propose that the creationist should be limited to his top 5 favorite mistakes on any given subject (perhaps more or fewer depending on the importance of the point).
That’s excellent doctor - your confidence is notable. An old football teammate of mine, a fellow linebacker, was fond of saying It ain’t braggin’ if you can back it up
The written format with a mutually agreed upon moderator will likely keep everyone focused and the time for each response will be much longer than the typical EVC Forum exchange. This should allow (actually require) thorough treatment of each topic.
Let’s get your big bat of facts out so you might have some scientific batting practice. These assignments may be a breeze for you — but that remains to be seen as you’ve avoided them in this thread.
We’ll deploy the fortuitous sidebar distractions presented in this thread by your EVC Forum peers who apparently deem their scientific knowledge and understanding at such a high level as to be unattainable by plain ole’ common folks like me.
I was confident these distractions would serve a good purpose in this discussion — and here it is
Although, these concepts are fairly basic, they provide some insight into the potential challenges for a professional publishable setting.
Following your proposed dialogue, I’ll repeat a Statement of Fact in this thread proclaimed to be Error of Fact #1 by your faithful peers. I’ll also repeat your peers’ assertions that the statement of fact is in error along with their explanations and examples.
Let’s assume that these beneficial distractions have somehow arisen in the hypothetical debate with your future creationist opponent regarding science - and you must submit a written position regarding these concepts in the proposed publishable debate. I understand these specific arguments may not be presented in a debate with a creationist, but we cannot rule them out regarding physics applied to earth science.
Your EVC peers may be sensitive to my quoting them by their EVC Forum moniker — so I’ll use substitute monikers for the purpose of these exercises. Since your peers have expressed exceptionally high confidence in their skills and abilities regarding physics, they shall be referred to as: Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 and #2.
Exercise #1 following your suggested format:
Statement by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:
I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.
_____
Presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:
While theories are never proven with a 100% confidence level, some have been demonstrated to consistently be true and scientifically validated at such a high confidence level — they’re essentially codified into law. An example is Ohm’s Law (V=IR) continuously applied without a known failure in trillions of applications.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:
The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false
_____
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
You’ll be wasting your time and you will further discredit your level of knowledge and understanding if you persist with the claim Ohm’s law is false and well known to be false
Until it is ever nullified (a condition for a theory), the equation V=IR is an observed and predictable relationship between three phenomena so consistent as to be considered Law.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:
In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine)
_____
Now, Dr Adequate, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of scientific theory. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate.
Exercise #2
Presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:
what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing...
If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:
You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".
And from Message 40:
Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.
To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.
_____
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:
(After presenting equations)if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer (the) question below to help us gain insight into your level of knowledge and understanding:
  • What would be one example where Real Power (in kilo-Watts) is not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time?
_____
OK Dr. Adequate, here are the examples proposed by your peers where Real Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:
  1. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 64:
    If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.
  2. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 56:
    What do you think radio and microwave transmitters transmit? Heat?
_____
Now Dr. Adequate, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
But they’re so condescendingly confident!
What’s your position?
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.
Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 while flaming out in Message 56 — I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will) Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting.
If we bantered these assertions concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of Real Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for Points Refuted A Thousand Times). I perceive you expect a walk in the park with some commonly inferred PRATTs. That may be the case, or it may not. Potential difficulties for one or both sides of this issue may be the reason a publishable debate hasn’t been done before (that I could find) in a professional written format that could be used in educational settings. Time will tell if we can pull this off.
In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident Adherent to Sophisticated Science apparently doesn’t understand everything he/she knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted — Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior).
Now doctor, your submission should delineate whether these exercises in physical science constitute potential PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs.
Again, these assignments are for your benefit. They should assist you in identifying and listing FIRM commitments from your best possible resources at EVC Forum to chip in regarding your professional response in various scientific disciplines. They should also assist you in determining a rigorous methodology to respond to any unexpected challenges in a publishable debate. To attract an interested publisher and potential commercial interest for the proposed professional debate, you should be as prepared and as successful as possible in every branch of science. If you choose to decline these assignments for whatever reason, then your commitment for a publishable debate will reasonably be considered as questionable and tentative.
We’re still in Step 1. Please note carefully, I’ll give it a few more weeks for this process to play out and see how you respond.
I’m not prone to engage frequent banter consisting of misdirected ridicule.
Those folks generally discredit themselves. But when appropriate, I’ll address them.
Silence doesn’t have to be deafening — for me, it is opportunity for deeper thought and analytical reflection.
In the meantime, I’ll continue preparing for Step 2 by investigating the best qualified creationist for your debating pleasure.
I’m glad you’re here and appreciate the resources at EVC Forum.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened long lines of "_", which were causing the page to be overwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 11-22-2010 12:37 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 9:53 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 72 of 196 (592784)
11-22-2010 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2010 10:26 PM


Chip In Commitments for Dr. Adequate?
Greetings Dr. Adequate,
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
And I'll ask again
The silence is becoming deafening.
