Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Whether to leave this forum or not
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 31 of 307 (655407)
03-10-2012 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 1:42 AM


I am not convince oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate.
Why? what evidence to you have to support this position?
If all radiometric decay was greater in the past and every isotope has had its decay rate drop off at exactly the same rate as each other, then something that happened 570,000 radiometric years ago could have happened 25,000 years ago in reality, and it would still show the same correlations.
And do you have any evidence that this has happened?
When you ask for evidence for my claims, I am not sure what I could possibly do to satisfy your demand
provide evidence to be examined
I feel like it is up to you guys to show me why my possibilities are impossibilities indeed.
Why would you think that is a valid position? why should other people do your work for you?
I see downright hostility expressed in the most ugly sarcasm and ridicule possible. I see no need for this type of attitude. If that is science, then scientists are a bunch of hateful , insecure assholes.
It isn't science, it is posters here tired of seeing yet another creationist who thinks he knows it all and yet can't provide evidence for his position.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 1:42 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:25 AM DrJones* has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 32 of 307 (655408)
03-10-2012 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by DrJones*
03-10-2012 2:16 AM


I am not convinced oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate.
Why? what evidence to you have to support this position?
This is typical of what I was referring to. What position? What do you mean by evidence. I don't even have any idea of how to respond to such a request. I simply do not see why oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. I am looking to be educated. If it is such a slam dunk, it should be easy to show why they are.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DrJones*, posted 03-10-2012 2:16 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by DrJones*, posted 03-10-2012 2:34 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 33 of 307 (655410)
03-10-2012 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
03-10-2012 2:15 AM


Here, we see the crux of the problem. You say that we have to convince you before you will believe what we take to be facts. But you want us to believe what you take to be facts.
No, I don't. You have misunderstood me.
Doesn't the same requirement exist in both direction?
Sure, but I haven't stated that my opinions are facts; you have.
You have to convince us before we can believe what you take to be facts.
I agree, but I haven't asked anyone to do that yet.
But now you protest that we want evidence.
I protest that you want evidence when I am simply bringing up my ideas for discussion and hashing out.
How is this convincing going to work without evidence?
It won't I agree, but you are setting up a strawman of a problem that doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 03-10-2012 2:15 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:06 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 03-10-2012 11:38 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 11:52 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(3)
Message 34 of 307 (655411)
03-10-2012 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 2:25 AM


I am looking to be educated
Then for a start read RAZD's dating threads.
If it is such a slam dunk, it should be easy to show why they are.
Why would you assume that? Why do scientific theories have to be understandable by the lowest common denominator in order to be correct?

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:25 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 11:49 AM DrJones* has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 35 of 307 (655413)
03-10-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 2:11 AM


