Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread

[Gnu Ordure]

UP:

Yeah I understand that sentiment. That's why I split it up into 3 posts.

That doesn't really help, UP. It's still a giant response, in toto, compared to his previous one.

What you could do is agree to confine yourselves to the maximum word-count of one post; I don't how much that is, but it's surely sufficient for debating purposes...

[screwtape]

However, there are aspects of it that deserve scrutiny and criticism. There are a number of reasons for making this statement...

The best reason is "that's science".  Science is all about scrutiny and criticism.  It is how we make sure we got it right.  Since Darwin published his findings, the theory of evolution has received possibly more scrutiny and criticism than any other theory in science.  This does not make it the weakest. Rather the opposite.  Because of this scrutiny and criticism, it may be the strongest theory in all science.

Is it possible that the research, studies, and conclusions within evolutionary science are conducted with an inherent dictate to prove that evolution is valid and provable….at all costs. Certainly, science is just as susceptible to corruption as, say, Wallstreet. Consider the following:

How about considering this instead: corruption and falsification in science will be rooted out. That is one of the reasons why we use the scientific method.  Consider also corruption in theology.  Who has more to gain from corruption?  The scientist or the huckster holy man?  And whom is the one making the testable claims?  A scientist claims he's developed cold fusion.  Great.  Let me try it out.  But a priest claims god told him to screw your hot 16 year old daughter?  How dare you question god.  You lack faith.

in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

what the flip?  "Irrefutable proof"?  You are demanding irrefutable proof?  You who worships an invisible, mute god who demands that no tests be applied to it?  You cannot be serious.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism- 100 Scientists who are skeptical of evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Funny how few biologists there are and how many have backgrounds in  mathemetics, philosophy of science, astronomy, signal and image processing, physics, plasma physics, etc.  I think it is fair to say they either do not know what they are talking about OR like all good scientists, they are saying we should be skeptical of all of our knowledge.  As in, "of course we could be wrong about it, but it is the best explanation we have."  I am not the first to say this.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Expertise_relevance
Check out the part where people say the Discovery Institute was misleading when they asked them to sign.  Talk about ethics and fraud.  What a pack of liars.  I thought xians were supposed to be better, more moral than us? 

You should be ashamed, biblestudent.  Very ashamed.  Hang your head and beg baby jesus to forgive you for such a lame argument.

[Emergence]

in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

If you are talking about me here, you are totally misrepresenting my position - again. And profoundly so.

Edit: Re-read the original thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15330.msg342469#msg342469

[Azdgari]

It's pretty clear he is talking about you here.  And lying about you, as you point out.

He'd rather point Gestapo officers to Jews than tell a lie to keep them alive, so I can't begin to imagine what horrors are compelling him into committing this lie.

[Operator_020]

Emergence,

You have my permission to correct the record on this point.  If one of the key points of his argument is in fact a misrepresentation of your words, then it is fair - to you and to UniversityPastor - that you get a shot to clarify your position. You may have one post.  UniversityPastor will have to take it from that point though as I do not think it would be good to have a back and forth with you involved.

020

[Azdgari]

And now BibleStudent has decided to interpret Emergence's words in a way in which he did not intend, and indeed in a way which he has explicitly stated - afterward - that he did not intend.

He then decided to lie about Emergence's position.  Again, if saving lives isn't cause for lying (according to BibleStudent), then what is forcing his hand in this instance?

[Emergence]

It is an abysmal brazenness that BS displays and it is one of the reasons i can not, in any form, respect most figures from the YEC and ID movement, now also including him. BibleStudent, you are one objectionable contemporary.

From the late in the thread (after the post BS quoted):

I still think you changed direction late in the game, but I am not going to accuse you outright of dishonesty.

I am not satisfied with this. There's nothing that i would have had to define about my position earlier. I think it is very clear that any position a person takes or any knowledge someone holds can be wrong. I didn't change anything about my position. You just didn't understand it.

(my emphasis)

.

[jetson]

And now BibleStudent has decided to interpret Emergence's words in a way in which he did not intend, and indeed in a way which he has explicitly stated - afterward - that he did not intend.

He then decided to lie about Emergence's position.  Again, if saving lives isn't cause for lying (according to BibleStudent), then what is forcing his hand in this instance?

Be careful there, apparently we need to treat BS with kid gloves.  Some of God's people really are special!

[Azdgari]

Calling him on a lie is fair if one can directly reference the lie and show that it is a lie (rather than simply being mistaken).  Especially if it's a lie about an individual on the forum.

Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.

[Omen]

Calling him on a lie is fair if one can directly reference the lie and show that it is a lie (rather than simply being mistaken).  Especially if it's a lie about an individual on the forum.

Including examining the logical possibilities of motivations behind the action, ie intentional lie or subconscious action.  We are well beyond establishing that it is in fact a falsehood, next comes the interpretation of the reasoning.

Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.

Which no one is doing or has done.

[Emergence]

I don't call BS a liar, because i think he simply doesn't get what i am saying and that he is probably unfamiliar with the concept that any knowledge - regardless how reliable the foundation is seen to be - may be erroneous. I don't think that he thinks about his knowledge in the same way as i do about mine.

[Azdgari]

Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.

Which no one is doing or has done.

Not in this thread.  Jetson was chastised by a mod a while back for trolling elsewhere, and is acting out for it here.

I don't call BS a liar, because i think he simply doesn't get what i am saying and that he is probably unfamiliar with the concept that any knowledge - regardless how reliable the foundation is seen to be - may be erroneous. I don't think that he thinks about his knowledge in the same way as i do about mine.

That would be a fair comment on the original thread, Emergence, but not here and now.  He has had time to read and process your responses to him in the interim, and has pretended that you never made them.

