Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 36 of 95 (332226)
07-16-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
07-12-2006 11:19 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
Hi RAZD,
Would you please clairify the sentence:
If you are going to argue for design, then you need to address both sides of the design controversy, right?
Please substitute the word evolution for the word design (both places, of course) then give some examples? Since I don't understand what design is but do understand what evolution is, the explanation will be easier for me to understand from the evolution perspective.
Thank you in advance,
Bob, Alice, and Eve
PS: I see that name-calling and derogatory statements are still the evidence of choice here. Hopefully this short conversation will be simple enough that that level of complexity will not be required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2006 11:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Belfry, posted 07-16-2006 4:07 PM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:00 PM BobAliceEve has replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 39 of 95 (332447)
07-17-2006 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
07-16-2006 10:00 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
I am interested in getting back to the discussion but must point out how ingrained your demeaning attitude is; I imagine that you do not even recognize it.
(I thought it was supposed to be bob and carol and ted and alice ...?)
Equating my name to a porn movie is insulting and demeaning. I bet you thought it was humorous? I am glad that you admit that:
Everyone is ignorant about something.
To be fair, it is not just you. A few people on both sides of this discussion do it without recognizing it. For others it is their only evidence. A Dale Carnegie course (How to win friends and influence people) seems in order. Even saying ROFLOL is demeaning - why say it? It does not contribute to the discussion. I figure that one who resorts to this really has little to say. They hope to simply win the argument by shouting the other parties down (I am sure that you know the historical significance of that). Stating facts in an unemotional way is debating at its best.
And speaking of facts, pointing out known facts (individual ignorance as you label it) is a good thing. For example, helicopters do fly for the same reason that A320's do. If one attached a left wing to both sides of an A320 (the one on the right facing to the rear) then rapidly rotated the plane clockwise it would (at least tend to) rise because the wings would act similarly as if they were moving forward (they are each moving forward with respect to the air). It is more useful, of course, to attach the wings to a rotating pole and have them spin and leave the body fairly steady.
I read the link provided. I think that the claim that it represents both sides (or the other side) of ID is misleading. In the main it is decieving because silly design does not preclude intelligent design. For example, I think it is silly (and all of the other words used including malicious) that it takes 9 hours to change the clutch on my Saturn (because the engine must be pulled) - but it is intelligent design. What you see as an argument against design I see as an argument against evolution; why would something evolve like a platapus did? I suspect that at this point you are at least tempted to tell me that I am wilfully ignorant. Please, if I missed a fact then point it out - but do not tell me that your interpertation of the fact is the only valid interpertation.
Again about the article, it is fairly devoid of discussable material. I have seen each one of those items discussed thoroughly without any change of mind. I think we do this, however, in hopes of swaying the opinion of those who are in the process of deciding. The repeated discussions have driven us to a private host if I read correctly. I would be pleased to support the forum financially by renting some space then organizing a site truly representative of facts for both sides of each issue. Then we could simply refer to the site and update it with new facts as they came along instead of repeating these long discussions.
Enjoy,
Bob, Alice, and Eve (BAE)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2006 7:48 AM BobAliceEve has replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 46 of 95 (333217)
07-19-2006 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
07-17-2006 7:48 AM


Re: what evidence for design
What evidence for design you ask - I don't care about design - and I never said that I did.
Talk about "lighten up" - I was agreeing with your statement about the helicopter's not being an example of the dragonfly. And, a funny porn movie is still a porn movie and your statement that "actually it is a comedy" is proof that you were demeaning.
Please respond to my statement that silly or malicious design does not preclude intelligent design (as in my Saturn clutch). I am interested in what you have to say. I am also interested in getting back to your post which sparked my interest.
RAZD writes:
Thus if you claim evolution is a fantasy, you should be able to demonstrate that it CAN'T be true. Making fantasy claims does not do that.
Absent such a demonstration the logical (again by the formal definition and criteria) conclusion is that it CAN be true: the realms {CAN} and {CAN'T} are mutually exclusive.
The platapus "bill", the giraffes long neck, etc, are {INSIGNIFICANT} in a discussion about evolution because there is no formula to put them into the {CAN'T} or {CAN} regions (it seems that we agree on this?). I am interested in cataloging the more commonly used facts. I want to jointly evaluate items of agreed significant evidence (possibly to be determined by the posters here). I want to eliminate all hand-waving and generalities. To do that, an editor for the {CAN} side is needed. While the editor and I may not agree on the interpertation of the facts, at least people will be able to a) refer to a logical presentation of the facts with each side's evaluation, b) evaluate our degree of fantasy/reality, and c) stop typing the same responses over and over.

