|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
slevesque writes: 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. No, what I said was that creationists don't even agree on the basics, like the age of the Earth, and that is because they don't agree on any theory within whose framework they can interpret the evidence. In the difference of opinion between YEC's and OEC's you can put almost all the blame on YEC's because they simply reject without reason any science that conflicts with their literal Biblical interpretations, which means they reject almost all of science. So when anthropologists disagree about chimps and orangutans, everyone's still interpreting the evidence within the same theoretical framework of evolution. But when YEC's disagree with OEC's about the age of the Earth, the YEC's don't even have a theoretical framework within which to interpret the evidence. For YEC's the science is only okay if it doesn't conflict with their literal interpretation of the Bible, and that's a religious philosophy, not a scientific theory. Just to be clear about one other thing, a creationist is someone who holds beliefs about the real world that are based upon his religious beliefs rather than evidence. So the difference is vast between creationism and science. Creationist belief is all over the map, while science has huge swathes of natural phenomena about which there is broad concensus. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
slevesque writes: I have never, ever observed a bunch of evolutionists correcting one of their own in a discussion with a creationist. I've been corrected so many times I couldn't possibly count. I'm not going to look up examples for you, but pretty much any time Wounded King replies to me he's correcting me on one thing or another. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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) Oh, I wouldn't be so sure. Education is no guarantee of intelligence or knowledge. I know plenty of idiots who can do calculus much better than I. I mean, here's a guy famous for his skills at math: but nobody's going to mistake Rain Man for a genius. Look, where you advance objectively wrong positions - I don't follow your posts, so I don't know which objectively wrong positions you promote - I'm prepared to grant you the most charitable interpretation, which is that you are ignorant. (For instance, someone who was not ignorant would know that the word was spelled "motive.") But, you seem to be admitting here to advancing arguments that you know aren't true. Which would be "mendacity." So, I don't know, maybe you are actually pretty dumb? Usually smart people are better liars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Percy writes: No, what I said was that creationists don't even agree on the basics, like the age of the Earth, and that is because they don't agree on any theory within whose framework they can interpret the evidence. To be fair this is also true of theistic-pro-science lobby. People like Catholic Scientist, Bluejay and RAZD. They are not creationists. They are (as far as I can work out) "falsificationists". But they have all disputed the actual age of the Earth and the method for making such a conclusion. In my experience CS and Bluejay will agree that the empirical evidence points towards an Earth that is billions of years old but refuse to conclude that this is a superior conclusion in terms of veracity to unfalsifiables such as omphalism. RAZD's position is more confused but the following is the best summation I could find
Mod writes: RAZD on the age of the Earth writes: The breakpoint could be the formation of the universe (results in deism), it could be 6000 years ago (results in YEC earth, but still with flood problems) or it could be last thursday. We don't know....you could put me down as a weak "3" - weak theistic agnostic - at most. Certainly not a 2. For clarity, position 3 is, "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe". But my point is that it isn't just pure creationists who are confused about "basics" such as the age of the Earth. If anything they are just more unsophisticated and explicit about their confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
but nobody's going to mistake Rain Man for a genius. And he's also autist, which is where his math skills come from. But for someone who isn't autist, comprehension of advanced mathematics usually comes from intelligence. (Note that I don't want to seem like I'm bragging here. But the idea that a creationist being either ''stupid, ignorant or a liar'' is fundamentally flawed because I consider myself a counter-example)
Look, where you advance objectively wrong positions - I don't follow your posts, so I don't know which objectively wrong positions you promote - I'm prepared to grant you the most charitable interpretation, which is that you are ignorant. Saying YEC is 'objectively wrong' does not make it so. I think it is better explanation for the evidence around us.
(For instance, someone who was not ignorant would know that the word was spelled "motive.") Yeah, I'm french-canadian. Sorry with misspelling a word in english (it is spelled motif in french)
But, you seem to be admitting here to advancing arguments that you know aren't true. Which would be "mendacity." So, I don't know, maybe you are actually pretty dumb? Usually smart people are better liars. I think you can discard the lying option. No one studying in science in their right mind would lie so that people think he's a creationist ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And he's also autist, which is where his math skills come from. "Autistic" Look, I hate to keep correcting your spelling, but since you're talking about how smart and knowledgable you must be, it seems germane.
But the idea that a creationist being either ''stupid, ignorant or a liar'' is fundamentally flawed because I consider myself a counter-example No, you're proving my point. You're a creationist because of your ignorance. I'll accept your intelligence (nothing special but not deficient) and your lack of mendacity (I have no reason to believe you're not honest) but the sheer number of corrections you receive in response to your posts - usually three to four people telling you something you clearly were not aware of or misinformed about - indicates that you're substantially ignorant about the basic facts of evolutionary biology - like today, when you asserted that gene fixation is the primary driver of evolution.
Saying YEC is 'objectively wrong' does not make it so. Well, obviously not. That's the debate we're all having, obviously. But the fact remains that there are only three reasons to defend a position that is objectively wrong - either because you lack the intelligence to perceive the wrongness, are ignorant of the wrongness, or are cognizant of the wrongness but are determined to defend it anyway for some ulterior motive. In other words - stupidity, ignorance, or mendacity. I mean, you must believe one of the three about me, right? From your perspective I'm defending at least two, possibly three notions that you must believe are objectively wrong: 1) Evolution2) Atheism 3) Slevesque is either stupid, ignorant, or mendacious. What are the only possible reasons that I could hold these views? You believe that YEC is objectively true; what could possibly explain my disagreement with you (from your perspective of believing yourself to be right) besides my stupidity, ignorance, or dishonesty?
