Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,165 Year: 5,422/9,624 Month: 447/323 Week: 87/204 Day: 3/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Panda
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 16 of 136 (631959)
09-04-2011 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
09-03-2011 11:32 PM


Taz writes:
My question to you guys is do you think these "crackpots" even know what the hell they are talking about?
I find this question difficult to answer as I can't understand most of what they are saying.
Taz writes:
Or do you think they only have a vague sense of what they want to say and so they stumble through with non-sensical sentences and jibberish?
It does often feel like they only have a weak grasp of what they are trying to say - but I can't be certain.
And, after reading some of Dawn's comments, it is clear to me that Dawn continues to refuse to believe that his prose is frequently nonsensical.
Instead he says: "My first guess is that you actually do understand you simply have no response." when his first guess should have been: "My English is faulty."
Then he says: "I would suggest you put forward arguments instead of hiding behind false pretense[sic]." rather than accepting that his English is abysmal.
I have asked him many times why his English is so bad, but he either ignores the question or tells me to stop threatening him.
But I don't think that being a creationist causes the problem.
I think there is something else that causes their posts to be nonsense.
What I find a little sad is that English is often their native tongue.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 09-03-2011 11:32 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2011 10:32 PM Panda has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3402 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 136 (631963)
09-04-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dawn Bertot
09-04-2011 8:44 PM


If it makes you feel better, you're not the only one who has a problem with AdminPD's attitude here. Personally, I've always thought APD is the most biased A of them all, but that's just my humble opinion.
Regarding my trouble understanding your posts as well as posts made by others of your kind, I'm not the only one. There are many here who are a lot more educated, coherent, and patient who agree with me that they can't understand you most of the time.
I actually got a big fat D on an English paper in high school. I still remember it to this day even though it feels like that was 50 years ago. I actually thought that paper was a piece of art. I absolutely did not understand why I received a D. So, I went to the teacher and argued and argued and argued. I went away with a very bitter feeling. I was convinced that the paper made perfect sense. Well, about a couple years later, I was cleaning out my old stuff and found the paper. I saw the D and remembered. I started reading it and was really embarrassed at how bad of a writer I was.
The point is I eventually came away from that with a much humbler attitude. Sure, at the time what I wrote in that paper made perfect sense to me. But my more mature self completely disagreed. Unfortunately, the paper has been lost in the passages of time. And I have no recollection what it was about. But I do remember feeling really embarrassed while reading it a couple years later.
Take it for what it's worth. I'm not the only one saying I can't understand you guys most of the time. Ask other people here. We have professionals of every field here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2011 8:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2011 8:14 PM Taz has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(3)
Message 18 of 136 (631965)
09-04-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Panda
09-04-2011 10:08 PM


And, after reading some of Dawn's comments, it is clear to me that Dawn continues to refuse to believe that his prose is frequently nonsensical.
Instead he says: "My first guess is that you actually do understand you simply have no response." when his first guess should have been: "My English is faulty."
Then he says: "I would suggest you put forward arguments instead of hiding behind false pretense[sic]." rather than accepting that his English is abysmal.
I have asked him many times why his English is so bad, but he either ignores the question or tells me to stop threatening him.
But I don't think that being a creationist causes the problem.
I think there is something else that causes their posts to be nonsense.
What I find a little sad is that English is often their native tongue.
I noticed something interesting when Dawn took on IamJoseph: he was suddenly writing in English! Complete sentences and in unobfuscated prose. Of course, the subject matter was purely Christian theology, but it was in English!
It's only when he's writing to us about "intelligent design" and the like that he shifts into heavy obfuscation mode. As if he wanted to be understood when writing to IamJoseph about theology, but he does not want to be understood when he writes about ID.
Is that a conscious or subconcious choice on his part? Hard to say for sure, but it does appear deliberate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Panda, posted 09-04-2011 10:08 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Panda, posted 09-04-2011 10:47 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 19 of 136 (631967)
09-04-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DrJones*
09-04-2011 12:37 PM


