Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 166 of 517 (325103)
06-22-2006 11:52 PM


The only way that thread is going to be functional is if people stop interrogating me as if I were a scientist which I'm not, and try to deal with what they understand to be YEC objections.
What *exactly* WOULD happen to workaday science if you had to work with a different time frame in mind? Tell ME since you think it would be so devastating. Explain how FACTS, DATA and hypothesizing about them would be specifically affected by having a different time frame in mind.
What is really frustrating is having to encounter these ridiculously irrelevant straw man arguments in the middle of such a discussion. Do I really have to answer again this stupid idea that YEC's are challenging the kind of science that has brought us technological advances? Are people that ignorant about what YEC is trying to say? Do I really have to deal with this imputing to me the utterly ridiculous idea that I must think that a mile's deep stack of sediments was laid down SIMULTANEOUSLY?? Are you THINKING?
I'd just as soon the thread stays closed since dealing with this kind of stupidity is not worth it. Of course you can open it and I'll just leave if you like and you can congratulate each other on your straw men.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Omnivorous, posted 06-22-2006 11:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 169 by arachnophilia, posted 06-23-2006 1:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 167 of 517 (325105)
06-22-2006 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
06-22-2006 11:52 PM


I'd just as soon the thread stays closed since dealing with this kind of stupidity is not worth it. Of course you can open it and I'll just leave if you like and you can congratulate each other on your straw men.
Faith, luv, the thread is not about you. You don't have to participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 11:56 PM Omnivorous has replied

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


Message 168 of 517 (325106)
06-22-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Omnivorous
06-22-2006 11:54 PM


That's what I said Omni. I'll leave and you can all congratulate each other since you won't have a YEC to set you straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Omnivorous, posted 06-22-2006 11:54 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Omnivorous, posted 06-23-2006 8:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 169 of 517 (325120)
06-23-2006 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
06-22-2006 11:52 PM


That's what I said Omni. I'll leave and you can all congratulate each other since you won't have a YEC to set you straight.
a yec to set us straight about science -- when the yec keeps proclaiming ignorance of the subject? it seems to me that running into an argument and shouting "I DON'T KNOW!" at the top of your lungs is not the best way to win it.
What *exactly* WOULD happen to workaday science if you had to work with a different time frame in mind? Tell ME since you think it would be so devastating. Explain how FACTS, DATA and hypothesizing about them would be specifically affected by having a different time frame in mind.
this is why we need the thread open, so people can answer this very claim. because facts are not determined by frame of mind. geology is not philosophy or a mindset, it's a science.
Are people that ignorant about what YEC is trying to say? Do I really have to deal with this imputing to me the utterly ridiculous idea that I must think that a mile's deep stack of sediments was laid down SIMULTANEOUSLY?? Are you THINKING?
yes, faith, i am thinking. the problem is that many yec's are not. i apologize for misrepresenting your position, but you should realize that many yec's do deny the law of superposition. i did not just make that position up out of thin air.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 11:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 170 of 517 (325121)
06-23-2006 1:26 AM


Would Like to Clarify
Regarding the topic Appeal for Multidisciplinary Outlet. Adminnemousses states:
quote:
This topic is a follow up to my closing of the YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution.
Not entirely, to me it was rather a trigger to what has been bouncing around in my head for a few months. The concept has become particularly strong recently since I am reading "The Courtier and the Heretic" and it covers the differences between Spinoza and Liebniz in philosophy, religion, politics, and science.
To whom it may concern: please treat my suggestion in Appeal for a Multidisciplinary Outlet as a completely independent suggestion, not as part of the closed thread concerning YEC Problems with Science Above and Beyond Evolution.
Sorry if I am in the wrong place. Just wanted to clarify what I meant.

