Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Showcase Forum Issues and Requests
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 271 of 302 (369076)
12-11-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by randman
12-11-2006 3:44 PM


Re: the double-standard
I don't think being ignorant is a "false motive". But it must be very interesting to live in your universe, Randman, where nobody is ignorant.
If you approached your discussions from the perspective of "here's what I know that evolutionists don't; once I tell them they've change their minds" you wouldn't have nearly as much trouble as you do. But currently your approach seems to be "evolutionists are all a dishonest lot, and I'm going to show examples of that." What possible resolution comes from that debate? I can tell you, Randman, that dishonest people don't even admit to dishonesty when you catch them at it. Why would they? Doing so is a mark of honesty.
We're all waiting for you to show the evidence that evolution - the scientific theory - is wrong. Showing evidence that some evolutionists are liars doesn't do that, but that's been your entire contribution to the forum in 5300 posts. And, of course, even if it did matter that a few evolutionists were dishonest, as many or more creationists could be shown to be dishonest, too. Perhaps even yourself could be exposed in a dishonesty.
Would those things disprove God to you, or disprove creationism, or disprove the Bible? I doubt it.
My own view is that the way evolution is taught creates a sort of brainwashing where the basic assumptions that filter the way data is perceived is uncritically accepted and remains largely untested, and I am not the only one that has come to that conclusion.
What experience do you have with the way evolution is taught and studied?
Some prominent scientists have from time to time come out and concluded when it comes to Darwinism and neoDarwinism, that the emperor has no clothes.
It is evolution, not "Darwinism", that is the subject here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 3:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 278 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 6:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 272 of 302 (369078)
12-11-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 3:51 PM


Re: the double-standard
this is not a debate thread.....suffice to say, imo, you mischaracterize my approach which is fact-based rather than belief-based, in terms of approaching the data.
Just can't resist pointing out this gem.....
It is evolution, not "Darwinism", that is the subject here.
Uh huh? And you've got 4-5 different definitions for evolution, and one you can always fall back on because even YECers believe in it, and yet you think your approach is somehow logical....?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 3:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2006 4:03 PM randman has not replied
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 4:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 12-12-2006 2:32 AM randman has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 273 of 302 (369080)
12-11-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by randman
12-11-2006 3:54 PM


Re: the double-standard
Got a question for you Randman. Do you understand that:
"If X is true then Y is true" does not mean "Y is always true" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 3:54 PM randman has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 274 of 302 (369081)
12-11-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by randman
12-11-2006 3:54 PM


Re: the double-standard
this is not a debate thread...
Currently the topic is your personal debate technique. We're still talking about that.
this is not a debate thread.....suffice to say, imo, you mischaracterize my approach which is fact-based rather than belief-based, in terms of approaching the data.
I never said you were belief-based. But what do you usually wind up talking about? Haekel's embryo drawings as an example of evolutionist fraud. The rest of us can probably make your arguments for you, simply by memory. You're on about it like a broken record. What does that have to do with the scientific theory?
And you've got 4-5 different definitions for evolution
I would think that the folly of expecting a natural phenomenon to fit perfectly into one definition would be obvious, particularly a phenomenon responsible for as wide a variety of living creatures as are found on this planet.
All of the different definitions are different ways of talking about the same thing. You accuse evolutionists of "bait-and-switch", but here you are baiting with "Darwinism" and switching to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 3:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 5:55 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 277 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 6:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 275 of 302 (369097)
12-11-2006 5:13 PM


I think I'll just let this discussion role on, off-topic though it is. People on both sides seem to be revealing their true colors, it should be very illuminating.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 276 of 302 (369110)
12-11-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 4:04 PM


Re: the double-standard
Currently the topic is your personal debate technique.
Another perspective is that currently the topic is smearing someone's character while accusing the guy you smear of doing the same. The bottom line is when you guys say "the topic is", it's sort like going to the Democratic Underground to see what "topic" is relevant when they discuss Freepers or some such....
My arguments deal with facts and data, and for that, I am often assailed for not putting forth more opinion, as in demands along the lines of "what is your theory", and when I do put some elements of my theory forward, most of you are not able to grasp it because it involves QM principles and experiments that you guys either don't understand or among the few that do, refuse to accept, and so we get into silly arguments where you guys insist what giants in the field observe about QM's experiments aren't really so.
In terms of criticizing evo beliefs, basically I do think there is a great deal of confusion among evos about what they are suppossed to be thinking. TalkOrigins, no friend of critics of evolution, goes as far as to say most biologists have an improper or less than complete understanding of even the definition and meaning of evolution. So I guess that is a tacit admission of the confusion within the evo camp.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 4:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 6:27 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 277 of 302 (369114)
12-11-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 4:04 PM


