|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5827 days) Posts: 20 From: Indianapolis, Indiana Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Purpose | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurplyBear Junior Member (Idle past 5827 days) Posts: 20 From: Indianapolis, Indiana Joined: |
What is objective of this forum? How close is it to reaching that objective? What will become of the forum when objective is reached?
If this is a pure debate forum... It is necessary to be able to define a winner to every debate. It would be pointless to enter a debate which a 'winner' could not be defined. At present which side is winning, and what criteria are we using to judge? If no side is winning what additional information do you believe will be needed to declare victory? When a winner has been announced what is the loser willing to do? I am not interested in linguistic contortions of my words. One side is 100% right.... One side is sadly mistaken. * This is a debate site. Regardless of the role is chooses to play... "This site attempts to play a neutral role in the debate," Edited by PurplyBear, : Failed to clarify - possible? Edited by PurplyBear, : This is a debate site... Edited by PurplyBear, : No reason given. People are not stupid, religion is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Debate here is not formal. Think of EvC Forum as a website that plays host to discussions related to the creation/evolution controversy. We do try to keep things in the spirit of a debate as much as possible.
Who wins a debate is in the eye the beholder. When the quality of education is significantly compromised then everyone's a loser, in my opinion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
title writes: The End is near? I thought you might be one of those end-time creationists when I read that. But no, without Armageddon, the debate will continue for a long time yet.
PurplyBear writes: If this is a pure debate forum... It is necessary to be able to define a winner to every debate. Why?
It would be pointless to enter a debate which a 'winner' could not be defined. At present which side is winning, and what criteria are we using to judge? Here, both sides always have the satisfaction of winning in their own minds. One side believes that reality is best understood by blind unreasoning faith, so they believe whatever they want to believe, therefore easily winning all debates in their own minds. The other side believes that reality is best understood through observations and evidence, and as all the evidence is on their side, they also win in their own minds. So it isn't pointless, as satisfaction is achieved all round, and each side uses its own criteria to judge. One side awards itself points for the best fantasies, and the choicest out of context quotes, and the other awards itself points for the presentation of evidence, and for reasoned argument. If the creationist side ever presented evidence by accident, they'd probably penalise themselves for breaking their own rules, and deduct points. But such an event has yet to happen. Welcome to EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I am not interested in linguistic contortions of my words. One side is 100% right.... One side is sadly mistaken. quite right. and so the reason for the debate. why not join us? how solid is the proof of a theory? and how solid is an undeniable truth? so what is the truth? the opinions are broad, and the debate goes on until theory becomes law, and truth becomes known. so also will there be no winner unless the truth is known. Edited by tesla, : their= there keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
What is objective of this forum? How close is it to reaching that objective? What will become of the forum when objective is reached? The objective of this forum is to facilitate debate regarding Evolution and Creation and surrounding topics. The site has achieved that goal for several years, but it's not an objective that results in "mission complete, let's all go home."
If this is a pure debate forum... It is necessary to be able to define a winner to every debate. It would be pointless to enter a debate which a 'winner' could not be defined. At present which side is winning, and what criteria are we using to judge? I disagree. Due to the nature of this specific debate, calling one side a "winner" will achieve nothing. How do you measure success in this format, anyway? Voting? Facts and truth are not determined by majority opinion, and logic is not a democracy. Arguments speak for themselves. Neither side is likely to "convince" the other, or even force the other to concede - each side operates by wildly different rules based on the way they view the Universe. Religious revelation and dogma are compeltely different from reproducible empirical evidence, and neither side is likely to accept the others' basis of argument. The "winner" of any given debate here is chosen by the lurker, in his/her own mind. It's the fencesitters who come here to learn, the silent audience that we are really arguing for. It's up to them to determine what they accept as evidence - an infallible god, inspired Bible, and faith, or empirical evidence, observation, and logical inference.
If no side is winning what additional information do you believe will be needed to declare victory? There is no "victory" here. There is only the simple joy of constructing a well-reasoned and supported argument, and destroying the argument of one's opponent. Your opponent may not always feel his arguemnt has been refuted, but that's the nature of the debate when each side works from such incompatible methods.
When a winner has been announced what is the loser willing to do? It's been my experience that, when a site takes a "side" and establishes rules like "faith is allowed as evidence" or "only empirical evidence is allowed" and determines winners based on those rules, the "losing team" relocates to another forum. It's no fun for scientists to bash their heads against the wall in a Christian forum (where too often posts are deleted and users are banned if they post contrary to the beliefs of the board admins), and Christians are unlikely to enjoy the other side of that coin. This site tries to encourage debate, not declare one side the winner.
I am not interested in linguistic contortions of my words. One side is 100% right.... One side is sadly mistaken. That's not true at all. Science, for example, never claims to be "100% right" about anything at all. It only claims to be using the most accurate model currently available, pending additional information. And religion, well...there really isn't much of a consensus even amongst Creationists, who range from Old Earth to Young Earth to "God created the Universe, but science is right from then on out." Your statement is a black/white fallacy -this is not a binary issue. When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 240 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
I am not interested in linguistic contortions of my words. One side is 100% right.... One side is sadly mistaken. Rahvin beat me to it. Yes, I strongly disagree with this statement. This smells of a classic example of a false dilemma, black and white thinking. It's simpler and more comprehensible to label the world black and white, right and wrong, but under further analysis we see that the world isn't that simple, that there are actually manifold shades of gray that must be taken into consideration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
and the debate goes on until theory becomes law Theories do not become laws in science. The laymans use of the word 'theory' is incorrect when applying it to science. 'Theory' is not a guess or simple speculation. Theories are testable, falsifyable models that explain natural phenomenon or correlations between multiple phemomena and are worlds away from a simple guess. Theories do not become laws, theories are either refuted, modified, or stand up to testing - but they never become 'fact' or 'law'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
what i meant by the statement is:
the world being round was a speculation until examined for the truth and discovered it was true. creationism is like that. evolution is a theory of science based on a true observation, but exactly from what where why and all that may never be fully understood, but thats also a "may". i find "evolution" vrs "creation" kind of a silly battle, because evolution does not prove that all that is was not created, but only proves things work with a complex design to evolve to support change in conditions. hrm...this topic isn't really a place for this kind of debate is it? i agree a theory is not a law, but i do believe that the truth can be known with further observation and understanding. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
A rabbi, a priest, and a minister hold a sign near a road that says "The end is near! Turn back now before it's too late!" A car goes by, slows down, and the driver yells out "GO HOME YOU CRAZIES" and continues to drive on. A few seconds later, they hear a big scream and then a crashing sound. Another car goes by, slows down, and the driver yells out "GET OFF THE ROAD!" and continues to drive on. Again, a few seconds later, they hear a big scream and then a crashing sound.
The rabbi turns over to the other two and says, "I think we should mention in our sign that the bridge ahead is down."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024