Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why I am creationist
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 210 (549833)
03-10-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coyote
03-10-2010 11:01 PM


I see. So they didn't go away, they just rebranded themselves
I wonder if there was ever a moment of confusion where they called themselves "cinquisition proponentists".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 11:01 PM Coyote has not replied

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 197 of 210 (549843)
03-11-2010 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dr Adequate
03-10-2010 10:42 PM


Its pretty simple actually, You used the word lies and I asked you to back it up, you never did. Instead you spin and obfuscate. Typical, so predictable. If you and coyote are some of the heavyweights around here, well you bore me, and it's a fairly lame site then. Apparently though you need your echo chamber, and you have it here.
In fact I think I'll propose a new topic for a name to this forum that more accurately reflects it tenor. I'll suggest it be changed to "Evolutionist echo chamber" with a sub title of "No Dissent allowed"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2010 10:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 3:28 AM IchiBan has replied
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2010 3:42 AM IchiBan has not replied
 Message 203 by Taq, posted 03-11-2010 11:47 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 198 of 210 (549846)
03-11-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by IchiBan
03-11-2010 3:09 AM


In fact I think I'll propose a new topic for a name to this forum that more accurately reflects it tenor. I'll suggest it be changed to "Evolutionist echo chamber" with a sub title of "No Dissent allowed"
Have you been disciplined, suspended, or censored for expressing different views?
Or have people simply disagreed with you?
It would seem, Ichi, that dissenting opinions are very much allowed here...but as this is a debate forum, they tend to be met with a number of people who like to debate on those dissenting views.
Peg, Buzsaw, and ICANT to put out a few examples have been members here for quite some time despite being staunch Creationists. Buz in particular has some views that are rejected vehemently by the majority here...and yet he's never once been suspended for expressing those views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by IchiBan, posted 03-11-2010 3:09 AM IchiBan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by IchiBan, posted 03-11-2010 5:07 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 210 (549848)
03-11-2010 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by IchiBan
03-11-2010 3:09 AM


May I take it that your latest temper tantrum was intended as a reply to message #183 rather than #184? Only it makes even less sense as a reply to message #184. (Of course, I am here once more assuming that your statements are intended to make sense. Stop me if I'm wrong.)
Its pretty simple actually, You used the word lies and I asked you to back it up, you never did. Instead you spin and obfuscate.
But that is not true, is it?
I should perhaps explain to you that your words don't alter reality.
Typical, so predictable. If you and coyote are some of the heavyweights around here, well you bore me, and it's a fairly lame site then. Apparently though you need your echo chamber, and you have it here.
Well, I guess when you've got nothing else, personal abuse will have to do. It may not be a valid argument, but I guess it makes you feel better.
In fact I think I'll propose a new topic for a name to this forum that more accurately reflects it tenor. I'll suggest it be changed to "Evolutionist echo chamber" with a sub title of "No Dissent allowed"
I can see why you'd like to have the very title of the forum be a flat lie. But you see, as dissent is in fact allowed (as you know perfectly well), and as the rantings of creationists do not in fact echo the statements of evolutionists, Percy is unlikely to accept your suggestion that he should involve himself in such a shameless untruth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by IchiBan, posted 03-11-2010 3:09 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 200 of 210 (549853)
03-11-2010 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rahvin
03-11-2010 3:28 AM


Thanks for your insight and input on this. However I already put my opinion in the proposed new topics area so I will have to take whatever flaming or mod action that comes out of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 3:28 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


(1)
Message 201 of 210 (549854)
03-11-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by IchiBan
03-10-2010 1:47 AM


quote:
And I am supposed to take your word over what is published over several different sources with notes?
Get real Ichiban.
You're 'quoting' something from Keith that is in contradiction to published statements of his that actually exist in real documents. You supply no original source, because there is no original source.
Here's something from his introduction to the origin of species:-
quote:
It was Darwin, through this book, who changed the outlook of all gatherers of knowledge and made them realise that behind the field of their immediate inquiry lay an immense evolutionary or historical background which had to be explored before further progress was possible. Nay, it was Darwin who made men see that evolution is now everywhere at work -- in all things material, moral and spiritual, and will continue in operation, so far as the human mind can anticipate, to the very end of time.
The Origin of Species (1934) p.xix
Are you aware that Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955? So that any statement he made on any subject must be at least 55 years old? Why do creationists quote (or in this case invent quotes from) old scientists? This quote is fictitious - but even if it weren't, scientists do not care what views were held by people before the modern evidence for evolution was available.
So, without doubt, as Dr A is claiming, this is a creationist lie. You may be passing it on in good faith, but your source is lying to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by IchiBan, posted 03-10-2010 1:47 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 202 of 210 (549898)
03-11-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by IchiBan
03-09-2010 10:00 PM


