Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 127 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 6:39 PM
377 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,352 Year: 18,958/21,208 Month: 1,717/3,111 Week: 512/707 Day: 88/120 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
jar
Member
Posts: 29138
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 61 of 136 (389161)
03-11-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by princesszin
03-11-2007 10:50 AM


Welcome to EvC and Yes, Ken Ham is a major Liar for Christ
Glad that you found us and look forward to learning from you.

The article you linked to is a great example of the conman tactics of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and it is filled with examples of Ken Ham's dishonesty. It begins with the totally false assumption that the issue is one of Christians vs Secularists, an issue that Ken knows full well is simply false.

He starts off with lies in the first paragraph and continues lying throughout the article, but that is just normal for the body of Christians that support Biblical Creationism.

What is so sad and pitiful is that that body, that vast group of Christians, are so ignorant, so brain washed, so gullible that they do not see the article for the absolute joke that it is and many actually follow up on the conman's plea in the last few paragraphs and send in money.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 10:50 AM princesszin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 11:36 AM jar has not yet responded

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 62 of 136 (389162)
03-11-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
03-11-2007 11:18 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC and Yes, Ken Ham is a major Liar for Christ
Hullo jar,

Thanks for replying.

The following quote from Prof. Kenneth R. Miller expresses how I feel about this subject:

"...Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.

Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community."

from: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html

edit:

There's one more thing I'd like to add. Christian Creationists aren't the aim of my criticism - Creationists in general are.

Andrea

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 03-11-2007 11:18 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2007 6:06 PM princesszin has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2501 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 63 of 136 (389323)
03-12-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by princesszin
03-11-2007 11:36 AM


Re: quoting strategies
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the following poor debating tactic.

quote:
One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning.

Obviously this is not a good thing to do no matter what the subject of the debate is. I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning.

You quoted Miller to say in part

quote:
would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.

Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision


Outside the portion I have quoted but you did, Ken M. gets to the part I quoted with a clause about "religion" and "science" being placed in opposition. Of course it is not "religion" and "science" that are in opposition but the writings of people speaking for either one that may be "opposites" as to some particular conclusion. I take it that because one can not be sure that the people involved in these deabtes are finding the opposite as to the material then available to discuss the subject either as within "science" or within "religion" that this is not where the choice is. I did not find that simply placing the things to be discussed as something antithetical is bad to begin with. A melancholy reflection seems to remand instead that the difficulty comes if "young people" are forced to make a "false" choice, on account of IF ID was to place pedagogy at extremes not mediated by the teachers themselves.

I DO THINK/agree that if ID was to place a new and false choice to students then that is not good but if the moderator or guide to what is good or bad is freedom to think itself as is indicated in the second part of the colored section of your quote, then I can not agree that the choice of rejecting faith or maintaining faith is what is at stake when it comes to morally upholding freedom itself.

The difference as to "choosing" and "turning" has to do with the differences of the mathematical and philsophical directum of ID NOT the sense vs the sound of ID itself. Miller merely sees what we all/anyone can see in ID, as it is today, much to do about philosophy and not as much about math.

It would not be that philosophy changes on faith in ID but that the discursive deviation THAT would cause for "choice", is currently not about concepts but about diverse choices of constructions FROM THEM. But these are missing in ID. Thus it really is a problem to MANDATE ID TEACHING until one sees mutiple constructions of the concept, as would be done in a mathematical frame of mind, no matter the philosophy, and without a homogenous and simple substance notion of Irreducible Complexity. What we have had here is that we were about to have law make restrictions where the non generalizable defintions were lacking. Math abhors restrictions to generalization but the current matter of the universality of ID replaced the choice of construction of elements and THAT is not something I for one could mandate as to be taught to high schools especially as this would be something that college students would not necessarily find simple to expose.

Freedom to pursue this course of achiving generality in place of universality however IS REQUIRED but if students do not know what they are free to pursue they will not do better than their teachers. So it is not really "freedom" that needs be cherished in this case but the perception of the difference of philosophy and math that needs be.

Miller may be overvaluing NOT having to do more math(number vs relation) as per the common philosophical horizon but my concern was to quote your quote and not change the meaning and criticize that it could be used against/inopposition to "creationists in general" *if* it is "freedom" that is the condition of agreement.

