Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

Thanks for the feedback from both you and Funky. My thinking about the criteria for the expert forums would not be degree of knowledge, but rather a demonstrated ability to debate and discuss productively. This idea is similar to the distinction between the Free For All forum and the other forums. The novice forums would be like the Free For All forum - nothing you do in the novice forums can cause your posting privileges to be temporarily suspended or get you banned, and in fact there would be no such things. But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion gains you entrance to the expert forums. Violations of guidelines would cause relegation back to the novice forums.It's just an idea at this point - any additional feedback is much appreciated.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Thanks for the feedback from both you and Funky. My thinking about the criteria for the expert forums would not be degree of knowledge, but rather a demonstrated ability to debate and discuss productively. This idea is similar to the distinction between the Free For All forum and the other forums. The novice forums would be like the Free For All forum - nothing you do in the novice forums can cause your posting privileges to be temporarily suspended or get you banned, and in fact there would be no such things. But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion gains you entrance to the expert forums. Violations of guidelines would cause relegation back to the novice forums.

​

It's just an idea at this point - any additional feedback is much appreciated.

​

--Percy

---

Hi Percy,
Ok, I misunderstood the intention. So the novice forums would in effect be a debating proving ground where anything goes and the expert forums would be kept relatively flame war free. An interesting concept. There could be some difficulties if someone were to be serially promoted and demoted. But otherwise, it would probably increase the incentive to get into the expert forums and to come prepared to debate rather than flame or make assertions without even attempting to support them.Cheers,
M

How about we have a seperate section for "Wackos"?There could even be a division between "Wackos Who are Also Aggressive", and "Wackos Who are Merely Wackos."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Thanks for the feedback from both you and Funky. My thinking about the criteria for the expert forums would not be degree of knowledge, but rather a demonstrated ability to debate and discuss productively. This idea is similar to the distinction between the Free For All forum and the other forums. The novice forums would be like the Free For All forum - nothing you do in the novice forums can cause your posting privileges to be temporarily suspended or get you banned, and in fact there would be no such things. But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion gains you entrance to the expert forums. Violations of guidelines would cause relegation back to the novice forums.

​

It's just an idea at this point - any additional feedback is much appreciated.

​

--Percy

---

Hi Percy,
Some thoughts:1. Would the mockery displayed by the experts previously, result in a demotion?
2. How would you evaluate the criteria? What would be the deciding factor that either promotes or demotes you?
3. "Percy: But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion"...to me, and I admit I'm a novice, that would also mean that the experts should respond with respect and courtesy, without mockery.I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof I could offer to back up my claims, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference. Those references seem to be immediately dismissed, and possible ad hominem responses follow.
My basis in this thread has been to attempt to show, that when you state something at a basic level, it doesn't seem to make sense, this has been ridiculed. I maintain that even the most advanced and difficult scientific scenario, should and could be explained in simpler terms, and the failure to do so, is in my opinion, a diversion to avoid illuminating obvious flaws.I personally, would sooner have a forum as we have now, but simply agree that we will treat each other with respect and avoid ad hominem responses. If an opponent feels a question or statement is, in their opinion, childish, then simply choose not to respond.I would very much enjoy these discussions provided we keep it courteous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Hi Percy,
Some thoughts:

​

1. Would the mockery displayed by the experts previously, result in a demotion?

---

Please take a serious, honest look at your previous posts. Ask yourself WHY were you the target of 'mockery'? Ask yourself, Was it something I wrote? If you can find nothing in your posts that you think might have triggered the responses you got, then maybe you really are in the wrong place. A newbies' first few posts determine, at least in my experience, how they are treated by the "old timers". It would seem that posts full of bluster and condemnation accompanied by utterly erroneous statements of implied fact do not sit too well with the 'experts.'

quote:

---

3. "Percy: But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion"...to me, and I admit I'm a novice, that would also mean that the experts should respond with respect and courtesy, without mockery.

---

See above. In addition, you might want to carefully consider the arguemnts you use. Did you really think that your "humans are animals, therefore, animals are humans" schtick was anything other than sophomoric gobbledegook? Does that make sense to you - REALLY make any sense whatsoever?Or did you write it off the top of your head and then, upon realizing that others saw how silly it was, go into defensive mode?

quote:

---

I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof I could offer to back up my claims, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference.

---

There is nothing to deal with. Any "proof" you could offer that is suposedly "religious science", whatever that measn, form creatinist of ID sources would not BE science. Am I trying to define creationism out of existence? Not at all. Post a link as support for a claim. Be prepared, however, to explain it. And if (when) the support is shown to be in error or otherwise wanting, be prepared to accept it. I say be prepared to explain it because if you cannot do this, how can you be so sure that what you are lining to is correct?

quote:

---

My basis in this thread has been to attempt to show, that when you state something at a basic level, it doesn't seem to make sense, this has been ridiculed.

