Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 2:51 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,855 Year: 6,892/19,786 Month: 1,433/1,581 Week: 255/393 Day: 78/110 Hour: 9/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
22Next
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 196 of 318 (450775)
01-23-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by pelican
01-23-2008 5:08 AM


Re: Anything is possible
I wrote
quote:
You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones. Rather than purposely trying to win a debate by purposely being dense, perhaps you should consider growing up?

You responded

quote:
What are the significant details that have been missed and what do you mean by 'purposely being dense??


Perhaps you should consider reading the rest of my post and in context of the replies to the same post by the other members?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 5:08 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 12:14 AM teen4christ has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 197 of 318 (450783)
01-23-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by pelican
01-23-2008 8:37 AM


how do you validate concepts?
How would you know you had misconceptions? How many of your misconceptions are you carrying right now? Tell me about them. I may be able to clarify or I am sure someone will.

Yet you didn't answer the question -- who do I ask to find out? My neighbor? My dad? My mechanic?

How do I know if they are misconceptions? Buy checking my conceptions against some measure of reality in some way? The question is really how you validate your conceptions, isn't it?

Tell me about them. I may be able to clarify ...

How do I know that you know enough to correct or clarify my misunderstanding? You could just as easily be spreading your misunderstanding instead.

How do we come to believe that anything is real? What do you use?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 8:37 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 9:05 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 198 of 318 (450786)
01-23-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by pelican
01-23-2008 9:31 AM


Or your misconceptions about misconceptions
Why did you say absolutely to this question when you don't have a clue what your misconceptions are? Do you think you have misconceptions or not?

When asked the same question, Radz response also inferred he knew the nature of his own misconceptions.

But your question was:

Message 165
Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution?

Saying yes does not imply you know what they are (they would then cease to be misunderstandings if that were true), but that you are open to the idea of having misconceptions and open to discussing them in order to learn.

The as yet unanswered question is who do you ask to find out if you do have misconceptions?

Let me know eh?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:31 AM pelican has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 199 of 318 (450795)
01-23-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by cavediver
01-23-2008 7:34 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
quote:
What you are missing is that many here on the side of science were actually once creationists and argued from that side, using identical arguments to those being regurgitated today. These once-creationists now range from atheists to deists to theistic evolutionists.

What is your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2008 7:34 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by cavediver, posted 01-24-2008 4:19 AM pelican has responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 200 of 318 (450797)
01-23-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
01-23-2008 7:38 AM


Re: Don't Consent
nator. Post 1 writes:

So, I have noticed that many of the Creationists on this board have, shall we say, less than stellar writing skills compared to the science-minded folks.
Sure, there are a few exceptions, but I would guess that well more than two thirds of the Creationists who have ever posted here simply write very poorly.

Their grammar and punctuation ranges from average to downright awful, they frequently fail to break their posts into paragraphs, and their ability to express ideas, sentence structure and word usage doesn't give one an impression of their having done very well in high school English.

On a related note, my husband frequents a message board populated by people who work in higher education. Not surprisingly, most posters there write well, and express themselves clearly and often eloquently.

Every so often a controversial subject such as Affirmative Action comes up in discussion, and he has noticed that of those people who pop up to write posts condemning it, many of them possess markedly poor writing skills.

So, why does everyone think this pattern exists?

nator. Post 177 writes:

Nobody is suggesting that we all write in an "academic manner".

I certainly don't write in anything close to an "academic manner".

I'd be delighted with everyone writing as though they got a B in 10th grade English.

nator. Post 177 writes:

So, tell me, in your opinion, is the person who habitually fact checks themselves a person who is unable to learn, or is the person who never fact checks themselves the one with the greater ability to learn?

I don't know. You tell me. Is it lack of understanding or poor communication skills? Check out post 99.

Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 01-23-2008 7:38 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by nator, posted 01-25-2008 7:37 AM pelican has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 201 of 318 (450799)
01-23-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
01-23-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Anything is possible
All you're doing is providing yet more evidence of a common creationist pattern, namely ignoring the evidence and going, "Nuh-uh!"

You see, that is only your perception of a creationist pattern. Your perception is clouding your judgement.

percy writes:

Heinrik's response in Message 158 was even sillier, and Rahvin, Molbiogirl, RAZD and Teen4christ all carefully explained to Heinrik how he was once again only contributing more evidence for the premise of this thread.

Do you mean this response...............

heinrik writes:

You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?

............. in comparison to this:

percy writes:

The king in The King and I says, "Sometimes I'm not even sure of what I absolutely know," but the rule for creationists seems to be, "I'm especially sure about things of which I have absolutely no clue."

