Arrogance of Elitism

I haven't read "all" of Buz's posts, as his topics get quite big because of the come-backs. I will admitt ignorance compared to your experience, as you seemingly partake in debates with him a lot.I still say this is fundamentally a belief-based argument, though.Atheists and theists naturally become heated.I do take your post as relevant however, because you are a more content-based, rational poster. I am more against the ones with big mouths and little knowledge themselves, who simply jump on the bandwagon.We have the right to remain believers. I remember Shraff once, said she would never respond to me again simply because I wouldn't become atheist, and agree. I found that odd.

Actually what annoys me are pseudo-intellectual bullshitters who make illogical and evidently inferior arguments whilst posturing with philosophical terms that they barely understand, who are at the same time continually congratulating themselves on how clever they are and declaring that any perceived flaws with their fallacious arguments are the reult of everyone else being unable to comprehend the insightfulness of the position that they have convinced themself must be flawless because they are too much smarter than everyone else for it not to be.That is what annoys me.

This is my last post. Apologies to any comebacks, I will not be on the website for awhile. I make mistakes too.But my position here is that I generally stick to the facts, because of what I have learnt over a period of time, regarding certain subjects.ID is essentially DONE. Whereas evolution "occurs" ceaselessly, so the comparison you made deserves more thought.There are "facts" which are self-evidently explained by an intelligence. Even panspermia is an intelligence-based idea.I do not "choose" facts that I see such as DNA information, etc, and MATTER having more properties than the sum of it. (organisms)Bye for now.

If your starting point is to assume intelligence you will indeed be able to see evidence for it by selectively seeking such evidence.However this is an invalid assumption and an invalid method of objective investigation.Hence the failure of ID to result in a single discovery. Ever.

In other words; "mike, you corrected my error of saying that false premisses mean the conclusion is false, and I don't know how that relates to ad logicam."If it is false philosophy, then ad logicam will not mean that conflating two arguments is fallacious because one might have different premisses.Again, this kind of information must be proved to not exist at any sites which discusses formal fallacies for your claim of pseudo-intellectualism to have any credence.I am afraid I am not able to insult you as my beliefs dictate that I am not to sin against you even if you insult me.Some advice: Your posts seem to be a bit hyper. You jump from pillar to post in a bid to attack the person rather than dealing with the information. There are no need for allusions or insults. We merely disagree. This has no baring on how clever I am as I never stated I was clever. Infact I am not clever in many areas and subjects.

Before I go, the comment to Paul K about big mouths who jump on teh bandwagon, wasn't directed at anyone. I was just speaking generally. That might have caused you to get annoyed at me Straggler, but I honestly didn't mean it for any particular person.

PaulK, my understanding of things is radical IYO. Your arrogancy is that you think the majority POV must not be rigorously debated unless it makes sense to you. Well, your POV doesn't make sense to me. Just because one rigorously debates another view than yours and debates intensively on a minority POV, the one is considered by you as arrogant.You've debated in a condescending arrogant manner towards me for years, so that's what I expect from you. You're not a pleasant member to dialog and debate with but you're around about 24/7 so it becomes necessary.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You have in no way debated vigorously. That you believe you have is one of the many delusions arising from your arrogance. You've ignored any point brought against you. You've refused to answer the simplest of questions. You don't know what evidence you argue against. You don't understand the ramifications of your own notion. You don't understand that ramifications are worthy of consideration. You mistake your idle notion for a "minority POV". Your arrogance leads you to believe that others think your notions radical. Radical is not the term that comes to mind; not on the first pass, and not on the tenth. You accuse thousands of the best among us of deception with the heel of your shoe. Then accuse them of arrogance. That is arrogance.

---

KindlyWhen I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Poisoning the well is illogical.

---

Then why do you do everything can to poison it? The very title of this thread is poisoning the well. Your description of "the atheist" is that he is a prick.

quote:

---

A person's knowledge of a subject is irrelevant to an argument, according to logic.

---

In the sense that the argument from authority is invalid, yes. But that fact doesn't mean authority is meaningless. What it means is that those who know something about a subject are more likely to have something useful to say than those who know nothing.Any first grader can say 1 + 1 = 2, but it takes a mathematician to tell you WHY that's true. If we're going to have an actual discussion, if we're going to hope to do more than make a bunch of declarative statements at each other, it will require us to actually know something about what we're saying. That necessarily requires training in the subjects which we're talking about.

quote:

---

In the battle between evolution and creation for example, you can have an expert scientist versus a man off the street, and if the argument is over the truth then the man on the street can win, if he is more logical and perceptive.

---

"Perceptive"? What do you mean by that? What you call "perceptive," I call "expertise." Logical truth is not the same as actual truth. Logical truth depends upon assumptions. X may very well imply Y, but if X isn't true, then Y will never actually happen, even though Y is logically implied by X.A person who has no expertise cannot know that.

quote:

---

When it comes to information about evolution, the expert will know more, but this is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the truth-value of evolution.