---

That is because what you wrote does not follow logically or sensibly from the premises that you were attempting to denigrate.

quote:

---

I maintain that even the most advanced and difficult scientific scenario, should and could be explained in simpler terms, and the failure to do so, is in my opinion, a diversion to avoid illuminating obvious flaws.

---

Of course, one should dumb down the concept in a manner that at least is a genrally correct reflection of the concept."Humans are animals, therefore, animals are human" is so utterly devoid of logic or sense that it cannot be considered a legitimate.. anything! That was presented in response to the several definitions of 'animal' presented to you demonstrating that humans are animals and contrary to your repetitive insistence that because humans do certain things that we are not animals.Rubbish.Your pigheaded refusal to acknowledge event he baselessness of your 'syllogism' deserved the wrath it got.

quote:

---

I personally, would sooner have a forum as we have now, but simply agree that we will treat each other with respect and avoid ad hominem responses. If an opponent feels a question or statement is, in their opinion, childish, then simply choose not to respond.

---

That sounds all well and good. However, in my experience, when a creationist presents something that is not responded to, the creationist then uses that fact to claim that there was no response because the "evo" couldn't handle it and that therefore it must be true.
That is fallacious.The easiest, best way to avoid getting crushed is to simply stop making ridiculous posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

... A newbies' first few posts determine, at least in my experience, how they are treated by the "old timers"...

---

I would have thought the "old timers" would have the experience to treat everybody with respect.

quote:

---

.. Did you really think that your "humans are animals, therefore, animals are humans" schtick was anything other than sophomoric gobbledegook? Does that make sense to you - REALLY make any sense whatsoever?

---

I explained that earlier, I was trying to make an obvious point. If you were so offended simply ignore it, it shouldn't undermine your position.

quote:

---

There is nothing to deal with. Any "proof" you could offer that is suposedly "religious science", whatever that measn, form creatinist of ID sources would not BE science...

---

That was the point I made, and you just verified it. Creationists are in a no-win situation with you evo's.

quote:

---

...Of course, one should dumb down the concept in a manner that at least is a genrally correct reflection of the concept...

---

So at least we agree on one thing.

quote:

---

Your pigheaded refusal to acknowledge event he baselessness of your 'syllogism' deserved the wrath it got.

---

ad hominem

quote:

---

The easiest, best way to avoid getting crushed is to simply stop making ridiculous posts.

---

Well, I have learned alot from these past weeks. Some of the posts may seem riduclous to you, but only because you are at the other end of the spectrum. If indeed, you were a creationist, you would agree that humans are not animals, and the post would make more sense.At any rate, let bygones be bygones and keep the civil discussions going.

I'm concerned that that would just be extending the reach of the unmoderated, less productive threads further. Instead of encouraging the whole board to be productive, you would be setting aside a "reservation" for the productive and tossing the rest out.Of course I realize that the moderators have an enormous workload as it is and this might help reduce it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Thanks for the feedback from both you and Funky. My thinking about the criteria for the expert forums would not be degree of knowledge, but rather a demonstrated ability to debate and discuss productively. This idea is similar to the distinction between the Free For All forum and the other forums. The novice forums would be like the Free For All forum - nothing you do in the novice forums can cause your posting privileges to be temporarily suspended or get you banned, and in fact there would be no such things. But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion gains you entrance to the expert forums. Violations of guidelines would cause relegation back to the novice forums.

​

It's just an idea at this point - any additional feedback is much appreciated.

​

--Percy

---

This is definately not a bad idea Percy. Some of the mockery that goes on is difficult. I am definately a guilty party when it comes to adding things to posts that are not necessary, do not serve any other purpose than to take a poke at someone. As a Christian I am ashamed of how I have allowed my pride to run the show at times. I definately think that "earning" your posting privelages in more serious debates is a good idea. Poor tactics by one member of the debate can ruin a whole thread, I can definately see were those who come here for serious discussion (especially scientific discussion) would like to see some kind of changes. It is unfortuanate that this idea has had to present itself. A little more respect all around may have exactly the same effect, but is one of those things very difficult to enforce, short of heavy handed moderating. Something I do not really favour either.I think I would be in support of implementing such an idea Percy. It seems like a good one, with good intentions. Though I may find myself stuck in Novice forums, with the explosive behaviour I have portrayed to this point.One thing I wonder about is how much could be tolerated in serious forums, knowing that some of us do learn from our mistakes. Also because of the nature of this kind of communication, and the flaws of language that sometimes we may take offence to something that was not meant offensively. Words without tone or body language are much easier to misinterpert.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonnikke:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

... A newbies' first few posts determine, at least in my experience, how they are treated by the "old timers"...