As far as I can remember this was a fictional movie about a primitive thinking king who needed a governess to open his heart. It was not a documentary using actual transcripts.

Margaret Landon wrote the story.

Margaret Landon (September 7, 1903 - December 4, 1993) was an American writer who became famous for Anna and the King of Siam, her 1944 novel of the life of Anna Leonowens.

Born as Margaret Dorothea Mortenson to A.D. and Adelle Mortensen in Somers, Wisconsin, she was one of three daughters in a devout Methodist family. The family moved to Evanston, Illinois, where she graduated from high school.

She attended Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, graduating in 1925. She taught school for a year, then married Kenneth Landon, who she knew from Wheaton, and in 1927 they signed up as Presbyterian missionaries to Thailand.

In addition to having three children and running a mission school in Trang, Landon read extensively about the country, during which she learned about Leonowens. When the family returned to America in 1937, she took up writing. She moved to Washington, D.C. in 1942 when her husband joined the United States Department of State as an adviser on Southeast Asia.

Her book on Leonowens was published in 1944 and became an instant bestseller. A later work, Never Dies the Dream, about her own experiences, appeared in 1949.

She died in Alexandria, Virginia in 1993, aged 90.

Edited by dameeva, : providing more information


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 01-23-2008 10:26 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by molbiogirl, posted 01-23-2008 11:51 PM pelican has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 202 of 318 (450802)
01-23-2008 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by pelican
01-23-2008 11:04 PM


Re: Anything is possible
As far as I can remember this was a fictional movie about a primitive thinking king who needed a governess to open his heart. It was not a documentary using actual transcripts.

Message 160.

You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?

The character in the movie may have been fictionalized, but both Anna and the King were real.

Prince Maha Mongkut was born on October 18, 1804 in the kingdom of Siam (now called Thailand). His father, Buddha Loetla Nabhalai, became the king of Siam (King Rama II) when Mongkut was five. Mongkut's mother was Queen Sri Suriyendra.

He arranged for them to receive English lessons from Christian missionaries, but the Siamese women were bored by their preaching. So Mongkut's consul in Singapore hired another woman, Anna Leonowens, to teach the king's wives and children. She arrived in Bangkok in 1862.

http://www.royalty.nu/Asia/Thailand/Mongkut.html

Yet another example of creo ignorance.

Anna and the King of Siam is classified as a nonfiction novel.

It is based on Anna Leonowens' biographies, The English Governess at the Siamese Court and The Romance of the Harem.

Yet another example of creo ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 11:04 PM pelican has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 203 of 318 (450804)
01-24-2008 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by pelican
01-23-2008 7:20 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
dameeva responds to me:

quote:
Doesn't the church also preach a creation theory that is not at all scientific? You know the one, the theory about god and devil?

Until you can come up with a definition of "god" and "devil" that is amenable to examination and testing, science has no idea what those things mean. That doesn't mean they don't exist...it just means it doesn't know how to handle it.

Science can tell you all sorts of things about a wave form: It's frequency, amplitude, energy, pattern, how far it will propagate in various media, etc. What it cannot do is tell you if it is "music."

quote:
How do you personally think god may exist in a different way to what you imagine I am thinking?

I'm sure I don't know. It's your concept of god. Why don't you tell us?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 7:20 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Woodsy, posted 01-24-2008 7:10 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 247 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:29 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 284 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 8:47 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 204 of 318 (450805)
01-24-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by teen4christ
01-23-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Anything is possible
teen4christ writes:

You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones.

Perhaps you should consider reading the rest of my post and in context of the replies to the same post by the other members?

I checked every post and cannot find one that describes any point as insignificant. No-one has actually said that clearly. Everyone has their opinion of what is significant and what isn't. I just wanted to know which points you, personally, find insignificant.

Rather than purposely trying to win a debate by purposely being dense, perhaps you should consider growing up?

Are you using dense as an adjective or as an object?

1.
a. Having relatively high density.
b. Crowded closely together; compact: a dense population.
2. Hard to penetrate; thick: a dense jungle.
3.
a. Permitting little light to pass through, because of compactness of matter: dense glass; a dense fog.
b. Opaque, with good contrast between light and dark areas. Used of a photographic negative.
4. Difficult to understand because of complexity or obscurity: a dense novel.
5. Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by teen4christ, posted 01-23-2008 5:58 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 205 of 318 (450815)
01-24-2008 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by pelican
01-23-2008 8:45 PM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
dameeva writes:

Are you listening to the creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation with understanding?

dameeva writes:

Do you expect anyone to understand your point of view when you don't understand theirs and make no attempt to.

