Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proposed Rules for Debates
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 16 of 44 (722678)
03-24-2014 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
03-24-2014 8:53 AM


Faith writes:
Of course your proposal is a sham, Pressie, since you know that the creationists here don't have the technical geological knowledge it would take to engage you on the level of terminological jargon you are presenting.
Yet, creationists tell everyone that all those scientists who have studied the Clarens formation, presenting their research in peer-reviewed scientific articles; as M.Sc's; as Ph.D.'s; in mine modelling, etc. all are wrong. Without even one of those creationists ever looking at a rock from the Clarens Formation.
Faith writes:
But what could be very interesting is if you presented a Proposed Topic on the Clarens formation and what you think it proves about the Old Earth or evolution or whatever your main interest is, and let us all ponder the information and respond. ABE: And unless you want to talk only to yourself or to other geologists, please try to avoid technical language.
Clarens (Town in the Free State, RSA, where those rocks outcrops were first described). Mountain (big, stacked rocks). Rock (A collection of minerals). Outcrop. (Rocks found on surface of the earth). Borehole (Drill down into rocks to pull out samples of rocks). Geology (A natural science studying things such as rocks).
Simple enough?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 8:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 9:59 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 24 by roxrkool, posted 03-24-2014 10:34 PM Pressie has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 17 of 44 (722679)
03-24-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-21-2014 8:32 AM


"shotgun fallacy"
Making stuff up now, are we?
Providing too many arguments is not a fallacy. And in a written debate, there is always an opportunity to respond over time. This is not like a timed debate where it is possible to chew up the time of the other side.
When there is lots of evidence for one side, and none for the other, the debate is going to look one sided. That cannot be helped.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 8:32 AM lokiare has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 10:04 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 44 (722691)
03-24-2014 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Pressie
03-24-2014 9:04 AM


Clarens formation
Well, I'd really like to see you do a proposal to discuss this formation about which you are obviously very knowledgeable. I'd like to know what you see in those bore samples for instance and what you think they prove.
Nobody doubts the basic expertise of the geologists here, we have a different overview of what it's all about, that's all. And of course you may present your evidence on that level too.
I'd really like to read about the Clarens Formation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 9:04 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 44 (722692)
03-24-2014 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
03-24-2014 9:05 AM


"shotgun fallacy"
Making stuff up now, are we?
You aren't being fair to lokiare. There is such a thing as a Shotgun Fallacy. Put "shotgun fallacy" into Google. The first entry has this:
Shotgun argumentation — the arguer offers such a large number of ...
And you can go to Wikipedia to get the rest of the sentence.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2014 9:05 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2014 10:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2014 10:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 44 (722693)
03-24-2014 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
03-24-2014 10:04 AM


Shotgun argumentation may be a problem, but is it a logical fallacy?
Only if we count the victor as the person with the most text or who gets the last word. But there is nothing fallacious about offering a large number of valid arguments and evidence.
And that is particularly true if the other side claims you have no evidence.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 10:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 10:15 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 44 (722694)
03-24-2014 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
03-24-2014 10:10 AM


Well, technically speaking I'd agree with you that calling it a fallacy doesn't seem quite right, although it is an unfair form of argument which is probably why it got that classification. And it IS classed as a fallacy by Wikipedia, as I learned when I googled it, so you can't fault lokiare for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2014 10:10 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 22 of 44 (722698)
03-24-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
03-24-2014 10:04 AM


Also called Gish Gallop:
quote:
Shotgun argumentation — the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
It's listed as an "informal fallacy" which means "arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content" ... ie - you need to demonstrate that there is not sufficient time to answer in a written debate in order to apply this fallacy.
So this doesn't apply to written debates where one can take the items one at a time and the other is waiting for replies before continuing.
Of course when mindspawn lists things he wants to see or states fantasy concepts and there are 50 different pieces of evidence for each item on one side and zero on the other it is more difficult to invent replies other than to demand more items to be provided, resulting in more mountains of evidence being presented.
The shotgun fallacy was used by mindspawn as part of his red-herring approach to avoiding the obvious - that tree rings provided a very strong validation of 14C dating.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 10:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 23 of 44 (722699)
03-24-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by lokiare
03-21-2014 9:49 AM


