Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating

My point really is what I said it was, that creationists don't support each other.Whatever reasons you might have for not supporting each other is not the topic here.

---

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

Hi sleve.The point is deeper than that. We have observed for years, not just here, that creationists don't support each other's arguments and tend not to criticize each other the way us evolutionists do. On our side, whenever one of us say something wacky, there'd be 100 or 1000 other evolutionists lined up ready to tell that person to go away.But take Kent Hovind, for example. There was a lecture I saw where he described the human reproductive process to the audience. Specifically, he was describing how the dna of mommy and daddy combined. According to him, the dna is like a ladder. When mommy and daddy love each other, the ladder seperates and one of mommy's strand combines with one of daddy's strand to create junior.This is, of course, complete bullshit. I have the videos lying around somewhere. I will try to find it and post it.Nevermind, I found the videos. Sad to say, but I actually have his entire creationism lecture series. I will try to find the lecture portion I mentioned above and post it on youtube. Heck, I will start posting every one of them on youtube.The point is Hovind has said many nonsensical things over the years, and not once have I seen other creationists criticizing him for it. Over the years, he's said that the sun's main source of power comes from combustion. He's said that there was a water canopy above the atmosphere before the flood. This would have crushed every living thing on Earth! If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go back to school and learn about fluid mechanics.As a rule of thumb, it seems that creationists don't criticize each other the way us evolutionists criticize our own. This is a frustrating thing, especially when we sometimes get the most wacked up creationist. There was a creationist I encountered that said he found the absolute proof that evolution was impossible and that it proves god exists. According to him, evolution requires an external source of power. Everything, according to him, requires an external source of power. Since we haven't found this external source of power, there must be a god fueling us with Energy. Amazingly enough, none of the other creationists said a thing. Nada. Zip. After having an eye surgery because my eyes rolled back so hard that they got stuck, I had to inform him that we have this big-ass bright object in the sky called THE SUN.If anything, Buz's debate in that thread is a perfect demonstration of how creationists aren't team players and that they don't criticize their own. Not ever.Added by edit.Actually, I'm going to perform an experiment on here to demonstrate my point. Stay tuned!Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Well... did you perhaps say something so stupid it was as if you had an IQ of 50?You have to understand - it's not ignorance we detest, it's aggressive ignorance. The person who comes in, maybe they're 12 or whatever, saying "my parents taught me that sperm contain little people inside them, like the plant in a seed, and that's where babies come from, is that true?" is someone who gets a lot of latitude from us because they're a questioning, interested individual saddled by an unfortunate failure of their education. They get the polite contradiction and instruction.The person who comes in saying "you stupid evos, science has already proved that sperm have little people inside them and that's where babies come from, and how could that possibly have evolved, pinheads?" gets the full-on Dr. A treatment because they're not here to learn, they're here to tussle. They're here to aggressively promulgate nonsense. What they're attempting to do is not learn about the facts, but to spew lies and run up post counts.Look up there at Buz - he's under the impression that he won something, because he was able to keep generating posts that ignored rebuttals to his "evidence" and simply dismissed requests for further elaboration - as though, somehow, a "lesser" man wouldn't have been able to keep typing words and hit "Submit reply" in the face of an "onslaught" that consisted of nothing more than "hrm, that's not very convincing - can you do better?"Wow, what a burden. Buz doesn't get that there's relatively little standing in the way of his producing messages without content and that don't meaningfully respond to the counterpoints raised, so his standard where "victory" is just "I got to keep posting messages that ignored rebuttals" is delusional. Trivially easy. The real standard of victory should be convincing your opponents. Of course, by that standard the evolutionists here don't have a lot of victories either. But, we do have some - at least some of the evolutionists here are former creationists who were convinced by the arguments we put forth. Some of them were even convinced by my arguments, if you can believe that. There are no reasonable creationists. There are only stupid, ignorant, or mendacious ones, because the only way to advocate positions that are objectively in error is out of stupidity, ignorance, or mendacity.

Sounds about right.

I thought the name seemed familiar. A Feduccian figure, then, clinging gamely to the wreckage of a sunken theory.

And Jehovah's witnesses don't support each other in the Bible Study threads ...But don't come telling me there's only one, that's not my point !(see what I did there ?)

If I had, I would be retelling the incident 2 years later. And yet, I am neither stupid (by any reasonable definition, you can't be dumb and study math at university) nor ignorant (I could probably do a fine job of defending evolution) nor mendacious (No motif for a guy who studies in science to be a creationist)thanks for the new word by the way. Mendacity.