What you are missing is that many here on the side of science were actually once creationists and argued from that side, using identical arguments to those being regurgitated today. These once-creationists now range from atheists to deists to theistic evolutionists.

dameeva writes:

What is your point?

:laugh: priceless :laugh:

I think nator needs to add something to the OP regarding reading comprehension...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 8:45 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:15 AM cavediver has responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 206 of 318 (450820)
01-24-2008 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rahvin
01-23-2008 10:39 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
rahvin writes:

That's why I was pointing out that lack of education is not a positive. Sweatshops are bad, even if they give us cheap shoes. Hell...they aren't even cheap.

It isn't a positive for the uneducated. I was pointing out that it is a positive for those who benefit from those who are uneducated. Right down the line. It isn't about you getting not so cheap shoes. It is about being paid slave wages to make these shoes. They get paid 5cents to make them and you pay $75 to wear them. Where is the proffit going?

rahvin writes:

I would respond that, while such a position is supported by the text of Genesis, there is no corroborative evidence to give this story any more credence than any other myth.

You're moving the goalposts. I don't tell Creationists what Creationism is. I listen for them to tell me what their position is, and if I see a flaw in their argument or a falsehood, I point it out. Evolutionists don't dictate to Creationists what Creationists believe - we let them say what they believe, and then we argue against that position.

The scriptures(biblical) come under both forms. In most cases, where accounts are concerned, we are looking at historical records. However, it is impossible to apply one given set of standards and expect to accurately interpret the bible.
They key it would seem is to try and obtain as much historical and supporting data on the scripture in question. Chances are, you will find sufficient information(validated) through past research to obtain a credible interpretation.

rahvin writes:

Creationists, however, come and attack Evolution from faulty positions, like claiming that, since Evolution predicts monkeys should give birth to housecats, or since Evolution predicts that we should see new life in a peanut butter jar, and both of these positions are false, Evolution must also be false.

ha ha ha. C'mon? They are winding you up and you are falling for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 10:39 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2008 9:15 AM pelican has responded
 Message 216 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 9:44 AM pelican has responded

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 207 of 318 (450821)
01-24-2008 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Rrhain
01-24-2008 12:05 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Science can tell you all sorts of things about a wave form: It's frequency, amplitude, energy, pattern, how far it will propagate in various media, etc. What it cannot do is tell you if it is "music."

Sure it can. I remember hearing on the radio of a researcher who formulated a set of rules for writing a popular song and gave a synthetic example that was very convincing. Anyway, I doubt that years and years of work by acoustics, neurology and musicology scholars have been entirely in vain.

I think that this "experience is unexplainable" stuff is highly overdone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 01-24-2008 12:05 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2008 2:28 AM Woodsy has responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 208 of 318 (450822)
01-24-2008 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
01-23-2008 10:42 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Assuming that you are trying to create a comparable example - the question should be over what the Bible says - not over what really happened. In that case I would read the relevant chapter of Genesis, and note that it refers to the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If this is a relevant distinction in the context of the discussion I would point it out, quoting the relevant verses. If it is not relevant then I would accept that.

Would you dispute the belief that adam and eve ate from the tree of knowledge, especially from someone who truly believes in an all powerful god and that the bible was inspired by god?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2008 10:42 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2008 8:09 AM pelican has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14948
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 209 of 318 (450823)
01-24-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by pelican
01-24-2008 7:57 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
quote:

Would you dispute the belief that adam and eve ate from the tree of knowledge, especially from someone who truly believes in an all powerful god and that the bible was inspired by god?

That would not be a comparable example. To be truly comparable the example should be something easily checked and where there is no dispute over the evidence or the weight attached to it.

Let it be noted that I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did intend to offer a relevant example instead of one that can only be seen as a diversion. I did discuss it seriously. And you have chosen to ignore that in favour of continuing the attempt at diversion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 7:57 AM pelican has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 210 of 318 (450825)
01-24-2008 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by faust
01-23-2008 11:11 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
As several have mentioned, I do not respond on their subject but on the flaws of their subject. If someone claims a magical sky pixie created dinosaurs and humans to live together over a 3 day time frame, then I point out the inconsistency of that view with the evidence.

What idiot came up with that scenerio?

Well, that would be a red herring and I would call it as such. The only relevance it would have is if the Christian tried to use it to putty in the plot holes of their world view to try and explain away imperfections and mutation.

I'll make it a bit easier. What if the question had been, "where did good and evil originate? What would be your answer? Would you be able to prove their biblical answer incorrect using the scientific methods you seem to worship. "Thou shalt have no other god but me!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by faust, posted 01-23-2008 11:11 AM faust has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019