Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 218 (605989)
02-23-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 7:55 PM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
crashfrog writes:
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.
LoL with that criteria in the Exodus thread or any of the prophecy threads, etc. For any secularist minded person to admit to even one little bit of Biblical evidence pertaining to the supernatural would mean curtains to the secularist mindset. Thus no matter how empirical the evidence the creationist cites, it isn't going to be considered legitimate by either secularist minded admins or members at large. I've been in here long enough to know that that just isn't going to happen.
In my eight years here ne'er one of anything suggesting the supernatural has ever been acceptable as evidence that I have cited. Nada. That's the way it is and that's why people like Jar get a pass for shadowing me 24/7, wherever I go, falsely repeating ad nausea that I've never read the Bible and that nothing I've presented is valid etc, etc. No creationist would get by with that behavior, now, would they?

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 118 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 7:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by DrJones*, posted 02-23-2011 12:59 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 02-23-2011 1:40 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 2:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 122 of 218 (605990)
02-23-2011 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
Thus no matter how empirical the evidence the creationist
Buz do you even know what "empirical" means?

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 121 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 12:48 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 123 of 218 (605992)
02-23-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
Buzsaw writes:
For any secularist minded person to admit to even one little bit of Biblical evidence pertaining to the supernatural would mean curtains to the secularist mindset.
That's nonsense. I've told you repeatedly that I, for one, would be tickled pink to find real evidence of the Exodus or any other Biblical event. I doubt very much if any "secularist" on this board would be the least bit threatened by such 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 121 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 12:48 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 10:54 AM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 124 of 218 (606002)
02-23-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by slevesque
02-22-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Creationists are not team players
Hi Slevesque,
Since you haven't replied yet I thought I'd respond again with a more clear explanation.
Anthropologists disagree about interpretations of evidence within the same theoretical framework.
Creationists disagree about interpretations of evidence independent of any discernible theoretical framework because Biblical inerrancy has primacy. They don't care what solution is proposed as long as it doesn't conflict with the Bible. They don't care whether it agrees with the actual evidence. Building theoretical models to explain bodies of evidence is not what they do. Proposing hypotheses and then validating them with evidence does not interest them. Validating their belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible is what is most important to them.
With no agreed upon theoretical framework it is no wonder that creationists are all over the map and can never come to one another's defense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by slevesque, posted 02-22-2011 11:42 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2011 8:31 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 125 of 218 (606003)
02-23-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
02-23-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Creationists are not team players
Hi Percy,
I think we have come to a much more ellaboration of your real issue with creationism in your last two posts, this one being a good and clear explanation.
I'm studying for my final exam tomorrow so I'll probably back to the discussion friday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 8:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 9:01 AM slevesque has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 126 of 218 (606004)
02-23-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by slevesque
02-23-2011 8:31 AM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
I think we have come to a much more ellaboration of your real issue with creationism in your last two posts, this one being a good and clear explanation.
It isn't my issue with creationism, it's yours, or rather, it's the most significant problem faced by creationism: there's no theoretical framework. That you have a cacophony of opinion preventing creationist cooperation in threads is just a side effect. The real issue is that if you want to replace evolution then you have to interpret the available evidence within some theoretical framework. Unfortunately there's no discernible scientific framework that is shared by creationists.
Not only do creationists have no scientific framework, there's not even a creationist consensus around any kind of framework. Is the Bible absolutely literally inerrant? Mostly literally inerrant? Somewhat literally inerrant? Not literally inerrant, but God created species, not evolution? Is God Christian? Moslem? Hindu? Semitic? Buddhist?
Creationists have one unifying principle: evolution is wrong. They disagree about everything else. They disagree about how it is wrong (they rarely understand how evolution even works), and they disagree about where the rest of science is wrong, and when they agree about that they disagree about how it is wrong.
