Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 106 of 355 (617577)
05-29-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dawn Bertot
05-29-2011 8:21 PM


Still no method or model.
What is the method and model that explains how the Designer designs and influences the evolution of living critters or the method and model that explains how the creator creates critters?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:50 PM jar has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 107 of 355 (617578)
05-29-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Panda
05-29-2011 8:12 PM


Anyway - back to what you should have responded to:
The majority of your posts contain insults and abuse.
Your god must be proud of you.
Really. So the burden of proof is on you , correct? So out of 2571 post, lets see you demonstrate that the majority of them contain insults and rudeness. have at it junior
Keeping in the spirit of the thread, lets on the other hand see out of you 600 and some odd post how many contain the samething
I dont really think you want to go down this road, Ive read way to many of your posts. But if your up for it, lets get it on
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 05-29-2011 8:12 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Panda, posted 05-29-2011 9:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 108 of 355 (617579)
05-29-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jar
05-29-2011 8:30 PM


Re: Still no method or model.
What is the method and model that explains how the Designer designs and influences the evolution of living critters or the method and model that explains how the creator creates critters?
Jar I am responding to this with no hope that you will actually respond to my points, questions and arguments.
Ill try again. jar, evolution and its conclusion are not methods, they are observations and tenative conclusions concerning the how and why of things
The so-called method you employ and rely on is nothing more than a tenative explanation for things in existence.
Secondly, your method even if it is valid has nothing to with whether ID is valid in the same connection
The direct answer to your question is that ID employs the exact same method as the naturalist. Indeed, and pay close attention, how in the world could you or I have a different method, when are both simple humans beings exploring and examining the same materials
it is simply an impossiblity for you or I to have a different methodology. We are just humans looking at things from the exact same perspective.
Show me a tenet of the SM, that cannot be duplicated in principle by the so-called, IDst. Actually it should be called 'Two Humans examing things'
You simply dont like the conclusion brought about by the same process. You dont have anything special
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 05-29-2011 8:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 05-29-2011 8:53 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 05-29-2011 9:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 109 of 355 (617580)
05-29-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dawn Bertot
05-29-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Dawn Bertot writes:
You see GDR, what you see above is a psychological and ego problem. No matter the question at hand, he has to be right, irregardless and especially if someone strongly disagrees.
Hi Dawn
The thing is though Dawn that it cuts both ways. Percy spends considerable time and presumably expense keeping this forum running. I for one am grateful and respect him for his dedication. This is the first line of your first post in this thread that is a reply to a post of Percy's as admin.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You havent won the public battle you idiot....
How do you expect to have you or your views treated with respect when you start out like that. You have failed to respect the views of the one person who more than anybody else on this site should be respected. I noticed that someone else gave a list of other posts of yours that are not particularly positive.
Here is a quote from Matthew 7 for you to think about:
quote:
15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
I don't see calling the admin on this forum an idiot as being an example of bearing "good fruit", nor do I see it being an example of being a light to the world. I know that we all fall short in this category but we should be aware of when we do and try and do something about it. Sorry to sound preachy.
Frankly the big difference between creationists and non-theists on this forum is that the latter have a huge advantage because of strength in numbers so I am suggesting that they cut you guys some slack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:56 PM GDR has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 355 (617581)
05-29-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
05-29-2011 8:50 PM


Re: Still no method or model.
Evolution is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution describes the method and model for how evolution happens. It is genetic change caused by copy errors filtered by natural selection.
What is the method and model that explains how the Designer designs and influences the evolution of living critters or the method and model that explains how the creator creates critters?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 111 of 355 (617582)
05-29-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by GDR
05-29-2011 8:50 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
How do you expect to have you or your views treated with respect when you start out like that.
GDR read Percys posts that prompted that response. It may be a bit over the top, but atleast read the insults that prompted such a response.
Now I not stupid, I know Percy knew I would read those posts and jump back into the discussion. That was his purpose in the first place.
ill try and tone it down for you as I know it is a soft spot. thanks for the kind words
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 05-29-2011 8:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-29-2011 9:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 112 of 355 (617583)
05-29-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 4:38 PM


