|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A general discussion of debate (goals) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
"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:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024