Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - One-night stands: they're genetic!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

One-night stands: they're genetic!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:16 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

When are you going to admit that "could be regarded as" does not equate to "is

Sure, many scientists use the rotating earth paradigm out of convenience.
But any scientist will tell you that in fact both paradigms are viable. There is no way to definitely prove either.

Quote:

then turn around and also quote a 120 year-old, failed experiment that was attempting to find evidence of the luminiferous aether...

It only "failed" in the respect that it failed to prove that the earth was moving. Which is what it set out to do.

You really are impossible aren't you Bob? Rolling Eyes

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:36 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Dr. Scott is equating all criticism of Darwinism with religious or illogical thinking. Hence Darwinism is unassailable to criticism. It is a tautology. The correctness of Darwinism is assumed. The dichotomy I suggested is not always explicit, it is implied by the tautology.

Evolution as a theory is under constant scrutiny within the science community. Mainly focusing on the inner workings of the theory. Assumed is a loaded word, the theory has been established through observation and evidence to a greater extent than many other theories.

When Creationists criticise Evolution by making contradicting claims, such as "the Earth is 6000 years old', then Evolutionists are within their rights to ask for evidence. The problem is evidence means something else to Creationists.

Creationism lacks the credibility to be a scientific alternative to Evolution which is why they try to shoehorn it in every where else. From high school education to threads about one night stands.

I'm not sure where Eugenie Scott asks why it is only the religious who criticise evolution as a theory, but she is right to. It shows their agenda and doctrine influenced incredulity. Evolution is not beyond questioning, no theory is.

But we are trapped in a circle. As evolution continues to prove itself, creationists continue to handwave and make unsubstantiated claims. It is right to ask how they think the life evolved. But I still have seen anyone claim 'Darwinism is true because Creationism is unproven', or that E.Scott's work relies in any way on ad-homs.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 2:48 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

In this thread, Mix1 has repeatedly called on Junior to prove his creationist claims when he failed to convince him by appealing to science--as if Junior's failure to prove his beliefs would prove the alternative Mix endorses to be correct.

Of course it wouldn't prove it. The intent here is to give him some of his own medicine and hold him to the same standard as everyone else. And, I lowered the bar quite a bit from proof to just at least provide some concrete evidence for his alternate theory.

Nobody can prove evolution to him. That's a futile effort. (even though he finally admitted he believes in change over time AND speciation - which IS basically the process of evolution) He may warm up to it eventually, but it will be on his own terms. For now, he prefers creationist websites, quote mining, cherry-picking from Scientific American articles, and pointing to controversies within science (there are of course many) to try to disprove theories that contradict his literal biblical view of creation. He's been refuted numerous times by many and there was lots of potential evidence shown to him but there's only so much we can do.

He doesn't accept it, and that's fine. He just says, "Nope, not enough for me. Show me more." ad infinitium. At some point it's not our fault. You could have a panel of leading scientists personally explaining it to him in a month long Powerpoint presentation, show him every known fossil on Earth, have him personally do radiometric dating, have him read "all" the books on evolution (he falsely claimed he already did this by the way) and it still may not convince him. There's loads of information out there but at some point it's not about information anymore, it's about choice. Ok, fine. He won't be convinced. Now what?

Let's see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. Let's shift the burden of proof now to make it more even. I posted the list for a reason. If he wants so much evidence for evolution, he's also got to provide some for his alternate view. If we're so wrong, show us the light. We'll need some evidence though, just like you ask of us. One can't just say it's obvious and the Bible says so. That's not good enough. Why? Because presumably this is the alternative view they want taught in science classes in schools. Ok fine, show us WHY it should be taught as an alternative.

To even be an alternative, it has to have some credibility. To have that, you need some concrete evidence.
You can't just say in a science class, Ok kids, giant people once existed ."
"Do we have any of the bones, teacher?"
"Nope, not a single one. Also, DNA was once perfect."
"Do we have any samples or genetic data of organisms that once had this 'perfect' DNA?"
"Nope, it's just obvious. Oh and there was also an invisible being that got angry and started a flood that killed everyone except for a guy in a boat who collected pairs of all the organisms on Earth together and saved them all from destruction and everything started new again."
"Hmm. Any solid geological record of this worldwide event that killed almost all life on Earth and when it happened?"
"Nope, but we gotta teach alternatives to that crazy evolution stuff."