On quotes and their validity
Hi Ichi,
Others have taken the tactic of discrediting your quotes from Ruse, Keith and Wald, saying that the quotes are "Creationist lies."
I'm going to take a different tactic:
Who cares what Ruse, Keith, and Wald may or may not have said? Regardless of the authenticity of those quotes, they still represent an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy.
This means that their statements, even if valid, are still irrelevant and do nothing to support your argument.
The person making an argument is irrelevant. Only the argument itself, its logical consistency, and the evidence supporting it are relevant.
In teh case of the Theory of Evolution...there is more than ample evidence, both deduced from evidence in the fossil record and cladistic taxonomy, and directly observed in genetics, breeding experiments in the laboratory, direct observation of populations in the wild, etc that supports the theory that life's diversity increases over generations through a process of descent with modification guided by natural selection.
Claiming that people pursue evolution with "religious fervor" is irrelevant. Claiming that it functions as an alternative for supernatural Creation is both irrelevant and wrong (the vast majority of those who support the Theory of Evolution as accurate are in fact theists who believe in God. Claiming that evolution implies Spontaneous Generation is factually incorrect (the Theory of Evolution makes no statement on the origin of life, only on the origin of new species as they arise from pre-existing life). The arguments put forth in your quotes are irrelevant and/or wrong, and do not in any way refute the Theory of Evolution.
If you'd like to discuss the Theory of Evolution in detail, including attempting to refute it with evidence and logical argument, propose a new thread for the Science forums where we'll all be held to those standards.
Attacking any position with authoritative quotes, however, does nothing to assail an actual argument. It works quite well in politics, granted, but not in a moderated debate forum like this one. Appeals to Authority, Popularity, Emotion, Consequence, etc are all just logical fallacies and mean that any argument based on them is invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IchiBan, posted 03-09-2010 10:00 PM IchiBan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 11:52 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 203 of 210 (549902)
03-11-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by IchiBan
03-11-2010 3:09 AM


Its pretty simple actually, You used the word lies and I asked you to back it up, you never did.
The proof is your inability to cite any viable reference for these quotes. You claim that these people made these statements, so where is your proof?
Instead you spin and obfuscate. Typical, so predictable.
So says the guy who replaces evidence with a persecution complex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by IchiBan, posted 03-11-2010 3:09 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 204 of 210 (549903)
03-11-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rahvin
03-11-2010 11:28 AM


Re: On quotes and their validity
quote:
Who cares what Ruse, Keith, and Wald may or may not have said? Regardless of the authenticity of those quotes, they still represent an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy.
I don't buy this 'appeal to authority' point. In the end, all the evidence we look at has been put together by other people. Most of us here don't actually do the science. We trust what the 'authorities' tell us about what they have found AND often they tell us what it means.
If a true expert in a field expresses a view, then it's usually worth taking note of it. It may not always be right, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. I trust what Cavediver says about physics for example and I don't check everything he says.
If someone who is a true expert in evolution were genuinely to say 'we have a serious gap around macroevolution' for example, that would indeed be something worth paying attention to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 11:28 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 12:16 PM Peepul has replied
 Message 208 by nwr, posted 03-11-2010 1:43 PM Peepul has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 205 of 210 (549904)
03-11-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by IchiBan
03-10-2010 1:47 AM


And I am supposed to take your word over what is published over several different sources with notes?
No, you are supposed to go look them up for yourself!
As we ourselves have. Which is why we know for a fact that your creationists sources are lying!
What? You didn't even think of verifying those quotes? Why not? You don't ever need to take anyone's word for anything -- especially not what a creationist tells you -- ; go look it up for yourself!
The wonderful thing about most creationist claims is that the simple act of looking up the purported source is sufficient to disprove the claim. I guess that's why creationists refuse to verify any of the claims that they regurgitate; they'd just be disproving their own claims to themselves.
Edited by dwise1, : improved wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by IchiBan, posted 03-10-2010 1:47 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 206 of 210 (549908)
03-11-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Peepul
03-11-2010 11:52 AM


