Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 218 (605650)
02-21-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
02-21-2011 11:07 AM


B(luJ) Team
You made my chosen opponent B team
Message 8
It was either you or Ringo. You got in as the token theist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 02-21-2011 11:07 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 02-21-2011 12:08 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 218 (605652)
02-21-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
02-21-2011 11:20 AM


Hi, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'd team up with you.
Thanks!
-----
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
The way I see it, the team should include a few types of people:
  1. Clever, tenacious, brief posters who keep the discussion going, make it fun and have a knack for getting at the core issues of the debate (Dr Adequate, Ringo, Wounded King, you, etc.). These posters seem to be getting most of the nominations on this thread.
  2. Patient people who are good at understanding the opposition and adapting their explanations to the opposition as best as possible (e.g. Percy, Modulous, Stile, etc.).
  3. At least one thorough, detail-oriented poster who responds to a lot of the opposition's side points, tries to clarify and spends a lot of time on background reading and exposition (e.g., RAZD, Aaron, me).
  4. Somebody who puts in an occasional, well thought-out, mid-length post (somewhere between 1 and 3, like Phage or Rahvin).

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2011 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 218 (605655)
02-21-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Straggler
02-21-2011 11:49 AM


Re: B(luJ) Team
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
You made my chosen opponent B team.
In middle school (~12 years old), I made the D-team in basketball (seriously), but I actually scored my only two points of the season while filling in on an ad hoc C-team when we played a school without a D-team.
-----
Straggler writes:
It was either you or Ringo. You got in as the token theist.
Praise the Lord for affirmative action, I guess.
Now to go gloat at Ringo via PM*.
*This is a joke: I am not actually going to do this.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2011 11:49 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 12:23 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 218 (605658)
02-21-2011 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
02-21-2011 12:08 PM


Re: B(luJ) Team
Bluejay writes:
Now to go gloat at Ringo via PM*.
*ahem* I have other offers.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 02-21-2011 12:08 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 50 of 218 (605667)
02-21-2011 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
02-21-2011 10:27 AM


Re: Creationists are not team players
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.
You don't actually believe this to be the case, do you ? If a scientist disagrees with another on the interpretation fo such and such set of data, he is not obliged to still include it into his own hypotheses.
How else could science move forward ? If all scientists hypothesized that Ether existed, would I then be forced, as a physicist, to fit it into my physics theories ?
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....
You find many crackpot theories amongst layman creationists, but there aren't that many trends in creationism as a whole.
YEC scientists almost all agree on a well defined framework, and disagree on the finer points.
I don't see how this is any different from evolution, where the framework is general and the diagreements on the specifics. And where you sometime find the layman with some excentric view of all of it. (I had a philo professor that thought apes came from humans, not the other way around. for example)
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 think it is only logical that, you would be better off having a good preconceived notion about people then a bad one. It is better for you to be wrong about someone because you viewed them higher then they were, then to be wrong because you viewed them lower then they were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 10:27 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 2:46 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 51 of 218 (605670)
02-21-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phage0070
02-21-2011 11:27 AM


