PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     creationist 'debate' tactics
       pretty sad

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Skim a few creatinist websites, consider yourself now well versed enough to argue credibly with someone who has studied the issues for years
2. Make a series of largley plagiarized claims form skimmed creationist websites, demanding 'evos' address them
3. Evo addresses them, askes for your rebuttals
4. you realize you have no rebuttal because you don't really understand the material, so you:
5. engage in appeals to authotiy or
6. simply restate the original claims and/or
7. just stop posting for a while, and come balc later making the same claims in the hopes everyone will have forgotten about the last time you made the same arguments


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:43 PM on April 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That pretty much sums it up.

That calls for a flowchart.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:34 PM on April 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's funny, Wisp.  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:16 PM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.Skim a few creationist arguments, forgetting that they are very often just as much  ‘scientists’ as you imagine yourself to be.
2.Reject their arguments in the belief that they can’t possibly have anything worthy to say considering that they are ‘religious’ and therefore not to be trusted to be objective.
3.Define science to disallow anything but naturalism and on that basis call ID and creation pseudo-science by definition.
4.Engage in appeals to your own authority as a scientist who has ‘studied the issues for year’ imagining that nobody else has done the same when attempting to combat creationist contentions.
5.Ignore the parts of what they have to say that you have no answer for in the hopes that those issues will not re-emerge.
6.Be arrogant in the mistaken belief that people will mistake this arrogance for confidence in your position.
7.Make a list and post it.

Sweet  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:01 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:01 AM on April 25, 2009 :
1.Skim a few creationist arguments, forgetting that they are very often just as much  ‘scientists’ as you imagine yourself to be.
2.Reject their arguments in the belief that they can’t possibly have anything worthy to say considering that they are ‘religious’ and therefore not to be trusted to be objective.
3.Define science to disallow anything but naturalism and on that basis call ID and creation pseudo-science by definition.
4.Engage in appeals to your own authority as a scientist who has ‘studied the issues for year’ imagining that nobody else has done the same when attempting to combat creationist contentions.
5.Ignore the parts of what they have to say that you have no answer for in the hopes that those issues will not re-emerge.
6.Be arrogant in the mistaken belief that people will mistake this arrogance for confidence in your position.
7.Make a list and post it.

Sweet  



1. Now now Lester, one is a scientist once one has peer reviewed articles in prominent science peer reviewed magazines.. Creationists don't have that. And it's not one big conspiracy against creationist because as you can read in another thread, gravity theory is getting an overhaul because the evidence for a different system is much great.

2.Now now, don't lie, many scientists out there are also religious and they don't have any problem putting out peer reviewed science.. Those are the key words here, peer review.
It's not a belief to put forth peer reviewed articles, it is a belief to think you're doing science if you aren't putting forth peer reviewed articles.

3. The unnatural and supernatural cannot be tested scientifically, its not so much the "definition" that causes that, it really is because there is no way it can be tested, that is also why ID and creationism fail, because they start with the assumption of a creator/god without any means to test if that assumption is true.

4. Oh really? And the thousands of peer reviewed articles that provide evidence for evolutionary theory yet no evidence for ID and Creationism are of course all based on authority as well, right

5.As oppossed to dropping a subject to bring it back later as "not refuted" eventhough its been refuted a billion times (called PRATT, Point Refuted A Thousand Times). At certain points, just shaking our head is best because some walls just won't come down.

6. We are allowed to be arrogant to a degree, we've got the science to back us up.. Or rather, we are allowed to sound arrogant simply because we have evidence to back our case up and you don't.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:24 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

5.  Huh? What do you mean?

Can you back this up?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:40 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:01 AM on April 25, 2009 :
1.Skim a few creationist arguments, forgetting that they are very often just as much  ‘scientists’ as you imagine yourself to be.


Here, you seem to be under the impression that nobody is familiar with the claims made by creationists with credentials.  You also seem to be under the impression that your creationist scientist sources make sound, legitimate, scientific arguments.  For but one example, I refer you to my demolition of a paper written by 2 creationist scientists on this very forum - a demolition that NO creationists even bothered to read, or so it seems, certainly not you.

