Hi, Mike the Wiz.
If somebody wishes to open a topic like this (Hill Billy did it around the time I first joined), that person should choose his or her words with extreme caution.
For instance,
Message 31:
mike the wiz, message #31, writes:
An example of logic for readers;
Bluejay writes:
...already in this thread he (Buzsaw) is starting in on Big Bang Theory, even though the evidence for it has been expounded to him ad nauseum, yet his continued portrayal of it shows that he does not even understand what Big Bang Theory says...
Whereas the Big Bang theory can still be regarded as incredulous,
by a Theist who certainly does know what the theory says.
I can only assume you meant to refer to your own post as "an example of logic for readers," and not to the quotation from me that directly followed, because you apparently took exception to what I said.
And, while you are trivially right, I hope you realize that your argument does nothing to discredit my argument, because what some hypothetical theist thinks about the Big Bang is really irrelevant to Buzsaw's grasp of the laws of physics. Also note that I made no attempt to generalize my statement to a broader target.
So, next time you want to use me as an example for your adoring fans, please quote me in context.
-----
mike the wiz, message #33, writes:
The "Buz" problem is not new, and I have observed it for many years. Newcomers like bluejay and others will not know, but your arguments about Buz's lack of understanding aren't new.
The forum's archives are available for everyone to read. Furthermore, I can take cues from the comments of other people and am sufficiently capable of reading to deduce that Buzsaw does not have a firm grasp of Big Bang, thermodynamics or general relativity. So, I think your assumption that I do not know as much about this topic as you do is completely without evidence, and is rather arrogant, in fact.
Of course, I’m just a newcomer with a three-digit post count, so what do I know?
mike the wiz writes:
Listen, I have blasted away loads of atheists at forums. Trust me, there are lots who know close to zero and merely jump on the bandwagon of popular theories, having done no work themselves.
Well, since you started with such a bulletproof argument from allegecd personal authority, I suppose my only recourse in this matter is to admit that you are superior to me and bow out of the discussion. After all, how could I possibly contend with someone who is so far above me?
I will agree with you, once again, that you are right about bandwagon stowaways in scientific endeavors, but I have to ask you again what relevance you think this has to the topic at hand.
Message 51 would have me believe that your comment about the bandwagon was not directed at anyone in particular. However, if the comment did not apply directly to me, or to someone else on this thread, what was your point in bringing it up? Does the fact that there are lots of stupid groupies and sycophants to science somehow discredit my personal scientific knowledge?
If not, maybe you should spend more time trying to decide whether my argument has any validity, rather than just assume that I can be lumped with all the zero-knowledge theory surfers and that my comments can be dismissed because you happen to feel protective about Buzzmodynamics.
mike the wiz writes:
If you were a YEC Bluejay - understand why someone else is having experienced the conviction they once had. Is it so hard to understand, that we
disagree with one another?
Mikey, I am a Christian, and I once
was a YEC. I remember reading a creationist textbook in highschool and thinking that their stories about the Flood making geological layers and about dinosaurs being too heavy to move were completely logical and equally valid as (actually, I thought they were
more valid than) evolution and materialism.
I’ve been there before. Most evolutions have, in fact.
Recently, my father showed me a video by a Mormon researcher who had compiled tons of scientific literature from several fields (haplogroups/human genetics, archaeology, linguistics, ethnic studies, etc.) to support his theory that the ancient Hopewell civilization was actually the Nephite civilization from the Book of Mormon. The video was actually rather good, but his “theory” is still not really valid, because the evidence isn’t as conclusive as he thinks it is.
But, being a Mormon, I have the
same feelings toward that “Hopewell Nephites” theory that creationists/IDists have toward irreducible complexity, baraminology, YECism, Flood geology and/or genetic information theory. But, as much as I want archaeological and genetic proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon, I can’t, in good conscience, argue for it (yet), because it would be intellectually dishonest to do so.
The problem isn’t about simple
disagreement over ideas, as Straggler pointed out in
Message 61 and in
his new topic. Science is not about people getting along with each other. Science has no tolerance for inexpertise, nor should it have any, not for Buzzmodynamics, nor for Hopewell Nephites. Please note that I am giving my
own feelings and pet theories the same treatment that I give anyone else’s. And, most scientists that I have met do pretty much the same thing.
So, please think before you make half-cocked, unresearched, stupid comments about people’s motivations and understanding of a certain situation, especially in a forum where you’re calling those very people arrogant.
-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