No one studying in science in their right mind would lie so that people think he's a creationist .... Pressed for time right now but I'll come back later with an example of someone who by their own admission does exactly that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Just to be clear about one other thing, a creationist is someone who holds beliefs about the real world that are based upon his religious beliefs rather than evidence. (Color mine for emphasis) Translation: Even though my site is called Creationism vs Evolution-ism (EvC), no creationist of any ilk can legitimately debate in the science creation vs evolution threads where (evolutionist) evidence is required. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I think what you mean to say is that those who argue positions that lack evidence won't fare very well.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
I think what you mean to say is that those who argue positions that lack evidence won't fare very well. You presume that Buzz understands what is and is not evidence. To the contrary, Buzz has established time and time again that he can only use the term in the inaccurate colloquial sense, and cannot grasp the more accurate usage we expect around here. I'm certain Buzz honestly believes that he has strongly supported his positions, particularly those pertaining to Biblical "prophesy," with evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Saying YEC is 'objectively wrong' does not make it so The objective evidence does make it so.
I think it is better explanation for the evidence around us. I would be very interested in participating in a thread where you demonstrate that YEC is a better explanation for the observed nested hierarchy. We could also delve into the phylogenetic signals seen in orthologous ERV's. Does this sound like something you would be interested in? Perhaps even a "Great Debate"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Sleve,
I have been coming here for 5 1/2 years. In that time there have been numerous and monumental advances in our understanding cosmology, evolution, origins of life and numerous other scientific topics we touch on here. In all that time there has been NOTHING new from the creationist side. All we get are the same old PRATTs, distorted information, misinformation, misrepresentations and out right lies from the creationist side. Maybe you can show some new research that supports the creationists view. Probably would make an interesting thread to compare the advances of our understanding of the above scientific topics against advances made in creation "science", during the same time periods of the the last 5-6 years. Think you can show anything? If you can I will propose a new topic. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: I think what you mean to say is that those who argue positions that lack evidence won't fare very well. --Percy When you said this:
quote: ....you appeared to be implying that, by definition of creationist, evidences acclaimed by creationists cannot be considered legitimate. That attitude bears out in the threads, not only pertaining to you, but to the secularist members (vast dream team majority) here at EvC. What I hope to achieve, so long as I am permitted and able, is to present here and to the www, what has convinced me, beyond the shadow of doubt, that Jehovah exists and that the Biblical record will, in time prove to be accurate. All hypotheses and beliefs have their unknowns. That includes yours and mine. We all debate the evidences, the knowns, the probabilities and the predictions, etc. Much of what is observed to be emerging upon the world scene, as well as other interesting topics, would not have debated without some of us who are low esteemed here at EvC. Perhaps too many of our mean spirited antagonists fail to appreciate how boring this board would be without us. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
....you appeared to be implying that, by definition of creationist, evidences acclaimed by creationists cannot be considered legitimate. We've presented at length the criteria that would need to be met for evidence to be considered legitimate and probative, and none of it refers to the conclusion that the evidence would support. Legitimate physical evidence for creationism would be the same kind of evidence as for evolution, except that it would be consistent with creationism and not with evolution. In other words, if you ignored the difference in conclusions supported by the evidence, creationist evidence that was legitimate would be legitimate for the exact same reasons evolution evidence was. It's similar to how the rules of evidence in a courtroom are similar regardless of whether it's the defense's evidence or the prosecution's. It has to be of clear provenance. It has to be probative. It has to be accessible to examination by both sides. The part where you demand that there be special rules for your evidence that don't apply to anybody else's is the part where you're clearly engaged in the fallacy of begging the question, and a tacit admission that your evidence isn't evidence at all - just flim-flammery meant to convince no-one except those who already agree with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Percy writes: I think what you mean to say is that those who argue positions that lack evidence won't fare very well. --Percy When you said this:
quote: ....you appeared to be implying that, by definition of creationist, evidences acclaimed by creationists cannot be considered legitimate. No, we are saying that YOU have no idea what the difference between evidence and simply claiming there is evidence is. You have never presented evidence, only claimed there is evidence. For example you claim there was some land bridge at Aqaba, but never present any evidence. You claim that there are chariot wheels, but never present any evidence that there are chariot wheels. You claim there are fulfilled prophecy but never present any evidence that there is fulfilled prophecy. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
slevesque writes:
*Blink* I have never, ever observed a bunch of evolutionists correcting one of their own in a discussion with a creationist. You did not just say that did you? I've been corrected so many times that I'm beginning to doubt my own knowledge database in my head. We evolutionists correct each other all the time. And when a high profile evolutionist says something wrong, you can be assured that he's going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of criticisms from his fellow evolutionists. This is why science is a self-correcting process. In my lab we've been working on and testing a possible steel replacement material that weighs 1/4 that of steel, doesn't corrode, will last for about 100 years, much much stronger than steel, etc. We just got more fundings to continue our work. Basically, it's a dream material come true for structural engineers. It's also cheaper to make than steel. The point is in this line of work we have to be very precise and we're always prepared for criticisms from our peers. Talk to any researcher and they will tell you getting a paper to go through peer review and actually get published is pretty damn hard nowadays. I speak from experience. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the same kind of discipline coming from the ID/creo side. Every prominent creo/IDist I have heard (and believe me, I've heard plenty... I also collect their videos) has spout more bullshit than I care for. And I'm not even a biologist. My knowledge of biology is limited to what I took in college and my readings of current events in biological sciences. Even the nonsensical myth of irreducible complexity won't go away.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024