Re: Despised POVs
I guess part of the problem is that I didn't realize that there were so many professional scientists on this site.
There are quite a few, actually. It's part of what makes this such a great place to learn. But not all of us are professional scientists. Some of us are just amateurs with a heavy interest in science, logic, rationality, theology, debate, or all of the above. I'm just an IT guy, myself. I just discovered that the EvC debate was interesting to me. It may also interest you to know that I am a former Christian. I used to have what could be considered fundamentalist views, as I believed that the Bible was literal truth. Those beliefs changed over time, and eventually I could no longer say that I honestly believed in God. The EvC debate played a significant role in causing me to critically examine my own beliefs...if you look back to my earliest posts (just click my profile), I was posting as a Christian though not a literalist Creationist.
I didn't realize I was going through an adversarial review process. I just thought it was a bunch of hateful mocking by intense haters of fundamentalist christians.
Well, it's definitely adversarial as it's a debate site, and debate is by its nature adversarial. But the "hateful mocking"...sometimes people, myself included, try to illustrate the illogic of an argument through humor. The idea is typically to shock the opponent into examining their own beliefs, possibly causing them to realize that they believe something absurd. It almost never works, and usually only succeeds in making the opponent feel insulted...and sometimes even vindicated. Ive been trying to tone down my mockery, at least for new people.
I see that on theological sites and in real life. What I saw here was no different. I will give your adversarial posts a closer look to see if they are indeed purely scientific adversarial reviews indeed. Right now, it just seems like ridicule and piling on for the pure enjoyment of it.
Try to understand - the specific topic of the EvC debate involves extremely deep beliefs. Challenging beliefs like those, beliefs that are so closely tied to our identities, sometimes even tied to our opinions of ourselves as moral people, tends to cause a lot of emotion. We all get defensive. We all feel even more adversarial than perhaps we should. As a Christian, try to think of how difficult it is for you to honestly consider a world without God; the "other side" feels a similar reaction, though the specifics are different. It gets heated sometimes, and whiile we could all probably benefit from trying to turn down the heat, we also have to remember to have thick skins - Christians tell me that "the fool sayeth in his heart that there is no God," and I have to focus on the topic and rational rebate instead of lashing out. Every year or so we have a topic discussing whether Atheists (like me) can possibly be moral people without believing in God, which is rather insulting on its face.
The rest of the hostility is, honestly, often a lack of patience. We see an awful lot of repeated topics here. An awful lot of new Creationists repeating an argument from literally 20 years ago that was falsified a week after it popped up, but people keep on repeating them. I remember one Creationist on Youtube, VenomFangX (lol), once stating that Earth is the only place in the Universe where water is found...even though water is the second most common molecule in existence, right after molecular Hydrogen. When somebody says something that wrong, so wrong that 30 seconds of research could how that it's wrong, that having ever even once heard of comets would prove that it was wrong, let alone Europa...it can cause a bit of frustration. A kneejerk "wow, that's stupid" reaction. It's not particularly productive, but it's what happens.
I dont hate Christians, with the possible exceptions of bigots like Fred Phelps. My family are still all Christians.
I don't mean everyone, especially folks like taq, and trixie, and rahvin.
Glad to be on that list.
You will have to excuse me; I am not a professional scientist. Not yet at least. I will have a geology degree by may 2014, and then will hopefully be going to graduate school. Even by then, I will be hopelessly behind most folks on this forum.
Here's the big lesson, foreveryoung: never be afraid of a debate, even if it gets heated. Only an inaccurate belief can be falsified. Beliefs that are wrong are already wrong, and finding out that you have an inaccurate belief is just an opportunity to improve yourself. I want to find where my beliefs are inaccurate. I want to lose my false beliefs. What's the value of an idea that's wrong, anyway? And the only price is a little humility, a reminder that none of us are perfect, and we all believe a few things that probably aren't true.
So look forward to confrontation. Don't be afraid to look at your own beliefs critically, and just as importantly, help the rest of us examine our own beliefs critically. Help us find where we're wrong, and we'll help you find where you're wrong, and together we can all learn and improve.
And if someone's just being a dick...well, just ignore them. Blessing or curse, here at EvC Creationists are never short on debate opponents; you can afford to ignore the occasional asshole.
ABE: And welcome back. Glad you decided to stay.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:11 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by zi ko, posted 03-10-2012 3:45 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 12:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 36 of 307 (655414)
03-10-2012 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rahvin
03-10-2012 3:17 AM


Re: Despised POVs
Hi Rahvin,
I very much liked your stands. I would appreciate your particpation in discussing "New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution" thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2012 3:17 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


(1)
Message 37 of 307 (655419)
03-10-2012 5:42 AM


taking the heat
Good to see you're staying. This place is need of long-time members who oppose the majority(even though I am part of that majority).
I'm going to be honest with myself here: if I tried to argue on a forum, and got many, many replies that debunked my stances, sometimes with snark, I probably would vanish in silence before long. No matter what the position is, some people can't really take much in the way of harsh words and sarcasm. I have enough self-knowledge to know that I am very part of this group, as of the time of writing. At least your announcement you were thinking about leaving sparked some useful reflection about the nature of debate.
I think some members(at least me) don't always agree with the tone of some posts, even if they agree with it's general content, even if it often remains unsaid.
I'm not sure if this exists already, I know of a moderation complaints topic, but does a dedicated topic to file complaints about impolite debate already exist? Even if snark is sometimes justified, such a topic would be handy to discuss if a member stepped out of line, and keep member relations better, without derailing the debate as I see happening so much.

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 38 of 307 (655423)
03-10-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 1:44 AM


foreveryoung writes:
quote:
I don't ridicule anyone unless I despise them. I don't know why you would be any different.
Consider the possibility that other people don't have the same emotional responses and foundations as you.
For example, I literally do not care about you. How can I? I don't know you. In order to "despise" you, I would have to be emotionally invested in you and that isn't the case. For me, this forum is a diversion for me to engage in some discussion and debate. At best, y'all are acquaintances. Why on earth would I bother becoming so concerned about the people here to "despise" them?
Some people are curmudgeonly and take to heart the idea of "not suffering fools lightly." But considering someone foolish doesn't mean you "despise" him. To me, that indicates ill will. But there is a difference between disliking and despising.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 1:44 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 307 (655424)
03-10-2012 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 2:03 AM


