Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
500 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (4 members, 496 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,307 Year: 4,419/6,534 Month: 633/900 Week: 157/182 Day: 37/27 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery: Ice Age is a Product of the Flood
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 70 (672397)
09-07-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
09-07-2012 2:01 PM


Re: refuting propositions
I would expect the thread to discuss the link between an ice age and a flood of whatever type the OP defends.

Life's full of surprises, isn't it?

But in retrospect, the signs were there. Peeta asked if anyone had the balls to go one to one with him. Now, someone who thinks that debating causes of ice ages is some sort of test of manly courage obviously has some kind of issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2012 2:01 PM NoNukes has taken no action

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 757 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 62 of 70 (672412)
09-07-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Theodoric
09-03-2012 9:32 AM


I didn't make anything up. The story is real as caffeine pointed out to you. At first glance, without looking deeper into it, you would say there was no evidence for a city being moved from one place to another. When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up. That's how it is on this forum when the creationist is accused ad nauseum that he has no evidence for his claims. Just as in the pi ramses story, it doesn't appear just yet that there is evidence for a particular claim, but if you started looking in the right places and asking the right questions, the evidence could start showing up. That will never happen though with the anti creationist hostility and mindset of people like you and many others. You just shout "NO EVIDENCE you simple minded bible thumper!!!!!" and expect us to crawl away and never think about such "absurdities" again since only erudite and sophisticated elites such as yourself have the right to determine what is and what isn't legimate subjects to investigate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2012 9:32 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by vimesey, posted 09-07-2012 6:25 PM foreveryoung has taken no action
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 09-07-2012 7:19 PM foreveryoung has taken no action
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 3:12 AM foreveryoung has taken no action
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 3:27 AM foreveryoung has taken no action
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 09-08-2012 12:12 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1309
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 63 of 70 (672413)
09-07-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
09-07-2012 6:12 PM


Couple of things
Hi foreveryoung,

I want to have a look at this sentence in your post:

When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up.

First off, I get quite suspicious when there is no evidence, until certain questions are asked. It makes me think that the questions are framed, so that evidence can be pointed to, which fits an agenda, or pre-existing conclusion. The more usual scenario is that we see the evidence, and then start asking questions about it. In the case of the moving city, what questions are you referring to that started being asked ?

Secondly, you say that the evidence shows up. Can you give me an outline of that evidence - or some links please ? (I know you have given us a hard time in the past, about insisting all the time upon evidence, but that's not relevant here, since you have actually referred, in your own post, to evidence showing up - I just want the details).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 09-07-2012 6:12 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2012 5:37 AM vimesey has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7316
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 64 of 70 (672417)
09-07-2012 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
09-07-2012 6:12 PM


As a few people have stated, Pi-Ramesses does not support your argument. It rather is counter to your argument.

I am still waiting for more info on this show you saw. I tried to research info on it, but your extremely sparse info on it and seeming lack of understanding of what you watched was not enough for me to be able to track it down.

You just shout "NO EVIDENCE you simple minded bible thumper!!!!!" and expect us to crawl away and never think about such "absurdities" again

Yup still waiting for that evidence.
since only erudite and sophisticated elites such as yourself have the right to determine what is and what isn't legimate subjects to investigate.

Nobody has said a thing about legitimate subjects. We are talking about legitimate evidence.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 09-07-2012 6:12 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20766
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 65 of 70 (672436)
09-08-2012 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
09-07-2012 6:12 PM


Hi ForEverYoung,

You've come a long way from your original premise, which was this:

As you can see, limiting yourself to physical evidence narrows down what you will accept as reality when reality happens to be much bigger.

Now all you seem to be saying is that you won't find evidence until you look for it, which I think few would dispute. I'm sure we would all agree that the best investigators are skilled at following scant hints of evidence, which is the case with your History Channel documentary about the lost Egyptian city, but that evidence is still physical evidence. There is no other kind.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 09-07-2012 6:12 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 66 of 70 (672437)
09-08-2012 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
09-07-2012 6:12 PM


quote:

I didn't make anything up. The story is real as caffeine pointed out to you. At first glance, without looking deeper into it, you would say there was no evidence for a city being moved from one place to another. When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up.

But that isn't what you said, was it? You said that there was NO evidence. When I objected that the evidence was there but that it just wasn't obvious you hardly rushed to agree.

quote:

I didn't make anything up. The story is real as caffeine pointed out to you. At first glance, without looking deeper into it, you would say there was no evidence for a city being moved from one place to another. When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up.

