Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 3:51 PM
81 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,213 Year: 24,054/28,606 Month: 1,355/1,786 Week: 217/423 Day: 54/73 Hour: 5/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12833
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 136 of 196 (639489)
11-01-2011 3:43 AM


The Troll
The Troll

He comes to us on hands and knees
and whimpers: "Kick me if you dare" ---
but when I say: "Just as you please"
he finds he has to be elsewhere,

and on his yellow belly crawls
to safety for a month or two.
A month or two goes by; he bawls:
"Now kick me" ... as I raise my shoe,

he flinches from the sturdy leather
and finds he'll let the matter pass:
explaining that he's doubtful whether
I'm really fit to kick his ass;

and though my offers are profuse
to kick him as he claims to crave
he always snivels some excuse
and hides back in his trollish cave ---

wherein he prides himself upon
how no-one dares to take him on.


  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 137 of 196 (639490)
11-01-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2011 3:00 AM


Re: Debate
Regardless, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated.

As an interested lurker it would really help if you used a more thoughtful formatting.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2011 3:00 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-06-2011 11:58 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24766
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 138 of 196 (639505)
11-01-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Eye-Squared-R
11-01-2011 1:40 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
No, because I do not have enough trust in Creationists or ID Proponents to bother.

It does not matter what folk think, the reality is that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only available explanation for the diversity of life that we see.

(It really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 1:40 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-06-2011 11:59 PM jar has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 139 of 196 (639507)
11-01-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Eye-Squared-R
11-01-2011 1:44 AM


Re: Debate
Hi Eye-Squared-R,

Eye-Squared-R writes:

(Grinning) That was “cojones” pronounced “kuh-hoh-neys” mentioned by Dr. Adequate

I was just being polite as I am a pastor of a small independent Chruch.

Eye-Squared-R writes:

Regardless, we can’t tell if doc has an athletic bone in his body but I’m an old linebacker for a large school that played in a state championship. That head-banging was good preparation for this thread. For all doc’s obsession with ‘cojones,’ I’d like to see him suit up, buckle his chinstrap, and help me garner firm commitments toward the best qualified debate team possible for neo-Darwinism.

But a real debate would require disicpline and the production of real evidence.

The tactic's used to argue here at EvC has nothing to do with a real debate.

No one that I have tried to debate with here has any idea of what a real debate is. Or if they do they run away from it.

They know how to make assertions and when you ask for evidence to support their assertions they tell you to go find it yourself.

Then when you remind them that is not debating the insults and personal attacks begin.

In other words they are so much smarter than the oponent is that he/she is an idiot.

I would still like to see the debate take place but I will not hold my breath.

It seems from the other invitations you sent out that no one wants to represent evolution, in a real debate.

Lots of luck on your search.

Keep me posted.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 1:44 AM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 140 of 196 (643444)
12-06-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
11-01-2011 2:07 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello Crashfrog and welcome.
Thank you for joining the discussion in Message 130

We’d like to gain some insights into your level of confidence in your knowledge and understanding of expressed beliefs.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood or misrepresented you in any quotes below.
We have a few questions if you don’t mind.

Question #1

In Message 93 (click link) of the “Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating” topic, you pronounce absolute and unconditional judgment upon those who differ from your beliefs concerning, for example, inferred iterative random mutation and natural selection of an asexual worm type creature’s progeny into such a creature as an amazingly wonderful and intelligent woman.

Crashfrog in Message 93 of the ‘Fantasy Debate Team’ topic writes:

There are no reasonable creationists. There are only stupid, ignorant, or mendacious ones, because the only way to advocate positions that are objectively in error is out of stupidity, ignorance, or mendacity (liars). (parenthetical clarification mine)


If you don’t mind Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your judgment of those who differ from your beliefs concerning the origin and development of all life:

Are you

  • 50% confident that your judgment is true?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident passing your judgment upon the intelligence, knowledge, or character of others concerning beliefs different from your beliefs regarding neo-Darwin inferences?

And if you claim to be 100% confident in your judgment Crashfrog, would you say your judgment is based in science… or in preferred philosophy?
If you’re claiming 100% confidence in your judgment based upon science, then your understanding of how science works will be subject to further review.

Question #2 originates from Message 130

Question #2

You introduced the concepts of ‘entropy’ and ‘work’ in this thread. But that’s fine because the fundamental relationship in the real world between heat, power, and work is consistent among thermodynamic systems, mechanical systems, and electrical systems.

