Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:14 PM
27 online now:
edge, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 47 (475095)
07-13-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2008 11:30 AM


Re: Testable
I connected it to the subject at issue with argument, the mystery, so it is legitemate. Asking for decision to be confined to a thread, is like asking that you would confine cause and effect in the universe to a single thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 11:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 11:43 AM Syamsu has responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 11:51 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 47 (475096)
07-13-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 11:34 AM


New Thread Required
Asking for decision to be confined to a thread, is like asking that you would confine cause and effect in the universe to a single thread.

Which is why such a thread would probably not get promoted.

I am happy to continue the morality/justice/natural/spiritual/rational discussion but we reall should do it somewhere else.

Why don't you start a new thread with the foundation and crux of your ideas spelt out to begin with and then we can take things from there if you so wish?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:34 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:53 AM Straggler has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 33 of 47 (475098)
07-13-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
07-13-2008 11:10 AM


Re: Testable
Creationists do have a valid science, which is the science about decisions. Apart from that valid science creationists also entertain an art of reasonable judgement of the spiritual.

It seems to be implied that living is good, and dying not good, or either it is preservation of genes or something like that, in your science. You mentioned this in the context of justice, so that's why I assume it is a science of good and evil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 11:10 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 47 (475099)
07-13-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 11:34 AM


Re: Testable
I connected it to the subject at issue with argument, the mystery, so it is legitemate. Asking for decision to be confined to a thread, is like asking that you would confine cause and effect in the universe to a single thread.

No, asking that your rubbish, which only you believe, should be confined to a single thread is a whole lot more like asking that your rubbish, which only you believe, should be confined to a single thread.

Do you see the similarity between asking that your rubbish, which only you believe, should be confined to a single thread, and asking that your rubbish, which only you believe, should be confined to a single thread, or do I have to explain it to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:34 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 35 of 47 (475100)
07-13-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 9:51 AM


Re: Testable
I wonder what "rational rules" you had in mind. In this context it seems you derive those rational rules from science, the science of good and evil. Ofcourse you also state that you are against a science of good and evil, but on the other hand you deny a spiritual domain, and deny faith as the right way to justice. You see when you would admit a spiritual domain, I would be much more trusting that you don't surreptiously have some kind of science of good and evil. But when you talk about rules that are "rational", then it seems to me that you derive the rationality of the rules from the rationality of science.

There are tons of valid scientific arguments for what we should do and what we should not do. For example, "thou shalt not kill", because if you do, you decrease the spread of the species, and bring others and yourself to danger, which will decrease the chance of yours species to survive. Religion is not necessary to explain morality or decisions. It just makes it easier to deal with, which is what religion is all about: hiding from ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 9:51 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 36 of 47 (475102)
07-13-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Straggler
07-13-2008 11:43 AM


Re: New Thread Required
Gee, let's not do that. I have previously referenced a science paper which says decisions are real by an awardwinning wellknown professor, besides there is widespread precedent from common knowledge, and religion, that freedom is in fact real. So the basis is already well established. It would be unreasonable to hold freedom in such doubt, to confine it to a single thread, and a single person, although on the other hand I would be very much honored to be given such a tremendous authority.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 11:43 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 12:11 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 12:39 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 37 of 47 (475109)
07-13-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 11:53 AM


Re: New Thread Required
Gee, let's not do that. I have previously referenced a science paper which says decisions are real by an awardwinning wellknown professor ...

Yeah, of course decisions are real. For example, I have just decided to call you an idiot.

You're an idiot.

There, we didn't need an "awardwinning wellknown professor" to tell us that, did we?

If, however, you wish to tell lies about some specific area of science, then I recommend that you start a thread about it rather than spamming every thread you can with vague incoherent references to whatever lie it is that you wish to tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:53 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 38 of 47 (475110)
07-13-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2008 12:11 PM


Re: New Thread Required
If you can show me that you support science about decisions, and that it is basically different from mine, then I will confine myself to a single thread. But otherwise I conclude that you wish to oppress knowledge about decisions altogether, and I won't confine myself to a single thread, and request that you be stopped from oppressing an entire category of knowledge.

