Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For FFGFollower - Here's your chance!
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 42 (43237)
06-17-2003 9:47 PM


Closing This Thread
I can't be certain that this thread is spiraliing out of control, but I'm not going to take the chance.
This thread is closed.
[Added by edit:]
NosyNed posted a productive comment just as I was about to close the thread. I'll leave this thread open for tonight and see what's developed tomorrow morning.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 06-17-2003]

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 42 (43238)
06-17-2003 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
06-17-2003 9:00 PM


Crash, I don't think it matters who says their ideas or interpretations or whatever could be wrong. Who cares?
Only when one actually comes to the realization that there is an error in what one thinks does it mean a thing. Until then we can say "I'll change my mind" but reject all thoughts that might lead to that. How meaningful is that.
I don't think that's the big feature that distinguishes science. Evidence, independent testing and reasoning, leaving out the supernatural are more distinguishing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 9:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 10:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 42 (43250)
06-17-2003 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 9:49 PM


I don't think that's the big feature that distinguishes science. Evidence, independent testing and reasoning, leaving out the supernatural are more distinguishing.
But I think tentativity is just as important as those things. If you don't have tentativity, you don't have science. If you aren't willing to admit that you could be wrong, you can never truly know if you're right. Creationists don't proceed from tenativity; they proceed from a conviction that the bible can't be wrong, and that's one of the reasons creationism can never be science.
FFGFollower, it's your spotlight - anything to add? Do you think creationism is scientific? Or do you have a problem with all science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 9:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 42 (43290)
06-18-2003 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
06-17-2003 12:00 PM


Hee hee. Thanks, WK, I needed that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2003 12:00 PM Wounded King has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 42 (43328)
06-18-2003 3:28 PM


Stick a fork in us, we're done.
I guess FFGFollower is happy in troll-town. Might as well close the thread.
Last chance, FFG, to pick a topic and defend it in your own words. Cut-n-paste doesn't get you very far, nor does personal incredulity.

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 42 (43343)
06-18-2003 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
06-17-2003 9:25 PM


quote:
i just from discussing topics on this sight have realised that evolutionists are extremely intelligent , and most scientific arguments i am useless at because of their intelligence.
It's not really intelligence, Mike, it's education and work and effort to understand that makes most of us better versed in science than most Creationists.
Anybody can learn it and understand it, even at the basic level, if they want to. It's the "wanting to" that is the problem for many Creationists; they would rather do the easy thing and deny, deny, deny that which they know nothing about rather than the hard thing which is to study, study, study in order to gain some insight and understanding of science and Biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 9:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

FFGFollower 
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 42 (43344)
06-18-2003 6:38 PM


I'm not going to post because I already have.
This is not about me, nor is it about you.
You can just go ahead and answer everything I said about Evolution.
You have failed to disprove anything I've posted so far, so why should I give you another chance, that's just silly. You can answer what I've already said which proves evolution to be false.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by wj, posted 06-18-2003 8:39 PM FFGFollower has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2003 3:35 AM FFGFollower has not replied
 Message 40 by derwood, posted 06-19-2003 7:55 AM FFGFollower has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 42 (43354)
06-18-2003 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by FFGFollower
06-18-2003 6:38 PM


FFG, I responded to your original cut'n'paste, shotgun post with a set of specific questions. Here they are again
Perhaps we can start with an assertion of your own regarding polystrata tree fossils in the Grand Canyon. Can you cite a source to support this assertion? Is there evidence that the fossilised trees penetrate more than one fossilised soil layer? Exactly how tall are these vertical tree fossils? How many distinguishable strata do they penertrate?
Are you going to respond?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by FFGFollower, posted 06-18-2003 6:38 PM FFGFollower has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 42 (43376)
06-19-2003 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by FFGFollower
06-18-2003 6:38 PM


You can just go ahead and answer everything I said about Evolution.
Did so. Your turn to defend it. That's how this works, see - you argue, I answer, you respond. Back and forth. Give it a try.
Anyway, you didn't really "say" anything - you copied somebody elses words as your own. I suspect you don't truly understand the issues, and that's why you can't explain them in your own words... please, prove me wrong. I'm seriously asking you to convince me. I want so much to scientifically prove that a loving god must have created us all. After all if it happened that way there must be some evidence, right?
(BTW are you ever going to own up to plagarism? Isn't that a kind of "bearing false witness"? What does your bible say about that?)
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by FFGFollower, posted 06-18-2003 6:38 PM FFGFollower has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 40 of 42 (43399)
06-19-2003 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by FFGFollower
06-18-2003 6:38 PM


Fraud for god?
quote:
I'm not going to post because I already have.
This is not about me, nor is it about you.
You can just go ahead and answer everything I said about Evolution.
You have failed to disprove anything I've posted so far, so why should I give you another chance, that's just silly. You can answer what I've already said which proves evolution to be false.
This antic shows you to be what many of us, I suspect, you were.
A creationist spam artist, too undereducated to discuss the issues, too gullible to question your creationist sources.
Typical....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by FFGFollower, posted 06-18-2003 6:38 PM FFGFollower has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 42 (43403)
06-19-2003 9:11 AM


Thread Closure Warning
Unless a discussion of some actual issue within evolution begins soon, I will close this thread.
Wj suggested polystrata trees in message 38, and NosyNed responded about identifying common ancestors in the human ancestral line in message 30. Perhaps FFGFollower could respond on one of these topics (whichever topic he picks, and it doesn't have to be one of those two, once that happens I will move this thread to the appropriate forum).
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-19-2003 12:17 PM Admin has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 42 (43426)
06-19-2003 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Admin
06-19-2003 9:11 AM


Re: Thread Closure Warning
quote:
...polystrata trees in message 38, ...identifying common ancestors in the human ancestral line in message 30. Perhaps FFGFollower could respond on one of these topics (whichever topic he picks, and it doesn't have to be one of those two...
I feel that FFGFollower is welcome to start topics per the above, BUT I'm going to jump rank and declare this topic terminally flawed.
There have been a fair number of "For (creationist name)" topics started by ones of the evolution side, and I strongly suspect that they tend to be ineffective and ugly affairs. I suggest that the creationists start their own topics, and that those of the evolution side be very cautious about starting "For..." topics.
Closing this one down.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 06-19-2003 9:11 AM Admin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024