|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I mean, just look at my own first thread (salt in oceans - where is the thread number, I can't find it to create a link?) here and the very first reply I got from Dr.A. Because those creationist who do want to get rational discussions going won't be encouraged to stay by snarky remarks etc., and so you are left with those who just like to pick a fight on the internet And yet here you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yeah well fortunately, there were some kinder folks that replied after you.
But I certainly would not have sustained that for long if it would have been a general feature of the posters here. I like your writing style a lot of the times, but when you bring all the accumulated notions from previous discussion from other creationist, and then apply them to a newly arrived one, it is not a winning formula.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: I think it simply is that many creationist that come along are quickly gone because many posters here come to the table with a boatload of preconcieved notions about them. Dogma tends to do that. Lets be honest, if they were well versed in original thinking they wouldn't be Creationists would they? Most people are not sociopathic liars and prefer not to make claims generated purely from their imagination without any form of evidence whatsoever. With a few notable exceptions among those who frequent this board of course, knowingly peddling fiction as fact is distasteful. Instead people who are so far outside the advance of human knowledge are likely to be that way because they have been carefully indoctrinated with bullshit. This bullshit is codified, ritualized, and habitually cemented as an attempt to remain unchanged and "pure". This is an essential ingredient because it if was open to change then it would of necessity been modified into something other than bullshit when exposed to scientific fact. The fact that it has remained crap for an extended period guarantees concerted efforts to hammer said turds into carefully prepared minds with as little modification as possible. So yes slevesque, its quite reasonable to hold certain preconceived notions about Creationists in the same sense that it is reasonable to hold preconceived notions about the knowledge of Engineering graduates. Both were subject to the formal imprinting of certain sets of knowledge, and you would be a fool to ignore that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Dogma tends to do that. Lets be honest, if they were well versed in original thinking they wouldn't be Creationists would they? Most people are not sociopathic liars and prefer not to make claims generated purely from their imagination without any form of evidence whatsoever. With a few notable exceptions among those who frequent this board of course, knowingly peddling fiction as fact is distasteful. Instead people who are so far outside the advance of human knowledge are likely to be that way because they have been carefully indoctrinated with bullshit. This bullshit is codified, ritualized, and habitually cemented as an attempt to remain unchanged and "pure". This is an essential ingredient because it if was open to change then it would of necessity been modified into something other than bullshit when exposed to scientific fact. The fact that it has remained crap for an extended period guarantees concerted efforts to hammer said turds into carefully prepared minds with as little modification as possible. So yes slevesque, its quite reasonable to hold certain preconceived notions about Creationists in the same sense that it is reasonable to hold preconceived notions about the knowledge of Engineering graduates. Both were subject to the formal imprinting of certain sets of knowledge, and you would be a fool to ignore that. You realized that everything you said to justify having preconceived notions, are themself preconceived notions about creationism/creationist ? How do you know any given creationist is a brainwashed person with no rational basis for what he believes ? Because you have already made up your mind that, if he is a creationist, then de facto he must be a brainwashed person with no rational basis for what he believes. This is then reinforced when approaching someone with this in mind, because it usually chases away those that don't fit that mold, while sparks tensions with those that are like that. So it becomes sort of a vicious circle. Because seriously, what do you think I told myself when I saw the very first reply Dr.A gave me ? I told myself:''This guy is seriously retarded'' (of course this opinion has changed with time ) and usually, rational people don't have time to wasted with retards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: How do you know any given creationist is a brainwashed person with no rational basis for what he believes ? Because you have already made up your mind that, if he is a creationist, then de facto he must be a brainwashed person with no rational basis for what he believes. How do you know that any given engineering college graduate is capable of the basic mathematical operations such as would be required for an engineering job? Because you have already made up your mind that if he is an engineering graduate then de facto he must be capable of the basic mathematics as would be required in an engineering job. Just because something is a preconceived notion does not mean it is false. Now it may be that such assumptions are off-putting to some people, but I tend to treat people as if they have as passing familiarity with the basic knowledge of modern humanity until proven otherwise. It is a continual surprise when someone reveals their world view to be severely compromised in such a way. People have plenty of time to craft their posts in such a forum and are usually quite capable of unfurling their own patina of ignorance and superstition. At the very least a little exposition is required to determine which cult mislead them. Heck, its rare to the point of absurdity to see a creationist come here and post "I think that the world/universe/humanity was created by an intelligent being because of... 'whatever' " Most of the time its either "You are wrong because I don't accept 'blank' because I believe this instead," or they don't even bother with formalities and simply post a word-salad of scripture and ranting. Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
How do you know that any given engineering college graduate is capable of the basic mathematical operations such as would be required for an engineering job? Because you have already made up your mind that if he is an engineering graduate then de facto he must be capable of the basic mathematics as would be required in an engineering job. Just because something is a preconceived notion does not mean it is false. I never said it did. However, there is ample counter-examples to this specific preconceived notion to make it false. There are bunches of intelligent, rational people out there who are creationists, and once in a while once comes along, and you need not greet him as if he was a stupid caveman idiot. Its is as if every 1 times out of 5, you would meet an engineer incapable of basic math. Would you then be justified to continue to hold unto the preconceived notion that ''all engineers are capable of basic math'' ?