Crashfrog in Message 130 writes:

Power isn't heat, though. Heat is the change in entropy times temperature; power is work over time.
There's no equality where those things are the same. (emphasis mine)

Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your expressed belief that “there’s no equality”; i.e. where the energy expended in power to do work is not the exact same amount of energy expended as heat by a thermodynamic system.

Are you

  • 50% confident that your belief is true based on your knowledge and understanding of this science?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident that “there’s no equality” between the energy expended in power to do work and the energy dissipated in heat by a thermodynamic system?

Before responding, to Question #2, Crashfrog, you may wish to review the diagram below relative to your stated belief above. The diagram illustrates a thermodynamic cycle between a hot reservoir and a colder reservoir in a reversible process. The vertical axis is absolute temperature (T) and the horizontal axis is entropy (S). The section of interest is the white section where the ‘W’ on the left of the equality represents the amount of ‘Work’ done in a system. The ‘Q’ terms summation on the right side of the equality represent the quantity of ‘Heat’ released (or dissipated into the environment) when work is done within a system.

Photobucket

Since power is work over time, it necessarily follows that at any given instant in time, power is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”. This relationship between power and heat is true in any type of process involving entropy.

Please take the time to review your understanding of this fundamental truth in thermodynamics. There’s no rush but we can discuss how it really works in much more detail if you wish to persist in your belief that “There's no equality where those things are the same.”

Since you first mentioned entropy in this thread, Crashfrog, please share with us your highest level of formal education if you don’t mind…
Do you have a Ph.D. in any of the natural or applied sciences?

Now concerning the physics of electrical power and heat in Question #3:

Question #3

Eye-Squared-R in Message 124 to Jar writes:

Now Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether “Real” power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”.

Crashfrog responding to Eye-Squared-R in Message 130 writes:

Well, no, it's not.


Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your belief that “Real” power (I2R) is not manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”.

Are you

  • 50% confident that your belief regarding this science is true?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident that “Real” power (I2R) is not manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”?
Please take as much time as needed to review your knowledge and understanding of the science. After careful study, please offer one example demonstrating your belief that this relationship between the energy expended in ‘real’ power (I2R) and the energy expended in heat is not true at any time anywhere in the universe…

Concerning “very elementary” science:

Crashfrog in Message 130 writes:

Not knowing the difference between work and heat is, as many have told you, a very elementary error. (bold emphasis mine)


Power and heat are not the same in units. However, the energy expended in power to do work is expended totally, continuously, and exclusively as heat.

The persistent lack of understanding at EvC Forum concerning fundamental physical science was not anticipated when I started this forum topic.
The exercises in Message 71 are unfortunate examples of evolution proponents demonstrating condescending confidence in their own ‘elementary error’.

I take no pride in this as I’m just a plain ole’ country boy… not any smarter than the average Joe. I’ve just had the opportunity and responsibility to apply fundamental principles of science in the real world. When science is misunderstood and misapplied, serious injury and death can occur.
Therefore, proper knowledge and understanding of working mechanisms are not a function of philosophical preference to me.

We have folks here at EvC Forum professing to know the physics of how the entire universe came into existence.
Unfortunately, these folks have not mastered the physics of power and heat in their clothes dryer or their garage door opener.

Here’s my proposal for you, Crashfrog, and the many others at EvC Forum who profess a working knowledge and understanding of this science:
We can wrestle the details concerning this “very elementary” science of physics all the way down to the mat if you wish.
If you determine to persist in your scientific beliefs quoted in Questions 2 and 3, then your ‘objective position’ will be pinned to the mat beneath the weight of truth in science concerning the relationship of power and heat in the physics of both thermodynamic and electrical systems.

Assuming you proceed defending your beliefs in Questions 2 & 3, you may wish to consult with your peers at EvC Forum (or anywhere else) before proceeding. You’ll need peers that you’re confident have attained a valid working knowledge and understanding of physical mechanisms.

Dr. Adequate is not recommended as he has failed to demonstrate any knowledge or understanding in the science exercises presented in this thread for many months now. Rather than acknowledging or addressing requests, doc is most recently preoccupied in this thread with a mental mirage composing disjointed Poetry of Personal Puffery (click links). Considering the responses to Message 129, those of us who care are concerned that Dr. Adequate continues to display the symptoms listed here.

