Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 61 of 136 (632478)
09-08-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Larni
09-08-2011 5:26 AM


Re: Talking bollocks
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 5:26 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 8:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 64 of 136 (632487)
09-08-2011 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Larni
09-08-2011 8:44 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
I think Dawn is making a reference to a character I've never heard of ("Joey") on a show I've never seen ("Fullhouse", by which I think he means, "Full House", and I've never seen that either). He referred to Joey and the show and the phrase "You say this guy's name was Bill?" a couple days ago in Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread. Dawn is making the point that some people have inadequate comprehension skills and so are unable to identify the key points, in this case, Dr Adequate in attempting to understand Buzsaw.
What I'd like to see is Dawn Bertot interpreting Buzsaw for us.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 8:44 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 09-08-2011 10:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 11:49 PM Percy has replied
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 1:35 AM Percy has seen this message but 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

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 136 (632502)
09-08-2011 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
09-08-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
What I'd like to see is Dawn Bertot interpreting Buzsaw for us.
***head asplodes****

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-08-2011 9:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 67 of 136 (632609)
09-08-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Larni
09-08-2011 8:44 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you wan to poke fun at poor ole Buzz?
Your meaning is not clear.
Joey was presented with a very complicated scenario, which began with a guy named Bill was on a train traveling at a speed of 120 miles per, etc, etc, etc. After much complicated explanation and a complicated scenario, which Joey did not understand, his response was, "you say this guys name was Bill". I thought that was cute and funny
It sounds like something i might say
I was not foking pun at my friend Buz, I was simply agreeing with DA that I did not understand his statement. Id odes not mean that Buzz's statement does not make sense, only that i did not understand the verbage
Thats all, no offense intended

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 8:44 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 68 of 136 (632610)
09-08-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
09-08-2011 9:10 AM


Re: 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.
Yes I know sorry, sue me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 09-08-2011 9:10 AM Larni has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 69 of 136 (632611)
09-08-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
09-08-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
What I'd like to see is Dawn Bertot interpreting Buzsaw for us.
I would be more than happy to do this if you are serious and would like to present a statement or comment made by Buzz
Is your intimation that Buzz is incomprehensible?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-08-2011 9:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 136 (632622)
09-09-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
09-08-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Percy writes:
I think Dawn is making a reference to a character I've never heard of ("Joey") on a show I've never seen ("Fullhouse", by which I think he means, "Full House", and I've never seen that either). He referred to Joey and the show and the phrase "You say this guy's name was Bill?" a couple days ago in Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread. Dawn is making the point that some people have inadequate comprehension skills and so are unable to identify the key points, in this case, Dr Adequate in attempting to understand Buzsaw.
What I'd like to see is Dawn Bertot interpreting Buzsaw for us.
Hi Percy.
I'm trying to correlate the first paragraph of your message. Would you please explain it to me so as to correlate the sentences in it?

