Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
41 online now:
ICANT (1 member, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,962 Year: 13,710/23,288 Month: 228/412 Week: 15/40 Day: 12/3 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Broken Thinking Skills & Pointless Discussion
jar
Member
Posts: 33010
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 31 of 65 (882085)
09-10-2020 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
09-10-2020 9:54 AM


Re: Is Christianity A Pointless Discussion?
Phat writes:

The debates center around the possibility and probability of whether One God (described many different ways and interpreted to be of many varied characters) actually exists and what the implication is for humanity. Unless God is just an observer watching His kids grow up.

Yet other than what is written in the basic foundational Christian books there is little material to even bring up any probability of the existence of only one God. And as always, the Bible itself is contradictory about whether there is one God or multiple Gods. In addition the God in Genesis 1 is not even an observer of the created; took one initial look, decided it was good and then took a nap.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 09-10-2020 9:54 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7987
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 32 of 65 (882104)
09-10-2020 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
09-10-2020 5:47 AM


Re: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
Phat writes:

Biblical Literal-ism does not have to be true but the Virgin Birth and character of Jesus Christ does.

Pick 'n mix Christianity.

But you need to take that point seriously, Jesus died to atone for our sins, but if there was no original sin, why bother?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 09-10-2020 5:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4007
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 33 of 65 (882123)
09-11-2020 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
09-10-2020 5:47 AM


Re: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
Phat writes:

The whole pack of cards is only held together by Jesus Christ anyways.

Is it?

Biblical Literal-ism does not have to be true but the Virgin Birth and character of Jesus Christ does.

For you - yes.

Of course, we all know of past (some present?) member who would state, with the exact same amount of seriousness, that the whole pack of cards actually does fall down if Adam and Eve and a 6000 year old Earth are not real.

So - to them - Adam and Eve are super important, without them the Jesus story means nothing, and without Him the Love We Show Our Neighbours means nothing.

But - to you - Adam and Eve are unimportant, the Jesus story is super important, and without Him the Love We Show Our Neighbours means nothing.

But - to me - Adam and Eve are unimportant, the Jesus story is unimportant, and the Love We Show Our Neighbours is super important.

If we all agree on the final thing... that the Love We Show Our Neighbours is super important... regardless of what we base that "importance" upon... what does it matter?

I think the Love We Show Our Neighbours is super important because loving our neighbours is serious and important.

You think the Love We Show Our Neightbours is super important because Jesus' story is super important because the New Testament is serious and important.

Others think the Love We Show Our Neighbours is super important because Jesus' story is super important because Adam and Eve and a 6000 year old Earth is super important because The Bible (Old and New Testament) is serious and important.

Does it matter how far back it goes?
If it does - why stop at Jesus?
If it doesn't - why include Jesus?

My answers:

Does it matter how far back it goes? - Not really (to each their own...)
If it does - why stop at Jesus? - Don't care.
If it doesn't - why include Jesus? - Don't care.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 09-10-2020 5:47 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 09-11-2020 2:19 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 42 by Trump won, posted 09-15-2020 9:37 AM Stile has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14719
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 65 (882124)
09-11-2020 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Stile
09-11-2020 2:10 PM


Re: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
Your suggested consensus sounds rational to me.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 09-11-2020 2:10 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 65 (882172)
09-14-2020 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
08-22-2020 2:51 AM


Tangle writes:

I've been reading a few threads on Evolution Fairy Tales, it's an echo chamber for even more of these wing-nuts ruled over by the self-impressed Mike the Wiz. He turns up here from time-to-time to show off his superior knowledge of fallacies. He's a weird one. He knows about logic but he can't apply it. He's a transitional human - the irony. He really thinks that he can think rationally but he can't. Like Faith, he's a motivated thinker, he knows his conclusion is 'therefore God' so everything starts backward and he falls at the first logical fence.

It seems you say something like this every time I read the forum.

First of all I am not "self-impressed", You simply say I am. You apply a motive then without proving it jump to the conclusion the motive you have attributed is the correct one.

I also don't come here to "show off" my knowledge of fallacies, in fact fallacies are only a portion of any discussion. A lot of the time fallacies can even be only a small part of a discussion.

My actual motivation is that basically I believe there are a lot of lurkers that might be willing to hear the other side of the story. At a forum like this where basically it's all evolutionists, naturally the propaganda will be like yours, that creationists have some sort of disease.

Interestingly at EFF forum I know evolutionists such as for example Piasan, and we get along fine and agree on a fair number of things and don't have any hostility towards one another. Really you just represent a small percentage of hostile evolutionists I refer to as, "anti-theists".

