Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 242 of 318 (450936)
01-25-2008 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by RAZD
01-24-2008 8:02 PM


Re: how do you validate concepts?
Thankyou for that information I did not ask for, nor was it relevant to this thread.
THIS IS THE COFFEE FORUM WHERE WE DISCUSS TOPICS OTHER THAN SCIENCE OR CREATION. THERE ARE SPECIFIC SCIENCE THREADS TO MEET YOUR SCIENTIFIC NEEDS, SO STOP WASTING MY TIME AND THE FEW POSTS LEFT WITH SHOWING OFF TO YOUR MATES.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 8:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2008 8:05 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 243 of 318 (450938)
01-25-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rahvin
01-24-2008 9:59 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
RAHVIN writes:
Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong.
ABSOLUTELY! You got me pegged. I haven't heard of the Goldern Mean fallacy (I will sure as hell look it up, though) but the definition is precise. I love the 'underdog' and I'm a sucker for a cause.
I just figured someone had to do it.
rahvin writes:
Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.
Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools? I see that their children would be taught this and it would become fact for them. I see the dilemma. God help us! (Just a bit of irony there)
From my personal life experiences in dealing with many problems, I have found the solution cannot be found by looking at the problem. First I identify the problem, (not always easy) then I look elsewhere for a solution that will be for the greater good.
In this case, I see the solution in lightening up a bit. Stop taking the 'hilarious perceptions of scientific information' so seriously. It is the information that you do not need to attack. It's a very simple deduction of a bit of a theory. The information itself is only dangerous if children were to believe it as fact. But this information that some take as fact cannot be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. All you get is green mouldy peanut butter, which is in fact another form of life anyway, so he has actually proved it to be true whilst trying to disprove it. You gotta laugh (literally)
Give 'um enough rope and they'll hang themselves! (Not to be taken literally.) Great listening to you.
no-one wants to be laughed at, but if you are laughed at and not ridiculed, not ostrasized, don't have something rammed in your head that you cannot understand, are completely accepted for who you are regardless of beliefs, they will simply ask, feeling completely safe, "why are you laughing"? Then they are open and ready to hear you.
I love you too, you know. I was just like them and I was just like you but I never switched sides with either. I was just being myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 9:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by nator, posted 01-25-2008 5:31 PM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 244 of 318 (450939)
01-25-2008 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rahvin
01-24-2008 9:59 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
RAHVIN writes:
Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong.
ABSOLUTELY! You got me pegged. I haven't heard of the Goldern Mean fallacy (I will sure as hell look it up, though) but the definition is precise. I love the 'underdog' and I'm a sucker for a cause.
I just figured someone had to do it.
rahvin writes:
Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.
Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools? I see that their children would be taught this and it would become fact for them. I see the dilemma. God help us! (Just a bit of irony there)
From my personal life experiences in dealing with many problems, I have found the solution cannot be found by looking at the problem. First I identify the problem, (not always easy) then I look elsewhere for a solution that will be for the greater good.
In this case, I see the solution in lightening up a bit. Stop taking the 'hilarious perceptions of scientific information' so seriously. It is the information that you do not need to attack. It's a very simple deduction of a bit of a theory. The information itself is only dangerous if children were to believe it as fact. But this information that some take as fact cannot be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. All you get is green mouldy peanut butter, which is in fact another form of life anyway, so he has actually proved it to be true whilst trying to disprove it. You gotta laugh (literally)
Give 'um enough rope and they'll hang themselves! (Not to be taken literally.)
Look at it this way for a moment. No-one wants to be laughed at, but if when you are laughed at, you are not ridiculed, not ostrasized, don't have something rammed in your head that you cannot understand, are completely accepted for who you are regardless of beliefs, they will simply ask, feeling completely safe, "why are you laughing"? Then they are open and ready to hear you.
I love you too, you know. I was just like them and I was just like you but I never switched sides. I was never on one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 01-24-2008 9:59 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 01-25-2008 1:10 PM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 245 of 318 (450943)
01-25-2008 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by cavediver
01-24-2008 4:19 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
dameeva writes:
What is your point?
cavediver writes:
priceless
Is this the only answer you can up with to what appears to me a genuine question? I don't see your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by cavediver, posted 01-24-2008 4:19 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by cavediver, posted 01-25-2008 4:36 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 247 of 318 (450945)
01-25-2008 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Rrhain
01-24-2008 12:05 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
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.
In my world if you declare yourself innocent, then it is up to the prosecutors to prove me wrong and the defenders to prove me correct. It isn't about guilty or innocent, it is about proving your case.
Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists, as you rightly point out. Creationists cannot prove their case against evolutionists. Both are in the same position. It isn't about who is right and who is wrong because until their is some mutual understanding, this debate will see us all dead and still carry on.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2008 4:53 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 258 by SGT Snorkel, posted 01-25-2008 9:52 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 264 by nator, posted 01-25-2008 5:41 PM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 248 of 318 (450947)
01-25-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
01-24-2008 7:03 PM