These matters are not subjective and they’re not personal. They’re empirical. It’s just how physics works in the real world.
The nature of real science is confrontational.
That’s how science advances.

The ‘Aspirants to Sophisticated Science’ (as noted in green and red demarcated exercises of Message 71) have judged another person’s ‘beliefs’ concerning fundamental science to be foolish or stupid. A review of this thread and those judgments may help to determine who is actually ignorant. The ‘Aspirants to Sophisticated Science’ have also declined to make a firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate concerning evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.

From Message 82 in another thread…your judgment continues:

Question #4

Phat posed a question in Message 76 of another thread to which Crashfrog responds in Message 82 of that thread…

Phat in Message 76 of another thread responding to Crashfrog writes:

I prefer to believe that there is a God. How about you? Why do you actively prefer to believe that there isn't one? Surely evidence is a mere formality!

Crashfrog responding in Message 82 of that thread writes:

I don't (actively prefer to believe there is no God). As you well know, because I've told you many times, I actually would prefer that God existed. But more importantly than that, I prefer to believe things that are true.

And it's true that there is no such thing as God.
(bold emphasis mine)

Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your belief that “there is no such thing as God”:
Are you

  • 50% confident that your pronouncement is true?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident in your belief that there is “no such thing as God”?

Before responding to Question #4, you may wish to review the nature and limitations of real science.
Granny Magda states it well in Message 132 of another thread concerning logical fallacies…

Granny Magda in Message 132 of another thread writes:

The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proved (in a strict logical sense) by reference to physics or cosmology.


While many here seem sincere and confident in their judgment, confident sincerity isn’t the basis for determining truth in science. And science taken out of context is often pretext. This applies to both proponents and skeptics of neo-Darwinism.

If you claim to be 100% confident in your belief there is no God, then either:

  1. You don’t understand how science works as described in the light green text with black borders toward the end of Message 123 (click link) to Bluegenes… or
  2. You aren’t basing your (100% confidence) belief in atheism upon science… or
  3. You haven’t considered your basis of belief in atheism and you’re merely expressing your unconditional philosophical commitment to an unsubstantiated opinion (or dogma) as truth.
Depending on your response to this invitation to a publishable debate, your words to Buzsaw in Message 282 of another thread may be helpful here:

Crashfrog in Message 282 of another thread to Buzsaw writes:

Every metabolic process in your body is one that exploits an increase in entropy.
Your body is a battlefield, not the result of somebody's design. The more you find out about biology the more obvious that is.
But you're determined to avoid education in the sciences because your cherished dogma is more important.
I pity you.

(emphasis mine)


Consequently, you may wish to reconsider your position if you are not willing and able to firmly commit to a written publishable debate. Otherwise, since a publishable debate could be a significant educational resource for yourself and millions of folks, it appears… you’re determined to avoid education in the sciences

If you judge flaws upon others, Crashfrog, who disagree with your belief in neo-Darwinism and you assert there is no evidence for other’s alternative beliefs… and… you refuse to engage debate of the evidence in a written publishable format – then interested observers may consider your judgments to be less than persuasive… or worse (click link).

Now, one more question (Bonus Round) if you don’t mind Crashfrog…

Question #5

Phat makes an observation in Message 107 of another thread… to which Crashfrog responds in Message 108 of the other thread…

Phat in Message 107 of another thread responding to Crashfrog writes:

The manifestation of your strong atheism is seen by me as if you dare there be a God...any god...(or any clever human intellect) that can prove your basic assertion wrong.

Crashfrog in Message 108 of another thread writes:

I'm surrounded, constantly, by people who believe that there's an intellectually valid case for belief in God, but who always tell me to go ask someone else when I politely ask them to present it. "Well, I believe on the basis of faith, of course, but I'm sure that there's an intellectual case, too! Why don't you go ask some other theist about it..."

Here’s your opportunity if you’re sincerely searching for an intellectually valid case from a theist for beliefs differing from your beliefs concerning neo-Darwinism Crashfrog.

We need firm commitments from you and others to engage a written publishable debate that could be leveraged to help educate millions of folks.
If you have a Ph.D. in the natural or applied sciences, you could possibly lead the proposed debate team for neo-Darwinism. Your opponent(s) will examine your evidence for neo-Darwinism as well as present evidence for an alternative conclusion.

Question #5 is… Will you make a firm commitment (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to engage scientifically qualified opponent(s) concerning an intellectual case against neo-Darwinism and for creation? This will involve the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.

