Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   A general discussion of debate (goals)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 57 (364534)
11-18-2006 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
11-18-2006 7:11 AM


Re: How is this a disagreement?
Having read your posts on this thread, I genuinely can't work out if you're satirizing YEC or agreeing with it.
If you are agreeing with it, then I would reply, with Einstein, that "Raefiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boeschaft ist Er nicht". God is subtle, but He is not malicious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 11-18-2006 7:11 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 57 (364535)
11-18-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
11-17-2006 7:21 PM


Re: Group Think
I don't know that there's a table of stats on this, but many scientists go Biblical from being avid evolutionists due to the evidence they find as to the problems of evolution and due to the evidence they discover as to the credibility of the Biblical record as per things like fullfilled prophecy, personal experiences, statistics of social benefits, et al.
That was very, very strange.
First you say that you don't know whether anyone's tried to count these people, and then in the next breath you say that there are "many" of them.
This is like saying "I don't know whether anyone's seen the far side of the Moon, but it's pink".
If you don't even know whether anyone's tried to find out the facts, then how the heck do you know what the facts are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 7:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 57 (364536)
11-18-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by purpledawn
11-18-2006 7:52 AM


Re: Short OT

Contents hidden.
I'm not familiar with the history, but if you'd like to politely invite further discussion in the appropriate thread that would be fine.
--Admin
Oh for Pete's sake.
Maybe you're a creationist.
OK, so you're a creationist, you hate biology. But will you just go back to the bit where you believe in the magic tree and the talking snake, and leave aside the stupid **** where you turn your child into a plague pit?
I mean, if you're a creationist, your crazy stupid cult requires you to deny evolution, but do you have to kill children? That's not in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, it's not part of your religion, it's just your stupidity and arrogance killing children. No part of your religion says that you have to deny the facts in order to kill children. Neither your own children, nor other people's children. No part of your dogma says that you have to murder children. Please do not kill children.
If you are a creationist, your beliefs requires you to deny the theory of evolution, but what part of your stupid dogma requires you to reject the germ theory of disease?
Please. Do not kill children.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 7:52 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 11-18-2006 10:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 11:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 34 of 57 (364539)
11-18-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
11-18-2006 10:38 AM


I think you have seriously overreacted to purpledawn's post.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:51 AM nwr has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 57 (364540)
11-18-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
11-18-2006 10:48 AM


Possibly. But whereas the creationists are just wrong, and I can debate them, any form of the anti-vaccination gibberish ... kills children.
Well, you've read my response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 11-18-2006 10:48 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 11-18-2006 10:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 36 of 57 (364541)
11-18-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
11-18-2006 10:51 AM


I can agree with that. But I didn't see any "anti-vaccination gibberish" in purpledawn's post, merely a question to buzsaw as to whether he subscribed to such positions.
Perhaps you intended to be responding to buzsaw.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 57 (364542)
11-18-2006 11:07 AM


Topic Folk
"A general discussion of debate (goals)"
The topic is on Goals in debate. It is not about whether Homeopathy is a viable form of medicine or whether folk should be vaccinated.
Let's try to stick to the subject.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


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


    Message 38 of 57 (364547)
    11-18-2006 11:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
    11-18-2006 10:38 AM


    The Debate
    PurpleDawn's a creationist.
    PurpleDawn hates biology.
    Thanks Doc, that was the best laugh I've had all day.
    In line with the topic on the goal of debate, isn't part of the goal to understand your opponent's position? Jumping to conclusions with no evidence is not a viable way to understand your opponent's position.
    Your post has shown that we can't provide accurate responses if we don't clearly understand our opponent's position.
    I think one of the other goals of the debate, especially since we are in a science forum, is to provide evidence so that our opponent can also attempt to understand our position and how we got there.
    Your post was a rant and provided no learning potential for either of us. A good laugh for many, but not much in the learning arena.
    I don't enjoy arguing. I enjoy learning. That's why I stayed here.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:08 PM purpledawn has replied

      
    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3643 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 39 of 57 (364551)
    11-18-2006 11:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
    11-18-2006 9:53 AM


    Re: One man's "truth"
    I suppose those who believe truth is so simple that there can be only one truth, more accurately, one expression of truth, have to believe this.
    You have obviously learned much. But surely such a belief in only one "truth" is the remit of you and your Christian brothers? Interesting that you see beyond this...
    True fundamentalist scientists understand this. That is why their voice is much more quiet and you don't hear from them or about them on the Internet. The time to go public is when you have legitimate results to announce and not before
    But what can they achieve? You already claim to have the truth. Surely, they can give you no further assurance. Is it their hope that their theories, once ready, will succeed where the evangelist fails? To my mind, they would be better putting their talents to work in mainstream science for the benefit of all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by Percy, posted 11-18-2006 9:53 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by Percy, posted 11-19-2006 2:39 AM cavediver has replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 40 of 57 (364552)
    11-18-2006 12:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
    11-18-2006 11:26 AM