---

Indeed. Again, the argument from authority is not valid. But again, this does not mean authority is meaningless. Authority will allow the expert to bring forth the evidence, describe the experiments, and show you the work involved in why we have come to the conclusion that we have.

quote:

---

Example; an expert in Harry Potter, who can recite nay information on it, versus a man who only knows the name, "Harry Potter". Does this mean that the expert is correct, that Harry Potter isn't fiction?

---

What "expert in Harry Potter" has ever said it wasn't fiction?You're arguing a strawman. I understand why: You want to be able to have somebody say that you said something correct. By getting an admission of truth to be applied to your argument, it will then allow you to engage in a logical fallacy that other parts of your argument are also true.Notice what happened? You stated a logical truth: An "expert" who claims Harry Potter isn't fiction is wrong.However, logic isn't enough. You need "expertise" to know that nobody has ever claimed Harry Potter is something other than fiction.Congratulations: You just proved that which you were trying to deny.

---

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.

quote:

---

PaulK, my understanding of things is radical IYO.

---

Nevertheless I can produce strong evidence for my position. You say many things that are untrue - and obviously so to any informed person. And you seldom admit to it - either insisting that you are right regardless of the facts or running away from discussion.

quote:

---

Your arrogancy is that you think the majority POV must not be rigorously debated unless it makes sense to you.

---

Just another Buzsaw fabrication.

quote:

---

Well, your POV doesn't make sense to me. Just because one rigorously debates another view than yours and debates intensively on a minority POV, the one is considered by you as arrogant.

---

No, that's not my position at all. And that's a prime example of the problem - you don't care about what my position really is, you just want to try to find excuses to glorify yourself and discredit me. The fact is that you do not rigorously debate anything. You just insist that you can't be wrong while evading or misrepresenting the many points that you can't deal with.

quote:

---

You've debated in a condescending arrogant manner towards me for years, so that's what I expect from you. You're not a pleasant member to dialog and debate with but you're around about 24/7 so it becomes necessary.

---

The reason you find it unpleasant to deal with me is because I'm right. You really do have a lot of false pride and it upsets you greatly to see it punctured. If you could learn to set aside that false pride and actually learn to put the truth ahead of your ego you would find me a lot more pleasant to deal with.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Whereas the Big Bang theory can still be regarded as incredulous, by a Theist who certainly does know what the theory says.

---

Knowing what the theory says and actually understanding it are two different things. As the quote from A Fish Called Wanda went:Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.Any first grader can tell you that 1 + 1 = 2. But they cannot tell you why.Now, does this mean that the Big Bang should be accepted as dogma? Of course not. But it does mean that if you are going to declare it to be wrong, you're going to have a great deal of work ahead of you to justify the claim. "I don't believe it" is not sufficient.

quote:

---

Evidence for theories in itself is not that important because of the fallacy of exclusivity.

---

Showing that you truly do not understand what evidence nor what the nature of science is. Science never claims that something is 100% known. Since science is, by its very nature, an observational process and since it is impossible to observe everything, we can never, ever know anything with 100% certainty. It may very well be that our models are 100% correct, but we can never know that because all it takes is one observation to throw it all away and we cannot observe everything.You are absolutely right that correlation is not causation. But in order for you to show that all the evidence indicating that the correlation actually is because of causation, you're going to have to come up with more than "I don't believe it." You need to explain why there is a disconnect and devise a way to test that claim.

quote:

---

This means that one impressive falsifying evidence can trump a thousand pieces of evidence.

---

Indeed. That's the very point behind science. You seem to think that you've come across something never thought of before. In direct contradiction to your implication, that is the very point behind scientific research: To make the observation that changes the way we view the world.When you do this, they give you the Nobel Prize.

quote:

---

So one falsifying evidence of the Big Bang could come to pass in a year or two, like it did for steady state.

---

Indeed. Do you have any indication that such an observation is coming? I notice that you are missing a tremendous point that comes along with that:You need to account for all the observations we made that led us to the conclusion we had before.Aristotelian kinematics said that objects in motion come to rest. After all, if you push an object along, it comes to rest.Newtonian kinematics directly contradicts that: Objects in motion remain in motion. But how can that be since we can clearly observe objects coming to rest? Simple: Motion continues until the object is acted upon by another force. When you push something along, friction acts upon the object, bleeding it of the energy it is using to remain in motion.But Einsteinian kinematics directly contradicts that: Objects in motion never come to rest. But how can that be since we can clearly observe objects coming to rest? Simple: It is only "at rest" with respect to you. There is no "universal" reference frame in which an object can be declared "at rest." There is only the local reference frame and all that can be said is that the object is not moving with respect to certain other objects within that local frame.So if you're going to claim that the Big Bang is incredulous, it is not enough to simply say, "I don't believe it." It is not enough to insist that, "There may be an observation that overturns our theories." You need to come up with something that explains why it is we see the cosmic background radiation; that indicates that the further we look back in time, the hotter we see the universe to be; that the universe is expanding; etc.Theories may change, but observations never do. It is our observations that generate our theories. If you're going to come up with a new one, you have to include all the observations we've already made.

quote:

---

THIS IS WHY we don't place our faith in theories. For GENUINE logical reasons!