Tangle writes:

I find this sort of thing very hard to understand. Neither he nor Faith are stupid, they're both reasonably intelligent it's just that their intelligence has been corrupted by the religious disease that prevents rational thought

But what does that even mean beyond vitriol? Rational thinking and having faith in God are not mutually exclusive and that is the implicit premise in your argument, that is question-begged, you want to ASSERT pretty much everything you say without proving anything.

Tangle writes:

I suppose it has to be because they're all self-taught and uneducated. They've never had anyone with real training to correct them, they impress each other and that's good enough for them. If you've never properly studied a scientific discipline (or philosophical one for that matter) you have no concept of the sheer volume of real, proper work lying behind all of it and the intellectual rigour applied.

Again I am being told I impress myself or someone else, though frankly most of what you say to be honest comes across as reading someone that has overdosed on meds and is saying a bunch of paranoid things about me.

What are you an expert in scientifically then, and why wouldn't I accept what experts say I listen to them all of the time.

Tangle writes:

They rarely actually understand evidence, but are confident that they do and that their intellect is far beyond others

This is amazing insight you seem to have, to know all of my motives, perhaps you are a new age guru? Perhaps an anti-creationist guru, who knows?

I understand evidence, a bare-assertion fallacy that I don't doesn't mean I don't. Want to discuss it? We can talk about how it is qualified, confirmation evidence, falsification evidence, a conspicuous absence of evidence. There are many types of course, anecdotal, circumstantial, indirect, direct.

In fact I would say you are an example of the dunning-Kruger effect to presume you know better than me on everything, but where is the, "evidence" you are anything more than an AD-HOMINEM TROLL?

I am also not insecure like you, I don't need to character-assasinate you just because you get to me, but clearly I have gotten to you because of your bizarre rants. It's perhaps your conscience, as buried as it is, deep within you it is declaring, "you are only saying all these OPPOSITES because you know a lot of what mike says is true."

Tangle writes:

Many of them have learned some of the language of science but totally misuse it - like Mike with his faux-logic and fallacies. Here's one of the biggest idiots on FoE

Tangles tally of insults of mike; 245.
mike's tally of insults to Tangle; 0.

I call that 245 debates you lost because if all you have to rely on is ad-hominem vitriol how solid can your evolutionary fairytale really be?

Tangle writes:

This gap can not be bridged without education because without education these people 'know not what they say'. They think they're using science but they're not because they don't know what science is, they've never been exposed to it, never experienced it and their egos are so large that they think their armchair theorising *is* science

So you were present when you read what I read, learnt what I learnt and know what I know?

That wonderful all-powerful telepathy from atheists never ceases to amaze me.

Listen there isn't some "secret science club" where only you guys understand, only you guys have knowledge and only you guys have education. I am simply a human being the same as other human beings where I have knowledge of some things and not of others.

Your whole topic seems to be a CHARACTER ASSASINATION, I have to ask people if they cannot see that is it because they are constantly drunk or something? Or do people simply get a thrill out of it?

Listen you can talk the talk Tangle but you can't walk the walk, for if you could you wouldn't rely on 100% bare assertions combined with feigned telepathy and ad-hominem attacks.

I am just a person that is honestly looking for the truth and believe creation is true. That is all. I am not pretending to be a scientist and you yourself don't have any understanding of science beyond mine, you don't have a very good grasp of even basic critical thinking in my experience either or you wouldn't rely solely on rhetorical SPIN.

Ok, fine, you hate me and think I am a "religious" lunatic that can't think rationally. Join the club of millions of other humans that think they know things but are not even ten miles close to the bullseye.

I also require you to back some of these accusations. Where have I said I am some all-surpassing genius, can you quote some of the things I have said please.

DEAR READERS: NEVER believe a one-sided story. Always look at the evidence. No matter what is true, be it evolution or creation that is what I would recommend, that you do not listen to this person but actually learn and properly understand what I am trying to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2020 2:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 09-15-2020 7:37 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 36 of 65 (882173)
09-14-2020 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tangle
09-09-2020 1:53 PM


Tangle writes:

This gap can not be bridged without education because without education these people 'know not what they say'. They think they're using science but they're not because they don't know what science is, they've never been exposed to it, never experienced it and their egos are so large that they think their armchair theorising *is* science

In fact I hope readers would not read your quote-mine as evidence of me being in a "world" I have created.

