Advice

i find this interesting. because all biological matter is composed of the same base elements as what many call "rocks". i believe under the right conditions, it may be possible for rocks to become biological matter.i am however, a creationist. i believe science is the "how" of God, and that no science proves him wrong, but only proves he is.not to take away from this topic, perhaps a topic scrutinizing this potential would be an interesting debate.in the spirit of this topic, i hope our initial poster has been able to resolve the issues with how to debate with a stone.Edited by tesla, : structure

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Paul, incessantly repeating that you've refuted Biblical prophecies which I've effectively supported does nothing to verify your claims. You're simply whistling your same ole monotone in the wind. If you care to go back and bump up any of those threads, I'll engage you further on my positions.

---

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

(1) respect them as people.(2) keep it simple, keep your focus on a point at a time.Understand cognitive dissonance and it's effect on people.

quote:

---

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

---

If you make any kind of side comment while discussing something that conflicts with their beliefs they will seize on that to the exclusion of the point/s you are trying to make, and they won't even realize it.(3) avoid "trigger" words. "Evolution" for instance. There is an anecdote of a biologist traveling by plane back from some field experiments. The person next to him asked what he did, and the biologist told him about studying fish in different ponds along a stream and seeing how, where predation was low, colors were bright to attract mates, but where predation was high, colors were subdued. The other passenger was fascinated and they talked at some length and detail, when the passenger remarked something about how somebody should develop a theory to explain it. When the biologist said it already was, and the theory was evolution, the passenger got angry and said he didn't believe in evolution and refused to talk further. The word triggered a denial\anger response.(4) enjoy what you are doing, not in scoring "points" but in laying out concepts clearly and simply with evidence to support it.(5) do something else so that this is only a hobby, not your life. Beating your wife on alternate weekends or driving the wrong way on the highway don't count.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •

that's hard advice for the biologists here...

---

If there are any still open I'll be glad to annihilate your arguments again. Yopu feel free to do bump any thread whewre you think you've got a chance of actually winning the argument, too. If there are any.

I find this interesting too. Have you elaborated on these ideas in another thread?

no never.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

It doesn't prove anything, just retains the status quo.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

You can't convince someone who refuses to read or educate themselves.The guy uses quote mines. I've even cited the letter from an author who was misquoted saying he was misquoted and he went so far as to state that the author is revising history. How do you deal with someone THAT removed from reality?

quote:

---

Who are considered morons? That sometimes depends on who's posting and idiology. There have been, and likely still are, members here who consider Buzsaw's ideology to be moronic, all the while unable to substantially refute Buzsaw hypotheses which show up in the debates.

---

As I see it, you rarely win anything here. And the last major thread I remember you making was that Obama was a Muslim, which I gave logic against and you pretended did not exist. I still haven't gotten a reply to that post.

quote:

---

For example having minimal knowledge of scriptural texts they quote mine scriptures from Google or something thinking they've refuted prophecies and other Biblical doctrines which I've given 60 years to intensive daily comprehensive corroborative study in the scriptures.

---

Depends what you are arguing in scripture. Trying to argue that the Bible is a science book is stupid. Trying to argue what the bible says about scripture is entirely different.

quote:

---

What do I do about that? I keep repeating substantial arguments. After a spell I ignore.

---

Define "substantial"The morons I'm talking to can't even figure out that cosmology is NOT evolution.

I've seen that before. I've even seen a forum where the creationist admin banned a bunch of people because they were making bantha hash out of his creationist members and his member were resorting to personal insults. Sad isn't it?The 2 morons i'm dealing with haven't won any arguments in the forum ever. In formal debates they always lose. It's gotten to the point where they are claiming everyone against them is the same person (despite how the internet actually works and the admin's ability to figure out who's using proxies) and that because they are outnumbered, they are right. We have a thread right now where one is trying to weasel out of that argument despite links and quotes of him arguing just that.I realize that people are morons, but there has to be some rational way of dealing with them other then the hitting them over the head with 2 by 4s.

There is. If they aren't willing at accept the terms of a rational debate, they should be banned or ignored.

I'd have to say, see RAZD's definition of cognitive dissonance. If they are unwilling to change their beliefs in the light of new evidence, then they have to find a way to protect those beliefs for themselves. I don't think I'd call this moronic -- more accurately, perhaps, irrational behaviour. And very human behaviour at that, LOL. I've witnessed it both ways, also from hardnosed skeptics who refuse to consider any new ideas that threaten their own world view.