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 64 by Percy, posted 09-08-2011 9:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 71 of 136 (632646)
09-09-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 11:39 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Dawn Bertot writes:
I was not foking pun at my friend Buz, I was simply agreeing with DA that I did not understand his statement. It does not mean that Buzz's statement does not make sense, only that i did not understand the verbage
The situation that I think we evolutionists find most puzzling is when a creationist makes an argument that none of us can make sense of and that reads to us like nonsense, but from creationists it receives attaboys (e.g., "Keep up the good fight!") or "like" votes or complaints in other threads about treating the creationist unfairly. When this happens we'd really like to see some evidence that these other creationists really understood what that creationist said, because we really *are* convinced that creationist was talking nonsense.
Buz just offered up another example in Message 70:
Buzsaw in Message 70 writes:
I'm trying to correlate the first paragraph of your message. Would you please explain it to me so as to correlate the sentences in it?
Correlate? CORRELATE???
My guess is that Buzsaw didn't understand something about my first paragraph, and he's asking me to clarify, but he's not specific, and after reading that paragraph over several times I'm unable to identify a place where I was unclear or ambiguous. I might have been wrong in my conclusions, but I think I was very clear.
In the Opening Post of this thread Taz asks if anyone else is having as much trouble understanding what some creationists are saying as he does, and I responded by claiming that these creationists are as unintelligible to each other as they are to us. The evidence we've seen so far in this thread would seem to support this. No creationist has offered to explain Robert Byers' word salad that I posted in Message 49, and now you say you don't understand Buzsaw, either.
We evolutionists are often told we're just too dumb or too biased or too immersed in our world view to understand what you or IamJoseph or Buzsaw or Robert Byers or John 10:10 or Marc9000 (etc., etc. and so forth) are saying, but the evidence of this thread so far indicates that you creationists have just as much trouble understanding each other as we do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 9:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2011 7:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 72 of 136 (632647)
09-09-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 11:49 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Dawn Bertot writes:
I would be more than happy to do this if you are serious and would like to present a statement or comment made by Buzz
Is your intimation that Buzz is incomprehensible?
Oftentimes Buz is incomprehensible, and you just indicated in Message 67 that you do not understand him either ("I did not understand his statement."). Since we all agree his statement isn't open to ready interpretation there's no point in asking you to interpret it.
What would be interesting would be if a creationist said, "Why are you evolutionists jumping all over Buz? What he said was perfectly comprehensible." This is the creationist we would like to interpret Buz for us, mainly because we believe he's just blowing smoke and has as little a clue of what Buz is trying to say as we do.
I should add that aside from Buz's weak grasp of terminology when he's talking about science, his command of English is excellent, and he is able to make perfectly understandable but completely nonsensical statements in perfect English. This is why some people have commented that they'd prefer to debate Buz because whatever he says, at least his grammar (if not his spelling, "imperical" being his most persistent example) produces easily recognizable English sentences.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 11:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 9:04 AM Percy has replied
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 4:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 73 of 136 (632653)
09-09-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
09-09-2011 8:18 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
The evidence we've seen so far in this thread would seem to support this. No creationist has offered to explain Robert Byers' word salad that I posted in Message 49, and now you say you don't understand Buzsaw, either.
It seems to me you are dramatizing a realatively simple problem. If you have a problem with something Mr Byers said or something Buzzford said, ask then to simplify, not me.
If however it is your point presently, that I cant understand it
I will take a look at message 49, then if I dont understand it I will axe Mr byers to simplify, because then we might be able to conversate. Heck it might even be his burfday, and hell be Stayzin in a specific place, chillin up in that mug, Word.
As in RAZD's post I am going to need much claificationa and specification
We evolutionists are often told we're just too dumb or too biased or too immersed in our world view to understand what you or IamJoseph or Buzsaw or Robert Byers or John 10:10 or Marc9000 (etc., etc. and so forth) are saying, but the evidence of this thread so far indicates that you creationists have just as much trouble understanding each other as we do.
Fair enough Ill take a look. Usually however this comes down to how someone was taught or trained. It becomes a simple communication problem. not that they are untenable
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 74 of 136 (632655)
09-09-2011 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
09-09-2011 8:38 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Since we all agree his statement isn't open to ready interpretation there's no point in asking you to interpret it.
What would be interesting would be if a creationist said, "Why are you evolutionists jumping all over Buz? What he said was perfectly comprehensible." This is the creationist we would like to interpret Buz for us, mainly because we believe he's just blowing smoke and has as little a clue of what Buz is trying to say as we do.
Do you think it would help to ask (axe)him to clarify and simplifiy. It should become very clear then if what he is saying is valid from any perspective
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2011 9:39 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 10:43 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 75 of 136 (632660)
09-09-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 9:04 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Do you think it would help to ask (axe)him to clarify and simplifiy
We've been doing that for about eight years now. It seldom helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 9:04 AM Dawn Bertot 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