Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 218 (605706)
02-21-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
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)
What did I just say about the criteria of just "finding someone" who demurs? I said that you should have no trouble finding such a person, didn't I? So what do you do? You find one guy who demurs.
But even worse, your example of someone questioning whether gravity is fundamental or emergent is incredibly esoteric and is definitely on the scientific frontier. Let me repeat something else I just said: we're not talking about the scientific frontiers. We're talking about the basics.
So do you now understand that in a world of 6 billion people that "finding someone" who believes something weird means nothing? And do you understand that we're talking about the broad scientific consensus and not stuff on the scientific frontiers?
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.
Again, that's the scientific frontier. Can you think of any examples involving something basic, the kind of things that actually get discussed here at this forum? We're talking about the simple stuff that has been established for well over a century, like the great antiquity of the Earth and universe, the absence of evidence for a global flood 4500 years ago, and the relatedness of life through a history of common descent. If you guys can't even convince each other whether the Earth is old or young, how can you ever hope to convince anyone in science, especially when all your arguments trace back to a religious book instead of evidence from reality.
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.)
You're on a roll coming up with poor examples, but at least you seem to recognize it in this case. This one should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Please try again. Can you name anything basic about evolution like common descent or descent with modification or natural selection or random mutation and variation that more than 1% of biologists question?
You're 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''.
The dichotomy I'm actually setting up is that if you base your thinking upon reality then you have an orders of magnitude better chance of figuring out what is actually going on than if you base your thinking on revelation. Remember science class in high school? Who had the better chance of getting the correct lab result, the guy who actually performed the experiment or the guy who sat in a corner reading a comic book?
--Percy

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 79 by slevesque, posted 02-22-2011 6:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 218 (605707)
02-21-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by slevesque
02-21-2011 4:07 PM


Re: Team Phat
slevesque writes:
You'll find that you'll learn more if every time someone new says something, you consider him an intelligent person until proven otherwise.
You did catch the part about assuming that the average person has a general smattering of modern human knowledge, and that they must first show themselves to be a Creationists right?
slevesque writes:
I think you knew exactly what I was trying to say. I certainly hope your not starting to play on words
What I think you were trying to do is whine about the unpopular light your particular departure from reality is viewed in. To try to counter this you are claiming that every Creationist is a unique snowflake of belief, regardless of the fact that an integral part of what leads people to be Creationists tends to divide them into easily defined groups with specific sets of beliefs.
Well too bad; Creationism is going to be viewed in a poor light for good reason. Individual Creationists are often going to be lumped into subcategories based on their beliefs because it is a useful and accurate means of determining their beliefs. Get over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 02-22-2011 6:29 AM Phage0070 has not replied

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


Message 63 of 218 (605708)
02-21-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
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.
The trouble is that they don't make the same rebuttals. YECs and OECs agree that evolution is wrong but they don't agree on whether or not the dating is wrong. That's a clear indication that their interpretations are not driven by the evidence.

"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 58 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:59 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:32 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 64 of 218 (605709)
02-21-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Granny Magda
02-21-2011 4:16 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
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.
Maybe physics is different from other areas, but everyone seems to have at least one fringe opinion in one area or the other.
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.
Your confounding the range of opinions in layman creationists, which is of course much more diversified then the creation scientist.
But not only that, but I think it should be obvious by now that this is simply a game of definitions. Of course, if you use a wide definition for 'creationist', you are bound to incoporate a lot of different worldviews. This has nothing to do with creationists ''not playing a team game'' as was the original accusation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2011 4:16 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2011 4:36 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 4:38 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 65 of 218 (605710)
02-21-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
02-21-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
The trouble is that they don't make the same rebuttals. YECs and OECs agree that evolution is wrong but they don't agree on whether or not the dating is wrong. That's a clear indication that their interpretations are not driven by the evidence.
This is nothing abnormal.
Evolutionists can't agree if Lucy walked upright or not, is that's a clear indication that their interpretations are not driven by the evidence ?
No, because from each pov their interpretation accounts for the evidence. And when you have multiple possible interpretations, the group naturally is divided in different sub-groups.
You cannot reasonably demand that, in the case of creationist, even when multiple interpretations are possible, they should all have the same concensus conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 4:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 02-21-2011 6:07 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 66 of 218 (605711)
02-21-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
02-21-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
Maybe physics is different from other areas, but everyone seems to have at least one fringe opinion in one area or the other.
But surely you must recognise that opinions within creationism are much more diverse than on my side of the game? I don't think that there are even two creationist members here that broadly agree on their positions.
Your confounding the range of opinions in layman creationists, which is of course much more diversified then the creation scientist.
There are Islamic "creation scientists" you know. Creation science can't even agree on which god is supposed to be the creator.
You will also see major differences between the major Christian creationist organisations that are so popular online. These groups pretend to a level of (entirely fake) professionalism, but they still disagree on many issues.
But not only that, but I think it should be obvious by now that this is simply a game of definitions. Of course, if you use a wide definition for 'creationist', you are bound to incoporate a lot of different worldviews. This has nothing to do with creationists ''not playing a team game'' as was the original accusation.
How often do we see creo members here coming to each others defence? Not often.
I would say that the reason that creationists are such poor team players is that they cannot be. The sheer diversity of opinion, even within religious sects, is just too great. I would call that a side effect of the creationist habit of making shit up.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:26 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 67 of 218 (605713)
02-21-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
02-21-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
Of course, if you use a wide definition for 'creationist', you are bound to incoporate a lot of different worldviews. This has nothing to do with creationists ''not playing a team game'' as was the original accusation.
The original accusation - mine, I believe - was specifically about creationist debators on this forum. That's what the thread is about.

