Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 8:16 AM
25 online now:
JoeT, PaulK, RAZD (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,109 Year: 5,146/19,786 Month: 1,268/873 Week: 164/460 Day: 9/97 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1295 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 166 of 218 (606436)
02-25-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Straggler
02-25-2011 12:51 PM


Re: Creo "Dream" Team
Can you still count NemJug? Considering he's no longer a Creationist?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2011 12:51 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2011 1:46 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 167 of 218 (606451)
02-25-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rahvin
02-25-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Creo "Dream" Team
Fair point. If Hyro cannot bring himself to be NemJugs again then Syamsu can take his place.

Let the madness begin....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 02-25-2011 1:06 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2011 12:59 PM Straggler has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(1)
Message 168 of 218 (606550)
02-26-2011 12:53 PM


My dream team
Dr. Adequate
lyx2no
Percy

My first two choices deliver with sarcasm and wit but behind all that is a wealth of knowledge. Percy to clean up the mess at the end with a calm clear explanation about why the first two so effectively made fun of their opponent.

Its all in the delivery, I like to laugh.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 169 of 218 (606551)
02-26-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Straggler
02-25-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Creo "Dream" Team
No place for Ray Martinez (aka "Willowtree" and "ColdForeignObject) on your team ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2011 1:46 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2011 1:27 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 170 of 218 (606552)
02-26-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by PaulK
02-26-2011 12:59 PM


Re: Creo "Dream" Team
Never someone I personally encountered to any great extent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2011 12:59 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 171 of 218 (606583)
02-26-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-18-2011 1:36 PM


Omni's All-Stars
Smart, knowledgeable, articulate, etc.--qualities that apply to many, many more EvCers apply to my choices.

Dr. Adequate: Ultra-sharp analysis on almost anything expressible in words or math; disciplined and funny.

bluegenes: Deep, bold thinker; genial and deadly.

jar: Rare breadth of knowledge, hell on logical flaws; grumpy and deadly.

I could put together a dozen teams, though, without breaking a sweat and with full confidence. For example, I'd parallel that team with:

Percy: Polymath. In complete control.

Straggler: Implacable. Relentless. Drinks.

ringo: Letter for letter, the best.

In fact, I'd prefer those threesomes fight it out. I'll moderate and drink.



Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2011 5:51 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 172 of 218 (606584)
02-26-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Omnivorous
02-26-2011 5:27 PM


Re: Omni's All-Stars
Omni writes:

Straggler: ......., Drinks.

An essential quality in any debate partner.

Obviously.

Hic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Omnivorous, posted 02-26-2011 5:27 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Omnivorous, posted 02-26-2011 6:00 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 173 of 218 (606585)
02-26-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
02-26-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Omni's All-Stars
Indubabitly, occifer, but I olny had one.

Fair caution: As a debate partner, I might shred the opposition's arguments--or fly across the stage to chew their throats.

I'd depend on my team to tell me what is appropriate.

Edited by Omnivorous, : hic



Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2011 5:51 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 218 (607058)
03-01-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by slevesque
02-22-2011 11:27 AM


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.

Message 69

Message 715

Message 248

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 02-22-2011 11:27 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 175 of 218 (608092)
03-08-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
02-23-2011 9:01 AM


Re: Creationists are not team players
Sorry I never cam back to this, totally forgot about it.

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.

As I had said, this is because you use such a large definition of ''creationist'' that you are bound to incorporate different interprative frameworks, while you compare it with a more restrictive definition of evolutionist with only one interprative framework (Neo-Darwinian evolution).

But if you compare apples with apples, meaning a group of people who share the same framework to another group who share the same framework, you'll basically observe the same things in terms of agreement/disagreement. They'll all agree on the core ideas and the very straightforward interpretations of some facts, and you'll be bound to find a subgroup who disagrees with the majority on pretty much all the rest.

Example: Young earth creationist all share the same interprative framework, and so for example they will agree that the grand canyon was carved during the flood. However, how and when this was done is a subject of disagreement. Was it by the breached-dam theory ? Or by the receding floodwaters ? etc.

