Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 3:50 AM
42 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 211 of 218 (636351)
10-05-2011 11:25 PM


A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
Actually, no. I just made that up.

But there are significant differences among these three.

A debater can take any side of an issue (much like a lawyer), and they don't care about the facts. They'll argue anything.

An apologist can take only one side of an issue, and doesn't care about the facts either. This is particularly true of religious apologists. They'll argue using anything that favors their belief, and they have been known to make things up from whole cloth.

A scientist is supposed to follow the facts to wherever they lead, and most do just that.

Scientists are trained to ignore magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, naturalism, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, divination, "miracles," the unguessable verdict of history, hoodoo, voodoo, and all that other weird stuff.

Would that everyone were similarly trained, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2011 4:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 11:11 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1871
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 212 of 218 (636365)
10-06-2011 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Coyote
10-05-2011 11:25 PM


Re: A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
YES! Wish I could give you more than one click on the Cheers button.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2011 11:25 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 218 (636407)
10-06-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Buzsaw
10-05-2011 11:04 PM


Re: The True Creationist Role
So are you accepting that you were wrong when you wrote this?:

quote:
All that keeps evolutionist sheeple from thinking for themselves is the fact that the secularistic evolution myth of chaos into order is programmed into their young minds full of mush all the way from pre-school through doctorate degree.

You didn't answer my question...

quote:
Is there anything at all that could convince you otherwise?

What would it be?

Catholic school may be different than public school.

Ya think?

but public school science has assumed evolution for a long time.

It has "assumed" geocentrism for longer... so what? Science class is for teaching science (For Science!), so that's what we should expect. Like my biology professor said: you aren't expected to believe it all, but you are expected to be able to explain it.

Even back in the early 1940s when I was in grade school I remember the 5th grade teacher telling us about grunting cavemen.

Go on... they did exist.

Btw, I see the term creationist as incongruent to evolutionist. Creationism implies a creator, rather than disorganized soup to life to organized complexity absent of a creator. No?

If you define them as exclusive then they will be. I see room for a creator in there. You have to have heard of Theistic Evolution.

What creationist dream team would want the likes of you debating evolutionists, CS?

I was gonna pick Chuck, cause he's at least honest... but from his latest posts he seems to have trouble with not addressing the poster, instead of just addressing the argument.
I'd take Phat, again for the honesty.
Maybe jar, if he'd be willing to post with some substance
slevesque seems smart, so he'd work too.

Thanks for the reply, buz.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2011 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 218 (636409)
10-06-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Coyote
10-05-2011 11:25 PM


Re: A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
A debater can take any side of an issue (much like a lawyer), and they don't care about the facts. They'll argue anything.

A scientist is supposed to follow the facts to wherever they lead, and most do just that.

I'll argue anything, but when I'm wrong I'm wrong and am willing to change my position.

Would that everyone were similarly trained, eh?

lol wut?

Seems to be a word or two missing there.

And you didn't pick your team!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2011 11:25 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 11:24 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 215 of 218 (636413)
10-06-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2011 11:11 AM


Re: A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
CS writes:

Seems to be a word or two missing there.


It's a throw-back to ye olde days:
quote:
The subjunctive is used in a number of fixed phrases, relics from an older form of the language where it was much more common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive#Set_phrases

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 11:30 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 218 (636416)
10-06-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Panda
10-06-2011 11:24 AM


Re: A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
What does it mean?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 11:24 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2011 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 217 of 218 (636419)
10-06-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2011 11:30 AM


Re: A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
What does it mean?

The phrase "Would that..." expresses a wish for something.

You could read "would that..." as "I wish that..."

Pretty archaic usage I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 11:47 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 218 (636420)
10-06-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Coyote
10-06-2011 11:39 AM


Re: A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
The phrase "Would that..." expresses a wish for something.

You could read "would that..." as "I wish that..."

Pretty archaic usage I guess.

Oh, I see...

So you wish that scientists were trainined similiarly to the way that apologist are...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2011 11:39 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019