---

I would have thought the "old timers" would have the experience to treat everybody with respect.[/quote] Respect must be earned. When a person's first few posts on a board like this contain condemnations, accusations, the regurgitating of baseless nonsense, how much respect does that poster deserve? It is a two-way street, believe it or not. I disagree utterly with "True Creation" and "Tranquility Base", but I respect them and when I respond to them, I (usually) do so respectfully. Thus far, there are several posters that I have yet to find reason to do so with.

quote:

---

quote:

---

.. Did you really think that your "humans are animals, therefore, animals are humans" schtick was anything other than sophomoric gobbledegook? Does that make sense to you - REALLY make any sense whatsoever?

---

I explained that earlier, I was trying to make an obvious point. If you were so offended simply ignore it, it shouldn't undermine your position.

---

Your 'point' was demolished by several people. It did not offend me in the least. The 'point' I got out of it was your inability to apply standards and criteria in an unbiased, objective manner. Like many creationists, your beliefs supercede objective reality.
Humans ARE animals, regardless of whether or not you like to think so.
And even if you really were trying to make what seems to you like an obvious point, you should have been able to see the stupidity of your syllogism.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is nothing to deal with. Any "proof" you could offer that is suposedly "religious science", whatever that measn, form creatinist of ID sources would not BE science...

---

That was the point I made, and you just verified it. Creationists are in a no-win situation with you evo's.

---

But not for the reasons you probably think. What is "religious science"? From what I gather - and from what I have read - "religious science" is the type of "science" performed by individuals with prior commitments - sometimes via oath - to certain religiouos concepts. Any discoveries that do not lend credence to or at least fit within the framework established by those beliefs is ignored, rejected, or distorted. Is that hyperbole? Ad hominem? Not at all. I possess several creationist books. I have 4 issues (and have read many others) of CRSQ. And in each one, one can find obvious examples of what I mentioned. For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

quote:

---

quote:

---

...Of course, one should dumb down the concept in a manner that at least is a genrally correct reflection of the concept...

---

So at least we agree on one thing.

---

Indeed. So describing evolution as "microbe to man" is such nonsense.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your pigheaded refusal to acknowledge event he baselessness of your 'syllogism' deserved the wrath it got.

---

ad hominem

---

No, exhibition of the truth.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The easiest, best way to avoid getting crushed is to simply stop making ridiculous posts.

---

​

Well, I have learned alot from these past weeks. Some of the posts may seem riduclous to you, but only because you are at the other end of the spectrum.

---

No, one's "worldview" need not enter into the observation of illogic.

quote:

---

If indeed, you were a creationist, you would agree that humans are not animals, and the post would make more sense.

---

If I believed that humans are not animals, your syllogism would still make no sense.

quote:

---

At any rate, let bygones be bygones and keep the civil discussions going.

---

Fine by me. Of course, I will continue to call them like I see them. Don't confuse that with being uncivil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
... What is "religious science"? From what I gather - and from what I have read - "religious science" is the type of "science" performed by individuals with prior commitments - sometimes via oath - to certain religiouos concepts. Any discoveries that do not lend credence to or at least fit within the framework established by those beliefs is ignored, rejected, or distorted. Is that hyperbole? Ad hominem? Not at all. I possess several creationist books. I have 4 issues (and have read many others) of CRSQ. And in each one, one can find obvious examples of what I mentioned. For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

Sounds like you just described "evolutionary science". "Prior commitments" to naturalism at all cost. If evidence doesn't match naturalistic belief or "framework", it is "ignored, rejected, or distorted". ie. utter lack of transitional fossils, inability of natural selection (and random mutation) to advance organisms to higher order, origin of life & matter - mystery, etc.Regards,
S

quote:

---

For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

MEGAROTFL! Scott, you are correct that the above would indeed be circular reasoning and not science at all. I’d be curious to know which article in the CRSQ this is.But the reason for the MEGAROTFL is the huge dose of irony you threw out yet again. You are on a roll today! You engaged in the same flawed logic when you claimed the Wu article contradicted Haldane’s substitution number: 404 Not Found And as such, it is not science at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
... What is "religious science"? From what I gather - and from what I have read - "religious science" is the type of "science" performed by individuals with prior commitments - sometimes via oath - to certain religiouos concepts. Any discoveries that do not lend credence to or at least fit within the framework established by those beliefs is ignored, rejected, or distorted. Is that hyperbole? Ad hominem? Not at all. I possess several creationist books. I have 4 issues (and have read many others) of CRSQ. And in each one, one can find obvious examples of what I mentioned. For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

​

Sounds like you just described "evolutionary science". "Prior commitments" to naturalism at all cost. If evidence doesn't match naturalistic belief or "framework", it is "ignored, rejected, or distorted".

