Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


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 241 of 318 (450935)
01-24-2008 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Modulous
01-24-2008 10:36 AM


Re: Maybe a new topic in the brew
modulous writes:
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.
Everything you are saying is making it even funnier. It's because it is meant to be a documentary and meant to be taken seriously and they do. ha ha ha ha I also find it so hilarious because both sides take it so seriously in one way or another.ha ha ha.
I don't belong to either side and the hilarity has lifted my spirit! ha ha ha There is no way I can take either of you seriously here. No offense intended.
The whole thing is a joke, except for the judging, offense given and recieved, inability to see anothers' reasoning, inability to understand anothers' thinking patterns, inability to communicate on a different level other than their own, inability to see the effects they have on others, insulting phrases and comments and patting each other on the back for a job well done. Give us five! We beat them. We won!
Yes, but for all these it would be extrememly hilarious. However to close on a humourous observation, no-one sees themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2008 10:36 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2008 7:59 AM pelican has not replied

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


Message 242 of 318 (450936)
01-25-2008 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by RAZD
01-24-2008 8:02 PM


Re: how do you validate concepts?
Thankyou for that information I did not ask for, nor was it relevant to this thread.
THIS IS THE COFFEE FORUM WHERE WE DISCUSS TOPICS OTHER THAN SCIENCE OR CREATION. THERE ARE SPECIFIC SCIENCE THREADS TO MEET YOUR SCIENTIFIC NEEDS, SO STOP WASTING MY TIME AND THE FEW POSTS LEFT WITH SHOWING OFF TO YOUR MATES.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 8:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2008 8:05 AM pelican has not replied

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


Message 243 of 318 (450938)
01-25-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rahvin
01-24-2008 9:59 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
RAHVIN writes:
Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong.
ABSOLUTELY! You got me pegged. I haven't heard of the Goldern Mean fallacy (I will sure as hell look it up, though) but the definition is precise. I love the 'underdog' and I'm a sucker for a cause.
I just figured someone had to do it.
rahvin writes:
Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.
Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools? I see that their children would be taught this and it would become fact for them. I see the dilemma. God help us! (Just a bit of irony there)
From my personal life experiences in dealing with many problems, I have found the solution cannot be found by looking at the problem. First I identify the problem, (not always easy) then I look elsewhere for a solution that will be for the greater good.
In this case, I see the solution in lightening up a bit. Stop taking the 'hilarious perceptions of scientific information' so seriously. It is the information that you do not need to attack. It's a very simple deduction of a bit of a theory. The information itself is only dangerous if children were to believe it as fact. But this information that some take as fact cannot be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. All you get is green mouldy peanut butter, which is in fact another form of life anyway, so he has actually proved it to be true whilst trying to disprove it. You gotta laugh (literally)
Give 'um enough rope and they'll hang themselves! (Not to be taken literally.) Great listening to you.
no-one wants to be laughed at, but if you are laughed at and not ridiculed, not ostrasized, don't have something rammed in your head that you cannot understand, are completely accepted for who you are regardless of beliefs, they will simply ask, feeling completely safe, "why are you laughing"? Then they are open and ready to hear you.
I love you too, you know. I was just like them and I was just like you but I never switched sides with either. I was just being myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 9:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by nator, posted 01-25-2008 5:31 PM pelican has not replied

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


Message 244 of 318 (450939)
01-25-2008 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rahvin
01-24-2008 9:59 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
RAHVIN writes:
Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong.
ABSOLUTELY! You got me pegged. I haven't heard of the Goldern Mean fallacy (I will sure as hell look it up, though) but the definition is precise. I love the 'underdog' and I'm a sucker for a cause.
I just figured someone had to do it.
rahvin writes:
Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.
Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools? I see that their children would be taught this and it would become fact for them. I see the dilemma. God help us! (Just a bit of irony there)
From my personal life experiences in dealing with many problems, I have found the solution cannot be found by looking at the problem. First I identify the problem, (not always easy) then I look elsewhere for a solution that will be for the greater good.
In this case, I see the solution in lightening up a bit. Stop taking the 'hilarious perceptions of scientific information' so seriously. It is the information that you do not need to attack. It's a very simple deduction of a bit of a theory. The information itself is only dangerous if children were to believe it as fact. But this information that some take as fact cannot be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. All you get is green mouldy peanut butter, which is in fact another form of life anyway, so he has actually proved it to be true whilst trying to disprove it. You gotta laugh (literally)
Give 'um enough rope and they'll hang themselves! (Not to be taken literally.)
Look at it this way for a moment. No-one wants to be laughed at, but if when you are laughed at, you are not ridiculed, not ostrasized, don't have something rammed in your head that you cannot understand, are completely accepted for who you are regardless of beliefs, they will simply ask, feeling completely safe, "why are you laughing"? Then they are open and ready to hear you.
I love you too, you know. I was just like them and I was just like you but I never switched sides. I was never on one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 9:59 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 01-25-2008 1:10 PM pelican has not replied