And to continue your thoughts in Message 108 of the other thread…

Crashfrog in Message 108 of another thread writes:

I'm fascinated by these mental lacuna, where people are (apparently) hypnotized into the belief that there's a substantial amount of good evidence for something they believe, but aren't actually able to present any of it.

We share your fascination in this thread concerning commitments to neo-Darwinism and a publishable debate of the science Crashfrog.
However, hypnotism is likely not a factor.

It would be your task to actually demonstrate inferred “mental lacuna” (mental gap) of those who differ with your beliefs concerning veracity of conclusions based upon scientific evidence.

In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread… you neglected to respond to the request for firm commitments to a professional written publishable debate.

If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a publishable manner … please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the knowledge and understanding of millions judged in this thread (click link) to be “ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked”.
Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated below.

These are specific disciplines for which not one evolutionist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage:
Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34 but has not committed):
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:

Please select any area of expertise for which you are confident and list your name to represent neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate Crashfrog – or share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.

Chuck 77’s stated opinion in Message 1,408 (of another thread) that you, Crashfrog, are one of the smartest guys at EvC Forum is notable.
Please respond to the questions and let us know how you wish to proceed.

A thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Note to Adminnemooseus:

Adminnemooseus in Message 134 writes:

Lay off the nasty abnormal formatting.
It only enhances your looking like a raving idiot.
Adminnemooseus

It’s unclear whether you intended to post as an administrator so clarification is requested.

Format hyper-sensitivity can be an indication that one is unwilling or unable to address the topic… especially when the topic is not addressed.

For example, Omnivorous, in Message 75 (click link) expressed a pain like a boil on his ass from Message 71. Omnivorous complained about the green and red background formatting used to demarcate exercises 1 and 2 from the general text. He requested to ‘color it black’.
And when his request was obliged in Message 79… Omnivorous never responded.
We can only conclude that formatting was actually not the cause of the pain Omnivorous felt.

If you intended Message 134 as an EvC Forum administrator referring to someone as a raving idiot, you may wish to review the forum rules that you’re responsible to administer.

If you are demanding that certain formatting not be used for emphasis or demarcation of separate sections (like this note to you requesting clarification), then you must be much more specific on precisely what ‘nasty abnormal’ formatting you are banning in the Coffee House Forum.

Alternatively, you have the authority as an administrator to suspend me if you wish Adminnemooseus.
However, I suggest that would not reflect well upon you or EvC Forum in general.

If you intended to post Message 134 as Minnemooseus and you’re actually participating in this thread topic, then I request that you make a firm commitment to one of the scientific disciplines listed above for a professional written publishable debate concerning neo-Darwin science. If you decline the invitation, then please state your reason for us - if you don’t mind.

Assuming you decline the invitation Adminnemooseus, you could at least nominate the best Ph. D.s in natural or applied science at EvC Forum for each of the disciplines listed.

We need the most qualified and competent team possible to represent neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate - for all to see.

Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Edited statement about work.

Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 2:07 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by subbie, posted 12-07-2011 12:33 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded
 Message 150 by Panda, posted 12-07-2011 11:52 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 141 of 196 (643445)
12-06-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Larni
11-01-2011 4:21 AM


Re: Debate
Hello Larni and welcome back.

Eye-Squared-R to Dr Adequate in Message 129 writes:

Regardless, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated.

Larni in Message 137 writes:

As an interested lurker it would really help if you used a more thoughtful formatting.


As an interested lurker Larni, this was your second post in this thread without addressing the content.

You neglected to respond to the requests in Message 70 addressed directly to you.

In case the formatting in Message 70 rendered you incapable of responding, the requests in the message are repeated here with plain formatting for your convenience:

Eye-Squared-R in Message 70 to Larni writes:

Hello Larni – and welcome!

Larni in Message 69 to Dr Adequate 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 (in neo-Darwinism) that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format...
I must ask - are you “in” or “out”?

And if “out” Larni - please share with us your reason for declining if you don’t mind.

If you again decline to respond to the requests with plain formatting, then we can safely conclude that ‘thoughtful formatting’ is clearly not your problem Larni.

In that case, perhaps you could at least help determine who is actually ignorant in the green and red demarcated exercises of Message 71), if you don’t mind.

