Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9036 total)
93 online now:
dwise1, harpo, kjsimons, Pollux (4 members, 89 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
Straggler
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 376 of 432 (658516)
04-05-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by jar
04-05-2012 2:47 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Your pedantic evasiveness has been noted. I will re-phrase the questions in order to eliminate your mis-apprehension that we are discussing my personal considerations:

In the absence of faith is there any reason to consider any given impossible-to-evidence notion over any other?

This leads to the specific question (where your personal beliefs are nothing more than an incidental example):

Is your notion of GOD more worthy of consideration (by those who are faithless) than the equally impossible-to-evidence notion that everything they experience has been falsely and undetectably planted by unknowable beings?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by jar, posted 04-05-2012 2:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by jar, posted 04-05-2012 2:59 PM Straggler has not yet responded

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


Message 377 of 432 (658518)
04-05-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Straggler
04-05-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
And yet again, I do not presume to tell others what they should consider worthy of consideration when it comes to unevidenced personal beliefs.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Straggler, posted 04-05-2012 2:54 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 378 of 432 (658526)
04-05-2012 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Panda
04-04-2012 9:32 PM


Not so fast...
Panda writes:

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.

I think you and many others are missing Buzsaw's subtle and nigh compelling argument. Yes, the compost cited above is inane on its face. But it was posted in "Free for all" and does not count as a response to what Buzsaw demanded; namely examples of stupidity in the Science Fora.

When I read Buzsaw's challenge, several particularly egregious postings came to mind, but after brief thought I had to acknowledge that one of my examples was of a post in "Coffee House" and clearly outside of the science forums. Two others were in a science related thread in "Great Debate" and technically speaking were not in a science forum at all.

Which is of course the point.

Give the man his proper. Buzsaw does not restrain or constrain his contributions posted to the science forums. I believe that 'Saw gives every thread he participates in his absolute, tippy-top best. He is no respecter of subject matter. Yet the cutting edged one is specially banned from the science forums. Small wonder that the singling out of his posts in the 'Science Fora' seems so unfair to him.

I'd write my Congressman, but he doesn't actually seem to represent me, so with this post, I'm addressing my complaint to the lead singer of Echo and the Bunnymen.

Yeah, I know the real reason Buzsaw is banned from the science forums. Just saying...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Panda, posted 04-04-2012 9:32 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 379 of 432 (658536)
04-05-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Percy
04-05-2012 8:31 AM


Re: Convincing Others
Percy writes:

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.

Oh, so now participants can bloviate until the cows come home that all creationists are stupid but now here at FreeForAll you've taken it upon youself, member Percy, to restrict me from posting on topic reasons why I'm not stupid, citing ideological perceptions as to what constitutes stupidity.

Imo, some posts of Panda, Paul and you, et al are stupid for failing to recognize that ideology does factor in as to one's perspective of stupidity.

For example, Paul cites what he regards as one of my stupid messages in which I argued valid ressons why the Noaic flood would implicate a vastly different planet surface and atmosphere previous to the flood. That message of his would be regarded as stupid by all floodist proponents including some doctorate scientists.

You single me out, being the loner minority creationist willing to take the heat in these thread topics, demeaning to Biblical creationists, in another of your meanspirited personal attacks.

The reason this is a lot about me is that my unique hypotheses counter some of the lame brain conventionalist YEC ones that so many of you rightfully decry;

Some of you get your idiolological oxes gored by my stuff and the bully pulpit boss won't have that. NO-SIR-EEE! .


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 360 by Percy, posted 04-05-2012 8:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Theodoric, posted 04-05-2012 9:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2012 3:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 04-06-2012 6:18 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 383 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2012 7:57 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 380 of 432 (658539)
04-05-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Buzsaw
04-05-2012 9:28 PM


Re: Convincing Others
For example, Paul cites what he regards as one of my stupid messages in which I argued valid ressons why the Noaic flood would implicate a vastly different planet surface and atmosphere previous to the flood.

Evidently you have no idea what "valid" means. You "theories" defy all scientific evidence.

That message of his would be regarded as stupid by all floodist proponents including some doctorate scientists.

Please show us these "doctorate scientists".

