Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 37 of 107 (589232)
10-31-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
10-31-2010 1:41 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Apparently 'owls' is correct, although as Dr A. mentioned they're usually referred to as a parliament.
Likely far fewer than you might imagine. It is only later, when they actually get out of school and out of the insulation of the Avoidance Society that they get challenged. And then only if they enter a field where information is open and free flowing.
I think the number actually exposed to that evil atheistic modern science that denies God would be very low, but the rate of those that deconvert because of such exposure would be quite high.


Not worth another post, so placing it here:
I know for a fact that back in high school had I been taught that the derivative of x is x^2 instead of 1, I would have accepted it whole-heartedly. Why? Because I didn't know any better.
Seriously? d/dx x = 1 was kind of a straight corollary of the whole 'by first principles' thing.
Kind of makes me wonder what kind of teacher would be giving all the specific examples instead of the rules by which to determine them.
Edited by Nij, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 1:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 10:12 PM Nij has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 44 of 107 (589242)
11-01-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 2:40 AM


Re: Final exam questions
While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions
And as it happens, your snide rejoinder completely missed the point.
Those students are supposed to provide an essay demonstrating, as part of the standard for the course, that ID has some theological significance. This says entirely nothing about ID/creationism's preconceived conclusions. Which all of us here know about, but that's off-topic.
That you would take such an unambiguous discussion about why they are there and what they are supposed to demonstrate as part of the course, and infer that we are talking about ID/creationism's tendency to ignore evidence in favour of preconceived notions, says a lot about what you really see in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:54 PM Nij has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 51 of 107 (589384)
11-02-2010 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:54 PM


Re: Final exam questions
It doesn't bother me at all that ID has theological aspects.
What does bother me is that instead of discussing those aspects and specifically the students' requirement to present them, you decided to complain about preconceived conclusions supposedly being the basis of evolution.
Here's a thought for you: how about you don't project ID/creationism's shortcomings onto real science?
If that wasn't enough, yes, it is a valid thing to question why religious apologetics is required in what is supposedly a science class. IDiots: they don't seem able to think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:27 PM Nij has not replied
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 11-02-2010 7:56 PM Nij has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 52 of 107 (589387)
11-02-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:49 PM


I'm full aware this is off-topic, but somebody needs to do it...
Wrong. We are happy to discuss that very topic in public debate, in fact we insist on it being discussed.
You were just told that science research doesn't involve public debate, and this is because public opinion is irrelevant to what counts as valid science, yet you wish to repeat exactly the same claim in which it does.
I don't think any more need be said on that.
The fact that you distinguish debate from ID research demonstrates you know nothing of either
Actually, no, it indicates that Taq knows the difference between the two.
Perhaps in ID Crazyland "research" and "public debate" are synonymous, but out here in reality, they aren't.
what he was defending was a misunderstanding of evidence and how it works, or he simply overlooked it or was not presented it, correctly
Hmm, you mean evidence like what was presented to him them? Funny thing is, the witnesses that creotards presented admitted that ID was of a religious nature and the scientific community demonstrated that it was not science. And guess what? It happened that they used that evidence and made their decision not once, not twice, not thrice, not even just four times, but five times!
That's a total of 12 judges.
Presiding on 5 different cases, all in different courts.
Over a period of 3 decades.
This was not a simple error of the defense "not presenting it correctly", or of "overlook{ing}" the evidence or of the judge "misunderstanding" it. The fact is, in both law and science, that ID/creationism is religion, not science.
Every time I think you couldn't be more wrong, I'm forced to lower my opinion of you yet again. You are entirely incorrect on the issue at hand.
ID has to do with whether it is evidential or applicable, Im not sure why you think it has to have secular value to be valid
Because science is by definition secular. You know, all those rules about falsifiability and parsimony and not dealing with the supernatural and stuff?
If it isn't of secular value, it obvoiously has no secular aspects, therefore it clearly can't be science. Because you see, no matter how badly your cult might wish to change the definition, science does not concern itself with religion at all.
Edited by Nij, : Further phrase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:42 PM Nij has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 75 of 107 (589478)
11-02-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
11-02-2010 4:42 PM


By "IT" I meant pointing out your plain idiocy regarding the EvC court cases and correct your misapprehensions about science, just in case anybody couldn't notice that for themselves and just in case anybody lurking was gullible enough to believe your ranting.
You refuse to consider something not derived from your idiosyncratic point-of-view and completely ignore any explanation of others. Rather than address the points raised, you get defensive and complain about "tyranny" and playing ad hominem games. People have explained dozens of times what science -- i.e. following the scientific method -- is and yet you still whine about scientists "setting up the rules .. in {their} own little world".
You keep throwing out these keywords like evidence and reason and logic, thinking that somehow the person who uses them best is the person who uses the names most. You dig up rabbitholes to run through, ignoring the fact that everybody else is playing up on the surface. When presented with the evidence you request so often, instead of applying rationality to it, you dive off into another tirade of "No True Scotsman", begging the question and circular logic fallacies.
It's a little difficult to tell whether you know you're wrong and are deliberately trolling, or whether you're just another moronic creotard with its own spin on science, reality, logic and the definitions thereof. Either way, I'm not dealing with you any more. It's not worth the effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 8:11 PM Nij has not replied
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 8:20 PM Nij 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