Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What type of skeptic are you?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 40 (113658)
06-08-2004 5:26 PM


Here is an example of what I might call the determined skeptic. In that, my opposition seems to be convinced that everything about the bible is "wrong" or disbelieves that I just want a discussion about morals mainly, and not the bible.
I propose that there are two kinds of skeptic:
1. The skeptic in search of the actual reality/truth to any given situation or Theory.
2. The skeptic who is the determined one. Who will disbelieve or try and use logic/refutations or anything possible, to try and show something as false, because of their discomfort with certain Theories/beliefs.
I would like to know which one you think you are. Would you be so brave as to accept a truth if it became highly probable and there was evidence?
I chose to show you that link because my honest intention was to simply discuss morality and have a bit of fun, but I seem to come across a lot of number twos.
Some people here I would say are number one though.
P.S. My link may not be the best example of skepticism, but hey, I was in a rush.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-08-2004 07:50 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-08-2004 5:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 5 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 06-08-2004 5:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-08-2004 6:04 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 06-08-2004 7:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 06-08-2004 7:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 11 by 1.61803, posted 06-08-2004 11:07 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 06-08-2004 11:34 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 40 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2004 1:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 40 (113694)
06-08-2004 9:25 PM


I seek more input from more members, but thanks to everyone so far.
Loudmouth has came close to the meat of this. How many of us here (evolutionists) would actually delude themselves into saying that they would give any creationist Theory the time of day? Be honest, you enjoy refuting that which you earnestly disagree with, YES -- disagree with. Is that your motivation?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not even against the "e" anymore, I'm just Christian, so I see both sides a bit more clear. But I am confident in my mind, that some here are so against the other side that they would refute truths even if they knew it was truth. And don't lie, because I've done it myself. Go on, you know it, some issues you would go against as you are simply "for" them whether they are true or not.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-08-2004 09:10 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 11:05 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 30 by MrHambre, posted 06-09-2004 2:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 40 (113857)
06-09-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
06-08-2004 11:34 PM


To me, there is truth, but I can never get my hands on it. For all I know, I could currently tied to a bed in Elgin Mental Institute thinking that I am a college student who is studying physics and actively participate in athletic, philosophical, and many other fun events.
Yet you probably are the latter, and would know so through the testimony of others, and independent verification. I myself, know that you are evolutionist and your opinions match with science. So, personally, I would say you are number 1 without realizing it. Because you do support that which is independently verified through scientific processes and logic. So, in a way - you are seeking truth/reality more than the number 2 skeptic, in that, you are not willing to take your own senses as valid in search of the actual reality. Your example of aliens also shows us that you wouldn't be willing to take that as true, in favour of reality/verification. I also would refuse to believe that this abduction was reality. But I would do so because of my disagreement with the whole ufo thing, making me the number 2 skeptic. Also, the fact that you are willing to rid what you yourself sense, rules out that you are a number 2. For number 2 skeptic is dedicated to his own opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 06-08-2004 11:34 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 40 (113858)
06-09-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by 1.61803
06-08-2004 11:07 PM


Re: The art of War
Ahaha
I wish that was me on the streethawk bike. The reality is far more humble, looks like a toaster on wheels and sounds like a bee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by 1.61803, posted 06-08-2004 11:07 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 40 (113870)
06-09-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Jack
06-09-2004 11:05 AM


You see, I disagree about theism. Yet I wasn't arguing for a creationist Theory. It's just an example.
Here's another which I argued in the past as a YEC.
Species "stuck in a rut" and that haven't changed morphologically in millions of years, seem to be better explained by a creo Theory, therefore opposing an evolutionistic one, yet USING evidence completely. I mean what else are we dealing with when we have a living species, and one that is stuck in a millions of years old rock, that is morphologically the same? I would say that even though normalized selection refutes this, the creo explanation of "no evolution for that species" is more accurate. Something to think about for you Mr.Jack. But do note, this isn't about arguing creo and evo. This is about skepticism. In that instance, you would probably still prefer the ToE, even though this "small" example is better fitting to reality when using the creo Theory. Afterall, that species hasn't changed in millions of years, even if normalized selection is the case. Which one still explains "truth"? The truth is that something hasn't changed in millions of years remember. A more realistic explanation which fits THAT reality, is the creo explanation. But could you ever be honest about such a point as that? It doesn't refute evolution, but the evidence is better fitted to the creo side in this example. Think! What am I saying?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-09-2004 10:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 11:05 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 11:39 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 06-09-2004 12:56 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 40 (113874)
06-09-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Jack
06-09-2004 11:39 AM


I know this isn't a problem for evolution. So what am I saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 11:39 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 11:57 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 40 (113887)
06-09-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Jack
06-09-2004 11:57 AM