---

Indeed. But you once again show that you have clearly missed the entire point of science: It understands that it can never declare "truth." The best it can hope for is "accurate."Newtonian kinematics is wrong. At every level. At every speed. So why do we still teach it? Because for the overwhelming majority of scenarios in which we need to do kinematic work, it is accurate and simple. The discrepancy between the Newtonian answer and the observed results for everyday actions is so small as to require amazingly sensitive equipment in order to detect.But when dealing with other scenarios...GPS, for example...that discrepancy is significant. We can actually see the difference between what the theory claims and what is observed. And it is because the theory is no longer accurate that we discard it in favor of a more accurate theory.That is the job ahead of you: Where is your evidence that our theory is inaccurate? Note, I'm not saying it isn't inaccurate. Remember: Nothing in science is ever declared "true." I simply want to know why you would say it isn't. "I don't believe it" is not sufficient. "A new observation could make us throw it away" is not sufficient.It seems to work. Why should we doubt what seems to work?Note: Before you respond, please try to understand the difference between observations that make us rethink details and observations that make us rethink the entire structure. Two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi is a 2 is not the same thing as arguing over whether or not pi is an integer.That's part of the reason why "I don't believe it" is not sufficient. You're arguing that pi is an integer.

---

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.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Why does such an obviously superior rational being feel the need for such statements?

---

You tell us. You're the one that poisoned the well from the very start with the title of this thread and your very first post.It would seem you have no trouble dishing it out but are quite affronted when made to take it.

quote:

---

Can we remain rational and friendly? I would prefer it.

---

Time for you to apply your logic: The winning strategy is to play "tit-for-tat with forgiveness." You started off with an arrogant, poison-the-well argument and you got one in return. If you recognize that this is a bad strategy, perhaps you should change your action and instead respond with the humility you pretend to express.

quote:

---

I am not out to get you.

---

Said the man who started off by calling others "arrogant."

quote:

---

Calm down, take a stress pill and think things over.

---

You do realize that HAL was a homicidal maniac when he said that, right? That Dave was doing the right thing by shutting HAL off, right? That the only way for Dave to complete the mission was to stop HAL, right?Are you sure you want to associate yourself with HAL?[and the quote is, "Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."]

quote:

---

It is not my fault that Informed Theists exist

---

Indeed. And Ken Miller and the rest of the Catholic church doesn't have a problem with evolution. The contention has nothing to do with theism.It has to do with the active denial of evidence, a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of science, and an inherent inability to argue points with honesty and integrity.

quote:

---

and that they annoy you in this manner, for being so able to produce a can of whoop-ass on yo' baba,.

---

(*chuckle*)If that is true, why haven't you published? Your claim is quite literally Nobel Prize level stuff. If you can justify your assertions, you will change the very nature of biology around the world.What are you waiting for?

---

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.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

There have been computer programs that simulate the ToE. Logically, this doesn't prove the ToE actually happened, it just means that it will work on a computer program, and it therefore a clever human invention.

---

Here's an experiment you can do in the comfort of your own bio lab. The experiment is not expensive and the supplies can be easily acquired from almost any biological supplies storehouse.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.So since we can see evolution happen right in front of our eyes, why would you have us deny it?Or are you saying the bacteria are actually human inventions?

---

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.

mike the wiz responds to Straggler:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually what annoys me are pseudo-intellectual bullshitters who make illogical and evidently inferior arguments whilst posturing with philosophical terms that they barely understand, who are at the same time continually congratulating themselves on how clever they are and declaring that any perceived flaws with their fallacious arguments are the reult of everyone else being unable to comprehend the insightfulness of the position that they have convinced themself must be flawless because they are too much smarter than everyone else for it not to be.

---

​

In other words; "mike, you corrected my error

---

See, this is exactly what Straggler was talking about: You think you corrected an error, but you didn't. You think you understand the philosophical term you put forward, but you don't. You think that if you can force an admission of agreement with you, then that will necessarily mean that your argument has at least a grain of truth to it.I'll see your "fallacy of exclusivity" (which is more commonly called "Questionable Cause") and raise you a "fallacy of association."

quote:

---

I am afraid I am not able to insult you as my beliefs dictate that I am not to sin against you even if you insult me.

---

Is lying for god not a sin? From Message 41, which was a post of yours to Straggler: Do you really want me to go through your posts? The very title of this thread is an insult. The first two posts, which you made, are nothing but insults. You complain about "poisoning the well" but seem to have ignored the fact that you start off precisely by doing that which you are railing against.

quote:

---

Some advice: Your posts seem to be a bit hyper.

---

Didn't you just say you were barred from insulting him?

quote:

---

Infact I am not clever in many areas and subjects.

---

Have you considered the possibility that this is one of those areas and subjects?

---

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.

Dude you are an idiot who thinks he is a genius. That makes you the worst kind of idiot. If you really want to claim that the creationsit method of logic consists of taking false premises and applying incorrect logic to come up with correct conclusions then I will only disagree with 2/3rds of that particular claim. If you really want to believe that through the application of logic reliable conclusions can be drawn regardless of the information on which they are based then it is no wonder that you have drawn the conclusions that you have. Yes and we seem to have discovered quite a few of them. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.