Problem Reader
Dr Jones writes:
For example: any of Buz's posts where he strings together multiple alliterative words without actually saying anything.
Jonesy, if you were just a tad more literate yourself, you could easily read what I was saying and become wiser.
Show the folks here an example of something you have a problem with and I'll PM to you what I was saying.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by Buzsaw, : Title Update & scratch sentence
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2011 12:37 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2011 11:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 20 of 136 (631969)
09-04-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by dwise1
09-04-2011 10:32 PM


dwise1 writes:
Is that a conscious or subconcious choice on his part? Hard to say for sure, but it does appear deliberate.
I agree that some of Dawn's nonsense is intentional - but not all of it.
But I don't understand the point of pretending to write gibberish.
You don't win the debate if everyone ends up staring at you as if you are mad.
Whereas I don't think that the likes of IamJ and CD7 are intentionally 'muddying the water'.
I don't read any deceit or disingenuousness in their posts.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2011 10:32 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 09-05-2011 12:02 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2300
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 21 of 136 (631971)
09-04-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
09-04-2011 10:45 PM


Re: Problem Reader
Jonesy, if you were just a tad more literate yourself, you could easily read what I was saying and become wiser.
And if you weren't so arrogant and ignorant you'd spend less time trying to sound clever and more time educating yourself on the topics that you're debating.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 09-04-2011 10:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 136 (631972)
09-04-2011 11:48 PM


The Dilema
Mmm, I've been thinking about why more savvy and intelligent creationists don't come and why ones who come don't last long.
Most are not thick skinned enough to put up with the way they're treated here.
Most creationists believe there's a higher intelligence in the Universe than that of mere men on this tiny speck. Most know that there are reasons to believe. The faith of the more intelligent creationists is not blind. They are aware of the evidence of the supernatural.
Why should they care to bang their heads against the EvC wall where the boss and most of the members do not allow for debate on that evidence in the science, mean spiritedly denouncing any and all evidence cited? Creationism involves a creator. There is ample evidence of the supernatural working in the world and the Universe. Creationists, more-so than skeptics recognize that fact.
You want more intelligent creationists? Change you attitude in how you moderate and how you treat them in the debates. Stop censoring them.
You're also loosing some good evolutionists. Why? For the most part because good savvy creationists to debate aren't here. All they need do is lurk as guests a spell to find that out.
Most evolutionists here are not meanspirited. Most are respectful. If the moderators would exert more effort in attending to the few who are disrespectful instead of badgering the few creationists that stay, it would be nice.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2011 12:10 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 23 of 136 (631973)
09-05-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Panda
09-04-2011 10:47 PM


But I don't understand the point of pretending to write gibberish.
I think rather that the point is speaking gibberish. In a spoken format, his kind of gibberish, sprinkled liberally with impressive-sounding terms, can be successful in baffling the audience. Dawn's perennial problem is that his techniques do not have the same effect in a written format, but rather instead works against him. Something that he has so far been unable to compensate for.
What immediately comes to mind is the recent topic in which we presented our reasons why debate in a written format is far superior to a spoken format, whereas Dawn insisted emphatically that a spoken format is superior and yet refused to provide any reasons for that. The obvious reason is that one can much more easily bullshit the audience in a spoken format; ie, his method only works in a spoken format and not in a written one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Panda, posted 09-04-2011 10:47 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 136 (631974)
09-05-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
09-04-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Let Creationists Be Creationists
Effective creationist debaters are going to give the constituency here a run for the money, so to speak. Imo, Admin just can't tolerate that. I've noticed over the years that when a creationist begins making points, Admin goes into action, more-so than usual.
I remember when I was debating on the alleged properties of space to expand, curve etc, applying a lot of logic along with the limited understanding I had. The thread went many pages. It wasn't long after that that I received my 2nd permanent banning., the first being not long after my win in the EvC's first debate with Jar on Biblical creationism & the LoTs.
Those were the days when, at least I could debate some evidence to the supernatural and refer to the Bible in science.
I'm saying, give effective creationists some leeway. Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make? A creationist is a creationist is a creationist. You want some life here? Stop shooting yourselves in the foot, running creationists off for debating Creationism!
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 09-04-2011 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 09-05-2011 6:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 7:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
(1)
Message 25 of 136 (631979)
09-05-2011 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
09-03-2011 11:32 PM


