|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4575 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
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*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yes but does sophie have the right to choose? isn't the choice already made?
ah the joys of intellectual imperialism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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 Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Missed this in all the excitement, but I like it.
quote: "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024