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by arachnophilia, posted 06-23-2006 1:56 AM anglagard has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 171 of 517 (325133)
06-23-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by anglagard
06-23-2006 1:26 AM


Re: Would Like to Clarify
ahem, um.
the problem with this debate is that it IS multidisciplinary. which means that fights tend to carry across threads. in other words, "too late."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by anglagard, posted 06-23-2006 1:26 AM anglagard has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 172 of 517 (325134)
06-23-2006 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Adminnemooseus
06-22-2006 10:01 PM


Re: The"YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution" topic
moose, in the other thread, you wrote:
Almost all of the other opinions are that I was wrong in closing this topic. I think all those opinions are wrong and that this topic is a disaster area in the making, but the micro-masses have spoken.
isn't nearly every topic here a disaster in the making? lol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-22-2006 10:01 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 173 of 517 (325228)
06-23-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
06-22-2006 11:56 PM


Faith writes:
That's what I said Omni. I'll leave and you can all congratulate each other since you won't have a YEC to set you straight.
Well, I hadn't participated there. There are so many threads at EvC that I now consider carefully where I want to get involved, given the demands that are typically (and rightly) made for evidence and responses. Of course, if Percy would put me on the payroll, I'd just post all day!
My intention was simply to suggest that you just let some threads go.
If you do a drive-by broadside, esp. with excoriating terms like idiotic or silly, and then expect to walk away or only sporadically participate in the thread, you've done a disservice to your own position and to the other participants.
But I mostly intended to suggest letting some things go by without you to promote your peace of mind. I'm always happy to see a YEC supporter in any debate. I have little interest in an amen chorus of scientists or anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 11:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 517 (327132)
06-28-2006 10:58 AM


Iano's "Moral Argument for God"
My suggested rephrasing of Premise 1
1 Transcendant objective values of good and evil only exist if God exists.
(That seems the easiest phrasing in plain English. Using the notation of formal logic I'd go for the equivalent of "The nonexistence of God implies the nonexistence of transcendant objective values of good and evil").
{At the moment, what this refers to is obvious. For future reference, it is about this "Proposed New Topic". When refering to things in other topics, supplying links is a good thing. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed previous edit a bit. Use "preview" dummy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-28-2006 11:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 175 of 517 (327142)
06-28-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PaulK
06-28-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Iano's "Moral Argument for God"
1 Transcendant objective values of good and evil only exist if God exists.
The above suggestion is good, but... - The premise 1 of the PNT is rather muddled.
Are we doing "If God, then..." or are we doing "If..., then God"?
Your suggestion could be rephrased "If God exists, then transcendant objective values of good and evil exist". Iano seems to be doing "If transcendant objective values of good and evil exist, then God exists".
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 10:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 11:24 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 517 (327146)
06-28-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Adminnemooseus
06-28-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Iano's "Moral Argument for God"
You're wrong about the rephrasing - "only...if" implies a necessary but not sufficient condition. However your phrasing might make Iano's argument a little clearer. However I don't think that that is much of an issue because the argument is formally valid, but the truth of the premises is very much in question (the 2nd in the sense that we need to identify the observed "evil" as objective evil - which is rather hard to do withotu adding more premises).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-28-2006 11:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 177 of 517 (327706)
06-30-2006 9:00 AM


robins thread about logic
I am game to participate in a many vs many GD as long as robin agrees to keep it civil. By necessity of the argument I will be attacking the basis for his reasoning. If he continues to find this "offensive" then I have will nothing more to say.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2006 9:06 AM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 180 by robinrohan, posted 06-30-2006 10:19 AM Jazzns has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 178 of 517 (327707)
06-30-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Jazzns
06-30-2006 9:00 AM


Re: robins thread about logic
If Robin wants to discuss the differences between formal logic and informal reasoning then I'm game.
However I have serious doubts about the OP if that is to be the subject. Essentially it says "I have a criticism of Jazzns's debating style - he criticises my debating style and that's wrong". If the OP is just an excuse for having a go at Jazz - and relies on a double standard to do so - then I don't think that it should be promoted as is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Jazzns, posted 06-30-2006 9:00 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by AdminPD, posted 06-30-2006 9:19 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 179 of 517 (327713)
06-30-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by PaulK
06-30-2006 9:06 AM


Re: robins thread about logic
That is my concern as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2006 9:06 AM PaulK has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 517 (327734)
06-30-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Jazzns
06-30-2006 9:00 AM


Re: robins thread about logic

Not a debate thread. Save that for the thread if it gets promoted.

If he continues to find this "offensive" then I have will nothing more to say.
What's offensive is the sweeping generalization, the blanket condemnation.
Edited by AdminJar, : Off Topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Jazzns, posted 06-30-2006 9:00 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 06-30-2006 10:52 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 182 by Jazzns, posted 06-30-2006 11:11 AM robinrohan 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