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?

This is a matter of where a given group get their interprative framework. Is it from the Quran, the Bible, etc. ? Obviously, different sources will give different interprative frameworks.

And, as you highlight, the same source can give different frameworks. Christians read genesis today and interpret it in wildly different ways sometimes, and this leads to different frameworks. On this fact, I can concede that you have a point that there is an 'extra level' of disagreement. But even then, it has little to do with the ambiguity of the text itself, but rather how much weight a given person gives to modern scientific theories in interprating the text. (since before the 18th century, there was basically only the YEC interpretation).

In any case, this has little relevance. A given framework should be judged on it's own merit, not from where it comes and how it was invented. The contrary is simply the genetic fallacy.

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.

Maybe when using such a large definition of creationism as to make it meaningless, this may be true. (and in fact, it isn't, since you included budhism into it which does just fine with evolution)

But you are wrong when looking at a particular framework. The unifying principle of YEC is their common interpretation of genesis. They oppose evolution because it comes in direct contradiction with the frameworkd they think is true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 9:01 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2011 6:03 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 03-09-2011 4:33 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 176 of 218 (608093)
03-08-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by New Cat's Eye
03-01-2011 4:41 PM


Hi CS,

I never said an evolutionists never corrects another, even though I think it happens rarely considering the number of logical fallacies that come and go in a discussion.

What I did say was that you never observe the sort of tag-teaming Taz was talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-01-2011 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2011 8:19 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 184 by Granny Magda, posted 03-09-2011 7:34 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 2:53 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 177 of 218 (608110)
03-08-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by slevesque
03-08-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
quote:

As I had said, this is because you use such a large definition of ''creationist'' that you are bound to incorporate different interprative frameworks, while you compare it with a more restrictive definition of evolutionist with only one interprative framework (Neo-Darwinian evolution).

But if you compare apples with apples, meaning a group of people who share the same framework to another group who share the same framework, you'll basically observe the same things in terms of agreement/disagreement. They'll all agree on the core ideas and the very straightforward interpretations of some facts, and you'll be bound to find a subgroup who disagrees with the majority on pretty much all the rest.


So what you are saying is that if you do a "fair" comparison, ignoring the unity among evolutionists and the disunity of creationists, creationists agree as much as evolutionists.

That makes about as much sense as your old objection to treating the Bible as a historical document on the grounds that it should be treated as a historical document !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:56 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:11 PM PaulK has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 178 of 218 (608113)
03-08-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
03-08-2011 6:03 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
So what you are saying is that if you do a "fair" comparison, ignoring the unity among evolutionists and the disunity of creationists, creationists agree as much as evolutionists.

Not at all. I'm saying that equivocating words is a logical fallacy. This is clearly justified when someone uses a definition of creationist so large as to include Buddhism. (which is an atheistic religion if I remember correctly)

That makes about as much sense as your old objection to treating the Bible as a historical document on the grounds that it should be treated as a historical document !

Nice strawman, the Bible should be treated as a historical document because it is a historical document. Are you really against this ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2011 6:03 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 03-09-2011 1:55 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6039
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 179 of 218 (608138)
03-08-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by slevesque
03-08-2011 5:05 PM


I never said an evolutionists never corrects another, even though I think it happens rarely considering the number of logical fallacies that come and go in a discussion.

No, no that isn't what you said. You clearly said that "Evolutionists" never correct each other.
And isn't it cute how you accuse "evolutionists" of using logical fallacies, without actually saying it. Very dishonest debating.
slevesque writes:

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.


Message 99


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:05 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 1:47 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 180 of 218 (608142)
03-09-2011 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Theodoric
03-08-2011 8:19 PM


No, no that isn't what you said. You clearly said that "Evolutionists" never correct each other.

When I say rarely, it doesn't mean never ...

And isn't it cute how you accuse "evolutionists" of using logical fallacies, without actually saying it. Very dishonest debating.

Everyone uses logical fallacies, it's just a matter of no one being perfect. I can easily say this about everybody from every worldview on this forum, including myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2011 8:19 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019