Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

S:
You are interpreting my post in a way to make me look ridiculous, in stead of trying to interpret in a way that is intendend, or most meaningful. It's just a lawyertrick.M: My intention is not to make you look ridiculous but to make you (or attempt to) substantiate your claims. This is not a trick. You assert without supporting your assertion and then compare me to the nazi's and any other insult you can throw because I don't just accept whatever you say.S:
I previously posted what I thought the main difference was, which was just the same as everybody else here thinks, the intellectual capabilities.M: You claimed that the differences were self evident and that this was sufficient to support your claim. That is bogus. While some aspects of our intellectual capabilities are more developed than in other animals this no more separates us from other animals than the fact that cheetahs's can run faster than other mammals. Therefore, unless you can come up with something novel, I consider it a failure on your part to support your assertions with evidence that we are biologically a separate entity on earth relative to the rest of the animals.S:
I was just saying that it's not a matter of some particular religious doctrine that humans and animals are distinct, but that this is plain fact common to people of all kinds of religion, or without any religion.M: Define a plain fact. I also don't see that it is widely accepted among the educated (religious or not) that your beliefs are self evident.S:
Again, you obviously don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, that's why you use lawyertricks. You simply have no clue that you may end up a liar this way.M: And you obviously do not know how to support your assertions. It is both egomanaical and dishonest of you to claim that your views are self evident and correct without accepting the burden of substantiating them. Perhaps it is your own morality you should be questioning.And since you keep bringing up moral risk (whatever that is supposed to imply) are you suggesting that if you were to accept that humans are primates (and placental mammals) that we should expect you to go on a wild killing spree and that the only thing holding you back is your "self evident" belief that we are an alien life form on earth?cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
To argue with a moral risk means that you concede the possiblity that your position may be liarous, or expressing your own corruption.

​

I didnt' accuse you of being a Nazi, I was just pointing out that the human-animal distinction has much significance in Holocaust studies. Your response as well as the responses of some others are completely infantile.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

M: Perhaps my responses are infantile but at least they are not evasive. The burden of proof is on you. Show your supporting evidence that humans are not animals before you accuse me of some bizarre form of corruption. That you are now resorting solely to name calling rather than supporting your position starts to make me think you have no case

Hey, here is a clever way to publish ..maybe there is some business here for Ten-sai?Nature 420, 597 (2002)
Ousted creationist sues over website
GEOFF BRUMFIEL
[WASHINGTON]A Tennessee creationist is suing the operators of a popular physics website that refused to publish his alternative Big Bang hypothesis.Robert Gentry, a lifelong Seventh-Day Adventist, filed the suit in the district court at Knoxville, Tennessee, against the operators of the arXiv preprint server, claiming that they refused a series of ten of his papers because of their religious content. Counsel representing the chief defendant, Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, says the claims have no merit and that the university has the right to choose what appears on the site.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

​

if humans = animals
then mathematically, animals = humans.

---

​

Is it safe to conclude that you have never taken a math class either?

​

Really, this is just getting plain stupid.

---

*******************Well, to be fair, he did say he wanted a description of evolution a 6 year old could understand. So it stands to reason he would use a "mathematical" proof a 6 year old might produce I guess next we will be asked to explain why there are no fossil relatives of Barney or the Teletubbies.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Having a rough idea of the background of the person you're discussing with helps a lot. Some kids come in here and say, "Hey, I'm a kid." Other kids try to pretend they're adults, and how are we to know? Was Sonnikke trying to make some subtle point that we haven't detected yet, or was he being serious when he asked if we believed animals are humans? If he was serious, does he deserve explanations or ridicule? And is this the level of dialogue most people are hoping for?M: Hi Percy. I think it is obvious that the level of dialogue is not at the level most of us (Quetzal, mark24, SLPx, etc.) want. Things were much better when (hate to admit it) Peter Borger was around. Not because I think anything Peter proposed had particular merit, but though things got heated rather frequently, almost all posts were laced with scientific references. Also most of Peter's challenges were based on some aspect of evolution as opposed to the current crop of arguments like "if humans are animals are all animals humans". The benefit for me from the past arguments was that I often had to read references outside my direct expertise and often got references from others that were very interesting i.e. the entire W. nobilis thread. I think the drop in the activity in the Evolution forum is indicative that the debate is not at a level anyone really appreciates.
P:
One idea I've been entertaining is to have two levels of forums. The novice forums would be for everyone. The expert forums would be only for those who have demonstrated a capacity for informed discussion through their participation in the novice forums. This is just an idea at this point, but I think it has some potential.M: If you do proceed with this, how would you implement it? Someone could be an expert on evolution but be a novice in the the subjects covered in the Big Bang thread. Would it be expert/novice by forum?Cheers,
M

F:
I also see problems with the implementation of this idea. I enjoy reading threads that I don't know enough to ultimately participate in, but I do enjoy being able to interject questions into the discussion. Even though I do not have a mastery of the subject.I can understand the frustration with some of the ignorant creationist/theist posts that are made on this board. Though I think you guys have proved, just through your dealings with me that you have some class. I enjoy this forum quite alot, it has been an excellent source of information, and inspiration.M:Hi funkmasterfreaky
I have to agree. Segregating the forum based on expertise would probably be more discouraging of participation than encouraging. Though some threads do degenerate now and then, overall I think the discussion are interesting. And people have a right to their own opinions even if others will disagree...which is partly why we come here to argue. The threads already mostly segregate themselves i.e. Evolution usually contains more technical debates with fewer people posting but a fairly regular crowd. My guess is those with less expertise are lurkers or those who occassionally post on a specific topic. Forums like Faith and Belief tend to have a wider number and variety of people posting. I don't see a problem even if a particular thread may now and then break down....like this one for example cheers,
M

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