Anyone interested in taking on Syamsu in a "Great Debate"?

quote:

---

I'll bet Mammuthus or Hambre would be willing to knock his ass around a while, though.

---

I have a time saving measure...just take any ten random posts of Syamsu..or just take one and repeat it ten times since they are all the same anyway. That will be Syamsu's side of the Great Debate. Take 10 posts from Wounded King or mark24 that rebutted his points. Package it and call it a Great Debate...would save everyone the trouble of redoing the same posts again. And just for fun, Adminimoose could hide the origins of the posts and offer prizes to anyone who can guess which thread it originally came from....a regular EvC Xmas party with Dan and Hambre brawling under the mistletoe for a chance to kiss Rei

Thanks. Always happy to oblige...

Well, that explains why she took off again.

yep..she snuck off with holmes while you two were occupied...I would have said something but I was getting drunk on the punch Mr. Jack brewed.

Sigh. Well, pass a glass, will you? Maybe after enough punch, Mike the Wiz'll get pretty enough to get the job done.

Why don't you all just admit I'm right, and be done with it that way. Who'se really going to argue against the idea that science as it is, is prejudiced towards describing in terms of cause and effect? That is so evident all round. Take a look at your own mind and see if or not your mind locks up to think in terms of cause and effect when thinking of science. You all know it's true already I think.The next steps are a bit more difficult.The step of this prejudice towards something like nazism for instance may seem a far reach. But I can safely shelter behind an authority who backs me up on this. Historian Klaus Fischer singles out the issue of prejudice towards predetermination over decision, as the most important issue in understanding the history of the holocaust. He singles it out, not mentioned in passing but singled out as most important.Or the step towards why natural selection is wrong. There I have the authority of Ariew and Mathen. They argue that NS is wrong because it excludes from it's operation those events which run counter to optimal fitness. For instance a well-sighted organism get's hit by lightning and doesn't reproduce, while a bad sighted organism reproduces, is excluded from NS. So what is excluded from NS is chance, decision, and that is where NS is wrong. Obviously a case of prejudice towards cause and effect over decision.And so on. Who can hope to argue the other side of this and win? There is no authority of knowledgable people on the other side of this argument. You have the authority of that evolutionist "faq" I referenced to back you up. A text which gives good reason to despair and throw in the towel for the evolutionist side.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu,
I will not be engaging you, and I will tell you why. It is a favored tactic of creationists and other with weak positions to want to maintain or open a broad scope of debate and not tightly define terms. In that way, they can shift details and definitions and use unscrupulous tactics to avoid having to admit they are wrong.Then, they mock real debate, which is about exact points and utilizes tight definitions. They try to make them selves look ready to engage and accuse those who see their tactics for what they are of having no confidence in their positions or of being ignorant.The especially funny part of the above, which describes you exactly, is the accusation of the lack of confidence. Are you so doubtful about your position that you don't want to actually examine it in depth? I think so.Unless you do better then you have so far, I have no intention of wasting my time with you.

No one, because it's not even a defensible hypothesis. What's to argue?This is pretty much your standard procedure, Sy. You make a wild statement about science getting it all wrong. You then fail to produce even a sliver of evidence to support your radical new idea about how science should be practiced, while at the same time proclaiming that the lack of evidence is exactly what supports your statement.It's like watching a conspiracy theorist in action. "The Warren Commission covered up the fact that aliens killed JFK! Where's my proof? Well, you don't see any mention of aliens in the Warren Report, do you?"Mind you, I don't mean any of this as an insult. I love conspiracy theorists. I hope this time you tell us how the Illuminati snake demons have infiltrated the highest levels of the scientific community to further their own agenda.*grabs popcorn, gets comfy*

I have no idea which terms you want defined. The main term in focus seems to be decision, and I defined that term already as the change in the chance of something appearing, in reply to your post to make a concise argument with evidence.Of course if you would try to debate against that definition, that could very easily lead to my assertion of ignorance about decision being validated, because it could show you to be ignorant of decision. You can go and try and find a more appropiate "scientific" definition of decision but you may not find anything at all, no matter how hard you look, showing that decision or like is ignored in science... What a precarious situation!This debate would obviously not be an easy win for you, and I think that is a more reasonable explanation why you disengage.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

oh so decisions are like alien invaders, they don't exist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No. Your ideas about science are like aliens; they are totally unsupported by evidence.They're also like aliens in that only drunk, inbred hillbillies with missing teeth would put any stock in them.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-15-2004 12:42 PM

Think what you will. Your definition is not one that I accept, as it is a clearly non-standard usage.Decision is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as:
1. The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
2. The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.
3. A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.
4. Firmness of character or action; determination.You see, making up your own terms to defend or define a position is one of those tactics I described. When I did pin you down on the problems with your position, it would be all to easy for you to claim that I don't fully comprehend your aberrant usage of the word "decision".So yes, it would be impossible to win a debate with you, because when one side wants honest and honorable debate and the other does not, the outcome is inevitable. Cheating always wins, if one side does it and the other doesn't.For real debate to occur, one of the first steps is for both sides to agree on usages of terms, and your definition of the term "decision" is incorrect and not one I would accept.

We warned you. LOLAfter a while here you'll learn some of the regular drop ins. The best thing to do is simply ignore them. Eventually they resort to replying to messages not addressed to them and finally they claim victory and wander off when no one responds.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And you were right, but I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they pull the typical junk directly on me. Symansu has pulled the typical junk and I will not take him seriously, now or in the future.

Not to worry. I, like so many others here also went through our initiation rite. Actually, you're getting off really easy. This may well be one of the shorter threads.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion