Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 211 of 318 (450827)
01-24-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ringo
01-23-2008 10:59 AM


speaking for myself
I am pointing out to you, Ringo that you don't know everything about your chosen subject, either. Your sloppy thinking on biblical matters is usually consistent with sloppy thinking in matters scientific.
I'd start with a nitpick:
At last, honesty!
I'd also mention that - literally true or not - the important point in the Adam and Eve story is that they acquired the knowledge of good and evil, not how they acquired it.
Why is acquiring knowledge of good and evil an important point? There isn't a point! It's just a statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 01-23-2008 10:59 AM ringo has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 212 of 318 (450828)
01-24-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by NosyNed
01-23-2008 11:01 AM


Re: My misconceptions
noseyned writes:
You can take any misconception you think any scientist has and start out treating it as if it is mine. Open a thread on that topic and ask me to comment on it and I'll tell you if it is my "misconception" or not.
I've had a similar suggestion before but I prefer this one. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do. I like a challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NosyNed, posted 01-23-2008 11:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 213 of 318 (450829)
01-24-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
01-23-2008 11:29 AM


Re: First step.
jar writes:
But the term misconception also includes the concept that I am unaware of the errors, since if I was aware of them I would change that particular held belief.
Exactly and yet the evolutionists point out that creationists beliefs are in fact misconceptions when they are not. They are strongly held beliefs.
This has been the whole point that when a strongly held belief is held, the individual could not see it as a misconception. We all have strong justifications for our beliefs from - mum told me, to god told me, to science proves it.
If someone should find within that body of conceptions some that are wrong, then by all means I would hope that the finder would point them out to me and make their best possible case in support of their point of view.
I'll keep trying
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 01-23-2008 11:29 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2008 10:40 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 227 by jar, posted 01-24-2008 1:17 PM pelican has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 214 of 318 (450832)
01-24-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
01-23-2008 7:04 PM


Re: how do you validate concepts?
razd writes:
Yet you didn't answer the question -- who do I ask to find out? My neighbor? My dad? My mechanic?
Precisely, you can't. You would have to voice a concept that someone else disagrees with and then they would have to point out your misconception. Then your dilemma would be........
razd writes:
How do I know that you know enough to correct or clarify my misunderstanding? You could just as easily be spreading your misunderstanding instead.
How do we come to believe that anything is real? What do you use?
Great question. I'm stumped. I will give it some thought

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2008 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 8:02 PM pelican has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 215 of 318 (450833)
01-24-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by pelican
01-24-2008 7:07 AM


