|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proposed Rules for Debates | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes: Yet, creationists tell everyone that all those scientists who have studied the Clarens formation, presenting their research in peer-reviewed scientific articles; as M.Sc's; as Ph.D.'s; in mine modelling, etc. all are wrong. Without even one of those creationists ever looking at a rock from the Clarens Formation. Of course your proposal is a sham, Pressie, since you know that the creationists here don't have the technical geological knowledge it would take to engage you on the level of terminological jargon you are presenting. Faith writes: But what could be very interesting is if you presented a Proposed Topic on the Clarens formation and what you think it proves about the Old Earth or evolution or whatever your main interest is, and let us all ponder the information and respond. ABE: And unless you want to talk only to yourself or to other geologists, please try to avoid technical language. Clarens (Town in the Free State, RSA, where those rocks outcrops were first described). Mountain (big, stacked rocks). Rock (A collection of minerals). Outcrop. (Rocks found on surface of the earth). Borehole (Drill down into rocks to pull out samples of rocks). Geology (A natural science studying things such as rocks). Simple enough? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
"shotgun fallacy"
Making stuff up now, are we? Providing too many arguments is not a fallacy. And in a written debate, there is always an opportunity to respond over time. This is not like a timed debate where it is possible to chew up the time of the other side. When there is lots of evidence for one side, and none for the other, the debate is going to look one sided. That cannot be helped.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, I'd really like to see you do a proposal to discuss this formation about which you are obviously very knowledgeable. I'd like to know what you see in those bore samples for instance and what you think they prove.
Nobody doubts the basic expertise of the geologists here, we have a different overview of what it's all about, that's all. And of course you may present your evidence on that level too. I'd really like to read about the Clarens Formation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"shotgun fallacy" Making stuff up now, are we? You aren't being fair to lokiare. There is such a thing as a Shotgun Fallacy. Put "shotgun fallacy" into Google. The first entry has this:
Shotgun argumentation — the arguer offers such a large number of ... And you can go to Wikipedia to get the rest of the sentence. List of fallacies - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Shotgun argumentation may be a problem, but is it a logical fallacy?
Only if we count the victor as the person with the most text or who gets the last word. But there is nothing fallacious about offering a large number of valid arguments and evidence. And that is particularly true if the other side claims you have no evidence. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, technically speaking I'd agree with you that calling it a fallacy doesn't seem quite right, although it is an unfair form of argument which is probably why it got that classification. And it IS classed as a fallacy by Wikipedia, as I learned when I googled it, so you can't fault lokiare for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Also called Gish Gallop:
quote: It's listed as an "informal fallacy" which means "arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content" ... ie - you need to demonstrate that there is not sufficient time to answer in a written debate in order to apply this fallacy. So this doesn't apply to written debates where one can take the items one at a time and the other is waiting for replies before continuing. Of course when mindspawn lists things he wants to see or states fantasy concepts and there are 50 different pieces of evidence for each item on one side and zero on the other it is more difficult to invent replies other than to demand more items to be provided, resulting in more mountains of evidence being presented. The shotgun fallacy was used by mindspawn as part of his red-herring approach to avoiding the obvious - that tree rings provided a very strong validation of 14C dating. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The thread was "Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD" I started that debate, and RAZD finished it. The debate started out with Mindspawn not even understanding what he was debating. He was complaining about "calibration" in radiocarbon dating when he meant "corroboration." The only thing he knew about radiocarbon dating was that he was against it because of the results it produced. What logical fallacy is it when one side refuses to accept any evidence that counters their religious beliefs? [Answer = creationism]Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
You and your "basic" geologic knowledge are confounding the Creationists, Pressie. Don't you know it's in poor taste and thoroughly unfair of you to flaunt your education? And using scientific jargon that forces people to look things up, is just beyond the pale.
For shame!! Shall we add those rules as well?? Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith doen't realise that I got paid by a mining company to do extensive work on the Clarens Formation. For many years. Hopefully I can discuss the fact that I do have a day job?
They don't realise that geology is a practically applicable natural science. That's why it's there. They tend to think that 'evolutionist' atheist (spit-spit) geologists just sit back in arm-chairs at Uni all their lives trying to theoretically discuss and 'proof' the Magic Fluddy wrong... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just to clear up something I hope: I certainly didn't mean to imply anything insulting by my use of the word "basic." I don't know why I used it, in a rush as usual I guess, because it's clearly not the best choice of wording. I think I must have meant something like "indubitable" or "all-around" or "complete" as I do think of Pressie as expert in his field, same as I think of roxy and Petrophysics and edge and other geologists who have shown up here. I have no doubt whatever that they know their work.
Of course there is nothing a creationist can say about how we see some things differently that won't offend, but I do think that the age of the earth is NOT something you all can know, because I don't think anybody can know it, and that's IT. That requires trying to find evidence against the Old Earth which requires thinking about some areas of geology, but nobody is calling into question the expertise of the working geologists, far from it. ABE: Oh, and I DID figure that Pressie had special knowledge of the Clarens Formation because he's brought it up here before. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: but I do think that the age of the earth is NOT something you all can know, Yes, we can. The earth is very, very old. Way more than a few thousand years. That's a fact. We all know it by just looking at a rock or two. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can see how old a rock is by looking at it? That is an illusion, an illusion born of theory at best.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Sure can. I can see how old a Clarens rock is just by looking at it. That's after studying those rocks for many, many years. It's called experience.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sure you can tell what age has been assigned by the theory to that rock, that I don't doubt, but its actual age, no.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024