|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Just a question... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 6018 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
haha sneering from my cross...that's a pretty funny image.
Are you aware of how wolves fight and kill each other, ringo? It's pretty much the same in your pack, too, i see... And don't confuse your running pack mentality with concensus, either. Edited by itrownot, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
While this is a coffee house thread and thus is more lightly moderated. You are beginning to be a bit too disrespectful and need to reread the forum guidelines again I think.
You are wasting bits right now. If this continues you will have a half day or a day of suspension from posting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 6018 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
noseyned,
I'll just take the day off tomorrow, ok? that sounds good to me, and that'll save on some bits I guess, since I won't be fighting off the pack all day--yeah, I'll be sneering from my cross all day being disrespectful to no one. thanks for the suggestion...& a pleasant goodnight to you all. Edited by itrownot, : improved for consumption
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
you had been prompted (say, by a "still, small voice") to answer the question, "What is your favorite portrait?" and you had answered unequivocally, "the Mona Lisa...THAT is my favorite portrait!" That only makes it more likely that you would see that painting in an arrangement of random brushstrokes. How many people will say they like the Mona Lisa best, anyway? You've pretty much got to have a better-than-average knowledge of art history to even be able to name any painting besides the Mona Lisa. Your "evidence", just like all putative "evidence" for supernatural powers and divine presences, completely evaporates under scrutiny. And we're not even talking about your real evidence, right? These are just made-up scenarios, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That's fine. But I still would love to see a Creationist Model that explains the world we live in?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
the contradiction is only apparent. Using the words "empirical evidence" and then stating that it cannot be used persuasively for anyone else is a contradiction by the definition of the words.
You and ringo are insisting that I conform to your closely guarded glossary of terms, not for the sake of good communication, as you claim, but rather to pretend that others are unable to communicate, and perhaps are bit addle-brained in our thinking as well. No, you're simply wrong, as the dictionary definitions and scientific usages show. And if we can't agree on the definitions of words, or can change their definitions by placing them in quotes, no discourse can proceed.
ou've over-restricted the broader meanings one normally associates with certain words and you demand that all others must abide by your rules, and that's it, take it or leave it. Becasue allowing for the incorrect usage of meaningful terms, even if the inaccuracy is common, is what results in Creationists saying "well, Evolution is just a theory after all. I have another theory." This is misleading to the point of being a lie at worst, and at best is a demonstration of gross ignorance.
You and your like-minded associates out-number me, by my count so far, by at least 10 to 1 on this thread, so of course you'll insist that I'm not using words as they're defined, and of course your like-minded associates will heartily agree. Gotcha. Gee, I've never seen a Creationist with a persecution complex. Could it be that you're being ganged up on becasue you're actually wrong? And I take offense at the suggestion that we're using underhanded debate techniques. We've provided the proof that you're misusing words. You're the only one who insists that your incorrect usage is correct. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 6018 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, rahvin, that's bull. People here like to dish it out, but they can't seem to read something for its content rather that nitpicking it for "scientific correctness" at every turn, even though the poster has made efforts to qualify his statements. THAT is disrespectful. Why should anyone spend their time trying to communicate with you if you're going to confront them with this scientific correctness "gotcha" factor? The one exception to this was iceage, who seemed genuinely interested in the content of my posting. He was thoughtful enough to get beyond the issue of "scientific correctness"--at least long enough to hear me out, then he was considerate in his reply. Iceage has proven my point--dialogue can happen without freaking over the terminology all the time. The rest of you just kept "snapping and snarling and hurling insults" in the demand for "scientific correctness" at the expense of any conversation. This IS the coffee house, afterall. What a misnomer that is! This was my second thread, and I suppose it will be my last. I didn't even intend to participate in the "Just a question..." debate in the first place...I had only asked a simple, albeit "scientifically incorrect" question of jar, and offered what I thought was a respectful explanation as to why I was asking--then all hell broke loose at the coffee bar. But that doesn't matter, I'm just "whining" and "sneering down from my cross" at trhis point. Now noseyned has stepped in it too with a warning for me to stop being disrespectful and wasting his precious little bits. He says I need to reread the rules. Do the rules themselves protect "scientific correctness" on this forum? If so, then YOU are the ones "doomed to stagnation", I'm afraid. If not, then why can't people be more respectful of a post they don't understand. You yourself are accusing me of "lying" when I had in good faith insisted that putting quotation marks around a word DOES change the word by signalling to a reader your intention of employing the word in an altered sense of it, or in some other way perhaps. If this is not a time honored convention of usage in the English language, then I am wrong, but I'm NOT a liar. But of course I am NOT wrong about this, only frustrated that others apparently would rather fight ad nauseum about it than accept a difference of opinion and move on for discussion purposes. Oh, but I'm whining again, aren't I?