As stated before, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated Larni.
Please answer the questions in response.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 11-01-2011 4:21 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 142 of 196 (643446)
12-06-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by jar
11-01-2011 9:49 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello Jar and welcome back,
A brief review…
In Message 61 of the Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) (click link) topic, you expressed a strong opinion that we’d like to see you justify and defend in a professional publishable debate, if you’re willing and able to firmly commit (obviating extraneous excuses to withdraw):

Jar in Message 61 of the ‘Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked’ thread writes:

That Evolution happened is more than a theory, it is as close to fact as science can ever come.
The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that has been presented that explain what is seen. There is no model of "Creation" that has been presented that explains anything. There simply is no "Creation Science". It is an oxymoron.

Eye-Squared-R in Message 124 to Jar writes:

As close to fact as science can ever come… Jar?
That would put evolution (including neo-Darwinism) at the same confidence level as Ohm’s Law and the Law of gravity.

If you’re proposing Darwin’s ‘Law,’ you must surely have abundant, unequivocal, and repeatable demonstrations of random (unguided) mutations and natural selection developing newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time.

If that’s true and you’re confident in your knowledge and understanding, a written publishable debate should be a Slam Dunk for you Jar! Or a Grand Slam out of the park!

Now Jar, please select a discipline (from Message 124: Biology, Cosmology, Dates and Dating, Geology, or Physics) and list your name. Make a firm commitment (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the evidence and actually demonstrate the ignorance of those whose beliefs differ from yours (concerning neo-Darwinism). Otherwise, please explain your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.

Jar responding to Eye-Squared-R in Message 138 writes:

No, because I do not have enough trust in Creationists or ID Proponents to bother. (bold emphasis mine)


It’s unfortunate that you judge people who believe differently from you as ignorant (or worse) while you will not engage publishable debate of the evidence for or against your beliefs because you “do not have enough trust” in them.

You present an interesting dichotomy of thought and action Jar.
Casting bold judgment upon others combined with a certain unwillingness to expose inferred evidence in a publishable debate.

Your potential debate opponent(s) will not restrict themselves to debating only someone they ‘trust’ in a written publishable format.

Real science is not timid or dependent upon ‘trust’. Real science properly engages any poorly developed conclusions – especially from ‘untrustworthy’ sources.
The written format lays the debate out in black and white. Terms are defined and fixed within the text. Evidence must be addressed.
In a written debate, poorly supported inferences remain on the ‘operating table’ of print for all to see the dissection of assertions and evidence from both sides.

It takes good measures of humility, honesty, and discipline to challenge one’s own beliefs or to expose one’s inferences to vigorous examination and debate.

Both you and your opponent(s) would be forced to reckon the facts in a written publishable debate..

Please clarify for us your perceived risk in debating someone you don’t trust Jar. You may note for us whether options A, B, or C are valid or invalid. In addition, you may fill in item D to explain your fear related to an inferred untrustworthy debate opponent.

  1. Jar is concerned that a creationist or ID debate opponent may present scientific arguments that are difficult to counter and potentially weaken Jar’s personal beliefs.
  2. Jar is not confident in his ability to present and defend scientific evidence for neo-Darwinism.
  3. Jar is not confident in his ability to invalidate scientific evidence for an alternative conclusion that potentially nullifies his personal beliefs.
  4. Jar doesn’t trust a creationist or ID proponent in a professional written publishable debate because they may… (fill in your reason here Jar).

If you judge flaws (ignorant, untrustworthy, or worse) upon others while insisting there is no evidence for their lack of belief in neo-Darwinism… and… you refuse to engage debate of the evidence in a written publishable format – then interested observers may consider your judgments to be less than persuasive… or worse (click link).

People make errors in science, politics, and religion. Folks often judge those who disagree to be ignorant, stupid, untrustworthy, or worse.
Sometimes folks realize they were confidently wrong, and (hopefully) we’re all better for it.

The inconvenient truth is… errors in basic science by condescendingly confident self-expressed experts have been exposed (click link) in this thread.

Aside from the invitation for a publishable debate, it’s disappointing that you declined to respond to Exercises 1 & 2 in Message 124 to help us determine definitively who is actually ignorant.

Jar in Message 138 writes:

It does not matter what folk think…


Unless you live on a deserted island without politics or government, the reasons it matters are quite well detailed in Message 124.
Perhaps you could review that message addressed to you and acknowledge how majority opinion may affect you and others…

Jar in Message 138 writes:

…the reality is that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only available explanation for the diversity of life that we see.