Perhaps you didn’t read Message 63 posted by me on 21 August very carefully:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
I’m going to give it at least twelve weeks in hopes that you and others here will stand and deliver firm commitments to engage in this professional manner — including a public defense of your neo-Darwinian convictions. The publishable finished product could surely be leveraged to educate the majority of American evolution unbelievers.
Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks. Unfortunately, you’ve done nothing but assume others will chip in if needed. Thus, the need to assist you has become evident as detailed in my previous post and repeated here:
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
You repeatedly implied that if no-one would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.
I’ve implied nothing doctor.
I’ve stated facts and proposed measures for self-evaluation that are appropriate when considering a commitment for a written publishable debate.
It’s not I who has pronounced flaws or moral judgments upon those with different beliefs.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth; if they are going to support someone else teaching some opinion, they have a duty to try to find out if he's speaking the truth.
Those are your words doctor. I take you at your word and I believe you’re sincere.
If true, do you sense no ethical duty to try to speak the truth to a potentially broad audience?
In your defense, there were over 25 evolutionists in that thread (Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)) and you are the ONLY one expressing any willingness — whatsoever to engage in a publishable written debate.
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
When I said that I'd write the darn book, you repeatedly implied that if only one person would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.
Could it be that you’re overly sensitive doctor? To the point that you’re inferring things I haven’t written?
I’ve not written those words fairly weak. Apparently, that implication is only in your head.
Interested observers will eventually draw their own conclusions based on the outcome of this discussion.
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
Now I should like to hear from the creationist side. How have you tried to induce them to write your book, and how are you getting on?
I’m doing quite well, thank you. No inducement whatsoever is necessary and I’ve asked no one to write a book for me. I’m still investigating but you can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate.
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
Now, let me make it plain. I'm not even asking whether any creationist has the cojones to debate me. Clearly so far the answer to that is no.
What I'm asking now is whether you had the cojones to ask any creationist to debate me. Did you even try, or are you certain that they all know that they'll lose?
As Lee Corso counters various assessments from his peers on ESPN’s Saturday morning College Game Day show: Not so fast my friend!
Maybe even a Double not so fast my friend!
There’s no need for you to examine my gonads doctor (turning head and coughing). They’re intact and quite healthy.
The last time a seemingly tough guy said something like that to me, his Momma had to ice pack his head that night ‘cause it was swelled up like a pumpkin. However, I was only 14 years old at the time and I’ve matured a lot since then.
Of course, neither gonads nor testosterone are a pre-requisite for good science. Male ego and swagger will lend little credibility in this endeavor.
I trust you’re not taking this effort lightly doctor. If you remain committed and hang tough, I believe it could culminate in an epic event. But it will take considerable time and commitment.
_____
Concerning your often repeated write a book for you phrase I may be wrong but it’s beginning to look like a smoke screen to me.
In spite of your brash manner, I perceive this canard to be a potential reason you eventually cite to back out from a commitment IF the proposed publishable debate with a creationist turns out to be more challenging than you’d expected.
You and your peers were the ones inferring various flaws upon those who believe differently.
Now you and your peers can stand and deliver firm commitments to help educate those you consider to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or evil with your evidence and reason.
Or you can continue to stand alone and whine up this false notion that you’re somehow doing me a favor by writing a darn book for me.
Since I’ve never asked you to write a book for me, the next reference from you to that effect will earn you the new moniker in this thread:
Dr. CANARD (Continually Asserts Nullified Allegations Regarding Debate).
IF this process progresses and you should ultimately find it more difficult than expected — let’s avoid an excuse to withdraw with an exit like: I’ve decided I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you’ — go find someone else!
Can you agree to that Dr. Adequate?
I respectfully request that you take plenty of time and consideration before responding. There’s no need for any of us to be in a blind staggering rush. I appreciate your position and suggest quality should be our primary objective.
Respectfully - All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorted long line of "_", which caused the page to be overwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2010 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 2:19 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 196 (592790)
11-22-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Eye-Squared-R
11-22-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Hint: knock off the fancy colors.
Your post looks like a French whorehouse.
{Added by edit - I would think a French whorehouse must look much better - Regardless, do stop doing the damn color effects. And stop doing the long lines of "_"; They blotch up the page display widths- Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more to previous added by edit.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:20 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:30 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 196 (592803)
11-22-2010 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Eye-Squared-R
11-22-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Chip In Commitments for Dr. Adequate?
Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks.
To do what?
I can't debate a creationist until you produce one.
In the meantime, instead of posting a lot of silly blather, will you please answer my question? What steps have you taken to produce one?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of abnormal color in subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:23 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 75 of 196 (592804)
11-22-2010 2:51 AM


I want to see it painted, painted black
Moose writes:
I would think a French whorehouse must look much better - Regardless, do stop doing the damn color effects.
Moose, all whorehouses look better than that.
Couldn't you just put those red and green sections out of their colorful misery on aesthetic principles alone?
I know I don't have to look at it again, but knowing it is there is like knowing there's a boil on my ass.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:33 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024