You mean that we have to wait for someone else to guess what you are talking about because you don't know and can't be bothered to find out? And when we do we find that your central claim - that there was no evidence - turns out to be untrue? This seems to be a greater indictment of your behaviour than that of your opponents.

quote:

That will never happen though with the anti creationist hostility and mindset of people like you and many others. You just shout "NO EVIDENCE you simple minded bible thumper!!!!!" and expect us to crawl away and never think about such "absurdities" again since only erudite and sophisticated elites such as yourself have the right to determine what is and what isn't legimate subjects to investigate

Rant aside, that's hardly an excuse for demanding that your opponents do your work for you, nor does it change the fact that your initial vague assertion was false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 09-07-2012 6:12 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2696 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 67 of 70 (672438)
09-08-2012 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by vimesey
09-07-2012 6:25 PM


Remains of the Past
quote:
First off, I get quite suspicious when there is no evidence, until certain questions are asked. It makes me think that the questions are framed, so that evidence can be pointed to, which fits an agenda, or pre-existing conclusion. The more usual scenario is that we see the evidence, and then start asking questions about it. In the case of the moving city, what questions are you referring to that started being asked ?

Isn't part of the scientific method asking a question? Make an observation and then ask a question.

Remains of the past aren't always laying in plain sight. So how do archaeologist decide where to dig?

Archaeology Education
More commonly, archaeological sites are buried beneath the surface and may be partially or totally invisible to the eye. How then do archaeologists even locate sites given such a situation? In the olden days of classical archaeology, explorers used ancient literary references to place names as guides in locating lost cities. For example, Heinrich Schliemann relied on literary references from Homer, his own hunches, and a little luck to find the ancient cities of Troy and Mycenae.

quote:
Secondly, you say that the evidence shows up. Can you give me an outline of that evidence - or some links please ? (I know you have given us a hard time in the past, about insisting all the time upon evidence, but that's not relevant here, since you have actually referred, in your own post, to evidence showing up - I just want the details).

FEY has already said in Message 9 that he can't remember the name of the city and is recalling a History Channel show.

In Message 22, he tells how he remembers they reached their conclusions.

A document supposedly led them to look for physical evidence of the city.

FEY is a layperson and may not present his views as precise as his opposition wishes. When one says that "evidence shows up", they aren't saying it wasn't there and now it is, it just means we now see it or understand it.

IMO, he is simply saying that physical evidence isn't always in plain sight. Sometimes we have to go looking for it. A story or document may be the catalyst to start looking, to start asking questions. (FEY can correct me if I'm wrong.)

I don't see that pursuing the specifics of the TV show have anything to do with the GD topic. I suggest we stick to the issues of the GD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by vimesey, posted 09-07-2012 6:25 PM vimesey has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 8:23 AM purpledawn has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20766
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 68 of 70 (672440)
09-08-2012 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by purpledawn
09-08-2012 5:37 AM


Re: Remains of the Past
purpledawn writes:

Isn't part of the scientific method asking a question? Make an observation and then ask a question.

I think everyone is interpreting FEY's responses in the context in which he began, which was this from his first message:

ForEverYoung writes:

As you can see, limiting yourself to physical evidence narrows down what you will accept as reality when reality happens to be much bigger.

He does seem to be distancing himself from that position now by staking out a more reasonable position that stresses the process of finding and uncovering evidence, but given that FEY has been here a while and has clearly stated his belief a number of times in a number of threads that science is only looking at part of reality, it's hard to accept that he really means what he's saying now. Sort of like understanding what the Republicans really mean when they talk about women's reproductive rights ("We affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy."), I think we all understand what FEY really means when he talks about science ignoring evidence.

Of course the irony with the History Channel documentary is that it's an excellent example of archaeology following the scientific method.

I don't see that pursuing the specifics of the TV show have anything to do with the GD topic. I suggest we stick to the issues of the GD.

I said I hoped Peeta would argue from evidence, then in the GD thread Peeta began asking Coyote for evidence of ice ages, and that's why FEY started talking about evidence. Peeta seems to have abandoned his thread, leaving this thread flapping in the breeze. Creationism strikes again!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2012 5:37 AM purpledawn has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19537
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 69 of 70 (672452)
09-08-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
09-07-2012 6:12 PM


foreveryoung writes:

When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up.


But it's the creationists who should be asking those questions and finding that evidence. If you want to overturn accepted theories, you have to find evidence that distinguishes your hypothesis from the others. Creationists should be learning science and doing science instead of putting all of their efforts into propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 09-07-2012 6:12 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 09-08-2012 1:21 PM ringo has seen this message

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 70 of 70 (672460)
09-08-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
09-08-2012 12:12 PM


Peeta peeta's out?
But it's the creationists who should be asking those questions and finding that evidence. If you want to overturn accepted theories, you have to find evidence that distinguishes your hypothesis from the others. Creationists should be learning science and doing science instead of putting all of their efforts into propaganda.

You are correct.

I think the problem Peeta ran into here is that he has been taught dogma, not science.

At the first sign that his dogma was incorrect he fled the scene, most likely never to return.

I was looking forward to a debate, but I guess that's not going to happen, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 09-08-2012 12:12 PM ringo has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022