Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,127 Year: 5,384/9,624 Month: 409/323 Week: 49/204 Day: 25/24 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 50 of 136 (632348)
09-07-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taz
09-07-2011 2:21 AM


Talking bollocks
I've been struggling to remember (and I still can't) but I think Ben Goldacre (off of Weird Science, off of the Grauniad) high lighted how (this is where my memory fails) that a certain group of writers (in philosophical circles, I think) would use such bodged together words that they had no real meaning.
An example of this I do recall was something like "the sum totality of the universal singularity conforms with the thought shape of the individual's perceptual range" (paraphrased).
If it was Goldacre, his point was clearly that some people do vanish up their own arse trying to sound wiser tha they are.
I know I used to do it in exams: when I couldn't quite put down onto paper what I meant I made up something in the hope my professor would think I was being deep.
And what do you know, it only ever worked in my Psychodynamic paper. In the real psychology classes it did not fly.
And as we all know, psychodynamism is talking bollocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taz, posted 09-07-2011 2:21 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:51 PM Larni has replied
 Message 58 by Taz, posted 09-08-2011 2:32 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 59 of 136 (632451)
09-08-2011 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:51 PM


Re: Talking bollocks
If I am not mistaken, I remember Dewise1 promising me the samething and warning me my days were numbered. He has been as silent as the tomb concerning his assertion and complaint
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have promised you nothing and made no reference to you.
What you infer from my post is your own business, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:35 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 62 of 136 (632480)
09-08-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 8:32 AM


Irony or bollocks?
Please tell me that post was being ironic as I can see no reason to post what you did other than to poke fun at Buzz.
Buzz writes:
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
DA writes:
It just doesn't come across as an attempt to communicate with anyone else.
DB writes:
"You say this guys name was Bill"?, Joey 'Fullhouse'
What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you wan to poke fun at poor ole Buzz?
Your meaning is not clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-08-2011 9:02 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 11:39 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 63 of 136 (632483)
09-08-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 8:35 AM


Re: Talking bollocks
DB writes:
Nothing I have ever written or posted sounds as silly as the above comment.
DB writes:
No, I was simply saying if you dont understand something ask a direct question or ask for clarification, this if you have any interest to do so
No, you infered I was implying that you have written word salads, for some reason. I did not.
You could be making a general point that you construct sentences better than your creo brethren but why would you think I would be intersted in that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 65 of 136 (632490)
09-08-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 8:32 AM


Oh for fuck sake.
Thanks to Percy, I now know what the 'Joey' comment was about.
But, did it ever ocure to you that attempting to make a point that hinges on a comment from another post in another thread that you have no reason to beleive I've read in a post addressed to me about clarity of communication (say it all in one breath), was a bloody stupid thing to do?
Evidently not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 11:41 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(4)
(1)
Message 77 of 136 (632663)
09-09-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Huntard
09-09-2011 9:50 AM


A wry comment.
Dno't riun my signichoor!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2011 9:50 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 95 of 136 (633964)
09-17-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 7:18 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Are you sure your goal is not to represent us in a certain light?
Quite sure. My interest here lies in the fact that creo posters on this site have a trend towards writing things that only they understand.
This is indicative of not being clear as to the points they are attempting to make.
This is one of the advantages of the science crowd: using precise and nice vocabulary that is understood universally.
Have I made myself clear? Even if you disagree with my position you should understand what I'm getting at.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 97 of 136 (633975)
09-17-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Buzz, you seem to be celebrating your status as a mascot.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 4:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:30 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 103 of 136 (633983)
09-17-2011 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 6:30 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
You do know that I have taken these choice paragraphs and put them into my sig as a delicious irreverent comment on people talking bollocks?
Rather than being part of the body of my post?
Did you, rather egregiously make use of the word comprehend?
Irony writ large, I think.
Abe: to reduce the chance of other hard of thinking posters making a similar error with my sig, could someone tell me how to ensmallen the text size?
Apologies for being a format duffer.
Edited by Larni, : Edits

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 09-17-2011 7:37 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 7:51 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 9:40 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 106 of 136 (633987)
09-17-2011 8:20 PM


Thanks, fellas!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Panda, posted 09-18-2011 7:01 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 110 of 136 (634005)
09-18-2011 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buzsaw
09-17-2011 9:40 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Do you really want your name appended to the sig? One made with the express purpose of lampooning posts that are best described as 'bollocuss drivilus maximuss'?
I made no attribution because I feared I would be raked over the coals for deliberately and continually taking the piss of posters who rarely make a lick of sense.
I shall await an admin to guide me on this point.
Abe: I see admin has cleared this issue up: no attribution is needed.
Edited by Larni, : Abe

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 9:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 09-18-2011 8:37 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 115 by fearandloathing, posted 09-18-2011 9:37 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 113 of 136 (634011)
09-18-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Panda
09-18-2011 7:01 AM


Re: Really?
That will teach me!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Panda, posted 09-18-2011 7:01 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 117 of 136 (634979)
09-25-2011 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Alfred Maddenstein
Otherwise, the brute reality here is that you share the fundamental view of existence with St. Augustine while insinuating stuff about me and other people. That's the kind of cognitive dissonance you suffer from, dearest professor.
I don't believe that this is the case: please substantiate your assertion.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 1:48 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 132 of 136 (640121)
11-07-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Panda
11-07-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Rational Creationists
He goes on a bit, don't he?
Mind, I stopped listening after he said 'cunt'.
Shocked & Appalled.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 11:42 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 12:10 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 134 of 136 (640125)
11-07-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Panda
11-07-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Rational Creationists
All goes to show that creos are not very good at thinking.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 12:10 PM Panda has seen this message but 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