The member, "Wibble" was asking us to provide a dog in the triassic as proof of creation. At EFF forum the variations of the "bunny in the Cambrian" canard are repeated ad-nauseam but evolutionists do so without understanding where we are coming from in terms of the hypothetics of a flood model.

So you have to understand the context by which i gave him that warning, many times before I had told him that as creationists we don't believe the eras such as the Cambrian or triassic are eras but are flood-deposits.

So in this matter if evolutionists repeat that this is a silver bullet that kills creation they would be doing that dishonestly.

That is all that was about, Wibble REFUSES to acknowledge that a creationist person starts with different starting-assumptions to evolutionists pertaining to the rock-record, so then if we found a certain organism in the triassic such as a particular dinosaur species, that still has a mammal in it's stomach for example, to a creationist that might represent a situation where geographical provincialism, and ecological zonation dictates that animals in the pre-flood world were in a certain area contemporaneously at that time. So then the REQUEST to find a bunny living with them is a complete red-herring because as creationists we are not saying that bunnies or dogs lived with dinosaurs in that geographical location when it was flooded and a small portion were preserved as fossils. ( a small percentage)

So as for your rhetorical spin about me living in my own world, I think really you are just taking things I say and giving them a meaning they do not have AT ALL.

To be honest I'm kind of embarrassed for you, that you could miss the mark. A lot of these things you are quoting me on are basically taken out of context, you have to understand the member, "Wibble"'s history at EFF forum, he basically repeats RHETORIC and ignores the in depth explanations he has been given.

In terms of sophistication, the "bunny in the Cambrian" is to creationists the same as the argument, "why are there still monkeys", is to evolutionists. It represents IGNORANCE of the creationist model.

The actual form of the error is the denial of the antecedent thus;

"If x and p are found fossilised together, they were contemporaneous" (correct conditional implication.
"If x and p are NOT found together, they were NOT contemporaneous".
(incorrect form.)

So then you say I understand logic but can't apply it. How have I misunderstood the argument-from-silence as a type of argumentum ad ignorantiam? Can you now show how I applied the logic incorrectly, and show how that isn't the denial of the antecedent in it's form?

CLUE: In the past the "silence" of certain organisms was argued by evolutionists whereby they assumed that silence meant they did not exist, only later on they were found in earlier layers, such as grass being now found with dinosaurs.

So am I in my own world for suggesting that it is a poor argument to argue that silence in the record means absence of that form when for that period of time when later they have went on to find earlier forms?

How is this "wrong" logically? How am I a lunatic in my own world when my argument is provable even to the most dense of trolls.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2020 1:53 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2020 2:51 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 65 (882175)
09-14-2020 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
08-22-2020 2:51 AM


Tangle writes:

I've been reading a few threads on Evolution Fairy Tales, it's an echo chamber for even more of these wing-nuts ruled over by the self-impressed Mike the Wiz

To anyone actually willing to read the evolution-fairytale forum, like this debate board it is perhaps past it's best days. Perhaps Percy's theory of social media taking over peoples' interests is what is to blame.

But I would ask people to ACTUALLY READ EFF forum and READ what I specifically say rather than reading your report on it which comes across as 100% rhetorical spin.

Is it not the same here? You hypocrite? For all you do is pat one anothers backs and tell each other than only you are intelligent and understand science.

In terms of debates of EvC, you will only quote "bad examples" of things you believe will make me look bad. Why not try quoting some of the other things I have said lately such as my rebuttals of conspiracy-theorist claims, a lot of which the evolutionists have agreed with me about.

If I don't understand science why were my answers echoed by scientists? Such as the shadows on the moon, because of light pollution, no air pressure in space, the limitations of optics, etc...a lot of my science answers when I don't know an area of science, usually line up with the science-answers from scientists indicating I actually grasp science fairly well since when I typed in a lot of my intuitive guesses, scientists will usually then give the answer I had thought up in my own mind and told myself was the answer.

So I think this thread is basically WICKED PROPAGANDA.

You don't mind lying because morally you don't answer to anyone except yourself. You don't mind saying a bunch of false things about a creationist and you don't care if they are all false because of your poisonous prejudice and hatred.

What, did you think, "hate" only belonged to liberals as a pet-epithet?

Why don't you find a hobby, hating on me clearly isn't paying off.

What's the matter, won't I go and hang myself because some rando online said mean things to me because he's insecure about the fact that I have a strong faith in God and can confidently believe my bible without evolution winning over me intellectualy?