I started engaging in on-line discussions back in the second half of the 1980's on CompuServe. One thing I quickly learned was that the fastest and easiest way to get a creationist angry is to try to take his claims seriously and try to discuss it with him. And the more I would try, the angrier and more irrational he would become. As best as I could figure it out, he believed that his faith depended on that claim being true, but he had no idea what he was talking about; he did not understand his own claim. He had heard that claim and found it convincing, because he was already convinced (one of the pre-requisites for accepting creationist claims, I discovered later), so he presented it with full confidence, but then when questioned about it he found himself unable to even discuss it, let alone defend it.
For example, I was emailed this claim:
quote:
As any good scientist will tell you, the sun burns half of its mass every year. If you multiply the sun's mass by millions (even though science says it is in the billions) the sun will be so incredibly huge it will stretch out past Pluto. And if you say that the planets would stay close to the sun as it shrank, then why don't the planets still move closer?
He was a high-school student who was given that claim by a Christian camp counselor. I analyzed that claim in excruciating detail, showing him that it was blatantly and obviously false and explaining what scientists really say. He learned from that and accepted that he had been misled. Actually, it was in searching for other instances of this claim (which I did not find) that I stumbled upon Kent Hovind's bogus solar-mass-loss claim.
The point is that creationists freely circulate and adopt all kinds of false claims without understanding any of the science behind them. They can get away with it so long as it's only other creationists and scientific-illiterate non-creationists that they relate those false claims to, but they immediately get a rude awakening when they encounter someone who knows something about the subject. I've also encountered creationists who are more than eager to talk to and bully the unwary, but will immediately try to disengage the moment they realize that they're talking to someone knowledgeable. Obviously, those creationists that their claims will be refuted, but I believe that most creationists we encounter on forums are acting out of ignorance and over-confidence.
I basically there being two kinds of creationists: those who know something about science and produce many of the claims and those who don't know the science and just repeat the claims that they hear. The first kind know better than to discuss their claims on forums, whereas the second kind don't know any better.
Of course, that's too simplistic. There's a broad grey-area overlap between those two kinds. There are also those creationists who are ignorant about "creation science" and do not realize where the claims they've heard and bought into came from. But still it seems to settle down to those creationists who know better than to post on forums and those who don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 09-03-2011 11:32 PM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22688
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(5)
Message 26 of 136 (631997)
09-05-2011 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Wollysaurus
09-04-2011 9:48 PM


It is my position that not only can these creationists not make their views comprehensible for evolutionists, they can't do it for anyone, even each other. I would like to see a thread where IamJoseph, Dawn Bertot, Robert Byers, John 10:10, Marc9000, Bolder-dash and others try to explain their positions to each other, followed by assessments of how successful each has been.
I'm not sure how to define the criteria for success. A response of, "Yeah, I get what you're saying," would be insufficient. Perhaps the position would have to be described back to it's originator (not using the exact same words - no parroting), who would have to agree that it is correct. Even better would be if evolutionists could quiz creationists on the positions of other creationists to see if the information had been successfully communicated.
For example, there's Dawn Bertot's Does ID follow the scientific method? thread which posited that there is the Scientific Method (SM), Intelligent Design (ID), and the Intelligent Design Method (IDM). I'd love to see Dawn use an example of ID research to explain to IamJoseph how SM and IDM are the same. Or switching topics, successfully explain his position on order and law to any creationist. Or for IamJoseph to explain how "evolution was first recorded in Genesis." (Message 342). Or for Robert Byers to explain how there are no divisions like mammals and reptiles, only minor differences (Message 434).
Remember guys, your job wouldn't be to successfully explain your positions to us evolutionists, but to fellow creationists. Evolutionists would only assess whether a position had been successfully communicated or not. Convincing anyone, whether evolutionist or creationist, that the view is correct is not part of the criteria. It is sufficient for a creationist to have successfully made himself understood by another creationist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-04-2011 9:48 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Chuck77, posted 09-05-2011 6:15 AM Percy has replied
 Message 35 by Taz, posted 09-05-2011 2:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 36 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2011 7:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 136 (631999)
09-05-2011 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
09-05-2011 5:53 AM


