Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


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 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Nice strawman, the Bible should be treated as a historical document because it is a historical document.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 You actually objected to treating the Bible as a historical document - on the supposed grounds that it should be treated as a historical document ! And accused anyone who DID treat the Bible as an actual historical document of using "a serious double standard".
So no, I am not against treating the Bible as a historical document - YOU are.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

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 182 of 218 (608152)
03-09-2011 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
03-09-2011 1:55 AM


Re: Creationists are not team players
PaulK writes:
It's no strawman simply a fact - and here is where you did it Message 24.
Paul! Please use the Preview many many times in each post! I have failed to do this with similar results. I am stupid enough on my own, but when it comes to this place, I flaunt it abundantly.
Apparently the SPACE character after the "=" was the culprit.
Should be Message 24?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 03-09-2011 1:55 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 183 of 218 (608156)
03-09-2011 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by slevesque
03-08-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Creationists are not team players
slevesque writes:
...while you compare it with a more restrictive definition of evolutionist with only one interprative framework (Neo-Darwinian evolution).
Even Lynn Margulis, who rejects neo-Darwinian evolution and natural selection as a driving force in evolution in favor of an emphasis on symbiosis and who is easily the most famous evolutionary dissenter in science, would, if she were here, make almost all the same arguments we are. She's even debated Michael Behe. On the vast majority of issues relevant to the creation/evolution debate, Margulis is right with all the other scientists.
What you're describing is not reality. If we were really feeding you a false and restrictive definition of evolution when instead scientists actually held a wide variety of conflicting views, then that would be reflected here. We're only having this discussion because of the glaring behavioral differences that we see displayed here each and every day, where evolutionists hang together while creationists hang themselves separately.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:56 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 184 of 218 (608161)
03-09-2011 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by slevesque
03-08-2011 5:05 PM


Hi slevesque,
What I did say was that you never observe the sort of tag-teaming Taz was talking about.
You know why that is? It's because science-minded people tend to admit it when they're wrong.
When an evo corrects another evo at this site, there is a pattern. The corrected person goes and checks, realises that they're wrong and comes back and apologises or at least acknowledges that they were wrong.
When creationists are corrected, their fingers go straight in their ears and the singing of la-la-la starts up.
But then, why would creationists correct each other anyway? None of you agree with each other in the first place. Why would you correct Buz on his Exodus nonsense? You don't even agree with his basic premise. Why would you correct ICANT on his "Days of Peleg" madness? You don't agree with his home-brewed version of creationism.
In my experience, almost every creationist on this board has a different version of creationism. You have no urge to correct each other because you are essentially arguing for completely different worldviews. You guys have no central consensus that you can refer to, beyond the Bible, which actually says very little about creation. This stands in stark contrast to evolutionary biology, where there is a consensus and where those who support the idea value that consensus above and beyond their own pet theories.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:05 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 185 of 218 (608379)
03-10-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by slevesque
03-08-2011 5:05 PM


I have to agree with GM.
Over on another thread, your fellow creationist Robert Byers is claiming that the KT boundary is "the flood line". He is also claiming that this is how "the creationist" sees it, apparently unaware of or indifferent to the fact that there is more than one creationist opinion.
You have not agreed with him. You have not disagreed with him. You have passed over this in silence. Here's a challenge for you. Either find arguments to back him up, or explain to him why, on creationist principles, he is wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:05 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 186 of 218 (635724)
10-01-2011 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-18-2011 1:36 PM


Dream Team
Straggler writes:
Pick three EvC members to join yourself (yes you have to include yourself) in your EvC debate dream team. Who would you choose and why?
Well, this team of mine would beat the living hel out of any debate team ever assembled.
RAZD (aka-Zen Deist) - Why? Come on, we all know why anyone would want RAZD on there side.(I'd be happy with just RAZD against any of the Dream teams here).
Rahvin - Why? Because his posts are very freeking intelligent yet makes them understandable to us mortals.
Cavediver - Why? It's a big universe and someone needs to help us understand some of it. Who here is better qualified?
I can't see anyone ever coming close to putting together a better dream team than this.
Im the water boy on this team...but it's just hypothetical so i'll go ahead and make myself the captain
Actually, the more I debate here, the more I get to know other posters, the more I see I don't belong here.
All I can do is be honest with myself and what I believe.
As far as debating goes here, I don't plan on ever being picked to be on someones elses "dream team". Some here are in a league of there own.
Me, im in the bottom group just hanging on hoping no one finds out im secretly lost and barely getting by. It sucks being down here but then again, no one expects to much from you, until you make statements others disagree with. Which is what debating is all about.
There are a lot of members here worthy of being on a "dream team".
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 8:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2011 9:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 207 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2011 7:40 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 218 (635730)
10-01-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-18-2011 1:36 PM


