Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 9:16 AM
27 online now:
caffeine, JonF, Stile, Tangle (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,896 Year: 8,932/19,786 Month: 1,354/2,119 Week: 114/576 Day: 15/99 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 76 of 136 (632661)
09-09-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
09-08-2011 2:17 AM


Let's give it a try shall we?

Buz writes:

The above ontological example...


Refers to a previously given example that tries to explain the way things are.

Buz writes:

...models the zero premise to BB theory.


The example Buz refers to is a model including and proceeding from the singularity of the Big Bang.

Buz writes:

It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from...


The way this model tries to explain the way things are is by using (assuming) the relative uniformity (of something), I think he forgot some words here. That made the singularity happen.

Buz writes:

...the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order...


This is basically Buz's understanding of the standard Big Bang model that he butchered. So, in it's place we will simply put "Big Bang model".

Buz writes:

more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.


Buz says it is more evidence for god than it is for "not god" basically.

Which leaves us with this:

What Buz menat to writes:

The previously mentioned example that tries to explain the way things are is the standard model of Big Bang theory. However, it is assuming the relative uniformity of (something, again some forgotten words). The standard Big Bang model, even if this were the case, is actually evidence of god, not an argument against him.

Is this kinda correct, Buz?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2011 2:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Larni, posted 09-09-2011 10:00 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 8:29 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(4)
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 yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18478
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 78 of 136 (632671)
09-09-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 9:04 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Dawn Bertot writes:

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

Some of the longest threads in EvC Forum history began this way.

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 7:18 AM Percy has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 136 (632745)
09-09-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
09-09-2011 8:18 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Percy writes:

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.

I'm confused as to how the message 11 which you cited correlated the statement relative to Dr Adequate & me.

Also I didn't correlate "Fullhouse, Joey" et al with that about Dr Adequate and me. You didn't link what you were referring to as to Dr Adquate's message. All in all, it made me wonder if you had had a few too many.


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 71 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 8:18 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 436 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 80 of 136 (632792)
09-10-2011 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
09-09-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Some of the longest threads in EvC Forum history began this way.

To you and Larni, I find it hard to believe after such a period of time you still cannot understnad his points

Are you sure your goal is not to represent us in a certain light?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 10:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 09-10-2011 9:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 2:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18478
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 81 of 136 (632806)
09-10-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 7:18 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
To you and Larni, I find it hard to believe after such a period of time you still cannot understnad his points

The primary problem in this case is not meaningless word salads (though he has a knack for that, too). As has been said a couple times upthread, Buz produces high quality writing, and I did not include Buzsaw in my list of most incomprehensible creationists. I guess it would be more accurate so say that it's not so much a problem understanding Buz as much as it's Buz understanding everyone else, e.g., Message 79 where he doesn't understand the "Joey" explanation, and evidently couldn't or wouldn't follow the link to Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread.

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by hooah212002, posted 09-10-2011 3:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 83 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 3:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 82 of 136 (632823)
09-10-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
09-10-2011 9:45 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Buz produces high quality writing..

Maybe he was right when he thought you'd had a few too many.....


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 09-10-2011 9:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1866
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 83 of 136 (632824)
09-10-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
09-10-2011 9:45 AM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
The primary problem in this case is not meaningless word salads (though he has a knack for that, too).

Buz frequently suffers from word-of-the-day-itis. He'll discover a new word and use it, usually incorrectly, where ever he can. For example; his use of correlate in this thread.

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 81 by Percy, posted 09-10-2011 9:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 4:35 PM DrJones* has responded
 Message 86 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2011 5:49 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 136 (632832)
09-10-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by DrJones*
09-10-2011 3:41 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Dr Jones writes:

Buz frequently suffers from word-of-the-day-itis. He'll discover a new word and use it, usually incorrectly, where ever he can. For example; his use of correlate in this thread.

Correlate; Co-relate; Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word? Please explain.

    1. Maybe you can help me out, Jonesy. Decipher to me how all of the sentences co-relate (correlate) to one another in the first paragraph of Percy's Message 64.

    2. Quick; what message does he refer to regarding Dr Adequate attempting to understand Buzsaw?

quote:
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.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Change "Jonsey" to "Jonesy"


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 83 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 3:41 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 87 by jar, posted 09-10-2011 5:55 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 88 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 6:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 85 of 136 (632834)
09-10-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
09-10-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word?

To be fair, you didn't ask how one sentence correlated to another; you asked how one sentence correlated.

quote:
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 is transitive; you can't correlate something, you have to correlate it to something else.