Creationist Craziness
Heinrik writes:
Rahvin writes:
Creationists, however, come and attack Evolution from faulty positions, like claiming that, since Evolution predicts monkeys should give birth to housecats, or since Evolution predicts that we should see new life in a peanut butter jar, and both of these positions are false, Evolution must also be false.
ha ha ha. C'mon? They are winding you up and you are falling for it.
Wrong. I have seen both of those arguments made in all seriousness by creationists. The peanut butter claim is especially funny. Try this video for size. It's hilarious. Never underestimate the potential for creationist craziness.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 7:07 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:03 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 216 of 318 (450837)
01-24-2008 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by pelican
01-24-2008 7:07 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
rahvin writes:
quote:
That's why I was pointing out that lack of education is not a positive. Sweatshops are bad, even if they give us cheap shoes. Hell...they aren't even cheap.
It isn't a positive for the uneducated. I was pointing out that it is a positive for those who benefit from those who are uneducated. Right down the line. It isn't about you getting not so cheap shoes. It is about being paid slave wages to make these shoes. They get paid 5cents to make them and you pay $75 to wear them. Where is the proffit going?
Which completely ignores the entire point of my statement. Lack of education, lack of critical thinking skills, and general idiocy has no positive. Some unethical people will take advantage of it, but it is never a good thing for the people who lack those skills.
rahvin writes:
quote:
I would respond that, while such a position is supported by the text of Genesis, there is no corroborative evidence to give this story any more credence than any other myth.
You're moving the goalposts. I don't tell Creationists what Creationism is. I listen for them to tell me what their position is, and if I see a flaw in their argument or a falsehood, I point it out. Evolutionists don't dictate to Creationists what Creationists believe - we let them say what they believe, and then we argue against that position.
The scriptures(biblical) come under both forms. In most cases, where accounts are concerned, we are looking at historical records. However, it is impossible to apply one given set of standards and expect to accurately interpret the bible.
They key it would seem is to try and obtain as much historical and supporting data on the scripture in question. Chances are, you will find sufficient information(validated) through past research to obtain a credible interpretation.
About some of the historical claims in the Bible, like that Jericho existed, sure. But there are a large, large number of historical claims made in the Bible that are falsified by observations of the natural world (6-day Creationism, 6000-year-old Earth, Great Flood, nearly the entirety of Exodus, etc), and claiming that the entire text is "based in reality" because a few of the historical claims are verified is like claiming Harry Potter and magic are real because London actually exists.
And now you arent even just moving goalposts, you're shifting the topic. We were talking about strawman positions, and how Creationists are fond of attacking a version of Evolution that doesn't exist due to their misunderstanding and outright ignorance of science, whereas the Evolutionists here at EvC let the Creationists post exactly what their position is before attacking only that position. We aren't talking about Biblical veracity, we're talking about Creationists who find it impossible to argue against the actual Theory of Evolution and instead argue against something so scientist has ever said.
rahvin writes:
quote:
Creationists, however, come and attack Evolution from faulty positions, like claiming that, since Evolution predicts monkeys should give birth to housecats, or since Evolution predicts that we should see new life in a peanut butter jar, and both of these positions are false, Evolution must also be false.
ha ha ha. C'mon? They are winding you up and you are falling for it.
Creationists make claims like this all the damned time. Why do you think we have this thread? Go to youtube, and search for things like "The Atheist's Nightmare," or just Ray Comfort in general. As previously mentioned, the peanut butter video is also quite real. Mr. Comfort, on national television in an Evolution vs. Creationism debate, once said that Evolution could not be true because it predicts weird "transitionals," like a bullfrog with the head of a bull and the body of a frog. He was entirely serious...but the Theory of Evolution predicts no such thing, and it was a strawman argument.
(amusing side note: that debate was supposed to prove Creationism without invoking the Bible. In his very first statement, Comfort used the Ten Commandments to prove Creationism, technically losing the debate through his own idiocy within mere moments and establishing that he cannot even be trusted to hold to the debate rules he suggests)
I'm happy to hear that you find those claims ridiculous, because they most certainly are. But they are what most Creationists honestly believe Evolution claims, and it's the reason we have to repeat ourselves ad nauseum to individuals stubbornly bringing forward the same arguments from ignorance and complete fabrications even after their errors have been pointed out several times.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 7:07 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:25 AM Rahvin has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 217 of 318 (450839)
01-24-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Granny Magda
01-24-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
I watched the clip and also checked out the full dvd by eternal productions and I believe it is taken out of context, both in the clip and in the minds of the non-creationists'. As it's shown, it is amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2008 9:15 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 10:24 AM pelican has replied
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 01-24-2008 10:30 AM pelican has replied
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 10:36 AM pelican has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 218 of 318 (450841)
01-24-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by pelican
01-24-2008 10:03 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
I watched the clip and also checked out the full dvd by eternal productions and I believe it is taken out of context, both in the clip and in the minds of the non-creationists'. As it's shown, it is amusing.
Funny how, whenever a Creationist sees the evidence of how ridiculous some of his cohorts can be, the video or quote is always "taken out of context."
Are you saying then that this video was a joke? The Creationists who made it are not actually saying that Evolution says we should find new life in peanut butter jars?
I'd love to believe it's a joke...but after hearing all of the other claims made by other Creationists, and judging by the general tone and statements in the video (and having seen other "Christian science" apologist type videos), I find that hard to swallow. What additional context did you find that somehow makes this clip not demonstrate the tendency of Creationists to attack bizzare strawman versions of Evolution?