Legion of Doom
Take note that I am little drunk at the moment (it's Friday and thus free beer day at work)
That dream team of mine above is my "Justice league" dream team.
We need a "Legion of Doom" dream team to go up against. You picked "Oni, Mod and Rrhain. No bluegenes? Your compadre? What gives Straggler? Im shocked...
Oh, and I'll take Xongsmith as an alternate in my "Justice league" dream team.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Panda, posted 10-01-2011 5:11 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 188 of 218 (635738)
10-01-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Chuck77
10-01-2011 2:58 AM


Re: Legion of Doom
cba
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 2:58 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 218 (635758)
10-01-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Chuck77
10-01-2011 1:36 AM


Re: The True Creationist Role
Chuck77 writes:
Actually, the more I debate here, the more I get to know other posters, the more I see I don't belong here.
All I can do is be honest with myself and what I believe.
As far as debating goes here, I don't plan on ever being picked to be on someones Else's "dream team". Some here are in a league of there own.
Me, I'm in the bottom group just hanging on hoping no one finds out im secretly lost and barely getting by. It sucks being down here but then again, no one expects to much from you, until you make statements others disagree with. Which is what debating is all about.
There are a lot of members here worthy of being on a "dream team".
Hi Chuck. This is not an EvC site perse. It is an E site. Don't ever expect to be belonging here.
Effective (I say effective) creationists debating true creationism have never felt "belonged" here. Effective creationists debating true ID creationism should never come here expecting to be anywhere but in the bottom group.
Nevertheless, for the most part, our secularist friends need and want us here. Whether not our counterparts realize or appreciate us, they need effective creationists here.

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 186 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 1:36 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 10-01-2011 1:07 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 195 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-01-2011 8:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 190 of 218 (635761)
10-01-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Chuck77
10-01-2011 1:36 AM


Re: Dream Team
Hi Chuck77
Me, im in the bottom group just hanging on hoping no one finds out im secretly lost and barely getting by. It sucks being down here but then again, no one expects to much from you, until you make statements others disagree with. Which is what debating is all about.
Don't put yourself down. We are all hear to learn.
RAZD (aka-Zen Deist) - Why? Come on, we all know why anyone would want RAZD on there side.(I'd be happy with just RAZD against any of the Dream teams here).
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but if anyone was going to "stack the deck" consider a team with both Straggler and myself ... working together to tear down the opposition ... it would be a massacre.
(The old "keep your friends near and your enemies nearer" ploy?)
Im the water boy on this team...but it's just hypothetical so i'll go ahead and make myself the captain
A very necessary role, that needs to be impartial, and able to pick the best of the team to answer specific questions.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 1:36 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 10-01-2011 4:05 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 191 of 218 (635781)
10-01-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Buzsaw
10-01-2011 8:10 AM


