|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Topic Proposal Issues | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only way that thread is going to be functional is if people stop interrogating me as if I were a scientist which I'm not, and try to deal with what they understand to be YEC objections.
What *exactly* WOULD happen to workaday science if you had to work with a different time frame in mind? Tell ME since you think it would be so devastating. Explain how FACTS, DATA and hypothesizing about them would be specifically affected by having a different time frame in mind. What is really frustrating is having to encounter these ridiculously irrelevant straw man arguments in the middle of such a discussion. Do I really have to answer again this stupid idea that YEC's are challenging the kind of science that has brought us technological advances? Are people that ignorant about what YEC is trying to say? Do I really have to deal with this imputing to me the utterly ridiculous idea that I must think that a mile's deep stack of sediments was laid down SIMULTANEOUSLY?? Are you THINKING? I'd just as soon the thread stays closed since dealing with this kind of stupidity is not worth it. Of course you can open it and I'll just leave if you like and you can congratulate each other on your straw men. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
I'd just as soon the thread stays closed since dealing with this kind of stupidity is not worth it. Of course you can open it and I'll just leave if you like and you can congratulate each other on your straw men. Faith, luv, the thread is not about you. You don't have to participate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's what I said Omni. I'll leave and you can all congratulate each other since you won't have a YEC to set you straight.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's what I said Omni. I'll leave and you can all congratulate each other since you won't have a YEC to set you straight. a yec to set us straight about science -- when the yec keeps proclaiming ignorance of the subject? it seems to me that running into an argument and shouting "I DON'T KNOW!" at the top of your lungs is not the best way to win it.
What *exactly* WOULD happen to workaday science if you had to work with a different time frame in mind? Tell ME since you think it would be so devastating. Explain how FACTS, DATA and hypothesizing about them would be specifically affected by having a different time frame in mind. this is why we need the thread open, so people can answer this very claim. because facts are not determined by frame of mind. geology is not philosophy or a mindset, it's a science.
Are people that ignorant about what YEC is trying to say? Do I really have to deal with this imputing to me the utterly ridiculous idea that I must think that a mile's deep stack of sediments was laid down SIMULTANEOUSLY?? Are you THINKING? yes, faith, i am thinking. the problem is that many yec's are not. i apologize for misrepresenting your position, but you should realize that many yec's do deny the law of superposition. i did not just make that position up out of thin air.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Regarding the topic Appeal for Multidisciplinary Outlet. Adminnemousses states:
quote: Not entirely, to me it was rather a trigger to what has been bouncing around in my head for a few months. The concept has become particularly strong recently since I am reading "The Courtier and the Heretic" and it covers the differences between Spinoza and Liebniz in philosophy, religion, politics, and science. To whom it may concern: please treat my suggestion in Appeal for a Multidisciplinary Outlet as a completely independent suggestion, not as part of the closed thread concerning YEC Problems with Science Above and Beyond Evolution. Sorry if I am in the wrong place. Just wanted to clarify what I meant.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ahem, um.
the problem with this debate is that it IS multidisciplinary. which means that fights tend to carry across threads. in other words, "too late."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
moose, in the other thread, you wrote:
Almost all of the other opinions are that I was wrong in closing this topic. I think all those opinions are wrong and that this topic is a disaster area in the making, but the micro-masses have spoken. isn't nearly every topic here a disaster in the making? lol.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Faith writes: That's what I said Omni. I'll leave and you can all congratulate each other since you won't have a YEC to set you straight. ![]() Well, I hadn't participated there. There are so many threads at EvC that I now consider carefully where I want to get involved, given the demands that are typically (and rightly) made for evidence and responses. Of course, if Percy would put me on the payroll, I'd just post all day! My intention was simply to suggest that you just let some threads go. If you do a drive-by broadside, esp. with excoriating terms like idiotic or silly, and then expect to walk away or only sporadically participate in the thread, you've done a disservice to your own position and to the other participants. But I mostly intended to suggest letting some things go by without you to promote your peace of mind. I'm always happy to see a YEC supporter in any debate. I have little interest in an amen chorus of scientists or anyone else.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
My suggested rephrasing of Premise 1
1 Transcendant objective values of good and evil only exist if God exists. (That seems the easiest phrasing in plain English. Using the notation of formal logic I'd go for the equivalent of "The nonexistence of God implies the nonexistence of transcendant objective values of good and evil"). {At the moment, what this refers to is obvious. For future reference, it is about this "Proposed New Topic". When refering to things in other topics, supplying links is a good thing. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed previous edit a bit. Use "preview" dummy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
1 Transcendant objective values of good and evil only exist if God exists. The above suggestion is good, but... - The premise 1 of the PNT is rather muddled. Are we doing "If God, then..." or are we doing "If..., then God"? Your suggestion could be rephrased "If God exists, then transcendant objective values of good and evil exist". Iano seems to be doing "If transcendant objective values of good and evil exist, then God exists". Adminnemooseus
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You're wrong about the rephrasing - "only...if" implies a necessary but not sufficient condition. However your phrasing might make Iano's argument a little clearer. However I don't think that that is much of an issue because the argument is formally valid, but the truth of the premises is very much in question (the 2nd in the sense that we need to identify the observed "evil" as objective evil - which is rather hard to do withotu adding more premises).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3938 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I am game to participate in a many vs many GD as long as robin agrees to keep it civil. By necessity of the argument I will be attacking the basis for his reasoning. If he continues to find this "offensive" then I have will nothing more to say.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If Robin wants to discuss the differences between formal logic and informal reasoning then I'm game.
However I have serious doubts about the OP if that is to be the subject. Essentially it says "I have a criticism of Jazzns's debating style - he criticises my debating style and that's wrong". If the OP is just an excuse for having a go at Jazz - and relies on a double standard to do so - then I don't think that it should be promoted as is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
That is my concern as well.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Not a debate thread. Save that for the thread if it gets promoted. If he continues to find this "offensive" then I have will nothing more to say. What's offensive is the sweeping generalization, the blanket condemnation. Edited by AdminJar, : Off Topic
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024