Re: Team Phat
No, preconceived notions are expectations.
It is more then simply expectations. Preconceived notions are a definite statement about particular individual (in this context) because of an assessment you made about the larger group.
If you have stated ''all creationists are idiots'', then it is more then expectations when you meet one. You will speak to him, treat him as such, until you start to see it is maybe otherwise (which, depending on the strength of the preconceived notion, may be never no matter how intelligent the person is)
Note that, in my view, even if all the creationist you had encountered up to date were idiots, this attitude would still be unjustifiable, because of what I ended my replies to Ringo with. The fact that you do have counter-examples only makes it that much worse.
There really isn't "plenty" of debate among scientists which makes me doubt the "well-thinking" of the rest of the people out there.
There are plenty of skeptics of the current theory of evolution out there.
What you are arguing against is the blatant disregard of a debater's position and dishonesty in argument. Not preconceived notions.
I'm arguing against people having already a firmly bad opinion of somebody else before he has even said a word.
Of course, we will always have an opinion of someone even before they speak, what I'm saying is that we must force unto ourselves that this opinion be a unsettled, but good, opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 02-21-2011 11:27 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Phage0070, posted 02-21-2011 3:58 PM slevesque has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 218 (605672)
02-21-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
02-21-2011 2:25 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
You don't actually believe this to be the case, do you ? If a scientist disagrees with another on the interpretation fo such and such set of data, he is not obliged to still include it into his own hypotheses.
We're not talking about the frontiers of science. You guys can't even agree whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.56 billion years old, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether God created Adam and Eve and all the rest of life, or if instead an intelligent designer is constantly tweaking all species to cause change over time, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether there was a global flood 4350 years ago that wiped out almost all life, or whether there was just a big local flood in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 or 20 thousand years, or even whether there was ever any flood at all, but you somehow know evolution is wrong.
We're talking about some of the most simple things to know, some of the easiest things to nail down, and you guys can't even reach agreement with each other about them. If a YEC can't convince an OEC, and vice versa, then how could either group ever hope to convince anyone in science.
The reason you guys can't agree on anything is because you're all looking to revelation instead of the real world for answers. The reason scientists agree about so much is because they use reality as their guide. You guys should really give it a try some time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:25 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:07 PM Percy has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 53 of 218 (605677)
02-21-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
02-21-2011 2:46 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
We're not talking about the frontiers of science.
Scientists don't just disagree on ''the frontiers of science''. This whole idea that scientists play such a team game that they fit into their own hypotheses what other scientists say has no legs at all.
In fact, if we take the example of evolution, the only thing every evolutionists agree on is that evolution happened. After that, it's an open game, and you could probably find someone who disagrees with the majority on pretty much every single point.
you guys can't even agree whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.56 billion years old, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether God created Adam and Eve and all the rest of life, or if instead an intelligent designer is constantly tweaking all species to cause change over time, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether there was a global flood 4350 years ago that wiped out almost all life, or whether there was just a big local flood in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 or 20 thousand years, or even whether there was ever any flood at all, but you somehow know evolution is wrong.
YEC creationists have all answers they all agree upon on all those questions.
Of course, you do relaize what you are doing, right ? You are implicitly using a definition of creationism say god damn large that it is normal there are a whole bunch if disagreeing people in the pack, anything else then that would be surprising.
You even included directed evolution in that, which is clearly not creationist from any reasonable definition. In fact, when you do take the real definition of creationist, there will be only to great trends: YEC and OEC.
We're talking about some of the most simple things to know, some of the easiest things to nail down, and you guys can't even reach agreement with each other about them. If a YEC can't convince an OEC, and vice versa, then how could either group ever hope to convince anyone in science.
This is a very simplistic and irrealist view on this. If there is a group of YEc and of OEC at ay given point in time, it does not mean any particular member of one group never was convinced of the validity of the other pov.
The reason you guys can't agree on anything is because you're all looking to revelation instead of the real world for answers. The reason scientists agree about so much is because they use reality as their guide. You guys should really give it a try some time.
Srawman, if we were strictly looking at revelation there would probably in fact be only YEC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 2:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 3:20 PM slevesque has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 54 of 218 (605682)
02-21-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
Scientists don't just disagree on ''the frontiers of science''. This whole idea that scientists play such a team game that they fit into their own hypotheses what other scientists say has no legs at all.
The only thing with no legs at all is what you just said. Go to the science section in any library and you'll find oodles of books detailing the scientific consensus across the whole breadth of science. There couldn't possibly be widespread disagreement about the core of science because, like I said before, reality is their guide. Scientists understand the pointlessness of ignoring reality, creationists don't. That's why you're ignoring the reality of the broad scientific consensus right now.
slevesque writes:
In fact, if we take the example of evolution, the only thing every evolutionists agree on is that evolution happened. After that, it's an open game, and you could probably find someone who disagrees with the majority on pretty much every single point.
I grant that if your criteria is just to "find somebody" that you'll probably have no trouble doing that, but can you name any fundamental tenet of evolution that more than 1% of biologists question? Go ahead, try.
If creationists were paying attention to reality instead of revelation then they would agree on things like the age of the Earth and a global flood and so forth, but they aren't and they don't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:43 PM Percy has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 55 of 218 (605691)
02-21-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Percy
02-21-2011 3:20 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
The only thing with no legs at all is what you just said. Go to the science section in any library and you'll find oodles of books detailing the scientific consensus across the whole breadth of science. There couldn't possibly be widespread disagreement about the core of science because, like I said before, reality is their guide.
Any textbook of physics would tell me that gravity is a fundamental force. Yet you can still find someone who questions if it even exists as a fundamental force (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf)
Does everyone now have to incorporate what he said into their hypotheses ? Or does he have to subdue his hypothese to the majority ? This is the claim Ringo made, and this is what I am claiming is not conform to reality.
Sure, there are some set of data that force a single explanation, and in those cases everyone agrees. But as soon as there are alternative interpretations, you are bound to find a groupe of scientist who adovcate it.
In fact, I would probably guess that there are fewer sets of data that force a single interpretation then there are sets of data that have multiple interpretations. Drawing from my own field of physics, it seems people will agree on electromagnetism, General Relativity and some parts of quantum physics. But after that, it's once again seems open game from where I stand.
Don't be fooled because textbooks present a given hypotheses/theory as if it was established. It presents the majority, but not the concensus.
I grant that if your criteria is just to "find somebody" that you'll probably have no trouble doing that, but can you name any fundamental tenet of evolution that more than 1% of biologists question? Go ahead, try.
Did lucy walk upright ? (Of course, you saying ''a fundamental tenet'' doesn't render justice to what I said. I agree that the fundamentals of evolution are agreed upon.)
If creationists were paying attention to reality instead of revelation then they would agree on things like the age of the Earth and a global flood and so forth, but they aren't and they don't.
Your setting up a false dichotomy, in that it is either ''you base yourself on reality, and everyone agrees'' or ''you base yourself on revelation, and it's a free for all''.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 3:48 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2011 4:16 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 4:18 PM slevesque has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 218 (605695)
02-21-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
Does everyone now have to incorporate what he said into their hypotheses ?
Of course they do. They have to show why he's wrong and they're right.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:43 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:59 PM ringo has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 218 (605698)
02-21-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by slevesque
02-21-2011 2:39 PM