Re: The True Creationist Role
Effective (I say effective) creationists debating true creationism have never felt "belonged" here.
Whose fault is that? It's certainly not Percy's; Chuck was made an admin; you've been an admin. The universal trend among creationists at EvC is that they whine endlessly about how completely fair and equal burdens of evidence are such a disadvantage for them, how all the admins are stacked against them and there's zero creationist representation among the moderators, and then a creationist gets made a moderator - and that's the last we ever hear of them. Given ample opportunity to enact whatever reforms creationists feel would make it fairer around here for them, they invariably fold like card tables.
What's the deal with that? Why is the creationist community here at EvC so completely non-supportive of creationists? As EvC's longest-standing creationist, Buz, don't you have the bulk of the responsibility to organize and direct your creationist cohorts? Why is it that all you ever seem to do is whine about your own plight? Here's Chuck, worried he can't make the intellectual bar - and for what it's worth, I see no reason to believe that he lacks the intellectual caliber to contribute constructively to the debate - and your response is "well, kid, you're on your own."
Chuck, at least, has stepped up into a role of authority with the intent, perhaps, to rectify the imbalance you're so certain exists. I continue to be amazed at the essential correctness of the pattern Percy first identified - you creationists just don't stick together in the least. Aside from a few transparent "attaboys!" from Bolderdash in threads he hasn't even read, there's just no indication whatsoever that EvC's creationists, as a community, are looking out for each other, helping each other, educating each other, affirming each other. There's no indication that EvC's creationists are a community, even. Every thread is one creationist against half a dozen or more evolutionists. Why do you guys let that happen? Why do you let it happen, Buz? As EvC's most prominent and longest-running creationist, it's really your responsibility to advocate and organize your side. It's time for you to start directing those fingers you've been pointing back at yourself. If EvC's creationists are truly marginalized and oppressed, you have no one to blame but yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 8:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 4:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 192 of 218 (635788)
10-01-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
10-01-2011 9:10 AM


Re: Dream Team
ZD writes:
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but if anyone was going to "stack the deck" consider a team with both Straggler and myself ... working together to tear down the opposition ... it would be a massacre.
Was that.... No. But. Could it......? Was it? RAZ was that almost, sort of, ish nearly..... a compliment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2011 9:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 1:19 AM Straggler has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 218 (635789)
10-01-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by crashfrog
10-01-2011 1:07 PM


Re: The True Creationist Role
crashfrog writes:
and then a creationist gets made a moderator - and that's the last we ever hear of them.
It was difficult and tacky for the minority representation on behalf of the creationist constituency to moderate the overwhelming majority membership. For this reason, most of my activity as moderator was behind the scenes in PAF.
I was back there on behalf of all. I was the only moderator in PAF who advocated on behalf of NWR, for example, who never openly defied Admin in a defiant manner before his ouster.
I was there also advocating on behalf of Faith and some other creationists from time to time. There were times when I would monitor problematic creationists by request of Admin.
When I accepted the role of moderator I accepted with the understanding that my time was limited due to business and other activities.
As for a creationist dream team, LoL. Creationism PoVs range all the way from Biblical literalists to evolutionists; hardly what would be needful for a dream team.
I sometimes refer to myself as a Biblical literalistic creationist.
For the above reason, perhaps this is why current creationist minded moderators don't appear to be advocating in or out of PAF on behalf of Biblical literalists.

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 191 by crashfrog, posted 10-01-2011 1:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 10-01-2011 5:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


(2)
Message 194 of 218 (635794)
10-01-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Buzsaw
10-01-2011 4:22 PM


Re: The True Creationist Role
As for a creationist dream team, LoL. Creationism PoVs range all the way from Biblical literalists to evolutionists; hardly what would be needful for a dream team.
That's sort of the problem with opposing an overwhelming, fact-based consensus, now isn't it? That there's an infinite number of ways to oppose that consensus, so consensus-opposers aren't usually able to agree on anything?
The fact that evolutionists tend to converge on the same theory of evolution is an enormous mark in its favor, and it's the reason that the evolutionist side here has such solidarity. It's not that it's all a conspiracy to disenfranchise people like you. It's that when people genuinely seek out the truth about the history and diversity of life on Earth, they very naturally home in on the science of evolution.
I don't envy the job you would have, trying to herd all those different creationist cats. But you seem to be agreeing with me that the disarray among creationists at EvC has nothing to do with anything we're doing to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 4:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 8:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(4)
Message 195 of 218 (635806)
10-01-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Buzsaw
10-01-2011 8:10 AM


A creationist vs. creationist "Great Debate"?
Effective (I say effective) creationists debating true creationism...
This makes me think of a "Great Debate" I'd like to see (even more than John Davison vs. Brad McFall) - The topic:
What is true creationism? - Buzsaw vs ICANT
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 8:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2011 8:28 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but 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