Now it may be that such assumptions are off-putting to some people, but I tend to treat people as if they have as passing familiarity with the basic knowledge of modern humanity until proven otherwise. It is a continual surprise when someone reveals their world view to be severely compromised in such a way. But it seems severely compromised only for your point of view, because your opinion of the situation is that the theory of evolution is a settled, established thing. But keep in mind that there are many well-thinking people out there who do think that the there is still place for genuine doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.
People have plenty of time to craft their posts in such a forum and are usually quite capable of unfurling their own patina of ignorance and superstition. At the very least a little exposition is required to determine which cult mislead them. I'm not saying their aren't very ignorant creationist. I'm saying that approaching new creationist members as if they were ignorant is bound to chase off any well-thinking ones. That's because intelligent, rational people don't have time to waste talking to people who treat them as if they were morons. A sub aspect of this is if a creationist does stay, and that eventually you start to realize ''hey this guy does have some logical thinking in him'' you immediatly engage in post hoc rationalization; usually being ''he was just brainwashed, it's not his fault''. But this is simply discarding counter-examples to your preconceived notion.
Heck, its rare to the point of absurdity to see a creationist come here and post "I think that the world/universe/humanity was created by an intelligent being because of... 'whatever' " Most of the time its either "You are wrong because I don't accept 'blank' because I believe this instead," or they don't even bother with formalities and simply post a word-salad of scripture and ranting. But what I'm saying is that, in the rare case you do have a creationist who comes in saying ''I think that the world/universe/humanity was created by an intelligent being because of... 'whatever' ", you reply to him as if he had posted word-salad. (BTW I'm saying ''you'' in a general manner, not you personnally)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
slevesque writes: I mean, just look at my own first thread (salt in oceans - where is the thread number, I can't find it to create a link?) here and the very first reply I got from Dr.A. See Message 3. Dr Adequate does tend to get suspended a lot, though not recently. Many of his posts leave me with two thoughts:
First, "<sigh> There he goes again." Second, "That sure was a clever response to yet another combination of chutzpah and ignorance." While I've probably become inured to the snark over the years, I do still find myself amazed at the confidence displayed by people discussing something they know very little about. We evolutionists feel, to borrow an old but appropriate metaphor, like we're shoveling sand into the ocean. There are new legions of the ignorant being trained every year, but there's a big difference between the current crop of creationists and those from the even just the recent past. The emphasis of creationist leadership on "teaching the controversy" seems to ignore all details of their actual positions on scientific matters, with the result that these days it is not uncommon for creationists to come here knowing they disagree with evolution but having little idea why. Creationists of the recent past used to come here citing the catechisms of the ICR or DI, but now they seem to be getting little guidance from these organizations and have to figure it out themselves as they go along. Even evolutionists who despise Henry Morris (founder of ICR) and Duane Gish (champion creationist debater) have to admire how thoroughly and ingeniously their arguments are constructed, but their example isn't being followed much any more. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Miller => Morris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Even evolutionists who despise Henry Miller (founder of ICR) ... It's a wonder he also found the time to write Tropic of Cancer.