    Re: The Debate
    PurpleDawn's a creationist.
    PurpleDawn hates biology.
    Thanks Doc, that was the best laugh I've had all day.
    Well, so it appeared.
    If you could make yourself clearer, I could give a more precise response.
    It seemed that you were an anti-vaccer: if not, I apologize sincerely, and will add (which, in that case, is obvious) that I've made a fool of myself.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 11:26 AM purpledawn has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 12:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


    Message 41 of 57 (364557)
    11-18-2006 12:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
    11-18-2006 12:08 PM


    Re: The Debate
    quote:
    Well, so it appeared.
    Appeared from what?
    Even if I am anti-vaccination, that doesn't mean I hate biology, that I'm a creationist, or believe in talking snakes.
    The EvC Home pages says: Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue. How can you build a better understanding by lumping everything together?
    Just as all those who accept TOE aren't automatically atheists, everyone who disagrees with a scientific result isn't automatically a creationist.
    IMO, it is imperative in a debate situation to be open to possible variables, not get blinded by one's own crusade.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:40 PM purpledawn has replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5819 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 42 of 57 (364558)
    11-18-2006 12:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
    11-16-2006 9:20 PM


    There is an absolute existence that we try to describe through our system of beliefs. Where our beliefs differ from observable fact, it is necessary for us to alter our beliefs to fit the facts.
    I don't think this is how a scientist approaches a topic. A more accurate statement would be...
    There is an empirical existence that we try to describe via theories of how observed phenomena relate to each other. Because we are trying to describe the world as we sense it, where our theories conflict with observation (sensation), it is necessary to alter our theories to account for the new observation.
    The idea that our empirical existence is related or accurate to an absolute existence is a philosophical (metaphysical) position and not scientific.
    I think this is where Percy is coming from. A fundamentalist scientist could easily accept the above (altered) statement and work well as a scientist, while on a philosophical level feel (have faith) there is some disconnect between the empirical and absolute (temporary from a failed perspective or permanent for some other reason).
    I agree that some scientists DO approach science in the way you describe, but they are in error. I also agree that some (perhaps most) creos approach science in the way you describe them as doing, but they are also in error (which seems to be what Percy is arguing).
    I think there are people on both sides that simply will not listen to reason, nor entertain scientific methods or conclusions on a variety of topics. Errant creos are simply easier to spot as they are gathered around a specific subject to throw out scientific method. And they do so more readily.
    My initial intention at EvC was to specifically engage in debate with ID theorists to get more information on their movement and arguments. It widened to working on my debate/writing skills in general, as well as promoting proper logic and scientific method in general. Ironically some of the most fervent "defenders" of science have been the most atrocious in its misuse and misunderstanding on subjects beyond direct EvC topics.
    I think it is worth continuing debate for all of the reasons mentioned by others, REGARDLESS of whether a specific individuals will change their minds about something:
    1) It improves one's base of knowledge and skill in writing
    2) Some may actually change their position as they increase their base of knowledge
    3) You yourself may actually change your position as you increase your base of knowledge
    4) Others who are not involved with direct debate may come to understand something they would not otherwise.

    holmes
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 11-16-2006 9:20 PM Nuggin has not replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 43 of 57 (364561)
    11-18-2006 12:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
    11-18-2006 12:29 PM


    Re: The Debate
    If you are, in fact, an anti-vaccinator, but not a creationist, then I would repeat my previous remarks only more strongly. There is nothing, not even a crackpot religion, which requires you to be so stupid and so arrogant and so lethal to other people.
    Are you an anti-vaccinator? You have not said. You've just danced around the issue.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 12:29 PM purpledawn has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 11-18-2006 12:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
     Message 45 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2006 1:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied
     Message 46 by AdminNWR, posted 11-18-2006 1:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
     Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 44 of 57 (364562)
    11-18-2006 12:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
    11-18-2006 12:40 PM


    Re: The Debate
    One could say the same thing about "pro-choice". In fact, some people do say the same thing about "pro-choice".
    Edited by Chiroptera, : edited last sentence

    Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5819 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 45 of 57 (364564)
    11-18-2006 1:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
    11-18-2006 12:40 PM


    Re: The Debate
    There is nothing, not even a crackpot religion, which requires you to be so stupid and so arrogant and so lethal to other people.
    I have a science background and am not anti-vaccination, but I have no understanding where this conclusion is coming from.
    Why is choosing to allow a person (presumably onesself or one's child) to be exposed to disease as they naturally would stupid, arrogant, or lethal? It is a risk to be sure, but then offset by some emotional gain that is valid for them, regardless of whether you feel it.
    Perhaps in the vein of this thread, are you open to changing your mind on this subject, and if not is continued debate worthy?

    holmes
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 2:15 PM Silent H 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