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


Message 245 of 318 (450943)
01-25-2008 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by cavediver
01-24-2008 4:19 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
dameeva writes:
What is your point?
cavediver writes:
priceless
Is this the only answer you can up with to what appears to me a genuine question? I don't see your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by cavediver, posted 01-24-2008 4:19 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by cavediver, posted 01-25-2008 4:36 AM pelican has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 246 of 318 (450944)
01-25-2008 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Woodsy
01-24-2008 7:10 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Woodsy responds to me:
quote:
I remember hearing on the radio of a researcher who formulated a set of rules for writing a popular song
But that requires an outside, arbitrary, socially-constructed definition of what a "popular song" is. Of course you can define physical characteristics of what might be termed "music," but it isn't like the concept of "music" is an external constant, independent of consciousness.
quote:
Anyway, I doubt that years and years of work by acoustics, neurology and musicology scholars have been entirely in vain.
As a musician, I am quite cognizant of music theory. But there is nothing inherent in the science of acoustics that dictates what it must be. There is no particular reason for the diatonic scale of Western music as opposed to the pentatonic scale of Eastern music. Science can explain why there is such a thing as an octave, but it isn't going to be able to tell you how to split it up.
quote:
I think that this "experience is unexplainable" stuff is highly overdone.
I didn't say it was unexplainable. I'm simply saying that it isn't science. That isn't to say there is nothing physical going on. It's that there comes a moment of arbitrary imposition that is not science.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Woodsy, posted 01-24-2008 7:10 AM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Woodsy, posted 01-25-2008 7:46 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 247 of 318 (450945)
01-25-2008 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Rrhain
01-24-2008 12:05 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Until you can come up with a definition of "god" and "devil" that is amenable to examination and testing, science has no idea what those things mean. That doesn't mean they don't exist...it just means it doesn't know how to handle it.
In my world if you declare yourself innocent, then it is up to the prosecutors to prove me wrong and the defenders to prove me correct. It isn't about guilty or innocent, it is about proving your case.
Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists, as you rightly point out. Creationists cannot prove their case against evolutionists. Both are in the same position. It isn't about who is right and who is wrong because until their is some mutual understanding, this debate will see us all dead and still carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 01-24-2008 12:05 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2008 4:53 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 258 by SGT Snorkel, posted 01-25-2008 9:52 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 264 by nator, posted 01-25-2008 5:41 PM pelican has not replied

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


Message 248 of 318 (450947)
01-25-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
01-24-2008 7:03 PM


delusions
razd writes:
The once strongly held belief that the earth was the center of the solar system and the universe and everything revolved around it is one example.
This is a physical example. How would you test a belief in god against reality? We have many non-physical aspects e.g guilt that we know is in our reality but how do you prove this scientifically?
You cannot term a belief false until it is proved false. Once this is determined then maybe it becomes a delusion, not before.
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 7:03 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2008 7:36 AM pelican has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 249 of 318 (450950)
01-25-2008 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by pelican
01-25-2008 2:15 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Is this the only answer you can up with to what appears to me a genuine question? I don't see your point.
Let me paraphrase:
Dameeva - How can you argue against the creationist when you don't understand their position
Cavediver - But many here do understand the creationist position because they used to be creationists
Dameeva - What's your point?
Cavediver - Huh??? The point is I just refuted your claim - how is that not blindingly obvious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:15 AM pelican has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 250 of 318 (450952)
01-25-2008 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by pelican
01-25-2008 2:29 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Heinrik responds to me:
quote:
Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists, as you rightly point out.
Huh? Where did I say anything of the sort? Be specific.
quote:
Both are in the same position.
Incorrect. One side has a set of procedures that is independent of the observer. The other side, requires you to believe.
quote:
It isn't about who is right and who is wrong because until their is some mutual understanding, this debate will see us all dead and still carry on.
But you can't have a debate with someone who refuses to look through your telescope. How do you discuss the state of the fossil record when one side continually says that the fossil you are holding in your hand does not exist?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:29 AM pelican has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 251 of 318 (450956)
01-25-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
01-22-2008 7:53 PM


Re: Putting this in perspective ...
Awesome post. I believe that is why God tells us to be humble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2008 7:53 PM RAZD has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 252 of 318 (450959)
01-25-2008 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by pelican
01-25-2008 2:53 AM


Re: delusions
quote:
This is a physical example. How would you test a belief in god against reality?
As you know the misconceptions referred to are beliefs that can easily be tested against reality - and are known to be false. So asking about beleifs that cannot easily be checked is just a red herring.
So please tell us why a "strong belief" that happens to be false is not a misconception.
And then in the interest of understanding creationists - as you insist we should do - we can discuss why they are so subject to these misconceptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:53 AM pelican has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 253 of 318 (450960)
01-25-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by pelican
01-23-2008 9:19 PM


Re: Don't Consent
How is this any sort of reply to my post?
You haven't addressed anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:19 PM pelican has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 254 of 318 (450961)
01-25-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Rrhain
01-25-2008 2:28 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
But that requires an outside, arbitrary, socially-constructed definition of what a "popular song" is.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The point was that the rules produced music that most people liked when they heard it. One might say it produced "catchy" tunes.
I didn't say it was unexplainable. I'm simply saying that it
isn't science. That isn't to say there is nothing physical going on. It's that there comes a moment of arbitrary imposition that is not science.
I agree. The dividing line between noise and music is often fuzzy, especially in some modern musical works, but there is a distinction there. Too, as you say, how musical sounds are organized is also largely a matter of custom. Personally, I expect that these things could be described in an organized way and the description could be verified by observation.
There is probably an interesting discussion here, but I suppose it's off-topic for this thread. Pity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2008 2:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2008 11:00 PM Woodsy has not replied

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


Message 255 of 318 (450962)
01-25-2008 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by pelican
01-24-2008 11:41 PM


I think I already agreed that it was amusing but for certain aspects. It is a show that has entertained us here for many years. Of course, there is also the dark side to it - some people choose children as their battleground. Personally, I find that hard to joke about. But each to their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 11:41 PM pelican 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