Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 91 of 136 (633817)
09-16-2011 3:43 PM


Alfred Maddenstein
I'm not sure if Alfred Maddenstein is a creationist, because I have no idea what he thinks except that he's angry at science for no coherent reason. I'd like to nominate him for this:
That sub-atomic quantum chaos is miraculously assumed to be the point of lowest universal entropy. Another bit of ludicrous absolutism I was talking about in my previous post. For that assumes that purported Planck unit allegedly well alone in existence at the mythical time zero to be a point of highest possible disorder and the state of highest possible order all in an absolute once.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


(1)
Message 92 of 136 (633908)
09-17-2011 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Alfred Maddenstein
Well, that is actually a moot point for me..I mean whether the fervent big bangers like yourself are all creationists or not. The classic Big Bang idea itself certainly involves the same concept of time as put forward by the creationist St. Augustine who said that the Universe was created not in time but with time, yet many of the big bangists are among the most vocal at vituperating against the card-carrying creationists.
They must be either hypocrites then, or simply cryptic creationists...I don't know. What do you reckon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2011 3:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 4:32 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 136 (633912)
09-17-2011 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 3:38 AM


Re: Alfred Maddenstein
I reckon that people who are not creationist are not creationists.
I also reckon that it is possible for someone who is not a creationist to agree with someone who is a creationist on some point (even on some cosmological point such as, to take an example at random, the existence of the sun, moon, and stars) without hypocrisy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:38 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


(1)
Message 94 of 136 (633962)
09-17-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2011 4:32 AM


Re: Alfred Maddenstein
Well, well, well, that's more weasel words from you, Inadequate. We are not discussing here the peripherals, are we? Let's stick to the fundamentals then. What's your beef with the creationists, anyway? All you probably want is the certitude of being right, ain't it?
Otherwise, the brute reality here is that you share the fundamental view of existence with St. Augustine while insinuating stuff about me and other people. That's the kind of cognitive dissonance you suffer from, dearest professor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 4:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Larni, posted 09-25-2011 9:35 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 95 of 136 (633964)
09-17-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 7:18 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Are you sure your goal is not to represent us in a certain light?
Quite sure. My interest here lies in the fact that creo posters on this site have a trend towards writing things that only they understand.
This is indicative of not being clear as to the points they are attempting to make.
This is one of the advantages of the science crowd: using precise and nice vocabulary that is understood universally.
Have I made myself clear? Even if you disagree with my position you should understand what I'm getting at.

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.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 136 (633973)
09-17-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
09-09-2011 8:38 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Percy writes:
I should add that aside from Buz's weak grasp of terminology when he's talking about science, his command of English is excellent, and he is able to make perfectly understandable but completely nonsensical statements in perfect English. This is why some people have commented that they'd prefer to debate Buz because whatever he says, at least his grammar (if not his spelling, "imperical" being his most persistent example) produces easily recognizable English sentences.
LoL on your contention that grammar, perse, is what draws lively debates with Buzsaw on behalf of your board. The fact is, as evidenced in the Buzsaw profile archives, that what draws members to my stuff is my stuff; being unique, interesting and challenging, so as to liven up your board and draw in some lurkers.
Thus, and by Jehovah, god's providence, Buzsaw's membership is still active, after two permanent bannings by you.

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 72 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 5:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 97 of 136 (633975)
09-17-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Buzz, you seem to be celebrating your status as a mascot.

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.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 4:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:30 PM Larni has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 136 (633978)
09-17-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by hooah212002
09-10-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Cherry Picked Faults
hooah writes:
Buzsaw writes:
ontology sub-microscopic chaos
What DOES this mean?
Out of context it means whatever the definitions of the words mean. In context it relates to the context. Read the context thoughtfully, and go figure how the words relate to the context.

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 90 by hooah212002, posted 09-10-2011 8:35 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Panda, posted 09-17-2011 6:23 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 107 by hooah212002, posted 09-17-2011 8:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


(1)
Message 99 of 136 (633979)
09-17-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 6:12 PM


Re: Cherry Picked Faults
Buzsaw writes:
Out of context it means whatever the definitions of the words mean. In context it relates to the context. Read the context thoughtfully, and go figure how the words relate to the context.
It would have been quicker for you to have replied with "I don't know." as you clearly don't.
Percy writes:
he is able to make perfectly understandable but completely nonsensical statements in perfect English.
*nods*
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
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 98 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:12 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 136 (633980)
09-17-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Larni
09-17-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Larni writes:
quote:
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.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Larni, it appears that you have juxtaposed my statement with that on Dawn Bertot or someone else. I recognize the first paragraph as mine but the rest from someone else.
Had you linked the quote for clarification, perhaps your message could be comprehended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 97 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 5:04 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Panda, posted 09-17-2011 6:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 102 by fearandloathing, posted 09-17-2011 6:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 7:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


(2)
Message 101 of 136 (633981)
09-17-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 6:30 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Buzsaw writes:
Larni, it appears that you have juxtaposed my statement with that on Dawn Bertot or someone else. I recognize the first paragraph as mine but the rest from someone else.
Had you linked the quote for clarification, perhaps your message could be comprehended
...or it could be Larni's signature.
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 100 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 102 of 136 (633982)
09-17-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 6:30 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
That is a signature Buzz, Larni knows how to use quote boxes.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 103 of 136 (633983)
09-17-2011 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 6:30 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
You do know that I have taken these choice paragraphs and put them into my sig as a delicious irreverent comment on people talking bollocks?
Rather than being part of the body of my post?
Did you, rather egregiously make use of the word comprehend?
Irony writ large, I think.
Abe: to reduce the chance of other hard of thinking posters making a similar error with my sig, could someone tell me how to ensmallen the text size?
Apologies for being a format duffer.
Edited by Larni, : Edits

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.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 09-17-2011 7:37 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 7:51 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 9:40 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 104 of 136 (633985)
09-17-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Larni
09-17-2011 7:14 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
.
Edited by Panda, : .

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 103 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 7:14 PM Larni has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 136 (633986)
09-17-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Larni
09-17-2011 7:14 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Peek at this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 7:14 PM 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