Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deconversion experiences
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 299 (594219)
12-02-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2010 4:30 PM


Its my name Moron
Dawn is a girl's name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2010 4:30 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 167 of 299 (594222)
12-02-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2010 1:37 AM


Re: Catch 22
I can certainly win any debate on design
Not until you can show that design exists, not as compared to human designed articles , but as to the natural world. and not with bronze aged myths, as the book of Job.
Edited by bluescat48, : typs Ineed to repair the keys on thsi F#$kin'krybaraed

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2010 1:37 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by bluescat48, posted 12-03-2010 12:26 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 168 of 299 (594223)
12-02-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Meldinoor
12-02-2010 4:50 PM


Re: Is that the best you've got?
Nope,
Thank you, so yours are words, without knowledge. You dont have platform to question diddly
and neither was He. As is apparent by his complete lack of understanding for how the world works and how it formed.
Or maybe he is speaking to someone as simple as yourself, that is, if he were to explain to you personally in a specific sense exacally how he exists and creates things, you would understand them no better, than, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
I cant really explain in specific detail exacally what the feeling or experince of combat is now can I, unless I have witnessed and experinced it personally can I?
Gods point and logic stands. You dont understand diddly. Youve abandonded your belief without reason or cause
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 4:50 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Panda, posted 12-02-2010 5:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 173 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 7:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 169 of 299 (594224)
12-02-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2010 4:30 PM


Re: The slow Navy dude
DM writes:
I know navy people are slow, but I had no idea how slow. Its my name Moron
An insult.
DM writes:
Anger management classes are in order I believe, its my real name Moron
An insult.
DM writes:
Read the entire, Does the IDM follow the SM thread, Ive made it so simple a childish child, such as yourself could understand it
An insult.
DM writes:
How about a formal public debate on design and why it should be taught in the science classroom? Be a Man and step up to the plate
An insult.
DM writes:
M has lost his faith for no reason
An insult.
I see a pattern...
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2010 4:30 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 170 of 299 (594225)
12-02-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2010 5:41 PM


Re: Is that the best you've got?
DM writes:
Thank you, so yours are words, without knowledge. You dont have platform to question diddly
An insult.
DM writes:
Or maybe he is speaking to someone as simple as yourself, that is, if he were to explain to you personally in a specific sense exacally how he exists and creates things, you would understand them no better, than, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
An insult.
DM writes:
I cant really explain in specific detail exacally what the feeling or experince of combat is now can I, unless I have witnessed and experinced it personally can I?
A question!
DM writes:
Gods point and logic stands. You dont understand diddly. Youve abandonded your belief without reason or cause
An insult.
I see still see a trend...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2010 5:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 171 of 299 (594236)
12-02-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2010 4:30 PM


Re: The slow Navy dude
I have posted an apology.
its my real name Moron
Well since your real name is Moron, then thank you for finally giving it.
"Dawn" is a girl's name, Moron.
Read the entire, Does the IDM follow the SM thread, Ive made it so simple a childish child, such as yourself could understand it
I have. You cannot write. You cannot put coherent thoughts together. Nobody can understand you. And you refuse to make any attempt to communicate. For that matter, you vehemently oppose the very thought of being asked to try to communicate.
How about a formal public debate on design and why it should be taught in the science classroom? Be a Man and step up to the plate
Before I could even begin to consider it, I would need to insist on certain conditions to which you would need to be very strictly bound. Here are a few to start with:
1. It would need to be written rather than spoken. That is to prevent you from breaking into a series of incoherent Gish Gallops. Not that you wouldn't try it anyway, but at least when it's in writing then we can still have some chance of trying to extract some kind of meaning from your incomprehsible blather.
2. You would need to stop spewing bullshit. Yeah, I know, if we take that away from you then you won't have anything to say.
3. You would need to make an actual effort to communicate.
Since more than 2200 posts by you have demonstrated that you are incapable of meeting any of those conditions, ...
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2010 4:30 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2010 11:05 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 172 of 299 (594239)
12-02-2010 7:04 PM


Please, back to the topic theme
Hopefully everyone has gotten the crankiness out of their systems.
Now back to things topic theme.
Adminnemooseus

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 173 of 299 (594240)
12-02-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2010 5:41 PM


Re: Is that the best you've got?
ABE: Sorry. I didn't see admin Moose's post until after I posted this.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Thank you, so yours are words, without knowledge
Nope. While not being as knowledgeable as, say, a scientist who has actually studied the relevant areas of knowledge, I'm pretty sure my words convey more scientific knowledge than the entire book of Job.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You dont have platform to question diddly
Everyone has a right to question, no matter how stupid or ignorant they are.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Or maybe he is speaking to someone as simple as yourself, that is, if he were to explain to you personally in a specific sense exacally how he exists and creates things, you would understand them no better, than, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
That's funny, because it seems to me that creationists and IDists seem to prefer the simple and incorrect explanations for creation given in the Bible. Are you saying that you don't know how and when God created the world?
Dawn Bertot writes:
I cant really explain in specific detail exacally what the feeling or experince of combat is now can I, unless I have witnessed and experinced it personally can I?
No, but you could lie about it.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Gods point and logic stands
Is God also right about the shape of the Earth? About where snow and hail come from? It's kind of funny that you're suggesting God to be an authority on creation, when he can't even get some basic astronomy and meteorology right.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You dont understand diddly
Oh? How do you know? You don't know who I am, or what I understand. For all you know I could be God, cleverly disguised as a skeptical college student. If that's the case then I AM the undisputed authority on creation, and I think you're bonkers.
With divine disdain for your blasphemy,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2010 5:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 174 of 299 (594321)
12-03-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by bluescat48
12-02-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Catch 22
To get back on topic of deconversion, I will use my previous post:
Not until you can show that design exists, not as compared to human designed articles , but as to the natural world. and not with bronze aged myths, as the book of Job.
It is these myths that led to my deconversion. Having been indoctrinated into these at the "totally mature age of 5," yes indoctrinated-- the first class stated with the comment "These are the absolute truths, you cannot question them." What 5 year old is going to buck that?
These absolute truths slowly, over the course of about 40 years, became absolute nonsense when coupled with reality. That is the deconversion, coming to grips with the reality that, these "truths," aren't.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by bluescat48, posted 12-02-2010 5:28 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2010 10:45 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 175 of 299 (594736)
12-04-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by bluescat48
12-03-2010 12:26 AM