So don't say it's my issue with creationism, because it's not. It's a problem that creationists have cooked up for themselves all by themselves. If you want to claim to have scientific answers then you'd better do some science, but so far all creationists do at best is attempt to reconcile evidence with revelation.
Good luck with your final.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2011 8:31 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 218 (606021)
02-23-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ringo
02-23-2011 1:40 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
ringo writes:
Buzsaw writes:
For any secularist minded person to admit to even one little bit of Biblical evidence pertaining to the supernatural would mean curtains to the secularist mindset.
That's nonsense. I've told you repeatedly that I, for one, would be tickled pink to find real evidence of the Exodus or any other Biblical event. I doubt very much if any "secularist" on this board would be the least bit threatened by such evidence.
Ya sure, Ringo. So you agree with the consensus them all that I've never cited one bonafide evidence, suggesting the supernatural, on this board in the past eight years.
How about you? Do you agree with that consensus?
I speak on behalf of all creationists. So far as I'm aware, nothing any creationist has cited as evidence supportive to the existence of the supernatural has been acknowledge by any of you people, including secularist admins.

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 123 by ringo, posted 02-23-2011 1:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 11:42 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 02-23-2011 1:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 128 of 218 (606025)
02-23-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 10:54 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
Buzsaw writes:
So you agree with the consensus them all that I've never cited one bonafide evidence, suggesting the supernatural, on this board in the past eight years.
That's about right. The Internet is full of websites touting evidence of ghosts and alien abductions and Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster and remote viewing and on and on. Your evidence is of the same type, i.e., worthless.
Instead of trying to convince everyone, "Hey, no need for more evidence, we already have all the evidence we need to prove the supernatural," which is ludicrous, you should instead seek real evidence.
Sometimes we're lucky and a single piece of evidence is all we need to prove something. We drop an object in a vacuum at sea level while taking pictures with a strobe light, and that's all we need to prove the exact value for the acceleration of gravity at sea level. Would that everything were that easy (and even this isn't that easy - gravity even at a constant height is slightly variable across the Earth's surface).
So you want to prove the global flood, and if there really had been a global flood then fossil sea shells on mountain tops might be from the flood, but it could be due to something else.
So you want to prove the Exodus, and if there really had been an Exodus then a circular coral formation could be a chariot wheel, but it could be a lot of other things, too.
And on and on.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 10:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 12:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 218 (606034)
02-23-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Percy
02-23-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
Percy writes:
Buzsaw writes:
So you agree with the consensus them all that I've never cited one bonafide evidence, suggesting the supernatural, on this board in the past eight years.
That's about right. The Internet is full of websites touting evidence of ghosts and alien abductions and Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster and remote viewing and on and on. Your evidence is of the same type, i.e., worthless.
Your analogies are non-sequitur, in that none of them have real life physical supportive (I say supportive corroborating evidence, such as was debated in the Exodus thread.
Percy writes:
Instead of trying to convince everyone, "Hey, no need for more evidence, we already have all the evidence we need to prove the supernatural," which is ludicrous, you should instead seek real evidence.
Of course, you're aware that nobody is claiming proof of the Biblical related events any more so than you people claim to prove your hypotheses and theories. Evidence, supportive to any hypothesis or theory is just that; supportive evidence.
The Exodus thread went thirty-five pages, debating supportive evidences, both pro and con to the hypothesis. Your Exodus multi=member dream team enjoyed the advantage of the pack against one and the referee both reffing and playing on behalf of the big team. In your heart of hearts, do you think that was fair and balanced?
My intention here is not to demean you, but to aire some constructive criticism and to vindicate on behalf of the EvC creationist constituency.
I debunked some of the opposition's acclaimed supportive evidences to their con arguments as strawmen and supported my reasons in the debate responses. Exchanges like that are what kept the debate interesting, challenging, provocative, lively and ongoing at length.
Percy writes:
So you want to prove the global flood, and if there really had been a global flood then fossil sea shells on mountain tops might be from the flood, but it could be due to something else.
