Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 10 of 136 (631946)
09-04-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
09-04-2011 12:28 PM


I have tangled with IamJoseph and Dawn Bertot on a number of occasions. I do not doubt that they sincerely believe that their arguements are totally clear, logical and scientifically sound. I do not doubt that they believe that they have actually found the correct answer and cannot understand how the rest of us can continue to miss something that is so blindingly obvious. We just cant seem to see the mistakes we are all making. I amnot saying all creationists are like them. I am also not saying that they are the only two out there. I would say they are fairly extreme examples.
Their positions seem to rest mainly on two key tactics.
1. Repetition of their arguements (and repetition that you just don't understand them).
2. Repetition that they are right.
I imagine that a newcomer like myself comes along every now and then and, in their naivety, throws themselves into debates with these sort of people with noble intentions. My only hope is that I was able to serve as an example to others that there is little point of throwing yourself on those particular rocks.
I do think that they know exactly what they are talking about. The unfortunate thing is that the subject that they are knowledgable about is a unique personal interpretation of reality.
Im sure some Psychologist may look at such comments and say, now here is a guy that he is the very thing he ranting about. Butterfly, you appear to me to be the very thing you advocate.
all of my positions derive thier conclusions from reality and nothing else
BTW, you are free to tangle with us in a personal and oral public debate anytime you wish. We will take on any and all challengers
Have fun
Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 12:28 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

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


(1)
Message 11 of 136 (631948)
09-04-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
09-03-2011 11:32 PM


But when I read posts by Bertot, IamJoseph, and other creationists, I kept scratching my head and tried to re-read their words again. I am finding myself having a very difficult time understanding what the hell they are saying. It's not just their logic I'm having trouble understanding. It's also the immediate things they say that I have trouble understanding.
Take a look at the problems in big bang theory thread, for example. Can anyone here honestly say they understood what the hell IamJoseph was talking about?
My question to you guys is do you think these "crackpots" even know what the hell they are talking about? Or do you think they only have a vague sense of what they want to say and so they stumble through with non-sensical sentences and jibberish?
Instead of contemplation, simply ask a specific question about a specific point. Im sure I can provide a logical response.
It's also the immediate things they say that I have trouble understanding.
For example, what the heck does this mean?
My first guess is that you actually do understand you simply have no response. Ive seen alledged great men of understanding, reduced to rubble when for example trying to conduct a debate with Dr Thomas B Warren.
Your problem is that youve been educated poorly in philosophical and logical matters. And you certainly understand nothing about Biblical matters, it appears
Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 09-03-2011 11:32 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 09-04-2011 10:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 12 of 136 (631950)
09-04-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
09-04-2011 7:39 AM


What originally drew me in to the creationism/evolution controversy was creationism's inability to articulate a rational position while insisting it deserved inclusion in public school science programs.
Forgive me for saying it,but you are nothing but a filthy liar, you know I have done this on many occasions with my position of what creationism is exacally. You above comment is a misrepresentation and an out an out lie
I fully understand the impulses pressing you to engage with IAJ and straighten out his confusion, which seems simple and straightforward and easy to resolve. It appears to you that the presentation of a few simple facts and the walking through of a few logical inductions should straighten everything out.
You are exacally the same type of people as myself and Joseph, you simply to much of a coward to admit it
You derision, belittlement, and sarcasm do nothing to defeat our positions. I would suggest you put forward arguments instead of hiding behind false pretense
Quit being cowards with sarcasm. If you could have refuted my postions you would have done it along time ago and i would have been long gone
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 09-04-2011 7:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 09-04-2011 9:33 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 13 of 136 (631951)
09-04-2011 9:01 PM


Please explain how my comments are off Topic
Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

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


Message 36 of 136 (632120)
09-05-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
09-05-2011 5:53 AM


It is my position that not only can these creationists not make their views comprehensible for evolutionists, they can't do it for anyone, even each other. I would like to see a thread where IamJoseph, Dawn Bertot, Robert Byers, John 10:10, Marc9000, Bolder-dash and others try to explain their positions to each other, followed by assessments of how successful each has been.
More idiocy and assertion by Percy that I am alledgedly unable to make a response to in this thread
To insist that we do not understand eachother is not becoming of someone of your calibur Percy. That kind of statement is simply nonsense. Of course I understand what they are saying, I simply agree which requires no response, other that to say very good Job
percy if you are going to make accusations atleast make them remotely valid
Bad form Percy
It is sufficient for a creationist to have successfully made himself understood by another creationist.
Percy, when did you go from being reasonable and rational to completely silly.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 5:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 37 of 136 (632122)
09-05-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taz
09-05-2011 2:06 PM


This is, perhaps, the best idea I have seen in a while. Perhaps this will not prove anything, but at least we'll be able to see if creationists can comprehend each other or if they will have the same trouble understanding each other the same way that we have trouble understanding them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not demonstrate that we cannot understand eachother, before making such an assertion
I believe that is what this website is about correct, demonstrating points with evidence
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 2:06 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 8:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 38 of 136 (632124)
09-05-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
09-04-2011 10:24 PM


Take it for what it's worth. I'm not the only one saying I can't understand you guys most of the time. Ask other people here. We have professionals of every field here.
Have you thought that while you posses great language skills, yout thinking may be very simplistic. Im seeing this demonstrated in my discussion with Butterfly.
he seems unable to comprehend that reality dictates the meanings of words. While we give them immediate definitions, those definitions must coincide with reality. Sometimes our definitions, individual interpretations of definitions conflict with reality, because we try to defend the perception verses the reality
While you understand your respective field, have you considered the fact you might be simplistic in many other areas of thinking, or thinking in general?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 09-04-2011 10:24 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 8:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 42 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-05-2011 11:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 45 of 136 (632309)
09-06-2011 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Butterflytyrant
09-05-2011 11:12 PM