You've fell into the skeptic number 2 trap. Which is no bad thing, as I think it's in everyone, which is the only thing I am trying to show. Look, I'll even state this:
"Stuck in a rut creationism" is FULLY refuted by evolution and in no way rids the Theory.
So what then have I shown? Mr Jack's gone and stated that;
"You're claiming it suits creation better than evolution". Yet my point is that SO WHAT IF IT DOES? Remember my blue statement?
So, even when a simple yet truthful reality is shown, people will deny it because of their fear of what that truth might say. EVEN THOUGH I stand by the blue statement. It's no big deal though, and your only as guilty/innocent as the rest of us. You see, I took the "stuck in a rut" example from reality, and a number 1 skeptic pointed out that certain phenomenal and rare evidences might fit a creo Theory better, but the overall picture/evidence - still fits evolution.
I agree, evolution is still the best explanation AND also explains "stuck in a rut" with normalized selection. Don't take this the wrong way though Mr Jack, as I am not picking on you, I just want to show that the number 2 skeptic might be more prevailant in ALL of us, than we might realize.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-09-2004 11:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 11:57 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2004 12:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 1:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 40 (113904)
06-09-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
06-09-2004 12:56 PM


Your example of morphologically stable species has the same fallacy: it is falsified the first time you find an evolutionary progression, and in this case many more species show change than stability.
You're both missing the point. I KNOW IT'S FALSIFIED! I am not arguing for creationism, yet you think I am. I am arguing that if we only ever found stuck in a rut species, would it be unreasonable to deduce that the creo explanation would far better explain it,
BUT WE DON"T find that evidence only. Therefore, evolution is NOT refuted by this. This IS supporting my argument if you read through properly with message one in mind. I haven't mad any mistake, you're both concentrating on the evolution versus creationism aspect, which I am not interested in.
Even if the creo Theory fits this particular evidence better than evolution, you cannot admitt this. Let's even pretend that this evidence (stuck in rut) shows us a reality of only one thing; that species can remain the same for long periods of time. Can you admitt that that reality in itself, can be expressed as a truth more so and/or better than evolution could describe it, by creation?(OBVIOUSLY, if animals were created, sheesh!) If you can't admitt it even when I've said it won't falsify evolution in any way whatsoever, then just what skeptic are you, 1 or 2? Please think about this as focusing on the only reality we would have, as being the "stuck in a rut" example(species can remain the same for long periods of time). Rather than seeing this as an attempt to refute evolution. Oh dear guys, please show some attempt to be a number one and grasp this soon.
THIS CANNOT REFUTE EVOLUTION because of the points raised by Mr Jack. Sheesh, it was silly of me to use a creo evo analogy, I should have known the focus would leave the point I am trying to make.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-09-2004 12:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 06-09-2004 12:56 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 2:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 40 (113907)
06-09-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Perdition
06-09-2004 1:11 PM


When it comes to creo/evo debates, both sides have become so engrained to dismiss the other that it is much easier to find number 2 here, especially considering everyone here is passionate enough about it to continue posting here as long as some of you have.
Very good point because you are an independent observer who doesn't come here much! So actually, that' a very helpful point to the discussion, I should have actually requested a lurker or new person who has a fresh perspective.
With evo/creo being the main argument here, I shouldn't have used that example, as it looks like I am a YEC which I am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 1:11 PM Perdition has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 40 (113912)
06-09-2004 1:35 PM


Okay, Percy and Mr Jack. I seem to be AWFUL when trying to show a link or analogy to back my point up. I will think of a new analogy shortly, which will focus entirely on skepticism. It's a shame I am so un-articulate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2004 2:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 40 (113963)
06-09-2004 4:35 PM


Listen guys, here it is, as bold as anything. I think you would have to ignore the evidence to say the creationist Theory of stuck in a rut species is correct.
Message 31 is correct, thanks Perd.
This is also correct by Ned;
That is exactly why the process of science is so messy and contentious. Only by having a battle over ideas can the best survive (implicit analogy is deliberate)
And it seems that I have even said that evolution is the best survivor when concerning the example of these fossils, at it explains not only the normalized selection - but the rest of the evidence aswell. Therefore I will cease to use that controversial example/analogy and henceforth create a new one if I can.
If we can "See" the possibility of skepticism number two, then we can isolate it and concentrate on being more of a number one. I definately had to drop my number two to cease being a YEC. I "wanted" young earth to be the case, so evidence would be ignored a bit, and I would take silly explanations of a young universe, like gravitational time dilation, in order to comfort my number two.
I'm glad of Ned and Perd's input.
Okay, if I was abducted by an alien, and all my senses indicated I had been, and I had pieces of metal imbedded in my arm, and there were witnesses of the spacecraft(500 witnesses) to independently verify this abduction - then what would I believe?
Would/should I believe it to be true if all the evidence matched up?
Would/should I believe it as false, because I doubt that if aliens existed, they would come millions of light years to fidget with meger me, then disappear into the cosmos again?
Just to confirm, all of the data/evidence suggest this did happen.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:40 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 39 by hitchy, posted 06-10-2004 9:43 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 40 (113970)
06-09-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
06-09-2004 4:40 PM


The witneses were Albert Einstein, Asgara, NosyNed and you. I'll let you decide the other 496.
Also, the heat off the ufo's lights burned Einy and Ned. Is that evidence enough yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:45 PM mike the wiz 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