Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 91 of 255 (293370)
03-08-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-08-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
Faith,
Pardon me if I claim that my assertions didn't NEED backing up, they OUGHT to be obvious to anyone with a pea-sized brain in his head. That is my view.
Presumably that's why they are only obvious to you.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:44 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 255 (293371)
03-08-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-08-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
Pardon me if I claim that my assertions didn't NEED backing up, they OUGHT to be obvious to anyone with a pea-sized brain in his head. That is my view.
Your view is that your opponents are brainless simpletons?
And you wonder why you're treated rudely? Do you think that might have something to do with the way you treat others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 93 of 255 (293372)
03-08-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
03-08-2006 3:37 PM


Re: Something being overlooked
Crash... I think it's beyond clear at this point that Faith either does not grasp or is unwilling to acknowledge the difference between a simple explanation that fits complex data, and an explanation so grossly oversimplified that it cannot even be compared to complex data. The point needs to be made, but only for the sake of the peanut gallery.
I also think that arguing the specific issue of the flood as you and she are doing is squarely off-topic, or I'd have already answered that same post in a similar manner. Good answers regardless - the longer life is around, the more likely it is to die in any given spot. Duh. But I'm off topic too. *runs and hides*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2006 3:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 94 of 255 (293375)
03-08-2006 3:53 PM


Topic Reminder
The thread is for exploring why evolutionist arguments are so unsuccessful. While characterizations of the general nature of creationists are necessary, and while examples from threads here at EvC Forum are valuable, this thread is not for discussing the evidence for the flood or the behavior of any particular creationist.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 255 (293376)
03-08-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
03-08-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
Yes my view is that my opponents are brainless simpletons on these questions, and bullies and rude louts as well. That is my view. And I lose my temper because of the stupidity that passes for intelligence, of which this thread contains excellent specimens, and because of how I am treated, but never fear, there isn't a shred of objectivity from your side of this so I don't expect it to be recognized.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 03:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2006 3:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 4:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2006 4:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 100 by Admin, posted 03-08-2006 4:16 PM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 96 of 255 (293378)
03-08-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
03-08-2006 1:36 PM


Re: Know Your Audience
You are right, and I knew it at the beginning, but I sometimes fool myself into thinking Well maybe if I say it again... Doesn't happen.
if you say it again what? we'll just believe you and the flood and the bible and jesus? no. just repeating yourself isn't enough. you can't just say "oh this is better" and expect us to just fall in line. you have to say why this is better and be able to defend it. the problem isn't that you necessarily can't, but that you refuse to. i think it probably ties into the 'thomas is inferior' idea. you don't want to prove it to us because maybe no one proved it to you and why should we get proof when you didn't or someone else won't?
you and we 'evos' both need to realize that we work on different wavelengths. it is my assumption that you really do want to convince us. if that is the case, then you have to do so within our frame of the universe. you have to demonstrate how what you believe is right and just saying it is right isn't good enough. jesus didn't turn his back on the skeptics and neither should you. you just have to do what he did--approach us in our court. yes, it's hard. yes, it's unpleasant. yes, it's risky (we might convince you rather than the other). but if you win then it's great for you. don't give up the battle just because you can't choose the weapon.
*edit*
message 87. see. that's all we're asking for in the other thread. stuff with REAL evidential meat on it. just give us more.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-08-2006 04:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 97 of 255 (293380)
03-08-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
03-08-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
Faith writes:
Yes my view is that my opponents are brainless simpletons...etc...
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 03:56 PM
Wow! I wonder what the original was like!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 255 (293381)
03-08-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
03-08-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
Oh, poor Faith. My heart bleeds, it truly does.
I mean, how awful for you! To not be allowed to call people infantile playground names without being treated poorly in return, and left with only the alternative of actually supporting your arguments with evidence. Indeed, you're jammed between a rock and a hard place, aren't you? It's a regular Sophie's Choice. How will you ever survive?
Maybe we should take a collection...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2006 4:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 99 of 255 (293382)
03-08-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
03-08-2006 4:06 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
yes but does sophie have the right to choose? isn't the choice already made?
ah the joys of intellectual imperialism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2006 4:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 100 of 255 (293384)
03-08-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
03-08-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Being at a disadvantage
Faith,
If you feel strongly enough about it then you should bring your concerns to the General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel thread so that either AdminBuzsaw or AdminChristian, both of whom are creationists, can investigate, but please allow this thread to resume on-topic discussion. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 255 (293386)
03-08-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
03-08-2006 2:15 PM