Do I succeed?

Edited by Brad McFall, : new title

Edited by Brad McFall, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by princesszin, posted 03-11-2007 11:36 AM princesszin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:33 AM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 65 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:43 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 64 of 136 (389377)
03-13-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
03-12-2007 6:06 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Brad McFall

You wrote "I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning."

I'm convinced that my use of it isn't inacurrate. I base this on the following grounds:

a) jar claimed the following:

"...What is so sad and pitiful is that that body, that vast group of Christians, are so ignorant, so brain washed, so gullible that they do not see the article for the absolute joke that it is and many actually follow up on the conman's plea in the last few paragraphs and send in money."

b) I reacted to his claim with my take on the subject (note that I claim that my take equals Miller's). Here:

The following quote from Prof. Kenneth R. Miller expresses how I feel about this subject:

"...Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.
Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community."

from: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html

c) That my claim equals Miller's is based on the following grounds. Miller actually describes his reasons why he thinks that letting ID being taught in schools would lead to opposing religion and sciense. And more importantly I agree with both his opinion and his reasoning he bases it on. That means my claim equals his:

Judge John E. Jones' decision in the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design (ID) case (Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District) is a great victory for science, science education, and for freedom of religion.

Judge Jones clearly grasped the weight of scientific evidence behind evolution, and properly pointed out that it serves as the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. The trial was especially significant because it afforded the proponents of ID, including such prominent advocates as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, the opportunity to present a scientific case for ID over several days of wide-open testimony. What took place, as the trial record makes clear, is that the pseudo-scientific claims of ID collapsed upon inspection. A series of expert witnesses for the parents who objected to the district's ID policy were able to demonstrate conclusively that ID is not science. They further showed that ID has no factual grounding, and that it represents a thinly-veiled attempt to insert a religious doctrine into schools under the guise of science.

As an expert witness for the plaintiffs, I was pleased to take the stand on the opening days of the trial in defense of the scientific integrity of evolution, and I am delighted with the verdict. Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith. Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community.

from: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dover/index.html

Andrea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2007 6:06 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2007 6:13 PM princesszin has responded

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 65 of 136 (389379)
03-13-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
03-12-2007 6:06 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Brad McFall

On a totally different subject...

You wrote "In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the following poor debating tactic.

quote:

One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning.

Obviously this is not a good thing to do no matter what the subject of the debate is. I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning."

I'm afraid that you've misunderstood me. I've never claimed that it was impossible to misuse a quotation even if one didn't change its meaning. What I claimed is the following:

"One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning."

Andrea

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2007 6:06 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2007 5:57 PM princesszin has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2501 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 136 (389457)
03-13-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by princesszin
03-13-2007 8:43 AM


Re: quoting strategies
It seems to me the only reason to quote someone and do nothing with the words themselves is only useful for affirmation. But in that case why not just write what you as an author thinks instead? I see no point, in a debate, to double-up the wordings, so as to in effect squelch by quantity. If something is correct, it only needs to be "said", once.

Did I manage to change the meaning then??

Edited by Brad McFall, : couple letters


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:43 AM princesszin has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2501 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 136 (389461)
03-13-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by princesszin
03-13-2007 8:33 AM


Re: quoting strategies
Ok, I see you object to the simple "opposing" of r... and s....

The quote said, "as a mandate to teach ID would...", it said, to my ears, "as if" a mandate to teach... There was a comma between "would" and "dishonors".

Now I can back up to this comma as well.

I was trying to show that the dishonor is not the same mathematically and philosophically, but today with two beers behind me it is probably not a good time for me to try to drive this point home, as you are also new to EvC and I do not want to "Brad McFall you" out of the box.

If your only point was to show in agreement with Miller that ID is not so good becuase it would "inevitably" (sic!) put science and religion in opposition then I really do not have a point to make for you. To me this is only an inevitability if the honors are not to be bestowed on the students making the choice.

If you desire me to make the dovetail less rough I will oblige later but for now that is all I can say if this is really going to the altar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 8:33 AM princesszin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 7:43 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 68 of 136 (389479)
03-13-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Brad McFall
03-13-2007 6:13 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Brad McFall

You wrote, "If your only point was to show in agreement with Miller that ID is not so good becuase it would 'inevitably' (sic!) put science and religion in opposition then I really do not have a point to make for you."