But I know that you don't have any science about decisions, because you don't seem to know anything about the theory I referred to, which I know to be the only theory in science that confirmed free will. And that theory is by an awardwinning professor, and you don't seem to be an awardwinning professor yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 12:29 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 39 of 47 (475112)
07-13-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 12:25 PM


Re: New Thread Required
If you can show me that you support science about decisions, and that it is basically different from mine, then I will confine myself to a single thread. But otherwise I conclude that you wish to oppress knowledge about decisions altogether, and I won't confine myself to a single thread, and request that you be stopped from oppressing an entire category of knowledge.

But I know that you don't have any science about decisions, because you don't seem to know anything about the theory I referred to, which I know to be the only theory in science that confirmed free will. And that theory is by an awardwinning professor, and you don't seem to be an awardwinning professor yourself.

If you have anything at all to say, please start a thread and say it.

I don't think that I can express myself any more clearly than that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:25 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 47 (475115)
07-13-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 11:53 AM


Re: New Thread Required
Gee, let's not do that. I have previously referenced a science paper which says decisions are real by an awardwinning wellknown professor,

So what?
There are lots and lots of award winning professors who would say that justice and morality are best explained by natural, non-faith based explanations.
So what?

besides there is widespread precedent from common knowledge, and religion,

Decisions are real..... Who said decisions are not real?
we started taking about the testability and thus scientfic validity of conclusions and ended up discussing justice as a natural Vs faith based concept.
I never said decisions are not real!! Do you think I am claiming that we are all pre-programmed automatons following a preset destiny?
Nothing could be further frommy view.

It would be unreasonable to hold freedom in such doubt, to confine it to a single thread, and a single person

You obviously have a pet theory. If you are confident of it's validity why not give it it's own platform, explain it in detail and let the masses analyse it, question it and understand it?
I was actually not thinking of a single person debate but a single topic thread.

although on the other hand I would be very much honored to be given such a tremendous authority.

You have the opportunity.........
Why not take it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:53 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:43 PM Straggler has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 41 of 47 (475116)
07-13-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
07-13-2008 12:39 PM


Re: New Thread Required
You and the other guy need to state your science about decisions, I've already done so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 12:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 12:49 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 12:56 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 47 (475117)
07-13-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 12:43 PM


Re: New Thread Required
You and the other guy need to state your science about decisions, I've already done so.

Where? Can you provide a link to the post?

I will read it and the maybe I will start the new thread on that topic.........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:43 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 43 of 47 (475118)
07-13-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 12:43 PM


Re: New Thread Required
You and the other guy need to state your science about decisions, I've already done so.

And I (a.k.a. "the other guy") have stated that you've talking crap.

Are we done yet, or do you think that your new and world-shaking concept deserves its own thread?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:43 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 2:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 44 of 47 (475136)
07-13-2008 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2008 12:56 PM


Re: New Thread Required
No, you just do a googlesearch on "hyperincursive" if you want more information on that new theory.

And there would be little use to argue that I have misunderstood that theory, because even the scientist that applied the theory to the biological realm got accused by her peerreviewer of supporting intelligent design. So I will just keep on arguing on the basis of the fact that freedom is real, and request that any discussion about freedom being real or not altogether be consigned to a single thread, which there already is one I'm sure.

You can't expect for a creationist not to mention freedom and decision, since creation is universally understood as a free act. You can't oppress an entire category of knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 12:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 2:55 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 47 (475138)
07-13-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 2:46 PM


Re: New Thread Required
No, you just do a googlesearch on "hyperincursive" if you want more information on that new theory.

Oh Jeez. Not you too.
You should talk to Brendatucker in the Raising Standards thread!!!! It sounds like you deserve each other.

You can't expect for a creationist not to mention freedom and decision, since creation is universally understood as a free act. You can't oppress an entire category of knowledge.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you were willing to describe and defend your ideas here at EvC, in a new thread, I would participate.
However I will cease spamming this topic as of.....Now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 2:46 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 3:26 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019