04-7-2007, 12:25 PM | #81 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
FOR THE LOVE OF SATAN KILROY, stop doing your analysis like that, just answer in paragraph form. Picking apart people's arguments like that is an easy way to try and refute them. It's quasi-strawman to do that, because for us paragraph writers, we dont define a single argument in one sentence.
__________________
|
04-7-2007, 12:42 PM | #82 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
If you address different points with different ways of thinking and smash them together in one paragraph, it would make your thoughts seem unclear and not to the point. Sometimes it makes more sense not to go 0 to 60 in one fell swoop. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't paragraphs meant to separate points or thoughts? And "you are wrong" doesn't seem like a valid point.
|
04-7-2007, 12:50 PM | #83 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Of course one is left to wonder why the bible and other such writings describe drinking, prostitution, and other such things as "bad" long before the logical reasonings were set in place. Interestingly enough, some of the faithful church-going people found it expedient not to participate in such things not necessarily because they were bad for you but it was what they believed to define what "high standards" meant and it was only later that health issues concerning such actions were brought up.
For the most part i think Kilroy is just trying to feel superior by trying to pick apart other peoples ideas through single sentences instead of gaining respect through revealing his own thoughts and justifications on the matter. Perhaps kilroy is just afraid that someone will do the same thing to him that he is doing to others if he writes a paragraph trying to describe in detail his point of view. Although, i am being a little bit presumptuous and judgemental, this is the impression i get. |
04-7-2007, 01:43 PM | #84 |
is against custom titles
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Right. He's afraid.
Or, he's like me and just likes to address different points with different sentences. Quotes are the easiest way to set off a different point while still assuring that the focus of the point is in the right places; it's easier for the reader. On top of that, it makes replying to his points even easier because they're already broken up! You don't even have to search for the end of his points and insert returns because they're already there! Winner: there's nothing stopping him (or you) from quoting every part you address and still writing a paragraph on it. @slipstrike: I ignore SO MANY of your posts simply because they're walls of text with no breaks. Large paragraphs are NOT forum-friendly. If you don't break them up with a line inbetween points or a quote when you shift focus, it's just plain annoying to read. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
04-7-2007, 01:49 PM | #85 |
Super Scooter Happy
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
You know a side is thrashing about in desperation when they're reduced to complaining about the structure of response posts.
Where did Reach go?
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds. |
04-7-2007, 02:46 PM | #86 |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
It would only be a strawman if by breaking them up I changed the content of what I was responding to. I'm actually just choosing what parts of the content to address. Besides, if you really understood logic you would realize that every individual component of an argument has to be in place for it to be perfectly valid, you can't just take a bunch of invalid assumptions and derivations and mash them together to get a full, sensible argument.
Last edited by Kilroy_x; 04-7-2007 at 03:04 PM.. |
04-7-2007, 03:00 PM | #87 | ||
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Quote:
In turn, this type of rejection could be understood as a natural evolutionary inclination. If a behavior has advantages, the genetic factors responsible for it stay on in a populace. If not, they die out. Human beings, however, have different mechanisms of adaptation which lessen the neccessary generation gap between adaption. Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes. Human beings perceive a lack of benefit from the actions correlated directly with the perceived wellbeing of the actions participants. Whether the actions cause a lack of wellbeing or the lack of wellbeing causes the actions, or even if there is no causal relationship at all, is irrelevent to this social adaptation because the social adaptation is driven solely by perception. These are two, non-exclusive explanations which taxonomize your perspective. Quote:
|
||
04-8-2007, 06:43 PM | #88 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
<This is W_I_N_N_E_R, i dont like the W_I_N_N_E_R name because it seems pompous and arrogant to me. I apologize for it, i thought it up years ago in starcraft because i was out of ideas :P >
Now, quoting is alright, and a great argumentative mechanism. Kilroys last post did it pulchritudinously, but, his prior method was annoying because he would address single sentences often with rhetorical questions or snyde remarks. Anyway, its a creationist method ive seen quite often, and only creationists or religious apologists have used that method that ive seen. I do notice a change in your response method kilroy, and i appreciate is more than you know, thank you . Anywho, Kilroy, perhaps they disagree with a "lower class" (assuming you can call someone as such...) because they perceive that the lower class does actions and methods that cause self-destruction (theft, pride, mental instability, lying, etc.). Because these lifestyles are a danger unto themselves, one could look at those methods as undesirable (for example, there are many stories dating back to greek times and earlier where undesirable actions such as usurping and rape are made out to be evil, creating