That's what it's really about, you know I can refute evolution and your response is hatred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2020 2:51 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by driewerf, posted 09-24-2020 2:52 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 65 (882178)
09-14-2020 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
08-22-2020 4:56 AM


Re: Ripleys Believe It Or Not
Phat writes:

Yes, Mikey is unique. He is not as prone to commentary on current events and politics as was Faith, however.

This is testimony-evidence you have perhaps read more than Tangle, who only goes to EFF to cherry-pick.

Your point is I don't have opinions on things I don't know that well, which is evidence against Tangle's claims that I am some kinds of supreme know-all egotist.

If a person EMPLOYS epistemic humility in those areas he feels his opinions wouldn't count then is that really a sign of ego?

There are things I don't discuss, areas of the science within evolution theory because I won't form opinions about things if there is a lack of knowledge I have in that particular area.

However applying logical reasoning to the arguments FOR evolution, if my logic is correct (and all tests I have taken would in fact give me scores beyond anyone here) is actually good critical thinking because instead of being taught WHAT to think I am applying reasoning in HOW I think, and thereby not being brainwashed into believing that for example, it is somehow, "science" that a lifeform such as Koonin's minimal-cell, would pop up out of nowhere for no reason.

Logic leads me to the correct term of, "science fiction". All the evidence shows life is designed as one cohesive, integrated unit, symbiotic systems you could say though perhaps that isn't the correct term if you want to be pedantic but everything on every level is conducive to the unity of the final form.

That's the same as with any designed structure such as a plane or a helicopter, it's not just that you have the correctly shaped parts in the correct exact place, made of the correct material but that all systems are integrated as a whole.

That's the better logical explanation that some natural magic, for if a sand-castle by comparison is immensely simpler (which it is)yet it cannot come about naturally, why then is it NOT foolishness to believe a far more sophisticated design did not come about naturally?

Note I used the term, "sophisticated" not the term, "complex", for in terms of the sophistication and design of a lifeform, it is far more intelligent than anything humans can create, which is why the field of biomimetics exists, we have to THIEVE the designs in life because they are superior in their intelligence, to our own.

This is all, "evidence" of design, for to state it isn't is a contradiction, for what else would you expect if God created life then the even of creation is lost in time? You could only expect all of the usual evidences of design which is what we find.

That is CORRECT logic, despite Tangle's rhetorical spiel ad-homs about me.
(I can provide test scores showing I score high and do understand logic and critical thinking, but not to show off, simply to disprove the false personal attacks)

Here I am TOP score in this logic game; mindgames.com/game/Zoobiedoku
(those two feigned scores are FAKE, it is impossible to score more than about 7 on this game, people hack the site because they want to be top of the list but to get on it is a lot more difficult and requires genuine ability.)

If you press, "all high scores" then press "all time" you will see I am top out of about 40K people.

I only mention that because it's actually a good example of reductio ad absurdum which uses the modus tollens to disprove a claim, thus;

"If mike is really this chump that can't apply logic it follows he will score the highest on a test of logic."

Absurdum; "No, it doesn't follow, in fact it would follow he wouldn't come anywhere near.

ERGO if he does come anywhere near, then NOT the antecedent."

(the antecedent being that I can't apply logic.)

In actual fact Tangle's claims in terms of assessing his statements are a prime example of being duplicitous. By saying I understand logic but can't apply it he has committed what is called a grammatical tautology.

Which means what he is really saying is this; "mike can understand logic but mike doesn't understand logic."

He is basically just using two different words. This is the art of, "saying something without saying it."

It's a classic bait-and-switch, you bait them with, "mike understands logic" then play it down with, "but can't apply it".

But to understand it you need to know when to apply it, hence the contradiction. But he wouldn't know that because he couldn't come near my top score if his life depended on it, despite his propaganda that I am an "idiot".

It's the classic ad-hom, "focus on mike's ability but don't question mine"....and the audience then falls for the sleight of hand and MISSES the fact that Tangle can neither understand nor apply logic.

In terms of him calling me a "weird one" if I remember correctly, that's just a choice-dysphemism. Basically what he really means by that is, "he is one I can't that CAN'T be refuted". Because that is the genuine difference between me and Faith. Faith mostly argued in an unco-ordinated and sloppy way a lot of the time, that's not meant as an insult, but I do understand why you have to lump me with the worst creationist you can think of, it's a type of error called an "association fallacy". Mike is "guilty by association with bad examples of creationists".

I won't be lumped for example, with the chess-master and chemist Jonathan Sarfati as that wouldn't provide the right stereotype those such as Tangle love to propagate.