Re: the double-standard
All of the different definitions are different ways of talking about the same thing. You accuse evolutionists of "bait-and-switch", but here you are baiting with "Darwinism" and switching to evolution.
LOL. No bait and switch here, but perhaps you don't appreciate that posting Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is an attempt to refine and use terms with more specific definitions that simply "evolution" which is so elastic that you guys use it to mean the smallest of heritable change all the way to inferring abiogenesis as a fact at times, and definitely universal common descent, macroevolution through gradualistic means first posited by Darwin and expounded upon in the Modern Synthesis and various off-shoots like PE.
I suppose though trying to be precise isn't something you evos favor when it comes to the broad assumptions of "evolution."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 4:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 278 of 302 (369116)
12-11-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 3:51 PM


Re: the double-standard
I don't think being ignorant is a "false motive".
Is that evidence you are too dense to know that both ignorance and false motives are things you routinely ascribe to your critics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 3:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 279 of 302 (369124)
12-11-2006 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by randman
12-11-2006 5:55 PM


Re: the double-standard
Firstly? Please don't fork replies. One post should have one reply, not several. It makes it harder to reply to you.
Another perspective is that currently the topic is smearing someone's character while accusing the guy you smear of doing the same.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? Is it smearing someone's character to assert that they are lying? I don't see how you can make that case at the same time that you're calling your opponents liars, but maybe you can explain how it's a smear for you to be called a liar but not when you call others liars.
No bait and switch here, but perhaps you don't appreciate that posting Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is an attempt to refine and use terms with more specific definitions that simply "evolution" which is so elastic that you guys use it to mean the smallest of heritable change all the way to inferring abiogenesis as a fact at times, and definitely universal common descent, macroevolution through gradualistic means first posited by Darwin and expounded upon in the Modern Synthesis and various off-shoots like PE.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.
Is that evidence you are too dense to know that both ignorance and false motives are things you routinely ascribe to your critics?
Would "too dense" be one of those "character smears" you were talking about? If not, could you explain why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 5:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 280 of 302 (369130)
12-11-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 6:27 PM


Re: the double-standard
"Too dense" refers to your comment. I thought it would be quite clear. You appeared to think you were correcting me in saying ignorance is not the same as false motives. I was pointing out that, yes, that is true, and apparently you are too dense to realize that both things are often accusations evos accuse others of.
Is that really so difficult to grasp?
On the rest, I'll explain it to you, but this is reminding me of one reason I wouldn't want you on my threads.....the reason not to use the term "evolution" as you do is that it could mean so many different things as to be irrevalent. So I used Darwinism and neo-Darwinism to hopefully get guys like you on the right track and realize the debate is not on whether heritable change (evolution) is true, but the Theory of Evolution or rather the various evo models based on gradualistic concepts.
Unfortunately, it seems to have gone over your head...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 6:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 7:03 PM randman has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 302 (369132)
12-11-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
12-11-2006 6:39 PM