Re: On quotes and their validity
I don't buy this 'appeal to authority' point. In the end, all the evidence we look at has been put together by other people. Most of us here don't actually do the science. We trust what the 'authorities' tell us about what they have found AND often they tell us what it means.
There's an important distinction between appealing to the authority of a person and accepting an expert's explanation. In the former, no actual argument is made - the statements boil down to "because this guys says so." In the latter, there is an actual argument.
Look at the quotes Ichi presented. there's no arguemtn in there. They simply say "evolution is a religion" and "evolution is accepted because we're uncomfortable with creationism." There's no evidence, no logical argument, no explanation.
When cavediver tells us something, it would be perfectly acceptable for a Creationist to say "why should we believe you?" After all, that's what many of us say to the Creationists, and turnabout is fair play. I don't question cavediver because I know just enough to know that I don't understand cosmology, physics, and math enough to actually debate on his level on those subjects. That doesn't mean Creationists should just take him at his word - in a science thread he's just as bound to requirements for evidence as anyone else. That the Creationists tend not to actually avail themselves of that option and instead fall back to faith doesn't make my trust of cavediver a logical fallacy. You'll note that I don't ever say to ICANT in those threads, "you're wrong, because cavediver said so."
If a true expert in a field expresses a view, then it's usually worth taking note of it. It may not always be right, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. I trust what Cavediver says about physics for example and I don't check everything he says.
If someone who is a true expert in evolution were genuinely to say 'we have a serious gap around macroevolution' for example, that would indeed be something worth paying attention to.
Certainly. Yet it's not actually in and of itself a refutation of evolution. That would require pointing out specific inaccuracies and logical breaks in the evolutionary model, or discrediting the evidence it rests on or the predictions it makes.
What it all boils down to is this: if a person is arguing that x is true because person y said so, then that is the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, and teh argument is invalid (even if the conclusion turns out to be right). What I'm doing by calling out the fallacy is telling Ichi that to actually discredit evolution, he'll need to actually provide a critical analysis of the theory and show, with evidence and logic, where it breaks down and why it is false. "This guy said so" is irrelevant - if Richard Dawkins suddenly converted to Christianity tomorrow, I wouldn't count that as a refutation of atheism, and the same if the Pope suddenly converted to Islam.
Whether you "buy it" or not, an Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 11:52 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 12:29 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 207 of 210 (549913)
03-11-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rahvin
03-11-2010 12:16 PM


Re: On quotes and their validity
quote:
There's an important distinction between appealing to the authority of a person and accepting an expert's explanation. In the former, no actual argument is made - the statements boil down to "because this guys says so." In the latter, there is an actual argument.
That's true, but it's a matter of degree. In the end, it comes down to what it takes to convince ourselves that something is true. In practice, for me at least, if I understand an argument, it makes sense, and the person making it has expertise in the field, I'm much more ready to accept it than an equivalent argument made by someone who does not have expertise. I don't have time to analyse all arguments in enough detail to check they are true (eg, in a scientific paper, does the conclusion really follow from the data, as the author says?). I am accepting authority, and I believe we all do that to some extent, except for the practitioners in a field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 12:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2010 1:48 PM Peepul has not replied
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 03-11-2010 2:22 PM Peepul has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 208 of 210 (549924)
03-11-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Peepul
03-11-2010 11:52 AM


Re: On quotes and their validity
Peepul writes:
I don't buy this 'appeal to authority' point. In the end, all the evidence we look at has been put together by other people. Most of us here don't actually do the science. We trust what the 'authorities' tell us about what they have found AND often they tell us what it means.
I don't agree with that.
We pay attention to what the authorities say. But we don't automatically accept it on the basis that they are authorities.
It is true, however, that most of us are not collecting our own evidence. So we do rely on reports of evidence. But we generally look at the preponderance of such reports rather than basing our acceptance on the credentials of a single authority.
May that's a subtle distinction, but I think it is an important one.
Peepul writes:
If a true expert in a field expresses a view, then it's usually worth taking note of it.
I agree with that. But taking note of what the expert says is a lot different from automatically accepting it based only on the authority of that expert. Experts can still be wrong from time to time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 11:52 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 209 of 210 (549925)
03-11-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Peepul
03-11-2010 12:29 PM


Re: On quotes and their validity
Quite simply, there's a difference between what "we all do" in everyday life and how we practice debate on a debate forum.
For one, I'm much nicer in real life
For me, part of the point of participating in debate is to find those parts of my own views where I am committing logical fallacies in my everyday life that I wasn't able to see myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 12:29 PM Peepul has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 210 of 210 (549930)
03-11-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Peepul
03-11-2010 12:29 PM


Re: On quotes and their validity
That's true, but it's a matter of degree. In the end, it comes down to what it takes to convince ourselves that something is true.
Any argument must pass the initial smell test. If you can show that a leader/expert in a field has come to the same conclusions as you have then it passes the initial smell test. It's a way of saying, "See!!! I'm not crazy!!". An appeal to authority is a way of enticing interest in your argument, and it is also a way of ensuring others that you aren't nucking futs.
For example, let's say you had never heard of quantum mechanics. I tell you that light can act as both a wave and particle, but not both at the same time. You find such an idea to be laughable. I then tell you that thousands of physicists also believe that light can act as both a particle and a wave. Now it isn't so laughable, and it might even be true. You will still want to see the evidence, and rightly so, but you are more likely to take the idea seriously now then you were before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 12:29 PM Peepul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024