Percy writes:
Remember guys, your job wouldn't be to successfully explain your positions to us evolutionists, but to fellow creationists. Evolutionists would only assess whether a position had been successfully communicated or not.
That's not a bad idea. Atleast it would be a discussion and we could use every available source for the arguments we are trying to make. If we agree great, if not then we proceed till were on the same page.
It could maybe put the Creationists on the same page on more detailed issues. How would you go about implimenting this?
Could it go in the new "creationism" forum right under the "Biological Evolution" forum?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 5:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 09-05-2011 7:58 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 28 of 136 (632003)
09-05-2011 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
09-05-2011 12:10 AM


Re: Let Creationists Be Creationists
I have no idea why AdminPD has labelled Buz's post as off-topic, it looks entirely on topic to me.
I'm saying, give effective creationists some leeway. Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make?
I think Buz has unintentionally hit the nail firmly on the head here. Creationists don't understand their arguments because Creation Science is, and always has been, bullshit. Creationists don't know the science, they aren't convinced by the science, and so they don't understand the science of their arguments. Often even the logic escapes them. Why? Because they don't care about it. As Buz says it isn't, for the Creationist about the science, it's about the belief and the religion. The arguments are just dressing on the cake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2011 12:10 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22688
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
(1)
Message 29 of 136 (632007)
09-05-2011 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
09-05-2011 12:10 AM


Re: Let Creationists Be Creationists
Buzsaw writes:
The thread went many pages. It wasn't long after that that I received my 2nd permanent banning., the first being not long after my win in the EvC's first debate with Jar on Biblical creationism & the LoTs.
The thread is here:
And the post mortem thread is here:
Who judged you the winner?
Not that this is on-topic, of course, as AdminPD noted. This thread is about whether creationists understand what they're saying, not about whether they make things up.
But I do think this portion is on-topic, because it is an example of creationist lack of understanding:
Buzsaw writes:
Let them debate CREATIONISM. Don't expect a Biblical creationist to think or debate the secularist science methodology. What sense does that make?
If creationists concede up front that "creation science" is not science then there would be no point in debating them. This debate only exists because of creationist insistence that creation science is every bit as scientific as the science taught in public school science classrooms, the science taught at non-religious universities, and the science pursued in research laboratories around the world. Once creationists accept that "creation science" is not science in the way the rest of the world understands it then the debate is over.
I think you, and Chuck77, don't understand the implications of your own arguments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2011 12:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2011 9:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22688
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 30 of 136 (632009)
09-05-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chuck77
09-05-2011 6:15 AM


Chuck77 writes:
It could maybe put the Creationists on the same page on more detailed issues. How would you go about implimenting this?
I think it would be great if one or more creationists would volunteer to explain one of their positions that they've been unable to communicate successfully to evolutionists to other creationists. We'd set them up with their own The Great Debate thread, and we could have a parallel thread in Coffee House or Creation/Evolution Miscellany for comments/discussion for the rest of the members.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chuck77, posted 09-05-2011 6:15 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Chuck77, posted 09-08-2011 1:03 AM Percy 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