Re: Despised POVs
That isn't what I see many hear doing however. I see downright hostility expressed in the most ugly sarcasm and ridicule possible.
Generally speaking, you've asked questions about science with a theme; the theme being that the questions are related to your YEC view of the universe. In all cases that I can recall your questions have gotten a pretty thorough scientific look, with the result being not supportive of your world view.
Which of your questions haven't received a complete, science based answer? Are you sure that some of the problem isn't that the discussion goes over your head before your question gets answered?
You have claimed that you've never seen any information that contradicts a YEC world view. I find that claim extraordinary.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:03 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 40 of 307 (655426)
03-10-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 2:32 AM


Hi ForEverYoung,
In my opinion you have hit upon the greatest problem with EvC. Long time evolutionist members do not grant new creationist members the same patience they exhibited when they themselves were new here. They tend to skip right to the chase, brief mentions or references to the relevant information accompanied by sarcasm and derision. Right off the bat the new creationist member is subjected to abuse.
In their defense, for evolutionist old timers it can be a tough transition from a thread debating an IamJoseph or a Dawn Bertot or a Robert Byers or a Bolder-dash to a thread debating a newly joined creationist. After a dozen or so times, starting a topic over again from scratch by patiently yet again presenting and explaining the evidence and arguments can be daunting and numbing. But that's no excuse, and the member who recently posted that once you've lost the patience it's time for a vacation was right.
But new creationists are not without fault. There's nothing like starting off by confidently asserting error (usually perceived as arrogance) to set people off, any people. It's analogous to walking into a room full of strangers and announcing they're all idiots. Some will try to draw the person aside and explain that the those in the room are people just like them, and that they probably didn't realize how rude and obnoxious they were being by just blurting out their honest opinion, and maybe they could tone it down a bit until they get to know everyone. But others will gang up on the newcomer. You're not observing a problem with this forum but a fact of human nature.
If I'm recommending greater patience to evolutionists, then to creationists I'd suggest embracing a well known fact: certainty and knowledge are inversely proportional. When you're certain you're right, that's the time to worry and begin a self-examination of the knowledge you think lies behind that certainty.
I clicked on your thread list and I see that you've posted 109 messages in 23 threads for an average of around 5 messages per thread, so you havn't yet engaged much in extended discussion. Plus most of your threads contain at least 2 messages that you haven't yet answered or acknowledged.
Evolutionists interested in sticking around had better get used to the fact that the hinterlands are breeding scores of eager young creationists every day. There will always be a near infinite supply.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:32 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 12:04 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 41 of 307 (655434)
03-10-2012 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 1:42 AM


Hi again foreveryoung
You have to convince me they are facts before I will believe them. You say the age of the earth is a fact. I read a bit of your age correlations paper. I am not convinced ...
your answer is here on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 1:42 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 42 of 307 (655436)
03-10-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 2:32 AM


foreveryoung writes:
Sure, but I haven't stated that my opinions are facts; you have.
Okay, fair enough.
You are going to run into problems if you present opinions in a science thread. People are likely to assume that you are making claims of fact.
My suggestion would be that you express such opinions only in non-science threads (either religious forums or the Coffee House). Where appropriate, ask questions and request clarifications in the science threads. How you word your posts will influence whether people take you to be making factual claims, challenging their facts (which amounts to you making factual claims), or just engaging in informal discussion and self-education.
Always keep in mind that this is a site where there is a history of intense debating over creation vs. evolution. It is likely that what you post will be taken as a debate issue, unless you word your post in a way that makes it clear that it is something else.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:32 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 11:51 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 43 of 307 (655437)
03-10-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by DrJones*
03-10-2012 2:34 AM


This is what I am talking about. Why did you have to say I was the lowest common denominator? That has nothing to do with adversarial science. It is just an insult anybody could do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DrJones*, posted 03-10-2012 2:34 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DrJones*, posted 03-10-2012 12:15 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 44 of 307 (655438)
03-10-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by nwr
03-10-2012 11:38 AM


No. I don't wish to chit chat about the weather etc. I want to talk in the science threads because that is what I want to talk about. I still don't understand why I have to have evidence when "evidence" means I can only substantiate my claims with stuff you guys agree with. Sorry. NO can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 03-10-2012 11:38 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 11:56 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2012 12:13 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 12:35 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 45 of 307 (655439)
03-10-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by foreveryoung
03-10-2012 2:32 AM


Sure, but I haven't stated that my opinions are facts; you have.
The question this raises, of course, is whether it is important to you that your opinions be based on facts, or at least not inconsistent with them. Only you can answer that question. But be warned, if you decide that it is, you will have to change your opinions as you learn new facts. If changing your opinions does not appeal to you, then perhaps it would be best, for your sake, that you leave here. Because if you stay, and if you learn, you will discover that at present your opinions are quite inconsistent with known facts.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 03-10-2012 2:32 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but 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