Some of you get your idiolological oxes gored by my stuff

I have been here a few years and I have never seen your stuff gore anyone but yourself. Buz you are a laughingstock, nothing more, nothing less.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2012 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by foreveryoung, posted 04-09-2012 8:48 PM Theodoric has responded

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


(1)
Message 381 of 432 (658548)
04-06-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Buzsaw
04-05-2012 9:28 PM


Re: Convincing Others
quote:

Oh, so now participants can bloviate until the cows come home that all creationists are stupid but now here at FreeForAll you've taken it upon youself, member Percy, to restrict me from posting on topic reasons why I'm not stupid, citing ideological perceptions as to what constitutes stupidity.

Nobody is saying that all creationists are stupid. Just that a great many of your posts are.

quote:

Imo, some posts of Panda, Paul and you, et al are stupid for failing to recognize that ideology does factor in as to one's perspective of stupidity.

And yet not one of my examples is based on ideology at all. At least not any ideology you've admitted to following.

quote:

For example, Paul cites what he regards as one of my stupid messages in which I argued valid ressons why the Noaic flood would implicate a vastly different planet surface and atmosphere previous to the flood. That message of his would be regarded as stupid by all floodist proponents including some doctorate scientists.

This is yet another stupid lie from Buzsaw. In fact Buz, you have NEVER given any valid reasons and your position is so stupid that no knowledgable YEC would endorse it. And I provided just one example of the things that you have failed to explain, in fission track dating - which you fail to answer.

quote:

The reason this is a lot about me is that my unique hypotheses counter some of the lame brain conventionalist YEC ones that so many of you rightfully decry;

And often they are even more stupid.

Look, Buz, forget your ego and actually try to be honest for once. Actually look at the examples and think about what you're doing. And maybe one day you'll be a decent human being.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2012 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

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


(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 responded

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 383 of 432 (658553)
04-06-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Buzsaw
04-05-2012 9:28 PM


Re: Convincing Others
I wish you had responded instead of just downvoting my previous post, because I thought it was pretty sympathetic to your position and I'm wondering why it didn't seem to make any impression on you.

Imo, some posts of Panda, Paul and you, et al are stupid for failing to recognize that ideology does factor in as to one's perspective of stupidity.

Well, obviously, but we know the difference. Don't you? If I made a post where I claimed that the capital of Kentucky was pronounced Louis-ville instead of Louee-ville, surely you wouldn't say to yourself that you only thought that was a stupid post because Crashfrog is an evolutionist and you're not, and that's just what they think. No, you'd say to yourself that it was a stupid post because the capital of Kentucky is Frankfort, and that's true regardless of what ideology one holds about the history and diversity of life on Earth.

Believe it or not, Buz, we understand that you're here to try to convince us that evolution is wrong. Not just wrong but bone-headed. And that's great; we want you around to try to do that. But you have to present your best possible case. And the errors you keep making aren't just our interpretation of "error" forced on your ideology. They're things that are mistakes even from your ideology, elementary errors of fact, and they don't serve your case at all. That's why even your fellow creationists don't seem to recognize you as one of their own. Ideology has nothing to do with this case - it's just a function of how you aren't being careful enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2012 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 432 (658554)
04-06-2012 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Percy
04-06-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Convincing Others
Percy writes:

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, take a good and thoughtful read of the topic title and of MrHambre's OP, Message 1.

This FreeForAll thread title implies that all creationists are essentially stupid.

Again, you choose to use your bully pulpit cite boss advantage to demean me and dictate what I must post in FreeForAll.

You continue to ignore my valid points as to why my messages are about me. It's because, as I have stated, that my unique hypotheses do not depict the conventional YEC ones and that my MO is not any more stupid (considering ideological perspectives) than that of you sheeple who's stupid Zero singularity alleged event had no space into which it could have happened, no time into which it could have happened and no outside of into which to expand.

Your stupid idiotic brainwashed ideology and arguments depict utter chaos gradually and consistently emerging into all of the immeasurably complex order and design which is observed on the planet, assuming a uniformity when in fact none of it was ever physically observed.

Your stupid ideology and that of conventional YEC creationists assumes a finite space and time Universe, when in fact the Buzsaw unbounded space and infinite time Universe best satisfies LoT One that no energy is lost or created etc.