Well, yes, I guess I am. But then again, so are you all, too, if you care to admit it. Edited by itrownot, : Reply to Message 141, not as listed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, rahvin, that's bull. It's a debate forum. You're welcome to disagree with me as much as you like. Without disagreement, after all, there couldn't be debate.
People here like to dish it out, but they can't seem to read something for its content rather that nitpicking it for "scientific correctness" at every turn, even though the poster has made efforts to qualify his statements. The correct usage of terms is necessary in communicating content. I'll admit that we may be sensitive when it comes to certain words (theory, empirical, evidence, fact, etc), but this is because the opposing side of the debate uses them so dishonestly as in the case I mentioned earlier ("Evolution is only a theory!"). We are in the habit of correcting the usage of these terms out of necessity, becasue inaccurate definitions lead to incorrect conclusions.
Why should anyone spend their time trying to communicate with you if you're going to confront them with this scientific correctness "gotcha" factor? You aren't required to communicate with anyone. But if I misuse an important word on a debate forum, I expect to be corrected.
The one exception to this was iceage, who seemed genuinely interested in the content of my posting. He was thoughtful enough to get beyond the issue of "scientific correctness"--at least long enough to hear me out, then he was considerate in his reply. Iceage has proven my point--dialogue can happen without freaking over the terminology all the time. The rest of you just kept "snapping and snarling and hurling insults" in the demand for "scientific correctness" at the expense of any conversation. This IS the coffee house, afterall. What a misnomer that is! That's nice. But the coffee house is simply a place with less strict moderation - that doesn't mean the debaters are any more lenient.
This was my second thread, and I suppose it will be my last. Shame to lose a poster so quickly, but as the saying goes, "if you can't take the heat..."
I didn't even intend to participate in the "Just a question..." debate in the first place...I had only asked a simple, albeit "scientifically incorrect" question of jar, and offered what I thought was a respectful explanation as to why I was asking--then all hell broke loose at the coffee bar. We corrected your use of a word. You continued to respond, though you are under no obligation to do so. The "exit" you sought in previous posts is simply not hitting that "reply" button.
But that doesn't matter, I'm just "whining" and "sneering down from my cross" at trhis point. Not my words. I simply think you're stubborn and wrong. Well, okay, and you seem to have a persecution complex. But you're hardly alone there.
Now noseyned has stepped in it too with a warning for me to stop being disrespectful and wasting his precious little bits. He says I need to reread the rules. Do the rules themselves protect "scientific correctness" on this forum? In certain parts of the board, yes. The coffee house has less moderation, so you weren't suspended for refusing to meet accurate definitions after being corrected. That's a possibility in the science section, but not here. Doesn't mean the debaters themselves wont insist on accuracy, though. It also has allowed us all to go far afield of any topic without repercussions.
If so, then YOU are the ones "doomed to stagnation", I'm afraid. If not, then why can't people be more respectful of a post they don't understand. "Respect" does not mean "you have to agree with me." Neither does it mean "you should at least meet me partway." It also doesn't mean we won't call you on inaccuracies, or give you leeway on something we disagree with.
