Re: Still, there is the problem of dogpiles and jerk evolutionists
NoNukes writes:
Nobody gets suspended for being off topic. Although it is probably possible to get suspended for deliberately refusing admin direction for such, I don't know anyone who gets suspended this way.
Persistence at being off-topic is usually rewarded with loss of posting permissions, usually only for that forum.
RAZD, my assertion was that the Great Debate forum alleviated the problems of dogpiling and "jerk evolutionists". I did not claim that it solved or helped with any other problem.
And I agreed. It is actually more likely to just put off the inevitable (I've been in a few).
However I must disagree with you on the idea that creationist arguments proceed by reasoning. More typically they jump to conclusions based on a superficial - and often selective - view of the evidence, or argue from their own authority (which they expect to be accepted). Examples are not hard to find. What reasoning there is is best labelled a crude rationalisation.
I would suggest that the major difference is that creationists take the apologetic mindset which starts with conclusions and has little regard for evidence, reasoning or understanding - and they often cannot understand why anyone would not be as heavily biased in favour of their beliefs as they are.
Correct, they start with the conclusion and then try to reason how the evidence fits, that is their cultural modus operandi and firmly entrenched in their cultural worldview.
This is what causes the dissonance with evidence based first sciences whenever there is a conflict in beliefs (where there are no conflicts in beliefs the evidence is ignored as important because they know from their worldview ... like the earth is roundish).
You are right nonukes, nobody REALLY gets suspended for being off-topic, what they really get suspended for is for complicating admin's stated purpose of convincing fence sitters. But of course he needs a good looking reason to suspend someone other than that, so its called "being off topic."
Its easy to call someone off topic isn't it, if any words you type don't match the title of the OP you can say someone is off topic. Its the easiest way in the world for admin to just ban someone he doesn't like. Its kind of odd that only creationists get banned for being off topic, don't you think?
Or we are just to believe that evolutionists are just so superior at staying on message, and that's the real reason?
I think you have your own cognitive dissonance. Its an easy charge to make isn't it?
Just say you have the evidence and the other side doesn't. If you say the evidence points to what you say it does, that's all you have to do right? You can paste a graph and say see, look these fossils look similar, evolution is true! Or see, bacteria can adapt to different food sources, Darwinian evolution has been proven! See, we have evidence, its you who has a hard time accepting reality!
You whole claim of who has cognitive dissonance has no evidence, but that doesn't stop you from repeating the claim ad infinitum.
I am wondering f you have really thought that much about your theory as whole. I don't disagree that there is some truth to your idea that there is intelligence inherit in the genome, which facilitates its ability to survive and adapt and prosper.
But then you say things which are completely contradictory and can't be meshed.
quote:Let me clarify. If you loaded a genome with genes that will later be used by animals, then you've significantly improved the chances of animals evolving. Why? Because you don't have to rely on the blind watchmaker to tinker around and "just happen" to stumble across those genes necessary for the origin of animals. Thus, the "trajectory" of evolution is biased in a specific direction. The "deck is stacked" in favor of the appearance of animals.
How would you know they would later be used by animals, if we are going to let random mutations and natural selection decide what happens next? Animals are inevitable under the random mutations and natural selection formula? Why should that be? Why isn't a thick grey ooze that lasts forever and consumes sunlight the most inevitable outcome, or anything else for that matter? Why isn't extinction the most inevitable?
And this statement:
quote:At the heart of the design hypothesis is engineering of the initial genomes such that they are biased to evolve in planned directions and random mutation and natural selection.
How can that statement possibly be reconciled. It makes no sense at all. The genome is biased to evolve in a planned direction, through a completely random unplanned trajectory? Maybe that's not really what you meant to say, because there are so many flaws in that logic its hard to know where to begin.
You are trying to combine the idea of a random unguided process, with the idea of a pre-planned guided blueprint; two completely incompatible ideas. Its an impossibility.
{Off-topic content hidden. Use "peek" if you must see it. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and off-topic banner.
Finally, it insults my sensibilities to watch someone like Dr.A be able to post crap like this in another thread about cosmology to another poster who is so much smarter than he is, that he makes Dr.A look like a mosquito:
Ah, you've finally found an atheist you admire. He may dismiss the existence of God as "pure fiction", and "perfectly contradictory and absurd", but at least he's being wrong about science in order to prop up his religious opinions, so I suppose that gives the two of you something in common.
{Hide off-topic snark (or something like that). - Adminnemooseus}
This is an excellent discussion of a topic, it just doesn't happen to be this topic. If you'd like to discuss Genomicus's views on ID then just propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics.
Re: The creationist goes off-topic and the evos gladly follow
Minnemooseus
So, should the evolutionists that follow going off-topic also be treated equally?
They should be more aware of how to handle the issue (like start a side topic in coffee house and direct comment there, if admin wants to move from there to another forum that can be done)
It is just as annoying to thread followers and tends to make the off-topic discussions more persistent to the point of disrupting the threads.
You whole claim of who has cognitive dissonance has no evidence, but that doesn't stop you from repeating the claim ad infinitum.
Everyone has cognitive dissonance, in different degrees and on different topics. It is due as much to your cultural upbringing, education, opinions than anything else (example difference between liberal and conservative outlooks and gun control).
It is a much studied phenomena in psychology, and thus there actually is an evidentiary basis for it.
That third paragraph ties into confirmation bias
And here the invasion of Iraq comes to mind as an example of this effect in a non-creation\evolution issue.
I've been discussing this on Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs, where the focus is more on dissonance between cultural groups than on individuals. Of course the individuals are involved coming from inside the cultural groups, but it appears that the group is a more important driver in understanding the tenacity of beliefs.
For me, one of the issues I find most dissonant is why showing a creationist a long list of information and evidence for the age of the earth (ie Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) doesn't result in an epiphany of understanding that the earth is indeed old.
What I come to understand from looking at cognitive dissonance between cultural groups is that reinforcement from within a persons cultural group is a buffer\barrier against being forced to change the belief due to the confirmation bias they can fall back on.
You are right nonukes, nobody REALLY gets suspended for being off-topic, what they really get suspended for is for complicating admin's stated purpose of convincing fence sitters. But of course he needs a good looking reason to suspend someone other than that, so its called "being off topic."
I don't expect you to accept the blame for anything you do. If admin were looking for an excuse to ban you, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to find one.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
™ Version 4.2
(1)