Conventional YEC's stupidly argue for an eternal god existing and operating in a finite Universe.

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 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 382 by Percy, posted 04-06-2012 6:18 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Trixie, posted 04-06-2012 10:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 386 by Percy, posted 04-06-2012 10:27 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 385 of 432 (658556)
04-06-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Buzsaw
04-06-2012 8:24 AM


Re: Convincing Others
Buz, take a deep breath and go look up the posts by Cold Foreign Object from many moons ago. You're starting to sound awfully like him. I know that you won't see the similarity at first which is why I suggested taking a deep breath. Look at what he wrote and what you're writing, dispassionately.

Maybe you need to take a break from this site, get your thinking back on an even keel. I'm not saying this to have a go at you.


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

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


(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 yet responded

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 387 of 432 (658636)
04-07-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2012 11:57 AM


Re: A possible point for prayer
Catholic Scientist writes:

Perhaps. Isn't that kinda childish, though? Is like when I make my dog sit while I'm dangling the treat in front of her...

And if god knows everything, then he already knew that I wasn't going to ask for it before I didn't

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I don't think it is childish. If God makes certain laws, and we accept the premise that God is perfect, then he would not hypocritically disobey the laws he designed. If free will is one of his laws/principles, then he would not intervene in an individual's life unless a request for divine intervention was made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2012 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Granny Magda, posted 04-09-2012 4:15 AM bridgebuilder has responded
 Message 389 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-09-2012 9:59 AM bridgebuilder has not yet responded
 Message 411 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 10:10 AM bridgebuilder has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 388 of 432 (658725)
04-09-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by bridgebuilder
04-07-2012 2:38 PM


Re: A possible point for prayer
If God makes certain laws, and we accept the premise that God is perfect, then he would not hypocritically disobey the laws he designed.

Well obviously; if we accept a prioiri that God is perfect. If we take that as our starting point, then of course God can't be hypocritical, he's perfect after all. Surely you can see the circular logic here?

We have no reason to make any assumptions about God. In particular, it is unhelpful to make an assumption that God is perfect when the evidence in the Bible suggests otherwise.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-07-2012 2:38 PM bridgebuilder has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-09-2012 9:24 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 389 of 432 (658743)
04-09-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by bridgebuilder
04-07-2012 2:38 PM


Re: A possible point for prayer
If free will is one of his laws/principles, then he would not intervene in an individual's life unless a request for divine intervention was made.

But this would make him rather different from the God of the Bible. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, didn't ask to go mad and eat grass like an ox. The Egyptians didn't ask for seven plagues. When the first few plagues made Pharaoh decide to accede to Moses' request, he didn't ask God to "harden his heart" and make him change his mind again --- how's that for an abrogation of free will? The armies of Sennacherib didn't ask to be struck dead by the "angel of the Lord". St. Paul, back in the days when he was Saul, didn't ask for his sudden Damascene conversion. Ananias and Sapphira ... well, need I go on? If God doesn't intervene in people's lives without asking, then most of the Bible is rubbish.

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I don't think it is childish. If God makes certain laws, and we accept the premise that God is perfect, then he would not hypocritically disobey the laws he designed.

And this would argue against any sort of miracle, which definitionally breaks the laws of nature ascribed to the design of God. If your reasoning was sound, then Jesus wouldn't defy the laws of gravity and hydrodynamics by walking on water, he wouldn't have broken conservation laws with the miracle of the loaves and fishes, etc, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-07-2012 2:38 PM bridgebuilder has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 390 of 432 (658809)
04-09-2012 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Theodoric
04-05-2012 9:43 PM


Re: Convincing Others
Evidently you have no idea what "valid" means. You "theories" defy all scientific evidence.

How in the hell can a theory defy evidence? Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. You have to make a convincing argument that your "evidence" can only support your favorite view to the exclusion of all other views. That takes reasoning. You people have fucked the word "evidence" all to bloody hell. You have rigged things so that "evidence" only means anything that supports the consensus view and anything that doesn't get peer review support is by definition "not evidence". You can all go to hell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Theodoric, posted 04-05-2012 9:43 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by jar, posted 04-09-2012 11:03 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 394 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-09-2012 11:05 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 395 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2012 11:29 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 396 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2012 9:16 AM foreveryoung has not yet 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