Even evolutionists who despise Henry Miller (founder of ICR) and Duane Gish (champion creationist debater) have to admire how thoroughly and ingeniously their arguments are constructed ... "Ingeniously" is not the word I'd have chosen. Not when there are approximately a million other words in the English language, many of which, such as "haddock", "runcible", and "xylophone", would seem more apt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes:
But what I'm saying is that, in the rare case you do have a creationist who comes in saying ''I think that the world/universe/humanity was created by an intelligent being because of... 'whatever' ", you reply to him as if he had posted word-salad. That, someone coming here and saying they think the universe was created by an intelligent being almost never happens. Instead, what we find is people saying that the universe was created by an intelligent being. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
jar writes: Instead, what we find is people saying that the universe was created by an intelligent being. And then there's the judgement part, where they accuse us of hating God and of making things up about the universe and life because we want to prove God doesn't exist so we can do whatever we feel like. Creationists do sincerely believe that science is out to destroy their religion, but forgotten today is that this controversy all began as an issue of science education that drove subsequent decades of effort to cast religious beliefs into the mold of science. The current creationist crop has little patience for trying to cast their beliefs into acceptable scientific frameworks the way that ICR, CRS and AIG did, and still do. Without shame or embarrassment or any apparent awareness they advance unscientific and even patently absurd and ridiculous ideas. We want creationists to come here and discuss the relevant issues, but what we mostly get is a kind of scientific preaching where in place of the evidenceless "God did this" and "God did that" we get the similarly evidenceless "The world is 6000 years old" and "There was a global flood 4300 years ago." The idea that one should have evidence standing behind what one believes merits little consideration, even bafflement. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Percy writes:
Why do you think this is? While I don't talk much anymore, I do occasionally find the time to read a lot of things on a lot of evc forums. Creationists of the recent past used to come here citing the catechisms of the ICR or DI, but now they seem to be getting little guidance from these organizations and have to figure it out themselves as they go along. I must admit that I have encountered "evolutionists" that didn't know jack poop about certain things, myself included. If you want to get me to discuss about geology, good luck on that. But for some reason, "evolutionists" who are ignorant about certain topics tend to stay away from those topics while creationists tend to have no problem making up bullshit as they go along. Again, this is a perfect demonstration of what I have been pointing out for years. It just seems to me that a lot of what we observe are the exact opposite of what we'd expect. -Conservatives favoring tax cuts for the rich to put more burden on the middle class even though this is the opposite of what their bible says. -Religionists making up bullshit in the evc debates even though they claim to have the moral high ground. -Christian divorce rates are through the roof compared to secular ones even though christians want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. -Conservatives want to be able to trash this planet even though they want to "conserve". -Christians being intolerant of gheys even though they claim to love. And so on and so forth. Iunno. If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought it was suppose to be the other way around in all these things. The evilutionists were the ones that were suppose to make up bullshit while the moral christians were suppose to be the morally superior crowd and go with facts. Anyway, just my random thoughts for the day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
That illustrates the difference between science and creationism. Scientists are responsible for what other scientists say. They do have to fit all of it into their own hypotheses. I think it simply is that many creationist that come along are quickly gone because many posters here come to the table with a boatload of preconcieved notions about them. Creationists, on the other hand, seem to think they can each have their own crackpot "theory", picking and choosing what they like from what other creationists claim. There are strict young-earthers, there are old-earthers, there are old-earth/young-lifers.... The only consistency is the notion that science is always wrong. So it's quite reasonable for EvC members to start with a preconception of what a creationist is. It's your responsibility to distinguish yourself. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
I seem to be a bit behind in responding to the original idea of this thread, but I'm going to do it anyway.
My Dream Team would include Bluejay, Bluejay, Bluejay and Bluejay (since, apparently, nobody else wants me on their team). -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'd team up with you.
Since everyone else is already drooling over Modulus, I don't want him anymore. I'd take Coyote and Cavediver or Wounded King. Ringo would be helpful. Although, Theo would be a great droid to have to do all the work that we don't want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: I never said it did. However, there is ample counter-examples to this specific preconceived notion to make it false. No, preconceived notions are expectations. Finding a handful of contrary examples does not render it false, and 1 in 5 isn't necessarily enough to render it useless. Although of course it would probably be modified into "Engineers can do basic math + Engineering education is extremely spotty."
slevesque writes: But keep in mind that there are many well-thinking people out there who do think that the there is still place for genuine doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution. There really isn't "plenty" of debate among scientists which makes me doubt the "well-thinking" of the rest of the people out there.
slevesque writes: A sub aspect of this is if a creationist does stay, and that eventually you start to realize ''hey this guy does have some logical thinking in him'' you immediatly engage in post hoc rationalization; usually being ''he was just brainwashed, it's not his fault''. But this is simply discarding counter-examples to your preconceived notion. What you are arguing against is the blatant disregard of a debater's position and dishonesty in argument. Not preconceived notions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024