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:03 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 9:04 PM Rahvin has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 219 of 318 (450842)
01-24-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Rahvin
01-24-2008 9:44 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
rahvin writes:
Which completely ignores the entire point of my statement. Lack of education, lack of critical thinking skills, and general idiocy has no positive. Some unethical people will take advantage of it, but it is never a good thing for the people who lack those skills.
No it's never a good thing for those who lack the skills but it's a really good thing for the economy, for proffits, for shareholders, for cheaper merchandise, having people to do the menial work that more educated would not stoop to do. Lots of positives for many.
There are two sides to every coin.
And now you arent even just moving goalposts, you're shifting the topic. We were talking about strawman positions, and how Creationists are fond of attacking a version of Evolution that doesn't exist due to their misunderstanding and outright ignorance of science
I thought it was the other way around as defined in post 1. [qs=nator] Posts: 12672
Registered: 12-09-2001 Message 1 of 219
12-29-2007 10:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I have noticed that many of the Creationists on this board have, shall we say, less than stellar writing skills compared to the science-minded folks.
Sure, there are a few exceptions, but I would guess that well more than two thirds of the Creationists who have ever posted here simply write very poorly.
Their grammar and punctuation ranges from average to downright awful, they frequently fail to break their posts into paragraphs, and their ability to express ideas, sentence structure and word usage doesn't give one an impression of their having done very well in high school English.
On a related note, my husband frequents a message board populated by people who work in higher education. Not surprisingly, most posters there write well, and express themselves clearly and often eloquently.
Every so often a controversial subject such as Affirmative Action comes up in discussion, and he has noticed that of those people who pop up to write posts condemning it, many of them possess markedly poor writing skills.
So, why does everyone think this pattern exists?
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 9:44 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 10:37 AM pelican has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 220 of 318 (450843)
01-24-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by pelican
01-24-2008 10:03 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
The video, Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!, is from Chuck Missler of the Koinonia House ministry. He's a fundamentalist minister, and he's perfectly serious. Though I couldn't find the video there, his article on the subject, The Kitchen Laboratory, which repeats everything he says in the video, can be read just by clicking the link.
No one is trying to caricature creationist views to make them look ridiculous. There's no need, because their views, as presented by the creationists themselves, are ridiculous on their face, as you seem to realize in this particular case. Wait'll you see the Ray Comfort Banana Video (you need to know that the wild banana bears no resemblance to the modern domesticated banana, which was bred by man).
Getting back to the topic, the pattern that you're exhibiting here is another very common one with creationists, failure to perform even a cursory investigation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:03 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:44 PM Percy has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 221 of 318 (450844)
01-24-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by pelican
01-24-2008 10:03 AM


Maybe a new topic in the brew
More context for the video can be found here. Even more can be found here. Perhaps some kind of 'Creationist Craziness?' type topic could be proposed to discuss whether Creationists are crazy or just have a sense of humour that is not understood by others?
I agree it is amusing, but only because it is embedded into a documentary which attempts to present the case against the abiogenetic origins of life - and one would think that in such a context, the best argument would be put forward. Joking around is fine, but spending so much time on japery is expensive and clouds whatever their serious points are and makes them look like clowns rather than people with a serious point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:03 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 11:41 PM Modulous has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 222 of 318 (450845)
01-24-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by pelican
01-24-2008 10:25 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
rahvin writes:
quote:
Which completely ignores the entire point of my statement. Lack of education, lack of critical thinking skills, and general idiocy has no positive. Some unethical people will take advantage of it, but it is never a good thing for the people who lack those skills.
No it's never a good thing for those who lack the skills
Which was my point. I'm glad we agree.
but it's a really good thing for the economy, for proffits, for shareholders, for cheaper merchandise, having people to do the menial work that more educated would not stoop to do. Lots of positives for many.
There are two sides to every coin.
So you approve of virtual slave labor, and view it as a "positive." Glad we disagree on that one.
quote:
And now you arent even just moving goalposts, you're shifting the topic. We were talking about strawman positions, and how Creationists are fond of attacking a version of Evolution that doesn't exist due to their misunderstanding and outright ignorance of science
I thought it was the other way around as defined in post 1.
Posts: 12672
Registered: 12-09-2001 Message 1 of 219
12-29-2007 10:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I have noticed that many of the Creationists on this board have, shall we say, less than stellar writing skills compared to the science-minded folks.
Sure, there are a few exceptions, but I would guess that well more than two thirds of the Creationists who have ever posted here simply write very poorly.
Their grammar and punctuation ranges from average to downright awful, they frequently fail to break their posts into paragraphs, and their ability to express ideas, sentence structure and word usage doesn't give one an impression of their having done very well in high school English.
On a related note, my husband frequents a message board populated by people who work in higher education. Not surprisingly, most posters there write well, and express themselves clearly and often eloquently.
Every so often a controversial subject such as Affirmative Action comes up in discussion, and he has noticed that of those people who pop up to write posts condemning it, many of them possess markedly poor writing skills.
So, why does everyone think this pattern exists?
The topic has drifted just a bit from the original post, as you well know. You and I were talking about strawman arguments in the quote you replied to. Why are you so insistent on not addressing your actual replies? If you feel we've drifted too far from the original topic of the thread, that's fine, but you know full well what you were replying to when you quoted me.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:25 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 10:37 PM Rahvin has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 223 of 318 (450847)
01-24-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by pelican
01-24-2008 8:53 AM