Re: This proves my point
Has it occured to you DB that we may actually be intelligent enough to understand your arguments, but that your arguments do not support your position? You continue to claaim that anyone who disagrees with your position is somehow deficient.
Has it occured to you that you may actually be wrong?
Of course not. You are the only one who is intelligent enough to have the correct answer. All of the posters who disagrees with you, regardless of how many there are (and there are a lot) are all wrong.
How many people would have to disagree with you before you even considered the possibility that you may be wrong?
Lets see you prove my point even further in your response.
Your not the brightest crayon in the box are you son? Those in the opposition on topics are in the greatest number on this site, of course they are going to disagree with nearly anything any theist or creationist has to say
Simply because they disagree in great numbers is no surprise Mallethead, were on opposites sides of the coin. I dont disagree with Buzz, ICANT, IAJ, Jaywiil and others, does that mean we are right because we all agree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-05-2011 11:12 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 09-07-2011 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 47 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-07-2011 1:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 51 of 136 (632412)
09-07-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Larni
09-07-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Talking bollocks
An example of this I do recall was something like "the sum totality of the universal singularity conforms with the thought shape of the individual's perceptual range" (paraphrased).
Nothing I have ever written or posted sounds as silly as the above comment.
If one wishes clarification on any statement, they simply need to ask for clarification in the form of a specific question
Magically, that always seem to work, unless one wishes to continually misrepresent thier opposition
If I were to wonder what the above comment you quoted meant I would ask the poster for clarification and simplification. If his statement at some point did not confrom to any thing reasonable, it would be easily recognizable very quickly
If you think I have made comments that I cannot demonstrate or defend, then feel free to supply it.
If I am not mistaken, I remember Dewise1 promising me the samething and warning me my days were numbered. He has been as silent as the tomb concerning his assertion and complaint
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Larni, posted 09-07-2011 10:36 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2011 1:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 5:26 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 55 of 136 (632432)
09-08-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by dwise1
09-08-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Talking bollocks
I had issued no such warning. Quote me directly and point us to the specific message where you got that quote from.
Ill be happy to do that give me a couple of days to look it up. Personally I think on those last few excahnges between us, I think you had been elbow bending, but I could be mistaken
At any rate I will provide your claim to go through my posts and demonstrate nonsensical statements and that my days were numbered
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2011 1:03 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 56 of 136 (632435)
09-08-2011 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by dwise1
09-08-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Talking bollocks
Message 83 Dewise1 writes
All you ever post is garbage. You pay lip service to "logic", and yet you have repeatedly displayed absolute ignorance of logic. We directly challenged you and you ran away immediately, remember? If absolutely required to, I will research back through the posts here. Will you even begin to have the balls (questionable given your girly name) to stand up to that kind of challenge? You know that I will. And you know full well that you will not be able to stand up to that kind of exposition. Let's put it this way: I am half Scottish, nearly half Irish, and about a 16th German. The Scottish part will not put up with yer bullshit and the German part will methodically tear you apart.
Message 90 he writes
This forum does give us the tools for accomplishing my task. Even though it does take some work.
Your days are numbered, you fucking liar! Which is to say, "typical creationist".
What happened did you forget about your challenge and task
Come on you german bulldog, start tearing
be honest you were drunk werent you? If you admit this I will forvive you and absolve you of your empty challenge
BTW, you should know that Scottish, Irish and German dont even come close to Italiano blood
But thats neither here nor there. Bada boom bada bing, Whata madda you, Uh?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Provided Links to msg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2011 1:03 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 60 of 136 (632476)
09-08-2011 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
09-08-2011 2:17 AM


One from Buzsaw:
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
DA writes:
It just doesn't come across as an attempt to communicate with anyone else.
"You say this guys name was Bill"?, Joey 'Fullhouse'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2011 2:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 8:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 9:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 61 of 136 (632478)
09-08-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Larni
09-08-2011 5:26 AM


Re: Talking bollocks
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have promised you nothing and made no reference to you.
What you infer from my post is your own business, not mine.
No, I was simply saying if you dont understand something ask a direct question or ask for clarification, this if you have any interest to do so

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 5:26 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 8:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 67 of 136 (632609)
09-08-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Larni
09-08-2011 8:44 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you wan to poke fun at poor ole Buzz?
Your meaning is not clear.
Joey was presented with a very complicated scenario, which began with a guy named Bill was on a train traveling at a speed of 120 miles per, etc, etc, etc. After much complicated explanation and a complicated scenario, which Joey did not understand, his response was, "you say this guys name was Bill". I thought that was cute and funny
It sounds like something i might say
I was not foking pun at my friend Buz, I was simply agreeing with DA that I did not understand his statement. Id odes not mean that Buzz's statement does not make sense, only that i did not understand the verbage
Thats all, no offense intended

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 8:44 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 68 of 136 (632610)
09-08-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
09-08-2011 9:10 AM


Re: Oh for fuck sake.
Thanks to Percy, I now know what the 'Joey' comment was about.
But, did it ever ocure to you that attempting to make a point that hinges on a comment from another post in another thread that you have no reason to beleive I've read in a post addressed to me about clarity of communication (say it all in one breath), was a bloody stupid thing to do?
Evidently not.
Yes I know sorry, sue me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 9:10 AM Larni 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