Inevitably is the correct spelling.

As to the rest of your post, there's no dishonesty whatsoever in claiming an agreement with the words of another person.

Andrea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2007 6:13 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2007 8:54 PM princesszin has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18777
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 69 of 136 (390041)
03-17-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by princesszin
03-13-2007 7:43 PM


Re: quoting strategies
welcome to the fray Andrea

Another standard creationist approach is to make a series of assertions with no substantiation, full of logical fallacies. This is the problem with your pet-peeve creationist's video (What's Wrong With These Creationist Statements? )

See if you can get him to post here -- he will find his assertions are not enough.

Enjoy.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by princesszin, posted 03-13-2007 7:43 PM princesszin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 9:30 AM RAZD has responded

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 70 of 136 (390082)
03-18-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
03-17-2007 8:54 PM


Re: quoting strategies
Hullo RAZD,

"welcome to the fray Andrea

Another standard creationist approach is to make a series of assertions with no substantiation, full of logical fallacies. This is the problem with your pet-peeve creationist's video (What's Wrong With These Creationist Statements? )

See if you can get him to post here -- he will find his assertions are not enough.

Enjoy.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy
"

Thanks for your reply.

I'll try to get him post here, although I can't imagine that he would.

Check out this lovely fourteen-year-old boy (with the nick Kabane52) who took the challenge, and answered his video.

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDAZenorqJU

and here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAPi7gFEHHc

I know the quoting trick but I didn't have any substantional to say as of yet, and I wanted to save this technique for the time when I would. :)

Andrea

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2007 8:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 12:44 PM princesszin has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18777
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 71 of 136 (390098)
03-18-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by princesszin
03-18-2007 9:30 AM


cognitive dissonance and belief
Check out this lovely fourteen-year-old boy (with the nick Kabane52) who took the challenge, and answered his video.

Seems he hits all the salient points. Gives me faith (:D) in the schools ... for those that want an education.

I'll try to get him post here, although I can't imagine that he would.

I'll bet he doesn't last. He'll make the claim that we are all liars and agents etc. He will likely maintain his delusions at all cost.

de·lu·sion –noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

The biggest problem he will have -- and the reason he calls evolution a lie -- is that he has a problem with cognitive dissonance: what he believes is not supported by the evidence, therefore either what he believes is false or the evidence is a lie. If you do not (cannot) allow the concept of belief being false then the only conclusion you can reach is that the evidence is a lie, no matter how persuasive it is.

If you go back and look at his arguments with this perspective you will see that he ignores possibilities because of his fixed beliefs.

This is basic to fundamentalist creationist beliefs (whether christian, muslim, hindu or whatever) -- the absolutism and rejection of alternate possibilities.

As discussed in our emails I don't believe one could change his mind - I don't think it is possible to do that to absolutist fundamentalist creationists without dealing with the cognitive dissonance issues at a more complete level than is possible on the internet. Something more like a cult intervention program to de-program the propoganda and lies is needed first.

Absolutist fundamentalist creationism really goes beyond being a cult of ignorance (as jar says) to being one of lies and ignorance mixed with Authoritarianism.

It's 'kool-aid religion' ... with more than sugar, food-color and flavoring added.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 9:30 AM princesszin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 4:06 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 73 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 4:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 72 of 136 (390103)
03-18-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
03-18-2007 12:44 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
RAZD writes:


The biggest problem he will have -- and the reason he calls evolution a lie -- is that he has a problem with cognitive dissonance: what he believes is not supported by the evidence, therefore either what he believes is false or the evidence is a lie.

Cognitive dissonance does not come from holding beliefs that conflict with reality; it comes from being aware of the conflict. My suspicion is that VenomFangX sincerely believes that the evidence is on his side, and does not suffer from cognitive dissonance at all.


This is basic to fundamentalist creationist beliefs (whether christian, muslim, hindu or whatever) -- the absolutism and rejection of alternate possibilities.