---

The difference between what I wrote and your attempt at cooption of what I wrote is that I can present concrete examples supportive of my claims. You can only provide opinion.

quote:

---

ie. utter lack of transitional fossils,

---

I may have asked you before - what would you consider 'transitional' and why?

quote:

---

inability of natural selection (and random mutation) to advance organisms to higher order,

---

Your uninformed opinion is noted and found wanting.

quote:

---

origin of life & matter - mystery, etc.

---

Irrelevant, etc...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-04-2003]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

MEGAROTFL! Scott, you are correct that the above would indeed be circular reasoning and not science at all. I’d be curious to know which article in the CRSQ this is.[/quote]Robinson, D. Ashley, and David P. Cavanaugh. 1998a. A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34(4):196—208I had an online conversation - or tried to - with Robinson. It was funny - first he denied knowledge of the paper (maybe he was embarrassed?), then, after he admitted it, I asked for the dataset (which the paper says is "available upon request") and he said he had no idea where it was.Guess he didn't want the real truth to be widely known.

quote:

---

But the reason for the MEGAROTFL is the huge dose of irony you threw out yet again. You are on a roll today! You engaged in the same flawed logic when you claimed the Wu article contradicted Haldane’s substitution number:

​

404 Not Found

​

And as such, it is not science at all.

---

You can roll on the floor all you want to, however,it will not make you ill-informed nonsense any more correct.
Nor will it erase that odd tendency creationists have of repeatedly brearing false witness (http://geocities.com/huxter4441/Williams.html).
The 'dilemma' isn't, never was, and for the ten-thousandth time, even if ReMine's numbers are correct (there is little reason to believe they are) no creationist has EVER presented a sginle piece of evidence demonstrating that the concept has merit - indeed, you wrote once that you freley admitted that there is no such evidence.
Of course, that doesn't stop you form repeating it over and over, hawking it at any website you happen upon, and, of course, insulting anyone that doesn't buy your drivel.Overconfidence premised on flawed and selective understandings of real science have always been the Achilles heel of creationists.You are no exception.Find any mutations that reproduce yet?Or explain why selection coefficients alter reproductive capacity?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-04-2003]

Just to reiterate...

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

​

MEGAROTFL! Scott, you are correct that the above would indeed be circular reasoning and not science at all. I’d be curious to know which article in the CRSQ this is.

---

Robinson, D. Ashley, and David P. Cavanaugh. 1998a. A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34(4):196—208I had an online conversation - or tried to - with Robinson. It was funny - first he denied knowledge of the paper (maybe he was embarrassed?), then, after he admitted it, I asked for the dataset (which the paper says is "available upon request") and he said he had no idea where it was.Guess he didn't want the real truth to be widely known...

To all parties participating in this thread: I stumbled upon this site while doing some general searches on Yahoo (search: Cultural Fallacies & Truisms; Pattern Recognition & Belief Structures; Pattern Recognition & Primative Cultures). I'm not the type to sit in front of this machine for hours and surf the web, having spent a large part of my life as a CAD operator. This thread happened, for whatever reason, to be the one that came up, and I got sucked in.I realize why those involved in science continue to bang their heads against the wall of stubborn and illogical belief structures. Many feel, like I do, that we have an obligation not to change others beliefs, but at the very least, by correcting the logical inconsistencies of their arguments that possibly they may move on and come to a higher appreciation of those very beliefs. The point seemed to be completely missed or misunderstood by the creationists in this debate that many men of science (good, real, consequence providing science) are indeed members of the faithful. True Christians. True Muslims. True Hebrews. True whatevers.I am not. A believer that is. I am a skeptic and a true agnostic. By true agnostic I mean that through much study and research and reflection I have come to realize that there is no definative, final proof that god exists or does not exist. Nor the soul or an afterlife. It probably is apparent in my use of the lowercase that in my heart of hearts that I am actually an atheist. That is, if I must for some unforseeable reason make a definite choice as to what I believe I would have to honestly choose atheism, aware all the while that I am making a choice based on a subjective personal analysis of information in my possession and correctly understood by me.Although there are many good arguments for a belief oriented philosophy I saw none of them posted in this debate.The reason I decided to post a reply was because of Percy's idea of seperating the Forums into novice and expert class. The comments above shed some light on why the combatants are unwilling to disengage. I suspect that whatever criteria were selected to differentiate novice from expert would not be acceptable to one camp or the other and this site would devolve into irrelevancy. I do agree that this very long thread quickly became pointless to anyone who engages in critical thinking.Thank you all for a very entertaining evening and now I must figure out how I am going to funtion today without any sleep.