Of course QUITE BY ACCIDENT he falls upon a truth in one sense, in that I certainly am in some ways a bit eccentric. But then isn't your "evolution" to blame on that one according to your side? Can I help the genes I am endowed with? Am I guilty if I am five foot tall rather than six foot tall for example?

At least be consistent with your fairytale.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 08-22-2020 4:56 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 39 of 65 (882181)
09-15-2020 12:04 AM


bemusing that the gospel of jar is being propagated in a thread called "Broken Thinking Skills...". nice

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16623
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 40 of 65 (882185)
09-15-2020 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
09-14-2020 5:36 PM


quote:
In fact I hope readers would not read your quote-mine as evidence of me being in a "world" I have created.

Well, let us see.

quote:
The member, "Wibble" was asking us to provide a dog in the triassic as proof of creation. At EFF forum the variations of the "bunny in the Cambrian" canard are repeated ad-nauseam but evolutionists do so without understanding where we are coming from in terms of the hypothetics of a flood model.

That already seems to be a significant misstatement, as can be seen in the quote provided by Tangle.

quote:
wibble, an atheist writes:

The evidence from the fossil record is compelling. You never find modern mammals (such as dogs) in the Triassic, you never find flowering plants (such as bananas) in the Carboniferous and you never find ray finned fish (such as salmon, which include 99% of all existing fish species) in the Cambrian. Etc. etc. etc. You have no sensible answers for these facts that fly in the face of your faith.


The order of the fossil record is indeed compelling evidence against Flood geology and there is no sensible answer.

quote:
That is all that was about, Wibble REFUSES to acknowledge that a creationist person starts with different starting-assumptions to evolutionists pertaining to the rock-record, so then if we found a certain organism in the triassic such as a particular dinosaur species, that still has a mammal in it's stomach for example, to a creationist that might represent a situation where geographical provincialism, and ecological zonation dictates that animals in the pre-flood world were in a certain area contemporaneously at that time. So then the REQUEST to find a bunny living with them is a complete red-herring because as creationists we are not saying that bunnies or dogs lived with dinosaurs in that geographical location when it was flooded and a small portion were preserved as fossils. ( a small percentage)

The fact that creationists do not consider the geological periods to be eras is implicit in the question. It is the reason why we should expect to see “bunnies in the Cambrian” and the like. So the idea of differing assumptions is right there.

The obvious question arises of how these presumed “ecological zones” become an order. How do we end up with a coherent assemblage of ecological zones labelled Cambrian, succeeded by another such assemblage called Ordovician etc.? Without an answer to this you have not answered the issue at all.

Not to mention the question of how these ecological zones manage to exclude common and greatly diverse groups.

Let us also note that you are rather selective in your use of “silence”

quote:
CLUE: In the past the "silence" of certain organisms was argued by evolutionists whereby they assumed that silence meant they did not exist, only later on they were found in earlier layers, such as grass being now found with dinosaurs.

So am I in my own world for suggesting that it is a poor argument to argue that silence in the record means absence of that form when for that period of time when later they have went on to find earlier forms?


But you argue the opposite, in for instance, the case of bats, where you state that the absence of transitional fossils should be taken as evidence of absence.

Obviously there is a balance here. Bat ancestors are a relatively small group, unlikely to fossilise well. Yet bats are a subset of the far more diverse modern mammals. Surely the absence of modern mammals in so much of the geological record - and the fact that they are only found in the later stages - must be considered the more significant of the two. Yet that is only one of the examples given by wibble in the quote and there are many more he could have given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2020 5:36 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7987
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(5)
Message 41 of 65 (882191)
09-15-2020 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
09-14-2020 5:22 PM


MtW writes:

Rational thinking …

I'm going to take a couple of your statements/rebuttals that I feel are relevant to the arguments I'm making about thinking skills.

But before I do that I want to make a couple of points that you feel passionate about and repeat over several replies that I'm going to say are either irrelevant accepted or missing the point.

The first is ad hominem. You should note that in my OP I mentioned several creationists and gave examples of how their thinking is either wrong or just plain mad. You are only one of them and my attack is not on the person but their approach and thinking abilities as demonstrated in those posts. It's a diagnosis based on the evidence not a personal attack. Of course you might feel that it's an insult, but that's your problem not mine.

The second is intelligence. You are very fond of quoting your extreme intelligence. I've called it bragging in the past and your posts are full of your own self-importance; Mr Toad appears regularly.