The giraffe's long neck
The giraffe's long neck is suggested as evidence that evolution {CAN'T} be true.
BAE - {INSIGNIFICANT}i.e RAZD? - {INSIGNIFICANT}
BAE's statement - possibly by another author
RAZD's? statement - possibly by another author
Finally, when the forum was rehosted (due to disk space and traffic issues) a notice was sent out that space is available for rent to help support the forum. That offer may have been retracted. Please see message 1 at this link.
May we both enjoy!
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2006 7:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 8:19 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 80 by nator, posted 08-16-2006 7:01 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 48 of 95 (333913)
07-21-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
07-19-2006 8:19 AM


Re: what evidence for design
Summary of the rehosting question: This site may or may not stand on it's own.
BAE writes:
The repeated discussions have driven us to a private host if I read correctly.
RAZD writes:
Hardly. This site stands on it's own.
BAE writes:
Finally, when the forum was rehosted (due to disk space and traffic issues) a notice was sent out that space is available for rent to help support the forum.
RAZD writes:
That's why I said contact Percy.
Summary of the issue of demeaning language toward BAE: it was an attempt to equate Bob, Alice, and Eve with Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice which equals
reviewer writes:
... the possibilities of open marriage and mutual acceptance of extramarital affairs. ...
which is demeaning.
Summary of the issue of Silly design precluding Intelligent design: Silly design does not preclude intelligent design.
RAZD writes:
There is too much BAD design, LACK of design, FAILURE of design to be ignored.
Replacing the clutch in my Saturn requires 9 hours of labor and that is both silly design and intelligent design. While I have no interest in Intelligent design I can argue that Silly does not preclude Intelligent.
Sumary of the issue of {CAN} vs {CAN'T}: anything that CAN happen is equally valid as evidence for evolution, magic, creation, alien interference, etc. The theory of evolution does not have any special claim on such evidence to the preclusion of other possibilities equally falling into the {CAN} group.
RAZD writes:
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof.
Open issue: Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested in cohosting a site using space here if possible (and I'll pay) to do side by side comparision (line by line if necessary) of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution. I believe that cohosting is essential in order to expose fantasy (as RAZD so wonderfully states it) at the detail level that will be acceptable to both sides of the discussion. I will avoid the {CAN} because CAN supports all theories.
Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 8:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 07-21-2006 7:51 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2006 8:28 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2006 9:16 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 52 of 95 (335377)
07-26-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
07-21-2006 8:28 AM


Re: what evidence for design / moving on
RAZD writes:
The "repeated discussions" have not forced us to a "private" host -- the site was moved to a new host because of the volume (not the content).
"Repeated discussions" would seem to contribute to volume would it not? You need to connect the dots correctly.
RAZD writes:
You suggested setting up a site "cohosting a site ...and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution" (or design) -- a different issue than hosting this forum
Co-hosting a site to do a joint static evaluation of evidence has nothing to do with hosting this interactve forum. How did you ever connect those two dots?
porn
n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire - which certainally describes what extramarital affairs are about, does it not? More trouble connecting the dots?
Is name-calling and derogatory, especially when you have not established that it is a common, to say nothing of universal, fact. Your wide paint brush also covers your posts as well. Welcome to the club.
Stating facts is not name calling. Using phrases like "ROFLOL", calling people names like "fundie", and equating my name with a pornographic move (about extramarital affairs which is about stimulating sexual desire which is porn) are name calling, demeaning, and common. Connect the dots correctly. And thank you for admitting that there is a club which does the above - but do not include me in it.
Regarding your "moving on" post. I will maintain the site. It will be short (only one proof of {CAN'T} is required but there are a few proofs of {CAN'T} to evaluate). It will be relatively static.
Very best regards,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2006 8:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2006 10:50 AM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 8:42 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 53 of 95 (335379)
07-26-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminModulous
07-21-2006 7:51 AM


Cohosting an attached site
Thank you AdminModulous. I will take you up on the offer. I see no need for addtional discussion (i.e. the coffee house) at this time though. Certainally, if you want to trade with someone later, that might be appropriate. There will be little work for anyone including me - I will present my ideas and develop proposed proofs for evaluation. You will provide the evaluation statements - which may be statements by others. I will correct errors in my proposed proofs based on those evaluation statements. If the situation arises that I can not eliminate error from my proposed proof then the proposed proof will be identified in the site as not a proof.
Where are the specifications on managing a web site here so I can begin a plan?
Thanks again,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 07-21-2006 7:51 AM AdminModulous has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5509 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 83 of 95 (340734)
08-17-2006 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by MangyTiger
08-16-2006 8:23 PM


Re: what evidence for design
Sorry folks, a big new garden and yard has sucked me in. I have a couple projects to finish up (before the rain starts for 10 months) followed by a short vacation. I would guess early September.
The rating by the movie industry of R and the review's point that it is about sexual relationships makes it porn (designed to be sexually stimulating according to the dictionary).
Oscars? Wow, I really missed that; I guess by not showing up!!
Very best regards,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by MangyTiger, posted 08-16-2006 8:23 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 08-17-2006 5:16 PM BobAliceEve 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