Re: To educate.
Any scientist can disagree very easily with the ToE simply because all we know about the ToE is based on assumptions and little else....
I guess, but what could possibly be the basis for this conclusion?
Crashfrog, crashfrog, crashfrog...you *** ***, misinformed, confused, delusional, ***, wicked, deliberately ***, *** imbecile-your posts are all full of ***, and make no *** sense whatsoever. Do you think that people will believe your crap, that shit don't fly here. You sit here and whine and *** about evolution and expect to get away with it? If you are a fair sample of evolutionists posting here its no wonder most creationists wouldn't waste their time replying to you. Can't you even man up with a somewhat coherent reply?
I mean you would think that the odds are that you would be right about something sometime, but I guess this is not so in your case. Do you even come here to debate at all, or are you just a troll? This is about as *** of a post as you have ever made, and you have certainly made a lot of *** posts. If you don't want you post called *** then perhaps you should not post such *** assertions. I am sorry, but *** should not be coddled. I am always happy to discuss evolution with anyone that is willing to actually hold a discussion. Unfortunately, based on the whole body of your posts you don't fit that description. This is just a statement of fact.*
If anything, moderator action continues to be harsher against evolutionists than against creationists.
Well, I am sure glad at least this is true, because an evolutionist on this site could NEVER EVER get away with saying all these things.
*source-all the other posters in this thread.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Apply word censoring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 4:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:09 PM Bolder-dash has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 113 of 355 (617584)
05-29-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dawn Bertot
05-29-2011 8:56 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
I've read it Dawn and I agree he wasn't kind to you. His post at least just claimed that your views lacked knowledge and rationality. You in turn labelled him an idiot. Percy posts his beliefs on this forum and he knows that his posts will reflect on his beliefs. You post as a Christian and your posts also reflect on your beliefs.
It isn't that it's a soft spot for me. It's my contention that as Christians we are called to reflect God's love and Christ-likeness to the world and I'm not convinced that calling someone an idiot does that. I also think that it makes it difficult for you to argue that your views don't get respect. JMHO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:56 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 114 of 355 (617586)
05-29-2011 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
05-29-2011 8:50 PM


Re: Still no method or model.
The direct answer to your question is that ID employs the exact same method as the naturalist. Indeed, and pay close attention, how in the world could you or I have a different method, when are both simple humans beings exploring and examining the same materials
Easy! ID is based on the need to make fundamentalist Christianity appear to be a science, while science really is a science.
ID was designed specifically to get around a Supreme Court decision. It is the illegitimate grandchild of creationism and the illegitimate child of creation "science."
It was designed to come up with one specific conclusion no matter what! It cannot, and will not, disagree with fundamentalist Christians' view of religion.
Science, on the other hand, goes where the evidence leads.
The methods are not just different, they are diametrically opposed.
it is simply an impossiblity for you or I to have a different methodology. We are just humans looking at things from the exact same perspective.
False.
Fundamentalist Christians look at things from about 180 differently than do scientists. Just look at the Statements of Faith of the various creationist websites to see the difference.
Here's the AIG Statement of Faith. See any science in there? Note the little tidbit at the end: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
That is not looking at things from the same perspective that science uses.
Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 115 of 355 (617587)
05-29-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
05-29-2011 8:32 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Really. So the burden of proof is on you , correct? So out of 2571 post, lets see you demonstrate that the majority of them contain insults and rudeness. have at it junior
Sure thing, old man.
My evidence: All of your posts.
My method: Add up the ones containing rudeness or insults.
My results: The number of your posts containing rudeness or insults outnumber the ones containing no rudeness or insults.
Please feel free to verify this yourself.
(You can view a list of the topics you have 'contributed' to by clicking your own name.)
If you don't have time to verify this, then just read this thread for an indication of the proportion of your posts that are insulting.
But since you won't even accept the evidence of your own posts, I expect you to put up a 'smokescreen' which is, as you stated earlier, the main type of debate you believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-29-2011 8:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 116 of 355 (617593)
05-29-2011 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 9:10 PM