Would that you had the confidence, ability, and determination to present and defend such an inferred reality in a publishable debate.

Jar in Message 138 writes:

It really is that simple.


Apparently, only your opinion is that simple Jar.
However, it’s your prerogative to close your eyes tightly and keep repeating yourself.

It seems reasonable that folks who judge flaws upon others with different beliefs would be willing and able to help educate and enlighten other people through genuine vigorous debate of the scientific evidence. Direct confrontation with a potential audience of millions of people would surely help minimize ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and wickedness. If lack of trust is your reason for declining, you seem to doubt your ability to validate your views with creationists or ID proponents. In the absence of a more reasonable response, interested observers may draw their own conclusions.

The nature of real science is bold and confrontational. That’s how science advances.
If there are certain scientific neo-Darwin critiques or alternative interpretations with evidence that you feel an ‘untrustworthy’ opponent may present that you are unable to refute, then please note the specific topics and we could hopefully find you some teammates to handle those. I’ll work to accommodate your concerns in any way possible if you’re willing to make a firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate of the scientific evidence.
Do you know of any qualified Ph. D.s in natural or applied sciences who are willing and able to boldly defend confidently held beliefs in neo-Darwinism in this format?

If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a professional publishable manner Jar… please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the lives of millions that many here describe as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated here.
These are specific disciplines for which not one evolutionist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage
:
Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34 but has not committed):
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:

You’ve posted over 20,000 messages at Evolution vs. Creation Forum over seven years, Jar. As with your repetitive response to Message 124, your contributions are often little more than a one or two line chat, usually restating unsubstantiated opinions and how simple those opinions are.

A thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated Jar.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:49 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 12-07-2011 9:00 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 143 of 196 (643448)
12-07-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Eye-Squared-R
12-06-2011 11:58 PM


Fuckwad formatting
Format hyper-sensitivity can be an indication that one is unwilling or unable to address the topic… especially when the topic is not addressed.

It can also be an indication that we're tired of you trying to turn this thread into a timecube wanna be. That it was a admin that made the comment makes the latter considerably more likely since admins here generally comment on how the topics are presented and pursued rather than the content of the topics themselves.

Please, take a hint. Posting crap in a format that makes it look like something mommy should stick to the fridge just makes it look like juvenile crap. It adds nothing to the content and actually makes it more difficult to read. Of course, there remains the distinct possibility that you know you are posting crap and think you can hide your crap in batshit insane formatting. In that case, no amount of pleading with you to simplify the format will make any difference, and the only real way to stop the formatting vomitus is to ban you. I'll leave that conclusion to wiser minds than mine.

Edited by subbie, : subtitle


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-06-2011 11:58 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:01 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 168 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:02 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 144 of 196 (643451)
12-07-2011 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Eye-Squared-R
11-22-2010 12:17 AM


Re: Is Larni “in” or “out”?
In.

Now all you need to do is present the issue with ToE and we can debate it, here.

ABE: it however seems I am out; as I have no higher trainning in the fileds you stipulate.

My higher accademic field is psychology.

Oh well.

Edited by Larni, : ABE:


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:17 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:04 AM Larni has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12833
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 145 of 196 (643454)
12-07-2011 6:35 AM


I can't be bothered to read through his vast slabs of nonsense. But he's still chicken, right?
Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Larni, posted 12-07-2011 8:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 146 of 196 (643466)
12-07-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
12-07-2011 6:35 AM


I'm still uncertain what she actually wants.

So far she has done bugger all except grandstand.

Over.The.Course.Of.18.Months.......


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2011 6:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24766
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 147 of 196 (643467)
12-07-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Eye-Squared-R
12-06-2011 11:59 PM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
The majority opinion cannot change reality. Only a fool would think that the public's opinion would have any effect on the FACT of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-06-2011 11:59 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Larni, posted 12-07-2011 9:54 AM jar has responded
 Message 170 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:06 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 148 of 196 (643472)
12-07-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
12-07-2011 9:00 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
To some people science is a democracy.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 12-07-2011 9:00 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by jar, posted 12-07-2011 9:58 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24766
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 149 of 196 (643473)
12-07-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Larni
12-07-2011 9:54 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
They are fools then.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Larni, posted 12-07-2011 9:54 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 176 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(4)
Message 150 of 196 (643484)
12-07-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Eye-Squared-R
12-06-2011 11:58 PM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
There is something very wrong with you.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 12-06-2011 11:58 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:08 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014