Re: the double-standard
"Too dense" refers to your comment. I thought it would be quite clear.
"You are too dense" is what you said. Is calling me, personally, dense one of the character smears you were referring to, or not? Here, you even repeat it for me (thank you so very much):
I was pointing out that, yes, that is true, and apparently you are too dense to realize that both things are often accusations evos accuse others of.
Is calling me "dense" a character smear, or is it not? Answer the question.
So I used Darwinism and neo-Darwinism to hopefully get guys like you on the right track and realize the debate is not on whether heritable change (evolution) is true, but the Theory of Evolution or rather the various evo models based on gradualistic concepts.
So you use Darwinism to refer to evolution, because you think "evolution" gets defined as too many things? How does defining "Darwinism" as "evolution" not do exactly the same thing? I still don't understand.
How about this - you tell me what you mean by "Darwinism" and "neoDarwinism", without using the word "evolution", because it doesn't make any sense to use an alternate term to avoid the use of the term "evolution" and then, when asked to define your term, define it using the word "evolution." Tell me what you mean by "Darwinism" and "neoDarwinism" without the word "evolution" being a part of that.
Shouldn't that be nice and clear for everybody? Allow me to repeat the critical issues I'd like you to address:
1) Tell me whether or not "you are too dense" constitutes the kind of character smear you were referring to.
2) Define your terms "Darwinism" and "neoDarwinism" without using the word "evolution" in your definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 6:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 8:05 PM crashfrog has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 282 of 302 (369146)
12-11-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 7:03 PM


Re: the double-standard
Is calling me "dense" a character smear, or is it not?
I wouldn't consider it a smear as such, though perhaps a little mean to point it out....
How does defining "Darwinism" as "evolution" not do exactly the same thing? I still don't understand.
More evidence of the first point?
It's probably a waste of time to explain this, but Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are subsets of the various meanings and definitions evos use when they talk of "evolution."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 8:11 PM randman has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 283 of 302 (369148)
12-11-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by randman
12-11-2006 8:05 PM


Re: the double-standard
I wouldn't consider it a smear as such, though perhaps a little mean to point it out...
I'm sorry? "Mean to point it out?" Are you saying I'm mean for asking? The way you've phrased this isn't entirely clear to me.
It's probably a waste of time to explain this, but Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are subsets of the various meanings and definitions evos use when they talk of "evolution."
Er, that's precisely what I asked you not to do. I'll ask again and try to be more clear. I want you to define those two words without using the word "evolution" in your definition.
What you did, on the other hand, was provide one definition for two different words, using almost nothing but the word "evolution." I have absolutely no idea what you mean by those words, except that they have something to do with evolution. But, according to you, "evolution" means so many things that we can't even trust it as a word.
I'm simply looking for a clear definition of those two words from you, Randman. Are you so dense that you're not going to be able to do that? (I trust you won't find that comment to be a smear against your character.)
If you don't feel this is on-topic, then I'd be interested in seeing you start a Showcase thread on it. As stated before I would not participate but I'd like to read it, at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 8:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 8:21 PM crashfrog has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 284 of 302 (369149)
12-11-2006 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 8:11 PM


Re: the double-standard
I want you to define those two words without using the word "evolution" in your definition.
Crash, hasn't someone ever let you know that what "you want" isn't necessarily very germane to the issue. I would like you to define evolution without, say, using biology or Darwin or change or, hey, without genes......let's see if you can do it?
After you do that, I might have another trick for ya, eh?
On the "mean point", I thought that would be obvious as well...it's mean to point out that were so dense you missed the point.
Btw, you are the one that made this absolutely ludicrous comment:
It is evolution, not "Darwinism", that is the subject here.
On point of order, Darwinism and neoDarwinism are the subject here, not evolution per se, because evolution can be thought of to simply mean heritable change. Frankly Crash, I've seen enough of you on these threads to know that making perfectly valid and obvious points to you is like water coming off a ducks back......I am not sure if you are incapable or just unwilling to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 8:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 8:34 PM randman has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 285 of 302 (369151)
12-11-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by randman
12-11-2006 8:21 PM


Re: the double-standard
Crash, hasn't someone ever let you know that what "you want" isn't necessarily very germane to the issue.
I'm sorry, Randman, I wasn't giving you an order; I was trying to explain to you what would best help me understand your position and your use of terms.
If my understanding isn't something you feel is important enough to make even the least effort, that's fine, and you need merely to say so.
I would like you to define evolution without, say, using biology or Darwin or change or, hey, without genes......let's see if you can do it?
"Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth via mechanisms that include, most prominently, natural selection and random mutation."
Frankly Crash, I've seen enough of you on these threads to know that making perfectly valid and obvious points to you is like water coming off a ducks back......I am not sure if you are incapable or just unwilling to learn.
Are these more of the character smears you were talking about? Does describing me as "incapable or unwilling to learn" constitute a character smear, or does it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by randman, posted 12-11-2006 8:21 PM randman 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