Re: To educate.
Crashfrog, crashfrog, crashfrog...you stupid illiterate, misinformed, confused, delusional, insane, wicked, deliberately lying, moronic imbecile-your posts are all full of ***, and make no *** sense whatsoever.
Except for the one you nominated for a POTM? Thanks, by the way, very big of you.
Do you think that people will believe your crap, that shit don't fly here.
It's "doesn't", "doesn't fly here" and I assure you - far more of the participants here believe me than believe you. Even among creationists.
That's because I generally - I'm the first to admit, not always - know what the fuck I'm talking about, and you don't. It's because I've made a study of the evidence for evolution for 15 years or more, actually came out of creationism by doing so, and have been so inspired as a result that I'm close to finishing a degree in biochemistry.
On the other hand, you've elected to simply call anyone you don't agree with a "liar" based on absolutely no evidence for it. What, all scientists are engaged in the same conspiracy? Even the ones who don't like each other? Lynn Margulis regularly pisses of E. O. Wilson in the pages of Nature and Science, but somehow at the Secret Evolution Meetings she's able to lock elbows with him and sing the secret chant?
(Actual imaginary footage from the Evilutionist Society of Stonecutters!)
Regardless, it's hardly necessary for anyone to just believe me or believe you. They can easily locate the threads - because they're forever linked to your user account, there's no way for you to escape the shame - and observe that every single one of them ends with about a dozen posts refuting your last salvo of utter nonsense, and then no replies from you ever again.
If you are a fair sample of evolutionists posting here its no wonder most creationists wouldn't waste their time replying to you. Can't you even man up with a somewhat coherent reply? I mean you would think that the odds are that you would be right about something sometime, but I guess this is not so in your case. Do you even come here to debate at all, or are you just a troll? This is about as dumb of a post as you have ever made, and you have certainly made a lot of dumb posts. If you don't want you post called stupid then perhaps you should not post such stupid assertions. I am sorry, but idiocy should not be coddled. I am always happy to discuss evolution with anyone that is willing to actually hold a discussion. Unfortunately, based on the whole body of your posts you don't fit that description.
Boy, that's an awful long way to go just to say "you made an argument I can't refute, so you must be some kind of poopy-head." I actually made some arguments in the post you described as incoherent (or I guess you would have, if you had been able to actually spell "incoherent.") If you ever feel like responding to them, I'm around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 9:10 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-30-2011 12:00 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2011 7:23 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 355 (617594)
05-29-2011 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by marc9000
05-29-2011 7:09 PM


There's no need for you to be angry.
Nobody's angry. I'm just asking you why you continue to complain about the "piling on" issue when we've already taken steps to address it. It's so easy to avoid getting piled on, around here, that anyone it happens to must perforce have desired it.
Two weeks ago, did you notice in my message 77 of this thread that you participated in where I asked dwise1 for a one on one, and he refused?
I don't even see it now. You'll have to be more specific.
But regardless - I never claimed that you could demand that people participate in a one on one with you, I said that you could ask. You need to ask some more people, apparently. If you truly have so many interlocutors surely one or more of them is willing to go toe-to-toe, if you really wanted. The available evidence is that you don't want; you want to attract as much attention as possible and simultaneously martyr yourself as the hapless victim of a "piling on."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 05-29-2011 7:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 118 of 355 (617601)
05-30-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:09 PM


Forest thru the trees
Crashfrog, unfortunately you completely missed the whole point of the post I made. You were looking at small details and you missed the entire picture. Even when I tried to spell it our for you with a little asterisk.
The post wasn't my words get it? They weren't my sentiments. It was a conglomerate of statements all made by other posters (all evolutionists) on this very thread. It was a parody to show you just how silly and preposterous the tactics used by the posters here are-and to show you by example just how ridiculous your premise is that evolutionists on this site are held to strict standards of conduct.
But you didn't get it at all, because as I have said before, many people's tendency is to be so focused on the trees that they don't see the forest. And this is why I can't give you credit for being able to make sense of the logical disconnects that exist in the present theory of evolution. In order to be able to see those disconnects you have to be able to look at the entire big picture, and see how it all ties together.
I really thought my parody was pretty darn obvious-but some people only see what they want to see. Oh well.
And I completely agreed with all your posts on police misconduct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 1:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2011 1:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 119 of 355 (617604)
05-30-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
05-29-2011 6:04 PM


GDR writes:
Incidentally, and admin forgive me for going off topic, but everything that I have read about early science indicates that it was Christians like Newton who were at the forefront. I don't think that it is fair to assume that fundamentalist Christians would control and discourage science as a few of the Arab nations do. There are a few issues that there are moral disagreements on but that is a very small part of the overall field of science.
You are absolutely correct. I am a firm believer that it was monotheism that was the foundation of all scientific endeavor. To explain this thought, it would require me a lot more than a single post to explain.
In a nutshell, this is why early scientists were monotheists. There have always been great minds in the world. People who saw the world and wondered how it worked while the vast majority of the populace just went along with life. But back then, if you weren't christian then you'd get burned at the stake. Also, being christian was the only possible way back then to obtain any kind of education.
Anyway, going back to early scientists, while most people accepted "goddunit" as the explanation to everything, people like Newton and Kepler wanted to take a step further and understand god's wondrous creation. It took Kepler 15 long years but eventually he figured out that the planets orbited the sun in elliptical orbit.
Newton went away on a vacation and during that time he invented calculus.
So, the question is were they inspired by religion to achieve these things or did they achieve these things despite religion?
I don't think that it is fair to assume that fundamentalist Christians would control and discourage science as a few of the Arab nations do.
Try to imagine this for a moment. Suppose you're a great musician. And earlier this year, you just created the greatest piece of music composition ever created by man. But I'm the god emperor of the country you live in, and the state's official religion is tazism, meaning everyone worships me. So, either you attribute your music composition to me inspiring you or you face a horrible torturous death by red hot iron poker up your butt.
1000 years from now, people would be looking back and say "gee, tazism sure was a really good religion, since it inspired GDR to have composed such a wondrous piece of art!"
The point is we are completely unclear whether these great minds did what they did because of religion or despite of religion. All evidence seem to show that they did so in spite of religion. Would it be fair for anyone to say that Galileo retracted his claim about the heliocentricity of the heavens by his own free will?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 05-29-2011 6:04 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by GDR, posted 05-30-2011 1:54 AM Taz has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 355 (617608)
05-30-2011 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Bolder-dash
05-30-2011 12:00 AM


Re: Forest thru the trees
Crashfrog, unfortunately you completely missed the whole point of the post I made.
Trust me, Bolder, I got the point. You think I'm a mendacious idiot. It came through, believe me. You write with all the subtlety of a dump truck filled with bricks.
Unfortunately, I disagree that I'm the idiot in this exchange, as do most people. There were actually good points in the post you declaimed was so stupid you couldn't even understand it. Actually it was a pretty smart post - that's why you couldn't understand it.
I really thought my parody was pretty darn obvious-but some people only see what they want to see.
I guess we can put down "parody" as another subject you're not able to comprehend. Nobody recognized your post as a parody of their own because nobody said anything like that. And, frankly, a tirade of abuse in lieu of any sort of coherent argument isn't much of a departure from the posts you make in earnest, so why would anyone think you were parodying anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-30-2011 12:00 AM Bolder-dash 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