Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9036 total)
90 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, harpo, nwr, Pollux (5 members, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: harpo
Post Volume: Total: 885,635 Year: 3,281/14,102 Month: 222/724 Week: 71/93 Day: 10/18 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 346 of 432 (658387)
04-04-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by jar
04-03-2012 5:50 PM


Re: acting on personal beliefs
It seems to me to be the height of irrationality to then consider that they might have planted the evidence and then hidden the evidence that they planted the evidence and ... on down the rabbit hole.

All I'm saying is that it is rational to ask for evidence that the FBI and CIA did anything before you believe it because evidence is, in principle, possible.

If supernatural events can not leave evidence, then asking for evidence in order to believe they have happened is irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by jar, posted 04-03-2012 5:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 2:59 PM Perdition has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 347 of 432 (658391)
04-04-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Perdition
04-04-2012 2:53 PM


Re: acting on personal beliefs
Believing in the supernatural is irrational.

I still don't see what your issue is?

In the case in point, a jury trial, you are charged to set aside personal beliefs and deal solely with the evidence.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Perdition, posted 04-04-2012 2:53 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Perdition, posted 04-04-2012 3:08 PM jar has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 348 of 432 (658394)
04-04-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by New Cat's Eye
04-04-2012 11:07 AM


I don't think we mean the same things be "belief". I looked up "believe" in the dictionary and on one end it has "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something" and on the other it has "to suppose or assume".

Yeah. Sometimes language sucks.

But both of these ideas would still support my side...I think.

If you suppose or assume that god has tampered with the evidence, what's your next step? Wouldn't it be trying to refute it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2012 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 10:00 AM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 349 of 432 (658397)
04-04-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by jar
04-04-2012 2:59 PM


Re: acting on personal beliefs
Believing in the supernatural is irrational.

Ok. I guess this is sort of the end.

Science is rational, your worldview is irrational, and that's why some of us see a conflict.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 2:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 3:11 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 350 of 432 (658399)
04-04-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Perdition
04-04-2012 3:08 PM


Re: acting on personal beliefs
More nonsense, sorry but it is.

Yes science is rational and some of my beliefs are irrational. But my worldview is more complex than that. And so far you have still failed to show any area where my so called worldview would have any impact that might cause a conflict.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Perdition, posted 04-04-2012 3:08 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 351 of 432 (658402)
04-04-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by jar
04-04-2012 12:32 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
So do you agree that your own impossible-to-evidence beliefs are no more or less worthy of consideration than the impossible-to-evidence notion of which you were so disdainful that all evidence has been falsely but undetectably planted?

Because I am happy to treat them with equal disdain.

jar writes:

If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?

This is the wisest yet most inconsistent thing I think you have ever said here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 12:32 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 3:28 PM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 352 of 432 (658406)
04-04-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Straggler
04-04-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Whatever.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Straggler, posted 04-04-2012 3:15 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Straggler, posted 04-04-2012 3:34 PM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 353 of 432 (658408)
04-04-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by jar
04-04-2012 3:28 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
I'll take that as a grudging 'Yes'.

Perhaps the next time you are disdainfully admonishing someone else here at EvC for their particular brand of un-evidenced and thus un-worthy-of-consideration nonsense you will reflect on your own equally worthless notions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 3:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 3:36 PM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 354 of 432 (658409)
04-04-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Straggler
04-04-2012 3:34 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Then you take it incorrectly.

You are free to continue to take what I say out of context, to misrepresent what I say and to use emotive language as much as you want.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said or the context involved.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Straggler, posted 04-04-2012 3:34 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Straggler, posted 04-04-2012 3:41 PM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 355 of 432 (658410)
04-04-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by jar
04-04-2012 3:36 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Oh. So your impossible-to-evidence notions are more worthy of consideration than equally impossible-to-evidence notions held by others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 3:36 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by jar, posted 04-04-2012 3:49 PM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 356 of 432 (658413)
04-04-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Straggler
04-04-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
HUH?

By me?

Well yes, my personal beliefs are worthy of my consideration.

Other peoples beliefs are worthy of their consideration.

Why would I care about what personal beliefs anyone else has?

If they try to convince others to believe as they do, then it becomes an issue.

But I have never asked you or anyone else to judge the worthiness of any of my personal beliefs or even to consider the worthiness of my beliefs.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Straggler, posted 04-04-2012 3:41 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Straggler, posted 04-05-2012 11:42 AM jar has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 357 of 432 (658442)
04-04-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Percy
04-04-2012 1:29 PM


Re: Convincing Others
Percy writes:

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.

Out of 9000 posts over an eight year period, do you think that three or four cited by Paulk are enough for evaluation? Who on this board do you think are so pristine that they would not have as many or more questionable posts as me?

Percy writes:

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.

You have ignored my point that ideology factors in here. You didn't answer my question relative to a creationist site. I ask you again, do you think you would fare better than me as to how the membership of such a site would regard your posts?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 04-04-2012 1:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Panda, posted 04-04-2012 9:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 359 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2012 2:00 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 360 by Percy, posted 04-05-2012 8:31 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2609 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(4)
Message 358 of 432 (658444)
04-04-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Buzsaw
04-04-2012 9:03 PM


Re: Convincing Others
Buzsaw writes:

how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora.


Buzsaw writes:

do you think that three or four cited by Paulk are enough for evaluation?

Shall we add this to the collection of stupid posts you have made?
You ask for 3 or 4 examples and then complain that 3 or 4 examples are not enough.
That is stupid.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 9:03 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by NoNukes, posted 04-05-2012 3:57 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16859
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 359 of 432 (658447)
04-05-2012 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Buzsaw
04-04-2012 9:03 PM


Re: Convincing Others
quote:

Out of 9000 posts over an eight year period, do you think that three or four cited by Paulk are enough for evaluation?

As Panda has already pointed out you asked for three of four examples. I've listed SIX posts so far. But yes, you've been here long enough that we know that your challenge wasn't honest...

But since you want more: Message 27

Attempting to answer genetic dating by repeating the nonsensical claim (a claim that even the major YEC organisations would recognise as stupid) that the Flood would disrupt all major radiometric dating methods. Despite often repeating this claim - and often being challenged on it - you have never made any serious attempt to explain how it could even be possible.

For instance - fission track dating is based on counting the "scars" left by the nuclear fission of U238 in a sample of rock, with the age being based on the density of the tracks. How would a flood affect that, so as to give an older age (heat can make the rock appear younger by erasing tracks but obviously that is no help to you).

But the real stupidity is in using it to try to refute a claim that is completely unaffected by the age of rocks. Even if your claim had been entirely true instead of a silly fabrication it would still be completely irrelevant.

quote:

Who on this board do you think are so pristine that they would not have as many or more questionable posts as me?

The vast majority of the membership...

quote:

You have ignored my point that ideology factors in here.

How does it factor in ? You haven't disputed a single example. And every example I've given is based on objective facts, not ideology.

For instance it is an objective fact that the NOAA list used by the webpenny site was not intended for use as frequency data and is not suitable for such use. It is an objective fact that actual NOAA frequency data was cited. It was therefore objectively untrue that the webpenny list was "NOAA frequency trend data" and objectively untrue that we had no other source.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2012 9:03 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20105
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021