B
buffalo
Guest
Sungenis had a rather good analysis of the mistakes in Usshers work. If I recall he puts Adam at around 10,000 BC.
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
Sounds encouraging.
No, on whether you can trust the science. If science is about truth then it must be about us accepting with an open mind, not just taking some science dude’s word. Judges are trained to get at the truth and I’m saying an open minded judge will make comments in her ruling, and you would likely trust it because you could see her rationale.
F
Farsight001
Guest
What do you mean? He doesn’t understand science and due to this, believes many MANY scientific principles to be assumptions when they in no way are. I am trying to get this through to him. I don’t see how “business” has anything whatsoever to do with it.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Yeah I do. I can tell you haven’t studied just like I can tell when an anti-Catholic hasn’t studied even though they claim to have - you’re not using the proper lingo.
And yet you cannot tell us that these assumptions are anything else but assumption.
Remember, I asked. Your response was “No I can’t”
That someone will speak a certain way if they have an expertise in a subject is a big assumption.
It would also be an incorrect one.
I know many professionals that do not ‘speak the lingo’ for their profession.
I would be included in that list.
B
buffalo
Guest
LOL - that is like telling a doctor that to be credible he can only use doctorese in speaking to his patient. Another bogus argument.
In any case, I will stick to the arguments. If I don’t understand evolution you are free to correct me with papers and references. You are free to try and refute my posts with papers and references. Anyone who starts to argue by Ad Hominem attacks or out of emotion diminishes himself.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Quit twisting my words. You are using my “No I can’t” as though it were an admission that there is no evidence and it’s an assumption when I quite clearly explained otherwise. I have no tolerance for word gaming like this, and little more for those who employ them as though they were a legitimate argument.
You’re not getting it. When I say he doesn’t know the lingo, I mean he uses all the right words in the wrong places, and uses words that have no real meaning at all, making him impossible to follow.
No it’s not. Of course a doctor can simplify it when speaking to a patient. However, in simplifying it, he removes some of the precision that comes only with use of the correct terminology. Do you think that a doctor could get away with “pediatric patient has an owie in his heart which needs to be taken out” as a reason for surgery? Heck no. You can use the simplified speech, sure, but the simplified speech is, by it’s nature, dumbed down a lot so those who don’t know much can understand. Hence, those who know what they’re talking about can use proper terminology properly and those who can’t, don’t. This is why I can know you have no idea what you’re saying - you can’t use proper terminology. It’s not that he chooses not to as you or I might not - he can’t. You’ve tried and failed in numerous past threads just as you have here.
What arguments? You have none. That’s what I, and others, have been trying to get through to you all this time - you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about and it’s not an ad hominem attack to point that out to you. Your lack of understanding is not just a barrier to conversation, but a solid concrete wall. You understand evolution the same way Kent Hovind understands evolution and the same way Jack Chick understands Catholicism - absolutely sure you know just as much as the experts, but in reality knowing this strange caricature of it. I’m not trying to be insulting or to sling ad hominem attacks. I want conversation to be able to proceed, but it cannot currently and I am just trying to get you to realize this.
B
buffalo
Guest
There you have it folks. :banghead:
No twisting at all.
You claimed something was not an assumption but could not back the claim with evidence.
If it is in the wrong place, perhaps it is the wrong word?
Or perhaps the meaning behind the word is not what you expect it to be.
Either way, this is a poor argument.
Teachers make it part of their daily work to explain higher concepts to those that do not know or understand. By definition they cannot use professional ‘lingo’ as it would not accomplsh the purpose.
Your examples fall within the fallacy of pleading to the special case.
Also, it is strange that you would claim that there is no ad hominem argument used when such inflamatory language is presented.
I find very few people would not take umbridge at being talked to in a ‘dumbed down’ way.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Since when did I say I could not back it up with evidence? You are putting words in my mouth. I said, specifically, that I cannot explain because you would not be able to understand, and you twisted that to mean “there is no explanation”. That is the very definition of bearing false witness and is excruciatingly obviously twisting my words.
Not a poor argument. You actually shot yourself in the foot with this one. Words in a specific field have extremely precise definitions. There is no variance behind the meaning of words unless specified in the document and no expert would use the wrong words 5 times in a* book*, let alone 5 times in a single paragraph. The fact that these issues occur is exactly what I was pointing to as evidence that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
You’re right that they do this, but they do this in a class over the course of a semester, or if you want more than a general overview, a 4 year degree. Heck, even that doesn’t teach a person half the lingo anymore. In addition, it is drilled into even the most mediocre students head so strongly and so often, that it sticks and they never really get it wrong again. Buffalo is getting the meaning of words wrong 9 times out of 10. That’s not an expert and that’s not someone who knows what they’re talking about. Imagine a doctor constantly getting the leg and the arm backwards, or a police officer mixing up their tazer and their firearm. It just wouldn’t happen - not if they have any expertise whatsoever.