2.Reject their arguments in the belief that they can’t possibly have anything worthy to say considering that they are ‘religious’ and therefore not to be trusted to be objective.

I've rejected any number of creation 'scientist' arguments because they do not hold up to scrutiny.  Their religious motivations only make their 'work' that much more suspicious and deserving of scrutiny.
If you actually understood the material, you, too, may be a bit more skeptical of your sources.
Or not.

3.Define science to disallow anything but naturalism and on that basis call ID and creation pseudo-science by definition.

How do you poropose that scinece deal with the supernatural?

Can you define it?

Can you identify it?

Can you test for it?

Can you perform experimentation employing it?
(well, you sort of can - prayer studies have been performed, and the results were not too 'miraculous' - so bad were the results that Dossey felt the need to de-emphasize (i.e.,  suppress) the negative results..)


4.Engage in appeals to your own authority as a scientist who has ‘studied the issues for year’ imagining that nobody else has done the same when attempting to combat creationist contentions.


Well, I have yet to se any sort of reasoned responses to anything I've written.  Apparently, none of the YECs on here are up to the challenge and simply rely on regurgitated propaganda from anti-evolution heroes.

5.Ignore the parts of what they have to say that you have no answer for in the hopes that those issues will not re-emerge.

I've received so few responses at all that you must be referring to someone else.  Indeed, the few replies I've received have generally not addressed anything I wrote at all.

6.Be arrogant in the mistaken belief that people will mistake this arrogance for confidence in your position.

Ah, yes - the old 'arrogance' charge.  Let me guess - I'm an 'elitist', too?

Tell me who is more arrogant - the person that went to grad school, has done evolution-related original research, and has taught at the \university level for 10 years, or the dude who has no relevant education or training or experience but believes that their opinions are not only equal to, but superior to the opinions and explanations of those with actual knowledge?

7.Make a list and post it.

Sweet  

It is sweet, because it was fairly accurate.


I note that neither you nor none of your internet genius pals have even attempted to address any of the rebuttals and refutations I've presented.  

Your projection is noted.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:42 PM on April 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guess I was right.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:33 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yep.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:48 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahaha! You have to watch this. xDDD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:55 PM on January 15, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's hilarious!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:47 PM on January 15, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's funny because it's true.





I was reading this again...
Lester
5.Ignore the parts of what they have to say that you have no answer for in the hopes that those issues will not re-emerge.
I can't even laugh... This level of denial and projection is just sad.

Lester hates getting laughed at. So he didn't say that to amuse us.

Dishonesty can't account for this. The only conclusion i could come up with is that this is pathological.

Most of Lester's accusations consist of things he does. What does this mean? Well, some part of him is aware of what he's doing, but it doesn't reach the surface.

From Wiki:


Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have the same feelings or motives, rather than what they really think.

Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth.


Yeah... Lester could use a sense of humor...

Paleo-anthropologically speaking, this faculty probably had survival value as a self-defense mechanism when homo sapiens' intellectual capacity to detect deception in others improved to the point that the only sure hope to deceive was for deceivers to be self-deceived and therefore behave as if they were being truthful.

Exactly. Lester's enormous effort to deceive us (which doesn't amount to much anyway) has lead him to deceive himself.

Just like with the Stockholm syndrome. Making the person who can kill you believe that you like him has a survival value. The best way to make him believe that you like him is, well, actually liking him.

Even if it was normal (and i don't think Lester's level of projection is), i'd still call it pathological.

Sickle cell can have a survival value in certain circumstances, but it's still a medical condition.

Oh, the entry has a section about psychopathology:


In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with certain personality disorders:

   * Paranoid personality disorder
   * Narcissistic personality disorder
   * Antisocial personality disorder
   * Psychopathy
   * Borderline personality disorder



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:10 PM on January 15, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

It's funny because it's true.


absolutely!  It sounds like any one of the Creationsits who have posted this board.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:18 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, by the way, i didn't mean for a second that Lester is not dishonest.

On top of being self-deluded, he's an outright liar.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:52 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.