Re: Team Phat
slevesque writes:
Note that, in my view, even if all the creationist you had encountered up to date were idiots, this attitude would still be unjustifiable, because of what I ended my replies to Ringo with.
Then you simply don't learn.
But keep in mind that I do have good preconceived notions about people to start with; I don't expect them to be Creationists.
slevesque writes:
There are plenty of skeptics of the current theory of evolution out there.
Since you dropped the "well-thinking" and the claim never included "people who are qualified to assess the topic" then I can agree that there are plenty of people out there who don't accept evolutionary theory. Of course I wouldn't phrase it as being "skeptics" exactly, but I'll chalk that up to semantics.
slevesque writes:
I'm arguing against people having already a firmly bad opinion of somebody else before he has even said a word.
For that to apply we would have to expect people to be Creationists before they said a word. Somehow I don't think thats the default people trend toward in this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:39 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 218 (605699)
02-21-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
02-21-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
Of course they do. They have to show why he's wrong and they're right.
That is a very loose definition of 'incorporate'
But then if that's what you meant, it isn't different from what creationist do with other creationist views. They 'incorporate' them by making rebutals. They ''play a team game'' just as much as everyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 3:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 4:26 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 59 of 218 (605701)
02-21-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phage0070
02-21-2011 3:58 PM


Re: Team Phat
Then you simply don't learn.
What ? You'll find that you'll learn more if every time someone new says something, you consider him an intelligent person until proven otherwise.
Sure, maybe you'll just find one diamond in 100 piles of crap, but that 1 is the edge on someone with a negative approach.
But keep in mind that I do have good preconceived notions about people to start with; I don't expect them to be Creationists.
And my good preconceived notions of you are starting to evaporate
Since you dropped the "well-thinking" and the claim never included "people who are qualified to assess the topic" then I can agree that there are plenty of people out there who don't accept evolutionary theory. Of course I wouldn't phrase it as being "skeptics" exactly, but I'll chalk that up to semantics.
Never meant to drop the 'well-thinking', I thought it would pass through as implicit since this is what I was responding to.
For that to apply we would have to expect people to be Creationists before they said a word. Somehow I don't think thats the default people trend toward in this forum.
I think you knew exactly what I was trying to say. I certainly hope your not starting to play on words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phage0070, posted 02-21-2011 3:58 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 02-21-2011 4:22 PM slevesque has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 60 of 218 (605704)
02-21-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
Hi Slevesque,
Any textbook of physics would tell me that gravity is a fundamental force. Yet you can still find someone who questions if it even exists as a fundamental force
Sure, you can find someone who will question any part of the scientific consensus, but in the case of gravity, this is very unusual and on the fringe.
In creationism this is the norm. Every time a new creationist registers here, we have to work out exactly which of the many flavours of creationism they favour, and there are a great many varieties. Is the Earth old or young for example? This is a major division amongst creationists. Is Christian creationism true or is Islamic creationism the one? Christians creationists may be the most vocal on this forum, but I seriously doubt that they make up a worldwide majority of those with creationist views. This is a major schism in creationist thought and one which will never be healed. There is nothing comparable in science.
I agree that the fundamentals of evolution are agreed upon.
Indeed they are. Now define "kind".
See the problem?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:43 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:26 PM Granny Magda 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