If the above sounds far fetched, just remember that this is adapted from what he actually wrote as his worldview. He isn't talking about a process, theory, or "wider view" of anything (as evolution may), he is presenting these things as hard facts and specific events. Hard facts need hard evidence so let's see a little. The reason why evolution is taught in schools and his view isn't is that there is no real evidence for his alternative, and if there is, it needs to be MUCH STRONGER evidence than the current dominant worldview (evolution) taught in schools. This brings us back to the U.S federal court decision where his side lost miserably.

I don't expect he will even try to provide any real evidence, and that's fine, but it just goes to show the mentality we are dealing with here and why many actual scientists refuse to even debate hardcore creationists. But then, I'm not an actual scientist (I just play one in Junior's imaginary world).

He can stay on the field as long as he wants and try to claim victory, but he can't ignore the scoreboard.
(Or more likely, he'll willfully ignore it AND blame the referees at the same time.)

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 5:00 am Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

The intent here is to give him some of his own medicine and hold him to the same standard as everyone else.

In other words you are bitter that I dared to ask for evidence, and even angrier that you couldn't find any.

Look..if you're going to force a theory on half the world and its schoolchildren, representing it as unassailable proven accepted fact....then you better have a watertight case.

It should be very easy to prove such a theory.

What you didn't understand, and neither do most people (because they are too lazy to research it/ have no personal interest in questioning it), is that evolution is not the concrete fact it claims to be. Actually it is imaginative fantasy with extremely little evidence to support it.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 6:35 am Post subject:

ED209 wrote:

As evolution continues to prove itself, creationists continue to handwave and make unsubstantiated claims. It is right to ask how they think the life evolved. But I still have seen anyone claim 'Darwinism is true because Creationism is unproven', or that E.Scott's work relies in any way on ad-homs.

Well, I'll help out on these points.

Dr. Scott discredits criticisms of Darwinism based on the idea that the criticisms come from religious people. If someone's comments are dismissed because of who he is (a creationist, a Discovery Institute fellow, etc) then that is an ad hominem.

You may believe it's a justified ad hominem, but it's an ad hominem.

The second point. People seldom *explicitly* say that Darwinism is true because young earth creationism is unproven. My thought was that the debate is framed as if young earth creationism and Darwinism are the only two games in town, so if one is discredited, one is obliged to choose the other by default.

Now I agree with you that if a creationist makes a specific claim such as "the earth is 6000 years old," then of course you can ask him why he thinks that.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 6:39 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

The intent here is to give him some of his own medicine and hold him to the same standard as everyone else.

In other words you are bitter that I dared to ask for evidence, and even angrier that you couldn't find any.

Yes, that's it exactly. Ace reading comprehension there. Another shifty dodge or complete inability to comprehend the post, not sure which. That's ok though, we're used to it by now.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 11:08 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

ED209 wrote:

I agree, it's ad hominem and here's how it can be justified in this case: Usually in these debates you have one side with some formal knowledge or training in science and the other side with virtually none.

Why is that relevant to the argument? Because it often means, as we saw here, that while one side has a formal understanding and background knowledge of the concepts, terms, and definitions of the topic at hand, the other side may not have that same knowledge, may lie about having the knowledge (as we also saw here), and may intentionally or unintentionally confuse the very definitions of the terms and concepts used in the argument to meet their own needs.

So, who they are and what they know is relevant, since both sides have to know and agree about basic definitions and concepts for the debate to take any rational form at all.

And since Ad hominem in part also links the person and the validity of their argument to their beliefs, the beliefs themselves become relevant for at least three reasons: because they are tightly woven into their very identities as people (religious young earth creationists), because their beliefs (which are often not scientifically plausible or proven at all) shape the rest of their arguments, and because the beliefs are often quite outlandish with little or no evidence for them. For example, to believe the Earth is only 6000 years old in light of all we know by now is irrational and yet this premise underlies most of their position.

They often know this belief is a weakness for them so they rely on another dishonest tactic, which is shifting the burden of proof to the other side in order to confuse or waste time while providing no actual proof of their own. Instead the best they can do is try to tear down or deny any evidence the other side uses no matter what it is, while claiming if the other side only provides the "right" evidence they could be convinced but this is dishonest.

And ad hominem also deals with personal motives. And what are the typical motives of the creationist debater? Well there are many (like staying in God's graces and avoiding hell by believing in every word of the good book despite any evidence to the contrary) but often about a hidden agenda that pushes a literalist biblical worldview on others while pretending it's not about God at all. And how do they do that? They label it "Intelligent Design" and with loads of funding from untaxed religious organizations they create media and websites like Discovery Institute to push the view.