Re: Catch 22
Not until you can show that design exists, not as compared to human designed articles , but as to the natural world. and not with bronze aged myths, as the book of Job.
The key word in your above sentence is SHOW. I dont think you or most of the other fellows actually understand that you are mistakenly confusing the word Prove for the word SHOW.
In the absence of that which is provable concerning matters and events that no longer available to us, all we have or can Show, is that which is logically deduced. Since order is obviously a valid deduction of design, all that needs to be demonstrated (shown)is the logical probabilites of said design, against the clearly obvious order and law in nature
In this instance, since the order cooroborates it and we no longer have absolute prove of any of the actual events of the past, all that is needed is that which is deduced logically
Watch how it works on your side of the fence, so to speak.
You have no direct absolute evidence of evolution or macro-evolution, because those events and conditions no longer exist. the best you can do from the available evidence (as order and law on my side), such as change in time,strata and change within species is DEDUCE that said evolution took place
But you are limited to what can be logically deduced, without proving it absolutely
Design, a designer and "evolution" are deduced, they are not and cannot be SHOWN in the way you are using the word
You apply the word 'show' to me as if you have demonstrated or SHOWN, your position as absolute proof. Thus, unwittingly used one set of rules for yourself and another for me
Both of these positions, evo and design are demonstratable in an investigative manner, but both are conclusions with the exact same kind of "evidence"
Now let anyone that thinks they can, step up and demonstrate why this is not valid
M, yourself, and others have abandoned you positions of faith or belief without thinking things through
It is these myths that led to my deconversion. Having been indoctrinated into these at the "totally mature age of 5," yes
One would wonder why you consider design a myth. Its probably due to the fact that you dont understand how evidence we use, to formulate thoeries and hypethosis are actually constructed
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by bluescat48, posted 12-03-2010 12:26 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2010 11:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 181 by bluescat48, posted 12-05-2010 12:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 176 of 299 (594738)
12-04-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dawn Bertot
12-04-2010 10:45 PM


Re: Catch 22
I'd respond, but it would all be off topic.
Take it to another thread. We'll refute it there, and you'll ignore the evidence we present same as always.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2010 10:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2010 11:08 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 177 of 299 (594739)
12-04-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by dwise1
12-02-2010 6:51 PM


Re: The slow Navy dude
Before I could even begin to consider it, I would need to insist on certain conditions to which you would need to be very strictly bound. Here are a few to start with:
1. It would need to be written rather than spoken. That is to prevent you from breaking into a series of incoherent Gish Gallops. Not that you wouldn't try it anyway, but at least when it's in writing then we can still have some chance of trying to extract some kind of meaning from your incomprehsible blather.
2. You would need to stop spewing bullshit. Yeah, I know, if we take that away from you then you won't have anything to say.
3. You would need to make an actual effort to communicate.
Since more than 2200 posts by you have demonstrated that you are incapable of meeting any of those conditions, ...
So this is a sad, evasive way of saying you are not man enough to stand in the polemic arena, in a formal way, to defend what you believe
Ok, Ill take it as a concession
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 12-02-2010 6:51 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by dwise1, posted 12-05-2010 12:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 178 of 299 (594740)
12-04-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Coyote
12-04-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Catch 22
I'd respond, but it would all be off topic.
Take it to another thread. We'll refute it there, and you'll ignore the evidence we present same as always.
Its not off topic because BC, used it as an example of his deconversion process. But it would be interesting to see how you would refute logic as sound as that I have presented
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2010 11:01 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2010 11:10 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 179 of 299 (594741)
12-04-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dawn Bertot
12-04-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Catch 22
Take it to an appropriate thread.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2010 11:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 180 of 299 (594744)
12-05-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dawn Bertot
12-04-2010 11:05 PM


Re: The slow IDist
I am making no concession whatsoever. I am insisting that any debate be an actual debate.
Instead, you are refusing to engage in actual debate, or in any actual discussion for that matter, which you have consistent been doing ever since you first posted on this forum.
So you are conceding that you have no intention of engaging in an actual debate and that your "challenge" is nothing more than the rest of what you post here, bullshit.
You left out the rest of my post, in particular:
I have {read what you had written in that thread}. You cannot write. You cannot put coherent thoughts together. Nobody can understand you. And you refuse to make any attempt to communicate. For that matter, you vehemently oppose the very thought of being asked to try to communicate.
In an actual debate, you will need to put coherent thoughts together, something that you have proven yourself to be incapable of. In an actual debate, you will need to express your thoughts and arguments in such a manner that they can be understood, something that you have proven yourself to be incapable of. In an actual debate, you will need to communicate, something that you have not only proven yourself to be incapable of, but you vehemently oppose the very idea.
Actual debate, Dawn, not the bullshit con-job that you normally pull on the public.
But you concede that you have no intention of engaging in an actual debate. Not man enough for it, eh?
In the meantime, you still need to provide an actual case of ID using the scientific method. I understand you refusal to provide it, since you know of none.
thing, that your case does not really exist, and that you are no

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2010 11:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2010 6:17 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024