So you want to prove the Exodus, and if there really had been an Exodus then a circular coral formation could be a chariot wheel, but it could be a lot of other things, too.
And on and on.
Again, I have never claimed proof either of the above. It would be neat to be afforded the same privilege that your majority dream team enjoys, relative to what constitutes, evidence.
Likely I speak in behalf of all creationists, who are present or have come and gone on this count. Perhaps if the majority dream team here on this board would level the playing field on behalf of all, more good players would sign up to both teams, leaving the poor players on the bench watching and learning how the game should be played.

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 128 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 11:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 2:11 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2011 5:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 218 (606036)
02-23-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 10:54 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
Buzsaw writes:
So you agree with the consensus them all that I've never cited one bonafide evidence, suggesting the supernatural, on this board in the past eight years.
In the Exodus thread, for example, none of your so-called "evidence" touched on the supernatural at all. As I pointed out in that thread, your fictitious "land bridge" would diminish the significance of the supernatural. What does an omnipotent God need a land bridge for? He could have marched the Israelites through the Mariana Trench just as easily as the Red Sea.
This is NOT about the supernatural. It's about the same kind of evidence that we need before we can accept the existence of Bigfoot or France. Do we need a thread on "Does France Exist?" before you understand what evidence is?
Buzsaw writes:
How about you? Do you agree with that consensus?
That's more-or-less the point that I'm trying to make in this thread. I recognize that there is a consensus and that the people who have come to that consensus have put a lot of study into it before drawing their conclusions - and new evidence might well modify those conclusions.
It doesn't really matter whether I agree with the consensus or not. Thinking that my individual opinion is important would require the mind-boggling level of arrogance that only creationists have.

"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 127 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 10:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 10:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 131 of 218 (606038)
02-23-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 12:52 PM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
Buzsaw writes:
Your analogies are non-sequitur, in that none of them have real life physical supportive (I say supportive corroborating evidence, such as was debated in the Exodus thread).
Sure they have real life physical evidence, just like you. Better than you, in fact. They have photos, movies even, of Bigfoot, alien spacecraft, Nessie and ghosts. They have tufts of Bigfoots hair, metal from the spacecraft, Nessie coprolites, and sances where ghosts make actual personal appearances.
Of course, you're aware that nobody is claiming proof of the Biblical related events any more so than you people claim to prove your hypotheses and theories. Evidence, supportive to any hypothesis or theory is just that; supportive evidence.
Everyone here understands this, Buz, and knows precisely how I intended the word "prove". It is only when someone says, "You can't prove (whatever)," that you know someone is misunderstanding how the word "prove" is meant in science.
Your Exodus multi=member dream team enjoyed the advantage of the pack against one...
You mean there were no other creationists who agreed with you and argued your position with you? You mean (gasp!) that creationists aren't team players? Geez, what a novel thought!
I debunked...
You never. The definition of debunked is not, "I typed a bunch of fallacies, rationalizations and complaints about unfair treatment into a text box." You are seriously delusional, not to mention paranoid.
The point of my previous post is that it is rare for a single piece of evidence to prove anything. If it were that simple then mankind would have figured out evolution long before Darwin, but it took massive amounts of evidence and thought. You can't look at a circular coral formation and conclude "Exodus!" With so little you're not even up to the first rung on the ladder of confidence for evidence. That you don't understand this, don't even seem to comprehend the volume of shenanigans committed in the name of religion, never learn anything from the sheer number of times they've found things like Noah's Ark, means you are doomed to be convinced by any claims sympathetic to your religious beliefs, no matter how impoverished.
If your so-called evidence were so persuasive then you'd have found some converts out there, but you haven't. Your evidence is so weak you can't even convince your own kind, let alone anyone familiar with science and scientific methodologies. Evidence is evidence, Buz, go find some. The rules are the same for everyone, stop moaning and groaning because your evidence doesn't measure up.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 12:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2011 1:00 AM Percy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 218 (606041)
02-23-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
For any secularist minded person to admit to even one little bit of Biblical evidence pertaining to the supernatural would mean curtains to the secularist mindset.
