Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
79 online now:
(79 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,392 Year: 1,038/14,102 Month: 30/411 Week: 51/168 Day: 11/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests 2
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 71 of 124 (577200)
08-27-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminPD
07-18-2007 5:00 AM


The thread is the Meaning of meaning.

My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread it was my attempt to demonstrate meaning by purpose of evidence available, and the rules of evidence, which guides ones decisions in determining what is reasonable and acceptable as factual

I think we are proceeding along that line, if it is possible to reopen it, we can work twords that goal

Thanks for your consideration

Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Edited by EMA, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminPD, posted 07-18-2007 5:00 AM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2010 3:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 73 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2010 4:14 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 74 of 124 (577224)
08-27-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AdminPD
08-27-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Meaning of Meaning
I suggest if you wish to continue that line of discussion, you propose a new thread.

Thanks for merging my names, that was not some sneeky attempt by myself.

How about the title 'The obvious desgn of desgn' and we pick up where we left off, without me writting out an OP, is that possible?

Or do I need an OP

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2010 4:14 PM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2010 6:53 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 78 of 124 (582025)
09-18-2010 4:59 PM


Percy as concerns my proposal on the design question, i am happy to let you choose whatever title and points you see as acceptable from that which I have set out

Write it out and I wiil sign it

Dawn Bertot


Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Admin, posted 09-18-2010 5:06 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 80 of 124 (582029)
09-18-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Admin
09-18-2010 5:06 PM


If you want to work with me to find some common ground then I will reopen the thread proposal.

sounds good, what do i need to do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Admin, posted 09-18-2010 5:06 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 09-19-2010 7:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 98 of 124 (630142)
08-22-2011 5:44 PM


Prophecy vs Freewill
Reference, the Prophecy vs freewill.

We/They do tend to get side racked, but I believe I can keep it on track with IMJ and Butterfly as I was attempting in my last post to IMJ. i also encouraged them both to stay on topic because I knew the hammer was fixing to fall.

Request it be reopened due to the fact that there is much information to be covered in that connection

Thanks,

Dawn Bertot


Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Jon, posted 08-22-2011 6:28 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 100 of 124 (630198)
08-22-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jon
08-22-2011 6:28 PM


Re: Prophecy vs Freewill
That thread hasn't been on topic since about five posts in, with you, IMJ, and Butterfly largely to blame for the derailing.
Jon

Wrong, I have tried to maintain a semblance of the thread while addressing those other issues

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jon, posted 08-22-2011 6:28 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AdminPD, posted 08-23-2011 5:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 101 of 124 (630200)
08-22-2011 10:46 PM


Myself and Butterfly, AKA, mallethead, would like to use the following and our final summations in the Kent hovind thread to reopen it or start a new one concerning, debate tactics used by both sides

I have suggested to Butterfly the Title 'Debate styles and tactics used by Creationist and Evolutionist

Thanks for you consideration in advance

D Bertot

Butterfly writes

Science and evidence have definitions. All words have definitions. The standard definition of words like science, evidence, theory, supernatural, logic etc apply to everyone. Making up your own incorrect definition to a word does not improve your arguement, it just makes it confusing.

Just taking Dawns summation as a source of an example, there is obvious misrepresentation or total incorrect usage of the following words and phrases : evidence, science, secular fundamental humanist, apologetics, scientific method, natural causes (I personaly have written an extensive reply to Dawn illustrating how to correctly use the term). This sort of thing is relatively common amongst creationist debaters.

Another tactic often used is to misinterpret or misrepresent facts in order to confuse the argument. For example, using Dawn again because he is such a good source of poor arguements.

When refering to the TOE, however, they insist thier is direct evidence, even if, like creationism,no one actually wittnessed that event. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit thier purposes and demand and insist that we provide what they are not required to establish the position as valid

There are two examples of common, dishonest arguement here. There is misrepresentation of the ToE. This sentence suggests that evolution is not currently occuring. Even Dawn must know that this is not true. But this is an example used by many creationists, not just Dawn Bertot. I am only using this as an example as it is handy. This can only be deliberate dishonesty in order to further his own cause. He also suggests that followers of the ToE are changing the word evidence to further their cause when this is also not true.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 08-23-2011 5:39 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021