delusions
razd writes:
The once strongly held belief that the earth was the center of the solar system and the universe and everything revolved around it is one example.
This is a physical example. How would you test a belief in god against reality? We have many non-physical aspects e.g guilt that we know is in our reality but how do you prove this scientifically?
You cannot term a belief false until it is proved false. Once this is determined then maybe it becomes a delusion, not before.
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 7:03 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2008 7:36 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 260 of 318 (450982)
01-25-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
01-25-2008 8:42 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
Maybe I can explain on behalf of Heinrik but from my observations. I'm sure Heinrik will correct me if I am mistaken.
percy writes:
Here's yet another example of a common creationist pattern, changing the subject. Your question has nothing to do with your failure to do even cursory checking of whether the Missler video was valid. As has been shown, the validity of Missler video, which shows him speaking his very own words with a clear and unambiguous meaning, as if that weren't more than enough evidence, is confirmed by a webpage at his own site saying the precise same thing.
The key words here are 'another example of common creationist pattern'. Heinrik assumed you were referring to the topic, namely "Anyone else notice this pattern."
percy writes:
Getting back to the topic, the pattern that you're exhibiting here is another very common one with creationists, failure to perform even a cursory investigation.
Again, here you refer to the topic but take it a bit further. You name this 'pattern' as a "failure to perform even a cursory investigation into your claims (Missler evidence)." Heinrik accepted your definition of the 'pattern' as a fact and felt there was nothing to disagree with. He then asked a very innocent question in regard to their failure in this scientific cursory investigtions.........
heinrik writes:
Do you think creationists are also inept in their own chosen field?
........... meaning exactly what he says. No inuendos. No ambiguous meanings. No disagreement. Just a straight forward question. I think he just forgot to say that he agreed with your factual statement regarding the all important "pattern of creationists."
By the way, I read on another of Heinriks posts that he is not a creationist. Someone said he was 'the devils advocate but lets not bring religion in as well hey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 01-25-2008 8:42 AM Percy has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 265 of 318 (451029)
01-25-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
01-25-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Not Quite
percy writes:
All we have to do to defeat creationism
Oh my god! Is this how we co-exist in the world? What if creationism was 50% true and evolution was 50% true? Neither can totally prove or disprove their claims. Haven't we agreed on that?
Love thine enemies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 01-25-2008 11:52 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Rahvin, posted 01-25-2008 7:27 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 268 by tesla, posted 01-25-2008 8:19 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 276 by nator, posted 01-26-2008 6:15 PM pelican has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 279 of 318 (451211)
01-26-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Rrhain
01-25-2008 11:11 PM


Re: Creationist Craziness
That is, they will latch onto any argument they think denies evolution,
I don't think I explained my question very well. I do apologise.
I wasn't acually meaning arguing against evolution. I meant speaking in their own personal field without it involving your evolutionary theory or fact.
I believe they have their own theory of evolution that does not equate with yours. Each side believes theirs is the correct one and the other is incorrect. Personally, I see them as entirely different subjects.
It is implied that creationists cannot argue against your belief through some lack of understanding. That is widely accepted.
All their evidence is from bible interpretation and belief system. There is no science/physical evidence to back up the meanings, the morals, the laws, the miracles, god, angels, 6day creation, adam and eve. Their beliefs are formed entirely from bible interpretation and belief in god and afterlife.
You cannot mix science with a belief system, as is perfectly obvious to me. Any attempt at proving biblical meanings scientifically would be fruitless.
In view of the above, my question was, how good/bad are they in presenting their own theories of bible interpretations?
An after thought: could religion appeal to the emotions and science appeal to the mind?
Edited by Heinrik, : after thought

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 01-25-2008 11:11 PM Rrhain has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 282 of 318 (451223)
01-26-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by nator
01-26-2008 6:15 PM


Re: Not Quite
What if Creationism was 100% false?
Guess what? It is 100% false.
Can you prove there is no god?
Can you prove this theory E=MC2
I do not believe either can prove the other 100% wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by nator, posted 01-26-2008 6:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 9:13 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 293 by Rahvin, posted 01-26-2008 11:39 PM pelican has replied
 Message 300 by nator, posted 01-27-2008 8:26 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 01-27-2008 8:43 AM pelican has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 296 of 318 (451288)
01-27-2008 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Rahvin
01-26-2008 11:39 PM


