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
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

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


Message 141 of 218 (606165)
02-24-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Taz
02-23-2011 9:42 PM


Re: Creationist Evidences?
quote:
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?
A forum full of people like Buz would be hard-pressed to stand each other ! Don't forget that Buz thinks that creationists should accept HIS views even when they are even more stupid than standard YEC views. And when creationists disagree it is not uncommon for them to treat each other just as badly as they treat everyone else.
However that's not the point I was making. The rules here - and their enforcement are NOT biased in favour of evolutionists over fair debate. That isn't true on a typical creationist site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Taz, posted 02-23-2011 9:42 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2011 11:48 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 151 of 218 (606238)
02-24-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Buzsaw
02-24-2011 11:48 AM


Re: Creationist Dream Teams Fellowships
quote:
You can't cite, in the archives, where I have treated YECs on this board badly.
Maybe not. But then how often do you argue with the actual YECs here ? However that does not mean that if people like you were in the majority that they would not turn on each other. After all you are happy enough to go after your fellow Christians who are NOT creationists.
quote:
I am well esteemed in a church full of them with whom I fellowship each sabbath day as well as other personal visits and functions. We have the attitude that iron sharpens iron in our church.
It doesn't seem to work very well. Have none of them ever noticed your misrepresentations of the Bible and been castigated as mere novices got daring to know the Bible better than you ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2011 11:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 152 of 218 (606242)
02-24-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Buzsaw
02-24-2011 11:57 AM


Re: Delusional People?
So basically you've got the dubious Ron Wyatt (so disreputable even you sometimes try to hide his involvement), a (literally) raving Ron Wyatt fanboy and a disciple of Ron Wyatt who has published a book of pseudoscientific nonsense.
And you think that this ADDS to your credibility ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2011 11:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


Message 181 of 218 (608143)
03-09-2011 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:11 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
quote:
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)
You said nothing of the sort. And if you had you would be lying. There is no definition of creationism that singles out any one religion (and Buddhism as such is neither atheistic nor theistic - some branches are effectively atheistic but others are not).
But let us get to the point. Would you not agree that regardless of the definition used, evolutionists are overwhelmingly united behind neo-Darwinism ?
And would you not agree that there are many divisions within creationism even if we do look at the majority, for instance the major and obvious split between Young Earth and Old Earth creationists ?
So why does the definition matter so much ? And why should we restrict ourself to looking at people who use a single interpretive framework when the diversity of interpretive frameworks in creationism is at least part of the problem ?
quote:
Nice strawman, the Bible should be treated as a historical document because it is a historical document. Are you really against this ?
It's no strawman simply a fact - and here is where you did it Message 24. You actually objected to treating the Bible as a historical document - on the supposed grounds that it should be treated as a historical document ! And accused anyone who DID treat the Bible as an actual historical document of using "a serious double standard".
So no, I am not against treating the Bible as a historical document - YOU are.
Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:11 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by xongsmith, posted 03-09-2011 3:29 AM PaulK 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