You have a tendency to throw around ten-dollar words before you've taken the time to understand them. It's a barrier to your efforts to communicate clearly. Instead of trying to prove what a schmott guy you are all the time, why not focus on writing clearly?

When ideas are important, the wise writer makes an effort to communicate them as clearly as possible. It's when ideas have no merit, typically, that the verbal flourishes are used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 4:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 86 of 136 (632849)
09-10-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by DrJones*
09-10-2011 3:41 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Buz frequently suffers from word-of-the-day-itis. He'll discover a new word and use it, usually incorrectly, where ever he can. For example; his use of correlate in this thread.

That is a very dangerous practice to undertake. For example, in a discussion on the CompuServe forum for scouting regarding religious discriminatory actions (despite officially published policies) of Boy Scouts of America, Inc, I misused the word "dissemble". At the time it seemed to fit what I wanted to describe, that I was "waffling" on terminology, wheras in reality it implied a deliberate attempt to deceive, which is not at all what I meant. In the Walsh trial in Chicago circa 1991, a BSA spy printed out select postings on CompuServe and relayed them on to BSA's legal team, who presented them as evidence in a federal trial. Needless to say, I got raked over the coals for that, along with a typo in which I had not typed in the work "not".

It is always vitally important to ensure that we are using the correct words for the meaning that we intend to convey. If you don't, then it will come back to haunt you at the worst possible moment.

Edited by dwise1, : it's "coals" you idiot!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 3:41 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 09-18-2011 2:58 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 87 of 136 (632852)
09-10-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
09-10-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Too funny.

Co-relate? Co-relate?

Did you actually use that term in a discussion where adults were present?

Do you know what the term relate means?

Would you like to explain what "co-relate" might mean?

This should be enlightening.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 4:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1866
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 88 of 136 (632856)
09-10-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
09-10-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Irony or bollocks?
Decipher to me how all of the sentences co-relate (correlate) to one another in the first paragraph of Percy's Message 64.

Are you incapable of reading?

Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word? Please explain.

Crashfrog answered this. You correlate thing A to thing B (or more), to say:
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?

is using correlate incorrectly.

Quick; what message does he refer to regarding Dr Adequate attempting to understand Buzsaw?

Follow the "This message is a reply to:" links at the bottom of the messages to find out.

Edited by DrJones*, : 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 84 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 4:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 136 (632869)
09-10-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Huntard
09-09-2011 9:50 AM


Cherry Picked Faults
Huntard writes:

Let's give it a try shall we?

Buz writes:
The above ontological example...

Refers to a previously given example that tries to explain the way things are.

Buz writes:
...models the zero premise to BB theory.

The example Buz refers to is a model including and proceeding from the singularity of the Big Bang.

Buz writes:
It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from...

The way this model tries to explain the way things are is by using (assuming) the relative uniformity (of something), I think he forgot some words here. That made the singularity happen.

Buz writes:
...the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order...

This is basically Buz's understanding of the standard Big Bang model that he butchered. So, in it's place we will simply put "Big Bang model".

Buz writes:
more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

Buz says it is more evidence for god than it is for "not god" basically.
Which leaves us with this:

What Buz menat to writes:
The previously mentioned example that tries to explain the way things are is the standard model of Big Bang theory. However, it is assuming the relative uniformity of (something, again some forgotten words). The standard Big Bang model, even if this were the case, is actually evidence of god, not an argument against him.

Is this kinda correct, Buz?

If you read my uniformity statement carefully in context, what the "something" is follows it.

Huntard, apparently you have the same comprehension skills that Percy accuses me of.

What you've done above is to segmentize apart phrases from my message so as to render it difficult to correlate the segments readily.

The statement should not be difficult to comprehend by anyone having a knowledge of the terms in it relative to the zero event, ontology sub-microscopic chaos, expansion, observable order, etc.

Buz's statement: "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............"

Huntard, there's no reason anyone familiar with the terms in this statement, by a careful and thoughtful read of it, shouldn't be able to comprehend it.

In it's original context, the "above example" was directly above the statement in the thread.

The zero event does premise the alleged BB expansion. No?

Anyone can cherry pick out the faults of others. Your message quoted above says this: "What Buz menat to writes:" .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 76 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2011 9:50 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by hooah212002, posted 09-10-2011 8:35 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 90 of 136 (632871)
09-10-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
09-10-2011 8:29 PM


Re: Cherry Picked Faults
What does "segmentize" mean, Buz? (hint: it's not what YOU think it means)

ontology sub-microscopic chaos

What DOES this mean?

{abe}
Huntard has an excuse...HE'S DUTCH! English isn't his native tongue. What's your excuse?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2011 8:29 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2011 6:12 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019