Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
570 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, kjsimons, nwr, Parasomnium, Phat, Tangle (7 members, 563 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,952 Year: 6,064/6,534 Month: 257/650 Week: 27/278 Day: 27/27 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 60 of 432 (657393)
03-28-2012 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 5:28 PM


Re: To PaulK
bridgebuilder writes:

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the "Primordial Ocean" and the "primordial ocean." I was unaware of this. Genesis does not include the term primordial ocean, whether beginning with upper or lower cases, yet it does present the concept that a body of water is necessary to precede life. Therefore, I disagree with your last statement, but it is a matter of interpretation (IMO).

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of "the Primordial Ocean" being a non-ambiguous Genesis reference either. Wikipedia takes you to the article on abiogenesis when you enter "Primordial Ocean", though of course it ignores capitalization.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 5:28 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2012 1:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(9)
Message 105 of 432 (657506)
03-29-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:31 PM


Re: To PaulK
Hi BB,

I see there are forty posts after this one, so the discussion might have moved on and this is no longer relevant, but anyway...

bridgebuilding writes:

Probably so. Most of the people here think I'm kooky already for believing in a Higher Being.

It always startles me how many atheists are here. We try to maintain that the creation/evolution debate isn't just a proxy battle between religion and atheism, but the demographics of EvC Forum provides little support.

Still, I don't think atheists think someone is missing a few marbles just for believing in a Higher Being. It's those who not only believe in a Higher Being but also claim to have proof of his existence that are thought to be playing with less than a full deck.

It has been repeated to me numerous times that science should always ignore the supernatural.

This is well-stated as if made by someone from the religious side. We're frequently accused of ignoring the supernatural, as if there were supernatural events taking place before scientists eyes everyday, and the scientists just go about their business as if nothing had happened. "I was following the path of Comet Hall-bop-bop-do-we-bop and saw nothing unusual other than the occasional supernatural event, which of course we ignore."

But the problem with supernatural events is that they don't seem to have any observable effect on the real world. Without anything to observe there's nothing for science say. It isn't that science ignores the supernatural. It's that the supernatural, if it exists, seems to be ignoring us.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:31 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by subbie, posted 03-29-2012 10:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2012 10:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 106 of 432 (657508)
03-29-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Agnostic
bridgebuilder writes:

Perhaps science backs reality,...

There's no perhaps about it. Science represents our best effort to understand reality.

...but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose.

It's the Noble prize for whomever figures out how to scientifically study the supernatural. It isn't like there's any lack of motivation.

The funny thing about the supernatural is that the more we discover about the world and universe in which we live, the fewer things are ascribed to the supernatural. The history of the supernatural is that it blossoms during periods of ignorance.

Science uses evidence as the glue that connects our understanding to the actual universe. A supernatural that leaves no detectable impression on reality is the same as no supernatural at all.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:37 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-29-2012 7:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 107 of 432 (657509)
03-29-2012 8:53 AM


Off-topic Comment
The condescending comments about how we can help you learn and so forth are bugging me, hope they're not bugging you. The learning goes both ways.

The people here know a whole heck of a lot, but no one's voice is gospel. The posts I like best are the ones that clearly state a position and then back it with evidence. This has been stated famously several different ways, but in my own words, he who was convinced without evidence has an opinion, not knowledge.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 329 of 432 (658336)
04-04-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Buzsaw
04-04-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Tempting Fate
The measure of one's ideas isn't how stubbornly one holds them, but how many they convince.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 7:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 9:42 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 343 of 432 (658376)
04-04-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Buzsaw
04-04-2012 9:42 AM


Re: Convincing Others
Hi Buz,

What you originally said was this:

Buzsaw writes:

Designation: The Free Thinking Literalist Biblical Evidence Producing Butt Kicking Buzsaw OEC Who Gives Science Doctorates Educated Into Illogical Abstract Theories A Run For The Money In Threads.

And you've been arguing this point ever since. PaulK is wondering how you could believe this given all your errors, but there's little to be gained by raising this point unless it's for the benefit of the larger audience, because you're no more likely to recognize your errors now than you were when you first made them.

That's why I commented that the measure of one's ideas isn't how stubbornly one holds them, but how many they convince. I think we're all kind of dumbfounded at how successful you think you've been here given that you've convinced no one, including creationists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 9:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2012 1:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 357 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 9:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 360 of 432 (658458)
04-05-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Buzsaw
04-04-2012 9:03 PM


Re: Convincing Others
Hi Buz,

Convincing you of your errors isn't possible. I don't know why anyone bothers to try anymore.

But your errors and buffoonery are more than obvious to everyone else. What amazes everyone is your claims of outstanding success in the face of this dismal record.

At creationist websites I stick to the evidence for what we know and don't worry myself about how well I'm doing. I certainly don't go around making bold declarations about how great I'm doing.

So drop the ridiculous and wildly unjustifiable and conceited claims and just focus on the topic. Your ability to turn any thread into a discussion about you instead of the topic (this thread being yet another example) is why you're no longer allowed in the science forums.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 9:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2012 9:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(5)
Message 382 of 432 (658551)
04-06-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Buzsaw
04-05-2012 9:28 PM


Re: Convincing Others
Hi Buz,

You turned this thread into a discussion about you when you posted this in Message 102:

Buzsaw in Message 102 writes:

MrHambre writes:

Designation: No Frills Fundie ............
Designation: The Deep Thinker ...............,
Designation: Fundie 6.0 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Designation: The Free Thinking Literalist Biblical Evidence Producing Butt Kicking Buzsaw OEC Who Gives Science Doctorates Educated Into Illogical Abstract Theories A Run For The Money In Threads.

If you want to show that I was wrong to say that you turn threads into discussions about you, start now by not responding to this post and instead addressing the thread's topic. If you'd like to propose a fourth category of creationist, don't use yourself as an example. In fact, remove the word "Buzsaw" from your vocabulary, because the thread isn't about you, and anyway it's an open invitation to ridicule whenever anyone refers to themselves in the third person.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2012 9:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2012 8:24 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(8)
Message 386 of 432 (658557)
04-06-2012 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Buzsaw
04-06-2012 8:24 AM


Re: Convincing Others
Buzsaw writes:

My purpose here in this thread, implicating all creationists as stupid is to show that the unique Buzsaw hypotheses are a fourth catagory which is not stupid, and infact less stupid than some of conventional science's theories.

Buzsaw hypotheses? Even Einstein didn't call relativity the Einstein hypothesis.

My advice continues to be that you stop making threads all about you. You are correct, this thread has a topic, but it isn't you. Focus on the topic objectively, dispassionately, impersonally.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2012 8:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 401 of 432 (658908)
04-10-2012 8:54 PM


The Knowledgeable Creationist
We're ignoring one category of creationist. Some creationists *are* very knowledgeable. Some that come to mind are TrueCreation, Tranquility Base and Peter Berger, but old timers know they haven't been here in quite some time.

In terms of science knowledge there is no one like them here today. Creationists familiar with science are not common, but they do exist, and it seems strange that we almost never see that breed anymore.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by jar, posted 04-10-2012 9:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 409 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2012 1:47 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022