The thread was "Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD"
I started that debate, and RAZD finished it.
The debate started out with Mindspawn not even understanding what he was debating. He was complaining about "calibration" in radiocarbon dating when he meant "corroboration." The only thing he knew about radiocarbon dating was that he was against it because of the results it produced.
What logical fallacy is it when one side refuses to accept any evidence that counters their religious beliefs? [Answer = creationism]

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 9:49 AM lokiare has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(3)
Message 24 of 44 (722775)
03-24-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Pressie
03-24-2014 9:04 AM


Pressie is two edumacated
You and your "basic" geologic knowledge are confounding the Creationists, Pressie. Don't you know it's in poor taste and thoroughly unfair of you to flaunt your education? And using scientific jargon that forces people to look things up, is just beyond the pale.
For shame!!
Shall we add those rules as well??
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 9:04 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 11:56 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 25 of 44 (722777)
03-24-2014 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by roxrkool
03-24-2014 10:34 PM


Re: Pressie is two edumacated
Faith doen't realise that I got paid by a mining company to do extensive work on the Clarens Formation. For many years. Hopefully I can discuss the fact that I do have a day job?
They don't realise that geology is a practically applicable natural science. That's why it's there. They tend to think that 'evolutionist' atheist (spit-spit) geologists just sit back in arm-chairs at Uni all their lives trying to theoretically discuss and 'proof' the Magic Fluddy wrong...
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by roxrkool, posted 03-24-2014 10:34 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 6:13 AM Pressie has replied
 Message 41 by roxrkool, posted 03-25-2014 9:48 PM Pressie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 44 (722791)
03-25-2014 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Pressie
03-24-2014 11:56 PM


Re: Pressie is two edumacated
Just to clear up something I hope: I certainly didn't mean to imply anything insulting by my use of the word "basic." I don't know why I used it, in a rush as usual I guess, because it's clearly not the best choice of wording. I think I must have meant something like "indubitable" or "all-around" or "complete" as I do think of Pressie as expert in his field, same as I think of roxy and Petrophysics and edge and other geologists who have shown up here. I have no doubt whatever that they know their work.
Of course there is nothing a creationist can say about how we see some things differently that won't offend, but I do think that the age of the earth is NOT something you all can know, because I don't think anybody can know it, and that's IT. That requires trying to find evidence against the Old Earth which requires thinking about some areas of geology, but nobody is calling into question the expertise of the working geologists, far from it.
ABE: Oh, and I DID figure that Pressie had special knowledge of the Clarens Formation because he's brought it up here before.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 11:56 PM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 6:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 27 of 44 (722793)
03-25-2014 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
03-25-2014 6:13 AM


Re: Pressie is two edumacated
Faith writes:
but I do think that the age of the earth is NOT something you all can know,
Yes, we can. The earth is very, very old. Way more than a few thousand years. That's a fact. We all know it by just looking at a rock or two.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 6:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 6:22 AM Pressie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 44 (722794)
03-25-2014 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Pressie
03-25-2014 6:20 AM


Re: Pressie is two edumacated
You can see how old a rock is by looking at it? That is an illusion, an illusion born of theory at best.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 6:20 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 6:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 29 of 44 (722799)
03-25-2014 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
03-25-2014 6:22 AM


Re: Pressie is two edumacated
Sure can. I can see how old a Clarens rock is just by looking at it. That's after studying those rocks for many, many years. It's called experience.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 6:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 7:29 AM Pressie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 44 (722807)
03-25-2014 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Pressie
03-25-2014 6:54 AM


Re: Pressie is two edumacated
I'm sure you can tell what age has been assigned by the theory to that rock, that I don't doubt, but its actual age, no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 6:54 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 7:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024