Speaking as someone who TAed for college physics once upon a time in the past, trust me when I say it's amazing how far people can go in life while still living in a delusional state. Just studying something in college doesn't necessarily qualify you as not stupid or not ignorant. I'm not saying you are, but just be aware that you wouldn't want the standards to be so low.Others have pointed out, even in this thread, that you seem to have some ill-informed preconceived notions of science is and how scientific theories work. Percy did a wonderful job at explaining your misconceptions just a few posts ago.Now, the test for us to see is whether you will absorb what he said and try to better understand the nature and differences between theory and specific examples within the framwork of the theory or will you behave like so many creationists we have had in the past. Your choice.

Maybe when discussing between themselves, evolutionist do correct each other.But when discussing with a creationist, rarely is it someone other then the creationist who reveals factual falsehoods or logical fallacies from an evolutionist in the discussion. I have never, ever observed a bunch of evolutionists correcting one of their own in a discussion with a creationist. I yet I remember myself criticizing Hovind several times here.And CMI is also on the record for criticizing Hovind (Maintaining Creationist Integrity (response to Kent Hovind) - creation.com)ANd they also have a page dedicated to creationist arguments they think are invalid. You'll not that the water canopy is actually on that page (and has being for many years)Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com [qs]As a rule of thumb, it seems that creationists don't criticize each other the way us evolutionists criticize our own. This is a frustrating thing, especially when we sometimes get the most wacked up creationist. There was a creationist I encountered that said he found the absolute proof that evolution was impossible and that it proves god exists. According to him, evolution requires an external source of power. Everything, according to him, requires an external source of power. Since we haven't found this external source of power, there must be a god fueling us with Energy. Amazingly enough, none of the other creationists said a thing. Nada. Zip. After having an eye surgery because my eyes rolled back so hard that they got stuck, I had to inform him that we have this big-ass bright object in the sky called THE SUN.Were there other creationists contributing to the thread ? Can't blame someone for not seeing something maybe The thing is, I don't know shizzles about where the Jews passed when they left egypt. It's not an area of knowledge I know much about.But even then, according to some, I should agree with Buz on what he says because he's a fellow creationist. Sorry that's not how it works.However, be assured that if he were to say something I know is false in an area I am comfortable in (presumably physics or math) I would be the first to correct him. Let's see

I understand all this, but you weren't accusing creationist of not having the same opinion on the grand scheme of things, you were saying they should agree in the specifics.You used an extremely general definition of creationist. In fact, it seemed as the only criteria for being a creationist was that you believed ''God created'' (and in fact, the definition was larger then that still because you included directed evolution). ANd then went on to criticise how people in that very large group didn't agree on who and what created, and how and when. Which are all specifics when you consider the definitionLikewise, it is as if I used a very broad definition of evolutionist to be ''to believe life evolved'' and then went on to point out that no one agrees on the mechanism, because the definition includes Lamarckians, Darwinians, chaotic evolution, etc. I didn't confuse anything. Because you were saying creationists weren't agreeing on specifics (given the bery broad definition) I just pointed out that evolutionists (even given a narrow definition of neo-darwinian evolutionist) likwise didn't agree on the vast majority of the specifics.

You can still get by Calculus quite fine with little thinking.But trust me, you don't get by Real AnalysisAbE but then again it probably depends on the teacher. But here at the university of montreal those courses have a certain reputation. I remember people from my physics classes who talk about that class with fear lol (Turned out it wasn't THAT bad. ) Not really misconceptions, see previous post. You really think I was showing disagreements on specifics to mean they disagreed on the general framework ? Even after if I repeated that I agreed that the basics were agreed upon more then once in my posts ?I would have found it simpler to interpret as: if he is showing disagreements on specifics, then he wants to show that disagreements on specifics exist.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Here's an example: Message 89, in your own thread at that. Dr Adequate corrected me on a point that I made to you. (Note that I do agree with him on the broad point even though I didn't think it was necessary to make such a fine distinction in that context.)

---

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

Here's an exampleI'm surprised to see you make such a claim because I correct factual errors by my fellow evos on here all the time.

Never said it didn't happen that an evolutionist corrects another.Notice I said ''a bunch'', implying that taz was greatly exagerating the self-correction of evolutionist between themselves.Considering the number of evolutionists here, it would in fact be surprising if it never happened at all. But considering the number of creationist, it is unsurprising that it happens very, very seldomly.The difference between the two is simply a numbers game, I can't see how someone can misconstrue that as meaning that creationists don't care if others say falshoods, and that evolutionist care about it so much more then others.

I notice that you said, "I have never, ever observed a bunch of evolutionists correcting one of their own in a discussion with a creationist," and that's what I quoted. Your powers of observation in your own thread could use some fine-tuning. As I said early in the thread, that illustrates the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists (and science-minded people in general) do care about sloppy terminology. They do care about poorly-written textbooks. I want to be corrected when I'm wrong (even if I don't promise to be gracious about it).It's more important to be right coming out of a discussion than going into one.

---

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