You yourself are accusing me of "lying" when I had in good faith insisted that putting quotation marks around a word DOES change the word by signalling to a reader your intention of employing the word in an altered sense of it, or in some other way perhaps. If I say "cat," can I mean "dog?" If I say "theory," or theory, is the word somehow different? Quotation marks do not denote a new definition of a word. If they do, then definitions are useless in the first place, and reasoned discourse is impossible. This is why maintaining some standards in the usage of terms is necessary - otherwise, we may as well be speaking different languages.
But of course I am NOT wrong about this, only frustrated that others apparently would rather fight ad nauseum about it than accept a difference of opinion and move on for discussion purposes. Well, we do like to argue. It's kind of why were here. Posting on a debate forum.
Oh, but I'm whining again, aren't I? Well, yes, I guess I am. But then again, so are you all, too, if you care to admit it. Tu quoque fallacy. Yes, we're both arguing off topic. Doesn't change the fact that we are right, and you are wrong. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 6018 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
Forget it, crashfrog. It's pointless to discuss this thing any further when I have already stated repeatedly that I wasn't trying to convince anyone, didn't intend to debate in the first place, and was only replying to inquiries made to me, which I thought fair to do. Yet you ignore this inconvenient truth to engage in a little ad hominem with me, what with noseyned worrying about the bitcount being wasted here.
BTW, when you say, "That only makes it more likely that you would see that painting in an arrangement of random brushstrokes" I just have to laugh. Are you suggesting that I MUST be hallucinating? That the reality of such a painting would be unverifiable? You apparently didn't read the post very well anyway, or else you wouldn't have made such an obtuse comment about it as this. Please spare Ned the bits by not replying to me again, no offense intended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 6018 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
hey, rahvin, I'll be brief, and just say I disagree with a few things still (and so what?). I can honestly say that I wasn't unaware that stricter ground rules do apply on this forum (including "proper" use of parentheses, I presume)--you are the first to have pointed that out to me directly. So, yeah, I needed to reread the rules, I guess.
It's really not a case of my not being able to take the heat, per se, that I will be curtailing future posts--one can become somewhat better conditioned to take heat, you know (particularly if & when one is properly acclimated to the rules of the kitchen!). It's rather more a case of limited availability of time for me, in combination with certain health concerns precluding any more late night posting sessions. I'll maybe try again sometime, though. See you later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I keep hearing that there is something called Creation Science and supposedly Creation Scientists yet cannot get anyone to come forward and present the Creation models that explain what is seen in the Universe we live in.
The current models we have do a pretty good job of explaining what is seen. There are still a few gaps, the actual mechanism involved in Abiogenesis, the very first few moments after the Big Bang, but much of what we see can be explained under the current models. Over the years here at EvC there have been a number of threads exploring such issues, Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found; Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.; The world and evironment 5767 years ago.; Unconformities and the age of the Earth: Challenge to Anti-Climacus and other YECs; Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III); Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages and How to make sand. as well as many others, no Creationist has ever been able to present a model for anything that stood up to examination. If there is some such thing as Creation Science and actual Creation Scientists, why is there absolutely no evidence of their existence? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Science is biased in favor of the evidence as observed. That was the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
That was the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. Do you have anything other than your own incredulity to back up your apparent assertion that science is biased in some way other than in favor of observable evidence? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
If there is some such thing as Creation Science and actual Creation Scientists, why is there absolutely no evidence of their existence? Yes there is such a thing as "creation science" and, yes, that are such creatures are "creation scientists". "Creation science" is a fraud and a deception designed to circumvent the US courts in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968). "Creation scientists" are the creators and perpetrators of that fraud and are themselves frauds. With the possible exception of their rank-and-file followers who are merely dupes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Do you have anything other than your own incredulity to back up your apparent assertion that science is biased in some way other than in favor of observable evidence? Robert Colbert heard on National Public Radio (quoted from memory):
quote: Edited by dwise1, :
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024