a societal maxim). Also, alot of people dont like to think this but humans are often disposition'd to different things in life. Such as some people are born disposition'd to alcohol. But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream. I use this example to show that bad actions beget bad actions, good actions beget good actions, but bad is related to some sort of destruction, and good is related to beneficial outcomes and rewards. Therefore, bad begets bad, but often doesnt survive, and good begets good, and often survives. This explains crudely how natural selection even in humans can cause "goodness" as a common practice. here's an example of kilroys earlier "creationist" responses: >>"Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes." You are assuming that quantity = quality. What most people believe doesn't make the majority correct (crusades?). ^i dont like this method because its too short and ruins other peoples arguments, such as kilroy had much more meaning in his argument, and i butchered it. Go read his post if u require his view, or make sure u quote entire arguments, dont destroy someones points. **EDIT** Slipstrike, avoid AD HOMINEMS, insulting Kilroys character is not a good tactic for debating. I dont think he was trying to be superior, there are probably other reasons. Like i say, religious people/creationists follow the same patterns, i notice this, im not saying they do it for any specific reason, i just notice a trend... sorry if it offends Last edited by OmegaSyrus; 04-8-2007 at 06:45 PM.. |
04-8-2007, 06:53 PM | #89 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Your argument is made up of your points. Taking your argument point by point is a perfectly legitimate and methodological way to carry out a debate.
The reason many people seem to be having difficulty with Kilroy's method of debate is that their points aren't especially clear or concise. Generally, you should make one point per statement, such that statement=point. This allows for people to easily digest what you are trying to say, and forces them to account for all of your logic. When you make a point in one sentence, but then carry on in the same sentence to make another point, you invite someone to take your sentence and only reply to part of it (with the one point) and ignore the other (with the other point) which will seem to some people like they are ignoring what you say. To be very blunt, if answering to each of your points, individually and in order destroys your argument, then it wasn't a very strong argument. |
04-8-2007, 09:18 PM | #90 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
You are kind of right, but point per sentence seems a little rudimentary. Also, even if point per sentence is followed, the point can be taken out of context.
But this debate on form is silly, Kilga is right. I'll just end it with saying I dont like the creationist method of quoting, if your are gonna quote, quote the argument, not the point. Single points do not make entire arguments. I'm gonna throw something in here. People say evolution is impossible due to chance? that would be correct if one were to assume that evolution was a completely random process. But with Natural Selection and Genetic Drift and other mechanisms, it becomes much MUCH easier to understand, and infinitely more possible. I direct you to these videos: http://youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g http://youtube.com/watch?v=xx5t5_trnuU Hopefully at least these are presented in a digestable fashion for the intellectually lazy. |
04-8-2007, 09:24 PM | #91 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 32
Posts: 504
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Wait, is that probability of life supposed to be accounting for the chance WE are here or the start of the first cell?
|
04-8-2007, 09:31 PM | #92 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
rofl not the evolution arguments again.. jesus
|
04-8-2007, 09:31 PM | #93 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Well the videos account for the arrising of any specific trait through natural selection. The probability for the beginning of life and for us are both very believable if you do the research.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html that explains how probable abiogenesis is, i implore you to investigate. Also, while you're at it, read the whole site. Its healthy to know both sides of a debate. For example, people say "how could the eye EVER come into existence!?", well, do the research, and you will know. pssst, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4 has eye-evolution explained in it. Or at least one possibility, but im assuming the best one? **EDIT** In response to devonins next statement: if thats how you view my arguments, then i apologize. I'll try harder to be more concise in the future. Sorry, i just tend to go off into tangents and then try to jump from the tangent back to my main point... Through addressing non-static points i try to give a general concept. I'll try to be more concise. Last edited by OmegaSyrus; 04-8-2007 at 10:17 PM.. Reason: Responding to next post without increasing page. |
04-8-2007, 09:36 PM | #94 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Quote:
Both of those are pretty messy. It is much easier and simpler if people just make an effort to spell out their point in a clear and straightforward way that is easy to understand and respond to. |
|
04-8-2007, 11:40 PM | #95 | ||||||||||
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways, I hope we can get over this format nonsense and continue the actual debate. This is a very interesting subject. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 04-8-2007 at 11:43 PM.. |
||||||||||
04-9-2007, 12:13 AM | #96 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
A critical thinking thread on acceptable argument styles would be a little off. Unless it were some kind of Sticky to help people learn to write better.