Re: First step.
quote:
Exactly and yet the evolutionists point out that creationists beliefs are in fact misconceptions when they are not. They are strongly held beliefs.
Obviously a strognly-held beleif can still be a misconception, so can you please explain why this example referred to by Trixie in Message 155 is not a misconception ?
[the creationist claimed that] the number of possible sequences of animo acids which could make up a chain of DNA was huge, since there were about 20 amino acids to choose from for each position on the DNA molecule
quote:
This has been the whole point that when a strongly held belief is held, the individual could not see it as a misconception.
Why, exactly, do you consider this point worth making ?
quote:
We all have strong justifications for our beliefs from - mum told me, to god told me, to science proves it.
Yet we see that creationists frequently make claims that are false and that they could easily discover to be false - if they just bothered to do some basic research. The question we are discussing is why they do that.
Here's another example from this group:
I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case. Now that somebody wants ID to have the same privileges that evolution had, its no dice.
Why would anyone who knew anything about the Scopes case say that ? Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes was on trial for breaking a law forbidding the teaching of evolution ? (And before you assert that common knowledge is often wrong - on this point it is correct).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 8:53 AM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2008 11:46 AM PaulK has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 224 of 318 (450855)
01-24-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by PaulK
01-24-2008 10:40 AM


Re: First step.
Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes was on trial for breaking a law forbidding the teaching of evolution ?
And that he lost? Both the trial and the appeal?
Obviously a strongly-held belief can still be a misconception, so can you please explain why this example referred to by Trixie in Just to add to what Percy said (Message 155) is not a misconception ?
Heinrik. Listen to Paul. The vast majority of creo misconceptions that we see here are not "strongly held beliefs" -- they are "complete fabrications".
Here is the original creo quote Trixie referenced:
Message 155.
The amino acid comment was a wry cynical perhaps comment suggesting that since the four amino acids that are used in the genetic code from the twenty or so that make up proteins in general are exclusively L form in the DNA structure base pairings, that is AGTC. Now if one were to substitute or attempt to substitute n amino acid whose form was dextro into the DNA it would never ever fit, work and code for a particular protein in the position or sequence necessary when such protein was made via the ribosome reading the mrna codon triplet and etc. I did not suggest it could be or should be attempted just that it would not work as an example of the absolute Levo form of the amino acids used in the genetic code AGTC.
Priceless.
Only someone completely ignorant of HIGH SCHOOL biology could assert that DNA is made of amino acids.
This is typical creo babble. It has nothing whatsoever to do with belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2008 10:40 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Trixie, posted 01-24-2008 12:57 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 01-24-2008 1:56 PM molbiogirl has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 225 of 318 (450862)
01-24-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by molbiogirl
01-24-2008 11:46 AM


Re: First step.
Thanks for finding that molbiogirl. I'm still trying to hunt down the calculation based on 20 amino acids being used. If you come across it, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2008 11:46 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2008 1:09 PM Trixie 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