To be a fundamentalist creationist, one must believe the fundamentalist creationist arguments. Almost all of these arguments render all other possibilities (such as evolution) completely absurd (witness the numerous proofs that evolution is impossible). One can hardly be a fundamentalist creationist without very strongly rejecting the alternatives.


As discussed in our emails I don't believe one could change his mind - I don't think it is possible to do that to absolutist fundamentalist creationists without dealing with the cognitive dissonance issues at a more complete level than is possible on the internet. Something more like a cult intervention program to de-program the propoganda and lies is needed first.

It's 'kool-aid religion' ... with more than sugar, food-color and flavoring added.

I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of most fundamentalists.

The nature of the most types of fundamentalist philosophy makes it difficult to see alternatives as anything but insane; if someone is a fundamentalist, almost by necessity that person will have an extremely high level of confidence. But this does not mean that fundamentalists have been brainwashed. They have simply heard arguments, weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.

As an aside, interactions on this discussion board (some even with you!) have converted at least several fundamentalist creationist posters to some variety of evolutionist (myself included), and have likely done the same to many lurkers. I think that most fundamentalists are sufficiently open-minded and rational that they could work through the cognitive dissonance and change their mind if they thought they were in error.


- JT
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 12:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 4:43 PM jt has not yet responded
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 03-18-2007 7:18 PM jt has not yet responded
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 8:46 PM jt has not yet responded

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 73 of 136 (390104)
03-18-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
03-18-2007 12:44 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hullo RAZD,

Thanks for your reply.

What I found frightening is that Kabane52 received many comments (several hundred) on his videos. There are quite a few among them such as 'shut up fatty' or something to that effect.

There's another youtuber with the nick Soldier in God's Army (SIGA) who puts up some very witty satires.

The young man with the nick VenomFangX commented the following on one of SIGA's videos, 'The unicorn was a dinosaur. End of story.'

To which SIGA answered, 'Wrong, brother. You're letting yourself be used as a tool of Satan himself!!! '

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIkUKy5xY0

This incident shows me that he (Venom) really never thinks about anything.

Andrea

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 12:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 9:02 PM princesszin has responded

  
princesszin
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 74 of 136 (390108)
03-18-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jt
03-18-2007 4:06 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Hullo JT2,

"...I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of most fundamentalists.

The nature of the most types of fundamentalist philosophy makes it difficult to see alternatives as anything but insane; if someone is a fundamentalist, almost by necessity that person will have an extremely high level of confidence. But this does not mean that fundamentalists have been brainwashed. They have simply heard arguments, weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.

As an aside, interactions on this discussion board (some even with you!) have converted at least several fundamentalist creationist posters to some variety of evolutionist (myself included), and have likely done the same to many lurkers. I think that most fundamentalists are sufficiently open-minded and rational that they could work through the cognitive dissonance and change their mind if they thought they were in error."

I would be very interested in your opinion.

One of the reasons I thought it would be difficult for him to change his mind was that he makes other videos about Islam with the words 'satan, evil' in their title (if you note similarly to the evolution videos).

How do you think this cycle can be broken up? He's certainly interested in the topic, since he attacks it. That could be a good sign.

What do you think?

Andrea

Edited by princesszin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 4:06 PM jt has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 5:21 PM princesszin has responded
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 8:16 PM princesszin has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 75 of 136 (390111)
03-18-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by princesszin
03-18-2007 4:43 PM


weighing evidence
...weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.

For a large portion of the creationists this is a very inaccurate description. To "weigh" evidence suggest looking at the evidence on both sides and seeing what the balance is.

Most do come no where remotely near this. They have been fed some simplistic junk and work very hard to not take any any new information. They repeat what they have been told without thinking it through.

We see a few of these pass through here every month. They are dogmatic, arrogant and not prepared to ask a question or listen to anything said.

On the occasion when one will engage in a give and take they often shy way as soon as they see they are being lead to a conclusion that they don't like.

A common dodge is the "it is just different interpretations of the evidence". However, when asked to supply the base evidence and give a detailed interpretation explaining it they duck and run. None of them have EVER actually worked through an "alternative" explanation that considers even a small part of the total evidence.

Your characterisation is, I think, very, very off the mark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by princesszin, posted 03-18-2007 4:43 PM princesszin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 8:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 82 by princesszin, posted 03-19-2007 3:33 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017