Re: Not Quite
First - we can and have proven that the formula "E=MC^2" is extremely accurate. It's at the same level of certainty as the Theory of Gravity.
Second - proving that something, anything, does not exist is possible only indirectly, by proving true something that makes the existence of the entity impossible. You can no more prove there isn't a fairy sitting above your shoulder than prove there is no god...but you can prove that god exists with about the same certainty as you can prove the fairy, as well.
This is another example of Creationist tendencies: special pleading. You'll happily accept that there is no such thing as fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragons and unicorns, that trolls did not in fact take over the Earth 100 years ago, or any other fantastical figments of the imagination. But when the questions of god or Creation come up, you insist that we "cannot prove it didn't happen" or "cannot prove he doesn't exist," and claim that this means god does exist and Creation did happen.
It's also an example of equivocation based on misunderstandings. As I said, "E=MC^2" has proven to be incredibly accurate. The large number of nuclear reactors currently running in the world depend on it. You clearly don't even understand what that formula means, or how it relates to the world, and yet you make claims about it from ignorance.
Are you saying that E=MC2 has actually been tried and tested? If it has it would not be a theory.
By my reasoning that proves that you cannot back your theories with 100% certainty, even when it is a fantastic formula and mathematically coherant. It is impossible (at this moment) to test this theory M=MC2 in a physical experiment. I believe all theories fit this category of impossible to prove.
Leaving the subject matters aside for a moment, ceationists have exactly the same problem proving their theories in a physical experiment.
You believe in E=MC2 because you feel there is enough consequential evidence, as you described. Creationists also believe because of consequential evidence. Jesus is proved to have lived. He believed in god. He must be telling the truth because he was the son of god.
When the ONLY reference is one book, deemed to be inspired by god who is the father of Jesus, it makes perfect sense.
There must be many bible theories that permeate your life that you are not even aware of. How many of the 10 commandments do you obey? Whether or not you believed you were following the commandments, I think it could be easily proved that you are.
As you know for a fact that I am ignorant on the mathematical theory/formula, I give you the floor. Tell me what I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Rahvin, posted 01-26-2008 11:39 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2008 3:41 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 302 by nator, posted 01-27-2008 8:39 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 297 of 318 (451293)
01-27-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 2:56 PM


Re: Working At Improvement
hill billy writes:
I have generally had no trouble understanding what those posters write.
Nator,as someone who has never even taken a reading comprehension exam (if I did I'm sure I failed miserably,) and as yet has had no trouble understanding Riverrat,I have a question. Wouldn't highly evolved and finely tuned comprehension skills allow one to comprehend even the most poorly written stuff?I mean whats so special about comprehending well written material? Perhaps a slightly less elevated nasal position might provide a clearer view of the screen which in turn might lead to greater comprehension.
were yi Bin holl diz thym yu maic mi wii lafin a fink yus speshal
tea he
av er peep hat 99
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 2:56 PM Hill Billy has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 299 of 318 (451299)
01-27-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by AdminNosy
01-27-2008 2:44 AM


Re: Less Nonsense more substance
Even in the coffee house we expect you to stick to the topic at hand and not mess up the discussion.
If you aren't able to post with more content than your posts so far you will start to be suspended
This is bang out of order. There have been insults flying in every direction at me on this thread and not once have you stepped in. A hill billy, who sees thing s little differently than you, tries to show the superior attitude being displayed in this thread.
From post one, It sticks out like dog's balls and the ones displaying this behaviour cannot see it.
This warning is totally uncalled for and could have been given for 70% of the posts, if you had been observing from another point of view. This would make me so angry but I understand that you don't.
Welcome Hill Billy! Thank god I'm not the only one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by AdminNosy, posted 01-27-2008 2:44 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Hill Billy, posted 01-27-2008 11:48 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 304 of 318 (451328)
01-27-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Percy
01-27-2008 8:43 AM


Re: Not Quite
Depends upon what you mean by "god". Did you intend the lowercase? If not and you meant the fundamentalist Christian God of the 6000 year old earth and global flood, then yes, of course, we can provide lots of evidence that that God does not exist.
would you like to prove the god I believe in cannot exist, if I do not use any religion\science\evolution?
Edited by Heinrik, : grammatical error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 01-27-2008 8:43 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 9:45 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 315 of 318 (451489)
01-27-2008 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
12-28-2007 8:57 PM


BIGGER BUMP FOR DAMEEVA
I am posting this message to the originator of each thread in which I have participated. I apologize to those I have not been able to respond to. Living a double life (see below) even on a forum is very time consuming. I have had a wonderful experience and aplogize for my deceitful behaviour.
RULE 9. Do not participate as more than one ID. You may change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.
I have been participating as two identities.
In my defense, I created two identities because I felt I needed some moral support. I also thought it would help to promote some points that I could not do alone.
In view of this obvious breaking of a clearly defined rule, there can be no excuses, no claims of innocence because the truth is:
I did not read the rules.
I prefer to judge myself and implement the consequences myself. I prefer to be my own judge and jury. In this case the punishment is a life time ban. I will retire DAMEEVA as from 1.2.08 (just to give myself time to pack my bags) unless a higher authority decides otherwise, in which case authority has the final say.
I have thoroughly enjoyed this forum and have learned a lot that otherwise I would not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 12-28-2007 8:57 PM nator 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