Unlike here, where you are allowed to post freely, the Creationist and Christian boards cannot stand questioning and critical thinking, and so they ban anyone that is not a member of the Christian Communion of Bobbleheads.
I never much liked hanging out at Theology Web. Nobody ever really challenged me over there, and I was bored preaching to the choir! :rolleyes: Over here, I regularly get challenged by folk such as you, and it sharpens me and forces me to present my argument (or lack of one! ;) ) in a more coherent form.
I agree with you on that issue of clarity. When I came to EvC almost four years ago, my posts were quite sloppy and disorganized. I was in such a hurry to grab the soapbox and trumpet my vague and undefined beliefs that I stumbled all over myself in the presentation!
I can relate to that as well, Phat. Having no college degree, I've had to learn as I go. EvC participation has effected ongoing improvement of communication and debating skills.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
If you want to improve your writing, get The Elements of Style, read it, and keep a copy next to you while you are writing.Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
My English professor once said that how clearly a person can communicate to others through his writing reflects greatly on his thought process. Poor writing skills are pretty much due to messy thought process.
You think my mind is cluttered> You should see my apartment! :eek:
I have gotten better at clarifying my thoughts over the years, however. Whether or not I am actually learning anything is debatable, however. I still have my comfort bias in regards to my belief. Its too uncomfortable to accept that there may be no definite conclusion.
It is a mistake to deify scientists, which all too many people on this forum, and the general public, are apt to do.
Urgg... not really.
Scientists are specialists. They can speak with authority on the subjects that are within their field of expertise. As far as I know, noone that I have ever met or heard have ever deified scientists. The only difference between a scientist and a regular person is the scientist is a specialist in some field of science.
On the other hand, the general public tend to see creationists and reverends and pastors as deities.
Let me repeat my story about the debate between the astronomer and the local pastor. The subject of the debate was astronomical evidence for an old Earth. Rather than sticking with the subject, the pastor started asking random geology questions and asserting downright lies. He was taking advantage of the fact that the astronomer wasn't a good public speaker. Almost everyone in the auditorium cheered for the pastor. At the end, people were congratulating the pastor for "knowing so much more" than the astronomer. They all thought that the astronomer was a dumbass for refusing to talk about a field that was out of his expertise area.
Nem, I don't know what planet you live on, but people in general tend to deify creationists and pastors rather than scientists.
Any discipline has its experts in that particular field. And they no doubt deserve some credit for their hard won efforts.
Then why the hell do I keep encountering real live creationists that want to disprove physics by pointing out that rocks don't orbit mountains? You know, they always try to throw everything they have at me, though it's all loads of horshit, once someone told them what I was.
But there is this wrong-headed philosophy that abounds concerning scientists -- that they are the be-all, end-all -- as if no other human being could possibly add anything of substance to any given debate.
This is absolutely not true at all. Scientists are experts in their fields of discipline. When was the last time you heard about a scientist that tried to insert scientific matters into religious classes?
For instance, I have a friend of mine who is a graduate of both MIT (Aeronautics) and CalTech...
Yes, and I'm sure he's an expert in engineering. How does this prove that scientists think they're gods?
Scientists are experts in their fields of scientific disciplines. Engineers are experts in their fields of engineering disciplines. Economists are experts in their fields of economic disciplines.
Creationists seem to be the only ones that try to insert religion into another field.
But should I assume that he is better, or more intelligent than the rest of us because of his PhD's?
Again, you are misrepresenting the truth.
He is more intelligent when it comes to engineering. Physicists are more intelligent when it comes to physics. Biologists are more intelligent when it comes to biology. And so on and so forth.
Creationists seem to be the only ones that think they're more intelligent in everything.
Added by edit.
I have to wonder. Do creationists and IDists go to doctors? I mean, why go if they know everything already?
Here is another example of a know-it-all creationist. The sad thing is in a social setting he's probably perceived as the smartest person in the group. The the same ole pattern I've been observing for years.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
it is equally frustrating when scientist will admit that their science is tentative, but will argue it as if it is not.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Depends on your audience. The Glish Glop doesn't work on educated people who understand science, but it does work on pliable Christians who may consider Genesis to be true. In the same way, appearing intelligent in writing skills is the same way.
quote:Scientists are specialists. They can speak with authority on the subjects that are within their field of expertise. As far as I know, noone that I have ever met or heard have ever deified scientists. The only difference between a scientist and a regular person is the scientist is a specialist in some field of science.
Very much true. And this goes for a wide variety of aspects. I made the mistake here in assuming that people who were specialized in science also made a effort to make their other views and other aspects of knowledge similar to their levels of specialization. I will not make it again.
quote:Depends on your audience. The Glish Glop doesn't work on educated people who understand science, but it does work on pliable Christians who may consider Genesis to be true. In the same way, appearing intelligent in writing skills is the same way.
Exactly! People tend to forget that.
Even on this board scientists should adjust the way they write when debating known non scientists.
By the same token creationists should adjust the way they write when debating scientists and Christians should adjust the way they write when debating atheists.
If the audience doesn't understand the writer, the message is lost.
Unfortunately, most people aren't that flexible in their writing.
I didn't know everyone thought that pattern existed. :D
I did notice that there seemed to be a lack of communication skills on the part of the creationist camp. However, their most skilled and persuasive adherents don't frequent boards like this.
Ken Ham does very well at writing his ideas and performs well when communicating to laymen of both sides. Many of the "scientists" at Answers in Genesis" are also skilled writers. I have seen them talk or write loops around those detractors that they deign to include in their discussions.
Caveat: Anyone with a well thought out question or comment in opposition gets ignored or, if it occurs in public, gets side tracked with what Ham and his ilk think is a nifty little logic counter punch to avoid answering the question.
Even with good communication skills or perhaps because of it, their writing always seems to have a fuzzy edge or slipperiness about it to allow them some leeway for invoking the you-really-didn't-understand-what-I-was-saying defense.
quote:In addition, the intelligence level of sooo much of which is thrown out at us by some notorious evolutionists on this board is too similar to the stuff orangutans throw at zoo spectators. It's in our best interest to move on and leave the stuff lay.
If what you are replying to is of such poor quality, it should be incredibly easy to rebut, shouldn't it? (pun intended)
For example, I have rebutted your general, unspecific claims regarding the safety of comfrey and that it has never hurt anyone.
When I provided several specific examples of where theraputic ingestion of comfrey has killed people, you scampered off.
You do that kind of thing all the time, and you aren't fooling anyone since everyone who can read, and is willing to examine the threads in a fair and balanced manner, can see that you've done this, over and over.