What are the tactics of these websites? Often very dishonest tactics like quote mine, cherry pick, confuse, and deliberately mangle science data to suit a preconceived agenda while claiming it's just about providing "alternatives" in school.

Why not just directly say it's about God? Because they know they can't violate the U.S. Constitution so they lie and label the view "I.D." to get it into schools.

So, there is a lot of baggage and dishonesty prevalent in the creationist position itself and this is easily linked to the person making the argument, especially when they start to employ the dishonest and shifty tactics that are so common on that side.

This is particularly distasteful because as Christians the expectation is that they will hold to a high standard of honesty in order to seek the truth, but they often fail in that regard when it comes to this issue, which speaks directly to character. This in combination with a lack of formal or even
common knowledge of science means they also may lack credibility.

Therefore, ad hominem is relevant, legitimate and justified in these types of debates.

Even if one doesn't agree with that, most arguments against creationism don't actually even need to rely on ad hominem. And if one says that Dr. Scott's work relies on it, that is itself framing the debate to look a certain way. But Dr. Scott is only one person, so that frame may not be very accurate at all. For example the Dover case rarely used any ad hominem that I read, yet the creationists still lost badly.

I do agree with you though that the debate often appears to only offer the two choices on either end of the spectrum, but in reality there is more than just two simple choices.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 9:37 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Quote:

then turn around and also quote a 120 year-old, failed experiment that was attempting to find evidence of the luminiferous aether...

It only "failed" in the respect that it failed to prove that the earth was moving. Which is what it set out to do.

Uhh, the point of the experiment was to find evidence of the luminiferous aether. It failed because the luminiferous aether does not exist. The fact that you are citing this as evidence for the Earth's non-rotation alongside modern relativistic models-that certainly have absolutely nothing to do with any non-existent luminiferous aether-is ridiculous. Which is it: science is on your side, or it's been wrong for over 120 years?

Junior wrote:

You really are impossible aren't you Bob? Rolling Eyes

Yes, your argument must seem impossible by now. I suggest you give up. Wink

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 10:58 pm Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

Therefore, ad hominem is relevant, legitimate and justified in these types of debates.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a fallacy. This is probably why, no matter how right you may be, Junior will continue to prevail in this debate.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 7:44 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Therefore, ad hominem is relevant, legitimate and justified in these types of debates.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a fallacy. This is probably why, no matter how right you may be, Junior will continue to prevail in this debate.

Correction: If the ONLY mode of argumentation used was ad hominem, AND it was used as the only way to refute a premise, you might have a point. If you read the thread in totality, I've addressed his points in other ways AND attacked the arguer and his beliefs (taboo for some I know, but it's time to get used to it and it goes both ways), but I didn't rely on ad hominem ALONE to refute an argument, that was just icing on the cake and tit for tat. I think when someone acts dishonest, arrogant, and shifty it's legitimate to both dissect their argument style and go ad hominem IN ADDITION to refuting points in other ways.

In reality there are any number of tactics I could focus on, I'm just currently focusing on ad hominem now and if you can't see why please read my previous post again. I'm not expecting that everyone will like this mode, but sometimes s__t sticks because there's some s__t there to begin with, so don't blame the messenger.

By the way, this focus is also after repeated requests for the opponent to try and provide evidence for his worldview in an effort to balance the debate, but it's been refused (which was expected) so now it's time to hit from a different angle. I'm being pretty open about intent here and I doubt you'll get that kind of honesty from him.

One can't just accuse an opponent of ad hominem and think that somehow wins an argument either. And anyway, ad hominem is not necessarily inherently fallacious like some might assume. In addition, you may want to check out something called the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

"if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks."

Regarding your last statement, are you conceding that somehow I'm right but that he's "prevailing" in the debate? I'm not too hung up about who thinks who is prevailing, but on the other hand, it's a curious position to take and you may want to read back in the thread where his points were refuted by numerous posters, but he never can see it and just keeps on going with the same old schtick. This happened in two separate debates.
In some I'd usually say the tenacity is admirable but with him I'm not so sure.

Either way, if by "prevailing" you mean... quote mining, misreading, cherry picking, ignoring pertinent questions regarding providing evidence for his side, misrepresenting oneself (by claiming to read things not actually read), misrepresenting others, and contradicting himself several times over, ...then I'll have to quibble with your use of the word and respectfully disregard your judgment in this particular instance.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
Page 14 of 14

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe