|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,903 Year: 4,160/9,624 Month: 1,031/974 Week: 358/286 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Dog piling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
Wonded King writes: No it isn't, the most replies Buz has had to any post in this thread is 2, and that was only for 2 of his posts. Two? Ok wonded King. Let's count together:
Pauk writes: Of course you are telling untruths here. Moller is NOT renowned as a marine scientist. The existence of the coral forms has generally been accepted. What has NOT been accepted is the assertion that the coral forms were built around ancient Egyptian chariot wheels. And that is because the evidence that would allow us to conclude that has not been presented. Apparently the "renowned marine biologist" can't even give us the growth rates for the coral in question.... Look, there's no point getting frustrated because people prefer facts and sound reasoning to your imaginings. That's the way it has to be on ANY forum which tries to get to the truth. So stop whining and demanding that the forum must be biased in your favour. Accept your (many) defeats and move on. One
frako writes: I only wish that the pack would stop imposing their science on the creationist minority. Hahahah You made that sound like we are Jehovahs witnesses. Have you read your encyclopedia Britannica today sir, no what about Charls Darwin's book on the origins of species no well you are in luck sir i came to introduce you to science and tell you there is no god. *door slams in to my face*. Two
AZPaul3 writes: I am glad to see that Buzz now agrees that "science" is what real practising scientists say it is and not what some small vocal cult of *** religionists would want it to be. Three
AZPaul writes: I have a message responding to points PaulK posted, opining his position which I plan to prepare for posting this evening. I look forward to reading your message. What thread will it be in? This one would be inappropriate since your Message 42 as well as PaulK's Message 43 were, for the most part, well off-topic for this thread. Four
hooah212002 writes: Science isn't like religion, Buz. Science has standards. I understand that just anyone can say "I'm a christian, yay!" and you can't tell them they are wrong. Sure, they may not be your brand of christian, but they sure as shit are christian. Science, on the other hand, has procedures. You're either using the scientific method, or you're not. You don't get to define evidence as it suits your worldview. You don't get to just say "I'm doing science, yay!" and qualify it as science. So no, there is no "hivemind" that you are alluding to. It just so happens that the "pack" knows the scientific method and we all use it properly. Of course we will all agree when you are wrong. maybe because.....you're wrong? I know this won't sink in, but hey, I try. Five
jar writes: Buz writes:So AZPaul, though I still oppose limiting the dog pilers perhaps moderators would do good to keep a better handle on how dog pilers sometimes abuse their privilege, making unreasonable demands on the lone or minority member/s whom they are piling on. So asking for actual evidence is an unreasonable demand? People should accept "acclamation of evidence"?. Six
Hoorah212002 writes: . I knew it wouldn't sink in, but I didn't think it would completely go over your head.......No shit. I didn't say that it did....Your ability to mangle even the simplest of phrases is truly amazing. Seven
Paulk writes: Of course you are whining. You are attacking your opponents because you were badly defeated in a debate. You are complaining that your assertions are not unquestioningly believed. You are complaining that you are expected to produce real evidence for your claims when they venture into the domain of science. How is any of that anything but whining ?. Eight I didn't see Buz insult but defend His position and ALL that ensued was a bunch of Dog Piling from four different members. You make Five. So Wounded King im not sure if you think Creationists can count. So in the spirit of the Evo way I'll use one of your favorite quotes: STOP LYING 
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
I would also like to add to what Taq had said concerning Dog Piling. It was a well thought out comment.
I think we can forget who our audience is. Evolutionists have often come from websites that have very concise and easy to understand "refutations" of Creationism. Ignoring for the moment that these refutations are often misguided, there is one theme that we should keep in mind. There is a tendency for humans to trust easy to understand explanations more than complex and opaque explanations. Also, when we see someone giving a long and drawn out explanation with many twists and turns we suspect that they are trying to hide something. While this may not be the truth, this is one of the biases we have to deal with. For example, " Where did Cain's wife come from if they were all related" is a very easy to understand argument. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity , and The design inference is not easy to understand, much less how humans fit into these classifications and how Creationism produces these relationships. We are asking evolutionsists to move away from something that is easy to understand to something that is, at first glance, impossible to understand. Dog piling only worsens the problem. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)