[Emergence]

Well, i simply entertain the possibility that - due to the divergence of our philosophical understanding of 'knowledge' - everything i said in the original thread after "I may be wrong" flew right over his head. Regardless of that, i find it really aggravating that he doesn't even make an effort of understanding now that it has been pointed out clearly to him.

On the other hand: I said what i had to say and it is on record in the debate thread and therefore i am done with this episode. Additionally UP has done a really nice job in further illustrating my point. All that this incident now does is showing how big the discrepancies between BS train of thought and valid reasoning really are. At least to me it does.  

[jetson]

Not in this thread.  Jetson was chastised by a mod a while back for trolling elsewhere, and is acting out for it here.

Back on topic please.  I was mistaken, and have discussed offline.

[UniversityPastor]

Okay Crowd, I need a ruling.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my posts

I worked hard on those, for a good hour.

There's some really great stuff in there. Did you see my bit on blowing up the universe? I really want to see him respond to it!

So I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Do I play his game? or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

[Emergence]

As 'burned child' i am naturally not in favor of letting BS play his games and dictate the rules of conversation. To me this has turned out to be very counterproductive. Not that i am sure that strict rules will improve the overall quality of conversation, but at least it is more educational that way.

[catlady]

Okay Crowd, I need a ruling.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my posts
So I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Do I play his game? or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

 IMO, I think BS should try to answer all 3 posts as best he can manage, in the formal debate structure/ format as agreed to, since debate was begun and has continued in that manner. I'm not sure why he thinks he "can't begin to respond" but that impression could be due to his unfamiliarity with the manner of  organizing his responses to fit format or something- not that he doesn't already have his responses to post. Somehow,  I think he does. I would just post a short one-line reply to him as the above post  suggests at this point: i.e., 'Start with the 1st claim of the 1st post,... and so on'. 

 It seems the debate style is the difficulty , unless that implied 'difficulty' and 'unfamiliarity' is indeed a  BibleStudent 'game' to change the style of conversation; but I do have to agree with BS on his earlier  point that most  previous discussions in this section [refer to archives] didn't follow formal debate style-they appeared more like extended thread posts. A debate with loose structure in this one with BS like I believe  he apparently wants (?) would possibly have the potential to  go on for 50+ pages, arguing whatever minutiae.  Re: "admitting defeat"(with a forced ultimatum), I highly doubt BS would ever admit defeat; Yet, if he does, would anyone interpret that as his opponent really "winning" this debate? I'd like to see what  BS' refutations are, so hopefully, this won't end with BS not responding, or calling the whole thing "unfair" or some such excuse.

[generousgeorge]

The reason I left WWGHA forum a year or so ago (at which time I was the leading poster.) was the futility of trying to reason with people who have foregone conclusions about the invisible guy in the sky. Doesn't seem like much as changed, one side looks for the facts to draw reasonable conclusions on while the other side tries to support their foregone conclusion in any way they can.

Can't really blame them, since in their view, really questioning the invisible guy in the sky about his inerrant book causes you to lose your place in line for paradise. 

[xphobe]

^ heh come back in 2000 years and I bet nothing will have changed, only the names - it will be the Orange Catholics vs the Bene Gesserit or something else...

[Operator_020]

Okay Crowd, I need a ruling.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my posts

I worked hard on those, for a good hour.

There's some really great stuff in there. Did you see my bit on blowing up the universe? I really want to see him respond to it!

So I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

How about this, BibleStudent gets 72 hours from now to respond to all points without you posting?  I think that is ample time to cover it.  After that, you each get one more post.  Is that fair?

Do I play his game?

No.  That was one of the reasons I kept harping on an agreement of protocol for the debate/discussion.  Unfortunately, there was never an explicit agreement, so my hands are somewhat tied.  However, there has been something of a format laid out and sort of followed.  Changing the direction entirely is bad form.  I would say unacceptable.

... or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

I think given the time and effort you have put in, he owes a response.

[UniversityPastor]

Do I play his game?

No.  That was one of the reasons I kept harping on an agreement of protocol for the debate/discussion.  Unfortunately, there was never an explicit agreement, so my hands are somewhat tied.  However, there has been something of a format laid out and sort of followed.  Changing the direction entirely is bad form.  I would say unacceptable.

Okay, Do you want to PM hm with the news?

yeah BS didn't really explicitly agree to anything ever. I kept putting things before him, and he kept resisting explicitness. I think at some point we have to accept non-disagreement on BS's part as agreement.

[voodoo child]

I have changed my mind about you UP, interesting... I nothing funny to say. shit, I wasn't funny anyway. 

[Operator_020]

Okay, Do you want to PM hm with the news?

Done.  I have provided the link to my post and asked him to state whether he accepts the terms.  If he says no, then it will be a heavy blow to his forum reputation, such as it is.

yeah BS didn't really explicitly agree to anything ever. I kept putting things before him, and he kept resisting explicitness. I think at some point we have to accept non-disagreement on BS's part as agreement.

I took his participation as tacit agreement, though his not following any of the formatting seemed to be an explicit denial.

[Gnu Ordure]

020:

If he says no, then it will be a heavy blow to his forum reputation, such as it is.

His reputation can get lower than this?

[Operator_020]

UniversityPastor,

It has been 3 days.  I've not received a reply from BibleStudent. He has not made a post here. However, he has not logged on since before I sent the PM.  What would you like to do?

020

[UniversityPastor]

I'm in no hurry.

We could wait 3 days from the time he logs in.

Or whatever you decide.

[Operator_020]

That seems fair to me.

020

[UniversityPastor]

So Wootah's in ER
BibleStudent hasn't logged on since I Pollice versoed him
Who's left on my side?

[generousgeorge]

Were all on the side of truth, I believe.