Also, I did kinda laugh a bit to myself when it was suggested that Kilroy was a creationist. |
04-9-2007, 12:27 AM | #97 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
I did try to get back into the debate... look 2 posts above ur newest one. Discuss probability or something.
Scroll up. "In turn, this type of rejection could be understood as a natural evolutionary inclination. If a behavior has advantages, the genetic factors responsible for it stay on in a populace. If not, they die out. Human beings, however, have different mechanisms of adaptation which lessen the neccessary generation gap between adaption. Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes." you said that. dont deny it. im sorry for looking like i lied, i dont know how to quote. Now im sorry for the creationist mentions, you are the first non-religious to do it in that form. Take note of this apology because ive been trying to be polite... Now when i say "creationist method" its a label i give that method based off of the trend i have observed, its for my purposes only. When i say it annoys me, i mean u redundantly quoted me to say ur an atheist 3 times. Redundant. I used the ad hominem thing to show my neutrality in defending you when i considered you being wrongfully considered. I was hoping you would notice that attempt. Politeness is key in showing respect... In relation to my quality = quantity statement, i meant in reference to societal power, forgot to mention that. You obviously missed my point in that the "upper" class dont reject the "lower" class JUST BECAUSE they are lower, but because of observable evidence that their lifestyle is logically undesirable due to negative repercussions. Two things, one: of course dispositions and detrimental genes survive, if they didnt why would we have inheritable dystrophies? I said "But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream." I use the word 'often' to show that the majority of the cases, not the absolute. Dont ignore my uses of "often" and "rarely" as i use them to show that i recognize the lack of absolution. Second: Im aware that goodness is subjective, hence the quotations around it, i defined "goodness" in that exact quote for you, and used that specific definition just like you like me to. I meant my definition when i referred to "goodness". I find ur second references difficult, elaborate if you can. Most cognition is based on genetics from what ive researched. One can only perceive as far as their memory and limitations allow. Anyway, Originally Posted by slipstrike0159 View Post Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you. >>Actually you're just a bad speller. Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions. PLEASE return to debate NOW. Evolution is plausible and has been proven time and time again in all fields of science cooperatively. The mounds of evidence make is compelling. And creationism employs confusing circular logic and logical fallacies, for the most part. <can someone tell me how to quote? i know i suck for being unable to, and it detriments the professionality of my responses> |
04-9-2007, 01:05 AM | #98 | |||
FFR Player
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<use quote tags or click the quote button in bottom of post.> Last edited by RPGFREAK; 04-9-2007 at 01:09 AM.. |
|||
04-9-2007, 01:26 AM | #99 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Ya, i guess even considering remarks snide (actual spelling it turns out, my bad) can be subjective, because upon looking further back, i can see how his other points can be viewed as not a derogatory or superior tone of response.
I posted some videos earlier, watch them and respond if necessary. Otherwise, someone bring in some creation proof, or even thoughts on the matter so we can discuss that, because i've supplied enough evolution proof for now. |
04-9-2007, 01:30 AM | #100 | ||||||||||||||
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's like asking why the sky is blue and being told it's because of physical causes X, Y, and Z, and then asking why X, Y, and Z are the physical causes and being told it's because they correspond perfectly with the blueness of the sky. It's technically circular, but if the correspondence is perfect and the model works then it isn't neccessarily wrong. Creationist models, however, aren't perfect, don't really work, and are therefore likely wrong. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|