But my complaint is not that creationists are stupid - though some definitely are, and others are crazy with it - I have said that I think that both you and our very own Faith are obviously intelligent people. No, it's the application of that IQ that is broken. There is no point owning a long lever if you don't also use a fulcrum..

So, the specifics.

Rational thinking and having faith in God are not mutually exclusive and that is the implicit premise in your argument.

This is wrong.

Most scientists have some form of faith in some form of god(s) and, of course, it was Christian creationists that showed young earth creationism to be wrong. One of the greatest scientists that ever lived - Maxwell - was a devout Christian, as were most early Victorian scientists. They all believed that both science and religion were correct and it was only a matter of understanding science better to understand god.

They applied scientific principles to understand our world and unfortunately, many of their observations and conclusions differed with their conventional views of theology - more correctly, the bible stories.

Nevertheless, many of those scientists pursued science even when it appeared to contradict their beliefs; they would not subvert reason. As a result many holy cows had to be slaughtered and religious ideas re-evaluated. heliocentricism, immutability of species, young earth etc. These people were able to objectively evaluate their observations regardless of religious belief. Real scientists and proper critical, independent thinkers.

In contrast, the remaining creationists of today are imbedded in their belief. Faith for instance said many times that when the facts contradict the bible, the facts are wrong. This is the opposite of science. You have your conclusion which can not be changed and you attempt to find a methodology and a set of observations which fit the conclusion. In the process of doing that you abandon any facts which don't fit. That process can not work.

The current creationist movement is founded on that form of motivated thinking and can not make progress until and unless it understands its inbuilt design flaw - the answer flows from facts to conclusion, not from conclusions to facts.

The quote in the original post shows this thinking bias at work

quote:
P1 - Without God objective moral values would not exist
P2 - Evil exists
C1 - Objective moral values exist (from P2)
C2 - Therefore, God exists (from P1 and C1)

So Mike replies with

quote:
This seems like a pretty good and strong philosophical argument. 

I don't believe that you thought about that response for a second, but if you do now, surely you can use your enormous intellect and vast experience in logical thinking to point out the errors in that?

The second point I want to make about intelligence is about training and education.

From conversations here and at EFT it's apparent that creationists are very badly educated. Few have any qualifications in the subject that they're discussing and so far you yourself have failed to rebuff this suggestion with any qualifications of your own. Education and training provides both the facts and the thinking skills and, in the case of science, the methodologies required to think in a straight line. Those skills are almost non-existent amongst creationists. My guess is that this is because they are almost all self-taught.

Faith liked to argue against pretty much all of science - biology, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics and cell biology, astronomy, astro-physics, geology, chemistry etc etc without having a single qualification in any of them. There really is only so far you can go with that kind of approach. And it's a very short distance.

People that have not experienced research science can have no understanding of how robust and challenging it is. If all you've done is sit in an armchair and google, you really haven't the first clue. Those kind of opinions are worthless.

To be of any use in solving the problems of our world your IQ needs to be Used objectively to the point of obsession and educated in the methodologies that produce that objectivism. Without that, you're just another cracked pot.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2020 5:22 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 42 of 65 (882193)
09-15-2020 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Stile
09-11-2020 2:10 PM


wRe: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
when u get up in the mrning i want you to look in the mirror and say

god did not create me

god does not exist

that is the definition of mental illness

the creation telling his creator he is not there


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 09-11-2020 2:10 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2020 9:52 AM Trump won has not yet responded
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 09-15-2020 12:48 PM Trump won has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 09-16-2020 1:11 PM Trump won has not yet responded
 Message 48 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-18-2020 2:43 PM Trump won has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 43 of 65 (882197)
09-15-2020 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Trump won
09-15-2020 9:37 AM


Re: wRe: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
Really? You are spamming this forum?

Message 2680

Are you really that kind of piece of shit?

Fuck off already!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Trump won, posted 09-15-2020 9:37 AM Trump won has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 09-15-2020 12:55 PM dwise1 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5404
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 44 of 65 (882210)
09-15-2020 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Trump won
09-15-2020 9:37 AM


Re: wRe: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
Message 2682

I can needlessly copy across threads just as well as you.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Trump won, posted 09-15-2020 9:37 AM Trump won has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18809
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 45 of 65 (882212)
09-15-2020 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by dwise1
09-15-2020 9:52 AM


Re: wRe: Creation vs Evolution has been settled for over a century
dwise1 writes:

You are spamming this forum?


As somebody - maybe Jed Clampett - used to say, "When he tells you howdy, he's told you everything he knows."

Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2020 9:52 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2020 4:46 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020