In an attempt to bring to an end the off-topic portions of this discussion, let me provide what I hope will be a better response to this exchange between Faith and me:
Percy as quoted by Faith writes:
Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?
Faith writes:
The bolded part explains the madness that prevails here.
Percy writes:
I thought I was saying that from an uninformed perspective it might seem like a flood was responsible, but once you know the whole story it becomes clear a flood couldn't possibly have been the cause. If that is also your interpretation, could you explain why my statement seems like madness to you?
Faith writes:
Basically because the "whole story" is nothing but conjecture that cannot be tested or proved, and requires specific ad hoc explanations for each little bit of phenomena...
I guess I still don't understand where the madness comes in. We disagree about what can be tested and supported, and about whether explanations are ad hoc, but the mere presence of disagreement doesn't seem to merit classifying a position as "madness". Can you provide more clarification about why the evolutionist position on the flood seems like madness to you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 102 of 255 (293390)
03-08-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mark24
03-08-2006 12:35 PM


Better Answer
quote:
Imagine you have two balls, one red, one blue. They both make the same sound when they roll off of the table. You put both balls on the table, close your eyes & hear a thud. This is not indicative that the red ball fell off of the table. See what I mean? Fossils in mountains does not indicate that the flood put the mountains there when there is a perfectly valid alternative explanation. We need to test between them.
And as myself if you had given me something to that effect when I asked instead essentially repeating what you said in the OP, then you would have sparked doubt in the original statement. If I'm so inclined, I'll go check it out or maybe ask more questions. Even if I don't ask anymore questions, the spark is still there for others.
quote:
but to nullify the presented evidence as uninformative for what it is supposed to indicate.
What you gave me didn't spark any doubt in the original statements.
I will tell you that along my path to my present state of mind (whatever you may presume that to be) tiny sparks like what I have described are what keep me looking. They mark the trail.
Again, what's the goal?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 12:35 PM mark24 has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 103 of 255 (293399)
03-08-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
03-08-2006 1:53 PM


Re: Seeking Evolution's 2LOT
Missed this in all the excitement, but I like it.
quote:
Creationist:Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood.
Evolutionist:But the ocean sea shells aren't just atop the mountains, they're *all through* the mountains. That because layers and layers of sea shells were deposited on ancient sea floors where they were gradually compressed into stone by the weight of the layers and water above. Later these sea floors were pushed up by tectonic forces into mountains. Not only will you find sea shells atop these mountains, but dig as deep as you will and you'll continue to find sea shells.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 1:53 PM Percy has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 104 of 255 (293406)
03-08-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by LinearAq
03-08-2006 3:18 PM


Re: Indefensible Evidence
quote:
Are you saying that someone's "evidence" should not be countered just because it is evidence enough for them?
No that's not what I'm saying.
If you've got a scientist who has laid out a great scientific argument, counter in like kind; but when you have a nonscience person like me, keep it simple.
If the assertion is simple, counter simply. The ball's in their court then.
The analogies that Ringo (Message 51) and Mark24 (Message 39) and the response by Percy (Message 60) are my idea of more productive responses to general assertions or opinions.
quote:
So the truth is not important, only that which satisfies is important.
On this forum I think everyone who posts thinks what they have written is the truth.
If one person gives me information I can check and the other one doesn't or their information doesn't check out, I can discern the truth. Why waste a post saying someone is wrong when your post should show it. You just get into personal battles.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2006 3:18 PM LinearAq has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 105 of 255 (293435)
03-08-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 2:15 PM


Re: What does it relate too?
Faith has made it quite obvious that she cannot support her points and is now simply trying to bully people into accepting her opinions. That's the other side of these threads - exposing creationists for what they are - and the creationists often cooperate nicely.
Why are fossils all over the world evidence for the Flood ? Fossils will accumulate wherever conditions are right. With hundreds of millions of years available there should be a lot of fossils in a lot of places. Some of them are even formed in very dry conditions (e.g. buried in a sandstorm).
So at best this very superficial point is not very telling. And if we consider more evidence - such as the fossils formed in dry conditions, the order in the fossil record, the fact that the Flood cannot account for the rocks the fossils are embedded in - the Flood explanation doesn't even appear to be viable.
So we get to another question. Can a superficial statement of the evidence be considered "staggering" evidence at all, unless it is something very exceptional ? I would have to say that in general it could not be because there is too much room for further data that could completely change the assessment. As there is in this case.t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 2:15 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 7:31 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024