"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 64 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:26 PM slevesque has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 218 (605717)
02-21-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
02-19-2011 7:29 PM


as modulus is taken ...
revised list
I'd pick
Aaron as the team theist (alternate slevesque)
ringo as the team atheist (alternate subbie)
and
cavediver as the team physicist (alternate Son Goku)
... to fill in my weak side/s
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2011 7:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 02-21-2011 5:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 69 of 218 (605718)
02-21-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
02-21-2011 5:06 PM


Re: as modulus is taken ...
to me, ringo comes across as more agnostic than atheist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 5:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Phage0070, posted 02-21-2011 6:42 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 70 of 218 (605721)
02-21-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
02-21-2011 4:32 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
Evolutionists can't agree if Lucy walked upright or not, is that's a clear indication that their interpretations are not driven by the evidence ?
You're talking about one tiny peice of evidence. I'm talking about the big picture. Creationists can't agree on the freakin' age of the earth, for God's sake.
slevesque writes:
You cannot reasonably demand that, in the case of creationist, even when multiple interpretations are possible, they should all have the same concensus conclusion.
It isn't that "multiple interpretations are possible". It's that tiny tweaks of interpretations are possible. It's reasonable to disagree with the tweaks but not with the broad principles. And creationists don't even have any broad principles that they agree on.

"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 65 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 4:32 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 218 (605723)
02-21-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
02-21-2011 5:07 PM


Re: as modulus is taken ...
Phat writes:
to me, ringo comes across as more agnostic than atheist
Agnostic vs. gnostic is not the same as atheist vs. theist. An agnostic doesn't claim to have knowledge while a gnostic does claim knowledge. An atheist doesn't have a belief in a god while a theist does have belief in a god.
Each pair of terms is a true dichotomy but the pairs are completely compatible with each other. You can't ever have a gnostic agnostic or an atheistic theist but you can have gnostic and agnostic atheists, and gnostic and agnostic theists.
So saying that Ringo comes across as more agnostic than atheist is speaking of two different things, and thus doesn't really make sense. You are comparing apples and oranges, and contrasting things that don't contrast at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 02-21-2011 5:07 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 218 (605727)
02-21-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2011 11:39 PM


Re:Maliciously Maligning Minority Members
Dr Adequate writes:
How many EvC members would have ever had an awareness of the Biblical prophecies relative to the latter days, alternative views concerning the emerging New World Order, Middle East current events, acclaimed Exodus evidence and alternative views concerning many topics which would never have been on the table if left up to Tranquil Base and True Creation types?
Well, if we'd left it up to you we wouldn't have heard equally nonsensical statements about the great Pyramid and the "pillars of Enoch". For that we needed Cold Foreign Object.
Every religious loon has their own brand of crazy, there's nothing special about yours.
Dr Adequate, you and the pack who've received some ideological butt kicking in threads like the Exodus thread take advantage of threads such as this to malign the one who held the skeptical Exodus pack at bay with unrefuted (albeit, debatable) evidence for 35 or so pages of robust legitimate debate.
Pernicious opinions pertaining to persons posting unpopular points, opposing positions prescribed by the pack, are inappropriately posited persistently.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by DrJones*, posted 02-21-2011 7:42 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 74 by jar, posted 02-21-2011 7:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 8:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 73 of 218 (605728)
02-21-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
02-21-2011 7:35 PM


Re: Re:Maliciously Maligning Minority Members
Dr Adequate, you and the pack who've received some ideological butt kicking in threads like the Exodus thread
"Ideological butt kicking"!!!? Excuse while I laugh my ass off for an hour or three....
ok I'm back, by the Exodus thread do you mean the thread where Admin repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for your position and you were unable to do anything more than repeat your initial assertions?
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2011 7:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 02-22-2011 12:05 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 218 (605729)
02-21-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
02-21-2011 7:35 PM


Re: Re:Maliciously Maligning Minority Members
Buzsaw writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
How many EvC members would have ever had an awareness of the Biblical prophecies relative to the latter days, alternative views concerning the emerging New World Order, Middle East current events, acclaimed Exodus evidence and alternative views concerning many topics which would never have been on the table if left up to Tranquil Base and True Creation types?
Well, if we'd left it up to you we wouldn't have heard equally nonsensical statements about the great Pyramid and the "pillars of Enoch". For that we needed Cold Foreign Object.
Every religious loon has their own brand of crazy, there's nothing special about yours.
Dr Adequate, you and the pack who've received some ideological butt kicking in threads like the Exodus thread take advantage of threads such as this to malign the one who held the skeptical Exodus pack at bay with unrefuted (albeit, debatable) evidence for 35 or so pages of robust legitimate debate.
Pernicious opinions pertaining to persons posting unpopular points, opposing positions prescribed by the pack, are inappropriately posited persistently.
Do you have a link to that thread Buz? I MUST HAVE MISSED IT.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2011 7:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 75 of 218 (605735)
02-21-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
02-21-2011 7:35 PM


Re: Re:Maliciously Maligning Minority Members
Buzsaw writes:
Dr Adequate, you and the pack who've received some ideological butt kicking in threads like the Exodus thread...
You are seriously delusional.
When you're ready to present the evidence you promised, the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread is still there awaiting your return.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2011 7:35 PM Buzsaw 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