I don't really think that's true; the Bible being right about one thing wouldn't make it right about everything. (Indeed the Bible is right about many things; for instance, a city called "Jericho" really did exist right where the Bible says it did, as far as I know. That's a bit of a "Crashfrog claim", that is, one that I'm making from memory because I can't be arsed to look it up because it doesn't matter. Come on, you all knew I do that.)
So the stakes really aren't that huge. Whether or not there are Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea is a matter of physical evidence, and it wouldn't matter all that much if it were true - it wouldn't be evidence that Exodus was literally true in every regard.
In my eight years here ne'er one of anything suggesting the supernatural has ever been acceptable as evidence that I have cited.
So why is it our problem that you're bad at interpreting and presenting evidence? I'm sure there are trial lawyers out there who have never won even a single case. Is that because the whole legal system is uniquely and unfairly stacked against them, or is that because they suck?
Don't you think it's possible you're a lot worse at understanding and interpreting evidence than you think you are? Don't the copious errors of fact you're repeatedly being corrected on by dozens of different, more knowledgable people indicate that?
No creationist would get by with that behavior, now, would they?
Every single creationist is always allowed to get away with it, for instance: you. EvC is notorious for the unfair leeway that creationists have always been extended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 12:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 133 of 218 (606076)
02-23-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
02-23-2011 12:52 PM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
So you spent a long time in the Exodus thread refusing to accept your defeat. What does that prove other than your closed-mindedness ?
Let us not forget that some of your arguments were outright false or even silly (just how did Moller "scientifically" prove that 850 was less than 18 ?)
And "leveling the playing field" by forcing people to pretend that creationist evidence is better than it really is hardly seems like a good idea. So creationists will only stay on sites strongly biased in their favour. We know that. But it's hardly a point in favour of creationism or in changing the rules here. If the weight of evidence favours evolution then fairness demands that the evolutionists should usually win, not that the rules should be rigged to help creationists avoid crushing defeats like the many you have suffered here.
But then again I'm talking to someone who boasts of misrepresenting the Bible as his major contribution here ! What more need be said ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2011 12:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 6:01 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 135 by Taz, posted 02-23-2011 9:42 PM PaulK has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 134 of 218 (606084)
02-23-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by PaulK
02-23-2011 5:47 PM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
No no no, Paul. Winning is just a matter of stubbornness and persistence. You're right as long as you don't admit you're wrong. The most effective, I say effective argument, in fact, involves plugging one's ears and loudly, I say loudly repeating oneself until your opponent gives up, thus proving conclusively, I say conclusively that your evidence is correct (as if evidence can be "correct") and your opponent is just spouting evolutionist dogma!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2011 5:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 135 of 218 (606140)
02-23-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by PaulK
02-23-2011 5:47 PM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
PaulK writes:
So creationists will only stay on sites strongly biased in their favour.
Isn't this true of this side of the fence also? I know I can't stand to read things on those creationist forums anymore. Paul, can you honestly say that you can read a forum full of people like buz and not get high blood pressure?
Edit.
My own son even dared to defy me! From FSTDT
quote:
Quote# 79554
All who believe in the natural order must stand in opposition to the perverse homosexual agenda. At no time in human history has any society ever permitted marriage between same sex couples.
Homosexual activists are hell bent in destroying the natural order because of their birth defect that makes them attracted to their own sex. Instead of trying to find a cure for this aberration, they want it legitimized.
Stop them whenever they try. They must not be allowed to corrupt and denigrate the sanctity of marriage. The line is drawn here.
Son of Taz, Moonbattery 63 Comments [2/19/2011 4:21:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 70
Submitted By: Honky McCracker
WTF?! || meh
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2011 5:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2011 1:24 AM Taz 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