Special pleading is not applicable to examples. Special pleading is applying a standard or a rule to another while not applying it to yourself. Had I used buffalo’s incorrect lingo as an argument against his expertise, whilst using incorrect lingo myself and claiming it’s ok because I have a headache, that would have been special pleading. There’s been someone in this discussion doing special pleading from the get go, but it ain’t me.
An ad hominem attack is when the other person - WHO they are - is derided. It would have been an ad hominem if I had claimed him to be an idiot or if I said “well, he went to public school, so he can’t know”. To call into question a person’s knowledge on a subject is not inflammatory, nor is it an ad hominem. I am neither calling him stupid nor claiming that his education was poor. I am merely pointing out that he doesn’t have an education on the subject. Furthermore, I am not doing so to call into question his argument, but rather in an attempt to make him aware of what he’s actually doing and what he sounds like to the rest of us.
I do it to, “teaching” my lawyer roommates about law or “teaching” my former co-workers at the hospital (nurses, doctors, etc.) about medicine. Then they respond, and correct me, and I put my size 12s in my own mouth, because even if it seems backwards, they’re obviously more knowledgeable than me and I never should have said anything in the first place.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please provide sources and the offending posts.
By all means…please demonstrate this knowledge that you claim is beyond my grasp.
I am sure a person of your apparent advanced knowledge and understanding can write to someone that has an unknown understanding of the topic and make them understand.
Of course, the fact that you have no idea what the actual knowledge and educational background of myself or buffalo, that could be challanging.
Nevertheless, I am sure you are up to the task.
Please regale us with your advanced knowledge that will prove assumptions to be fact.
Usage or non-usage of ‘lingo’ is a poor argument for claiming knowledge of a subject.
I propose that you cannot determine my background or education through my ‘lingo’
Further, I propose that no one else can either.
I also propose that ‘lingo’ has little to do with profession and more to do with social networking.
Of course, I could be mistaken on this…perhaps.
But there is enough doubt to make this ‘lingo’ argument folly.
I propose that you cannot determine my background or education through my ‘lingo’
Further, I propose that no one else can either.
I also propose that ‘lingo’ has little to do with profession and more to do with social networking.
Of course, I could be mistaken on this…perhaps.
But there is enough doubt to make this ‘lingo’ argument folly.
Other then prepositions and pronouns, I am having difficulty locating any word that has been used 5 times in a single paragraph.
Please point it out.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I’m done with this gigantic joke. When you want to grow up and stop intentionally twisting what I say and repeating yourselves after I already explain something, then I might rejoin the conversation. The lack of respect and the childish word-gaming in an attempt to get me to retaliate is mindboggling coming from a supposed Christian and I don’t have to put up with it. Why buffalo hasn’t had is account banned for this behavior months ago is beyond me.
And if either you or buffalo had any real education on the subject, you’d have been all too happy to list your credentials several posts ago. You act as if I haven’t seen people just like you a thousand times before. It’s always the same.
And if either you or buffalo had any real education on the subject, you’d have been all too happy to list your credentials several posts ago. You act as if I haven’t seen people just like you a thousand times before. It’s always the same.
In the years that I have been participating in various debates on this forum, I have found trotting out the pedigree to be the most unhealthy thing for any conversation.
Some believe it establishes knowledge.
In some instances, perhaps.
But in many other cases, all it does it smack of arrogance and pride.
By far the best way to establish your knowledge of a subject is to simply speak well of what you know and ask about what you do not.
This establishes authority without anyone being placed on the defensive or placing yourself in a position of pride and arrogance where none may have been intended.
As to the twisting of words, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Please clarify.
Some believe it establishes knowledge.
In some instances, perhaps.
But in many other cases, all it does it smack of arrogance and pride.
By far the best way to establish your knowledge of a subject is to simply speak well of what you know and ask about what you do not.
This establishes authority without anyone being placed on the defensive or placing yourself in a position of pride and arrogance where none may have been intended.
As to the twisting of words, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Please clarify.
I
inocente
Guest
Isn’t this thread about the OP anymore then? 
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{169f1647-255e-4739-9c90-2ce31afeddd6}.gif
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{169f1647-255e-4739-9c90-2ce31afeddd6}.gif
Given the editorial cartoon added to your post, I guess not.Isn’t this thread about the OP anymore then?
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{169f1647-255e-4739-9c90-2ce31afeddd6}.gif
By the way, the cartoon is a red herring to the topic at hand and the subject of the cartoon itself is a straw man.
B
buffalo
Guest
I would change the Creation Panel to read:
“Here is what God has Revealed, let this aid in your research and subsequent reasoning.”
How’s that?
- Status