Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 31 of 136 (632020)
09-05-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
09-03-2011 11:32 PM


I wouldn't expect to find myself defending IamJoseph, but I understand his arguments. I think I have spent far too much time reading them.
Regarding the Big Bang, his basic point is some old-fashioned sounding philosophical argument that all events require at least two entities. An event is an interaction, A acting upon B. He misunderstands the term 'singularlity', and becomes excited because this 'single' thing could not cause an event by itself. Thus God.
IAmJoseph understands his arguments, that's not the problem. The problem is his bizarre, idiosyncratic use of English (which I think may just be a failed attempt to sound intelligent, but might be because he's not a native speaker, it's hard to tell); and the fact that he either refuses or is incapable of understanding what most other people write. His ideas, despite being clearly wrong, are deeply cemented and will continue to be repeated ad nauseum regardless of what anyone else says to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 09-03-2011 11:32 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Panda, posted 09-05-2011 10:53 AM caffeine has replied

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


Message 32 of 136 (632024)
09-05-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by caffeine
09-05-2011 10:23 AM


caffeine writes:
but might be because he's not a native speaker
IamJ has repeatedly stated that English is his main/only language.

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 31 by caffeine, posted 09-05-2011 10:23 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 09-05-2011 11:49 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 33 of 136 (632032)
09-05-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Panda
09-05-2011 10:53 AM


IamJ has repeatedly stated that English is his main/only language.
Doesn't make it true We often get applicants for jobs where I work who pretend to be native speakers, because they can converse fine in English and thus believe (wrongly) that they can get away with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Panda, posted 09-05-2011 10:53 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 2:01 PM caffeine has replied

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


Message 34 of 136 (632060)
09-05-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by caffeine
09-05-2011 11:49 AM


Gee, where do you work that requires people to pretend they grew up with English?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 09-05-2011 11:49 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by caffeine, posted 09-06-2011 9:51 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 35 of 136 (632064)
09-05-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
09-05-2011 5:53 AM


Percy writes:
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.
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2011 8:03 PM Taz has replied

  
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

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


Message 39 of 136 (632128)
09-05-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2011 8:03 PM


Dawn writes:
Why not demonstrate that we cannot understand eachother, before making such an assertion
Apparently, you don't have much of a reading comprehension skill after all.
Here is what I said.
me writes:
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.
I have no idea how you could interpret that to mean I asserted that you guys cannot understand each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2011 8:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 8:40 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 40 of 136 (632130)
09-05-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2011 8:14 PM


DAwn writes:
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?
Absolutely. I doubt myself all the time, which is why I started this thread to ask other people if they can understand you guys on a consistent basis or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2011 8:14 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 41 of 136 (632137)
09-05-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-05-2011 7:30 AM


Re: Let Creationists Be Creationists
Admin writes:
The thread is here:
Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only)
And the post mortem thread is here:
Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics
Who judged you the winner?
Mmm, nobody! Before the debate commenced it was established that there would be two judges after our debate to cite the winner.
As could be expected, alas, no judges judged anything. Why? Because even by Jar's own constituency, the consensus was that he did poorly. They essentially judged the debate. It's quite clear who was the winner. Jar was on the ropes, so to speak, throughout the debate. It was Jar, the one who, before I submitted the OP, boasted that he'd put me away in a couple or so of messages. The rest is in your link. (Thanks.) Sometime, on page two, Jar said that he'd had enough, after which I good-spiritedly thanked him for engaging, etc.
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make?
If creationists concede up front that "creation science" is not science then there would be no point in debating them. This debate only exists because of creationist insistence that creation science is every bit as scientific as the science taught in public school science classrooms, the science taught at non-religious universities, and the science pursued in research laboratories around the world. Once creationists accept that "creation science" is not science in the way the rest of the world understands it then the debate is over.
See, Admin? This is what you do to us. You know full well that we creation science advocates do not concede that creation science is not science. You're spinning that falsehood out of whole-cloth.
Given the amount of science that people like AIG, ICR, Moller et al have done at great expense, effort and time, both in the lab and on the field, I've been trying for years to get you to rightfully acknowledge that creationist science is indeed science by definition, whether it be conventional main line or creationist.
Just because creation science lacks all of the government funding, foundational funding and other funding etc, does not eliminate it from being science, by definition.
The scientific research of scientist Lennart Moller, his team vessel and other equipment on both land and sea was not a vacation event. It was field science, after he published his findings via photography, literature and other media.
I have the video of ICR's scientific field research of the Grand Canyon strata and of the Mt St Helen's suddenly formed gorge, etc.
How skeptics view the science research does not render the research to be non-science. I've been rightfully explaining that science like this has produced more physical (I say physical) scientific evidence supportive (I say supportive) to creationist hypotheses than the zero event of the BB has of physical scientific evidence.
You have the authority here at your relatively little science board to doggedly concoct your own exclusive definition of science. I'm saying you are shooting yourself in the foot, bemoaning the fact that effective and astute creationists aren't signing up to endure the lop sided and censored MO which you are enforcing.
Admin writes:
I think you, and Chuck77, don't understand the implications of your own arguments.
Methinks, before you try to remove the splinter in our eyes you remove the beam in your own as the apostle, Matthew put it in 7:3.
I hope that you view the above comments, and others as constructive criticism; not intended to be meanspirited; meant for good and not personal attacks.
Proverbs 27:6
quote:
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; But the kisses of an enemy are profuse.

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 29 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 7:30 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 42 of 136 (632143)
09-05-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2011 8:14 PM


This proves my point
From my original post on this thread Message 5
Discussing the tactics of IMJ and DB -
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.
Examples in this thread -
quote:
all of my positions derive thier conclusions from reality and nothing else
Message 10
quote:
My first guess is that you actually do understand you simply have no response.
Message 11
quote:
Your problem is that youve been educated poorly in philosophical and logical matters. And you certainly understand nothing about Biblical matters, it appears
Message 11
quote:
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.
Message 38
quote:
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?
Message 38
This proves my point.
My comments - 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.
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.
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.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2011 8:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-06-2011 11:02 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

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


Message 43 of 136 (632182)
09-06-2011 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
09-05-2011 8:32 PM


Taz writes:
I have no idea how you could interpret that to mean I asserted that you guys cannot understand each other.
I think DB was referring to "we" as in "evolutions and creationists" not we as in "creationists".
Granted, that does add weight to Percy's claim that non-creationists on this board have trouble understanding creationists like DB and visa versa.
(I still contend that the lack of ability in English shown by the likes of DB et al is not caused by their creationism or limited solely to creationists.)
Edited by Panda, : tweak
Edited by Panda, : typo

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 39 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 8:32 PM Taz has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 44 of 136 (632200)
09-06-2011 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taz
09-05-2011 2:01 PM


Gee, where do you work that requires people to pretend they grew up with English?
Somewhere that needs people who can write (and understand) English pretty flawlessly. A lot of native speakers can't do that, and only a tiny proportion of non-native speakers can. The idea of advertising for native-speakers only is that it will deter those whose English is good but not good enough for the job, and inspire any whose English is good enough to demonstrate the fact.
It doesn't work, of course, but that's the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 2:01 PM Taz has not 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024