If you had heard that the young woman below had written a book on American educational policy that one of her most ardent admirers regard as “scholarly”, would you feel obliged to read it?
2 Likes
15 pages? He’s not even trying. There are much longer bridges.
For example:
“The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:
the gaps we see reflect real events in
life’s history not the artifact of a poor fossil record. The fossil
record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation
of finely graded change.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths
of Human Evolution Columbia University
Press, 1982, p. 57)
This ‘quote’ has an unmarked gap of 104 pages.
3 Likes
You responded by revealing that your complaint against Faizal was actually special pleading. Got it.
1 Like
Are you familiar with the Latin phrase non sequitur? It applies well to the relationship between what I wrote and your response just above.
For the record, I note that once again Faizal has not answered my question. Since it would be to his advantage to answer it with a list showing that he has read far more of Denton than he has so far indicated, and since he has never been known to pass up a chance to gain an argumentative advantage, I infer that my characterization of his reading volume is pretty much accurate.
On the contrary, that question was answered long ago.
Your statement referred to the number of pages of material from anyone affiliated with the DI that I have read. I haven’t the faintest clue how many pages that would be, but I can assure you it is far, far more than 25-35. Not that I can see why that is at all pertinent to the opinions I have expressed regarding Denton’s publications and lectures that I have read and viewed, and the conclusions I have drawn from them.
Of course, it is just within the realm of possibility that Denton’s other writing contain answers to the questions I have raised regarding his work and other brilliant and compelling insights. But since not even you have been unable to provide any such examples, even when I have asked you directly, I think my conclusion that there are no such answers or insights is well-justified.
2 Likes
I would hope that if you had read some articles and a transcribed lecture by Kant that he had intended as summaries of some of his thoughts, and you had criticisms of what you had read, your professors would have tried to address your criticisms by correcting any misunderstandings you might have had regarding your readings, or by referring to other writings by Kant that addressed your criticisms.
Of course, that would only be expected if your instructors actually understood Kant better than you did, and were not just bluffng.
3 Likes
It would appear this thread I created for arguments to die is having the opposite effect. This will not continue; the purpose here is to make less work for moderators, not more. The simple solution is to close the thread to all new comments, but not doing that yet. Meanwhile, I suggest all comments should be restricted to the minimum needed to say what you mean to say, and don’t waste time with the rest.
Meanwhile, here is the wonderful Audrey Logan to entertain you.
4 Likes
How observant of you!
Do you think it might have something to do with not wanting to engage in any such discussion with someone who wrote that he “always despised” me?
I think that @nwrickert explained it perfectly clearly to you:
Defining Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design:
4 Likes
Knowing that you would not regard any of my comments as neutral, I did not intend to respond to anything you posted about why you believed in God, so if your reason for not posting is out of fear that I would attack what you wrote, you can rest easy on that point. I just thought you might want to share your reasons with the other Christian scientists, and have a conversation with them about it. But it’s completely up to you whether you want to hide your light under a bushel or let it shine. I won’t bother you with further reminders.
I mentioned other writers from the DI that you have criticized without sufficient reading, but my focus here in this latest exchange has been quite clearly on Denton. I’ve asked you the question about your reading of Denton numerous times and in numerous ways. I don’t require the number of pages of Denton you have read. I would like you tell me which of his books and articles you have read. As far as I can tell from your comments, the count is books: 0, articles: 1. You can confirm or correct that without talking about pages at all. If you’ve read more, tell me which books and articles you’ve read (where “read” means completely or at least 80% read, not merely dipped into or skimmed). If you don’t answer, I will go with my current count. Best wishes.
No fear, just disgust.
I don’t believe you.
Why wouldn’t his execrable fake seminar on YouTube count?
How many relevant books and articles did you read before arguing with me for months in support of Meyer’s false claim that ribozymes are proteins?
2 Likes
I have already answered your question in previous discussions, and as it is irrelevant to the points I have raised regarding what I have read and watched from Denton, I see no reason to repeat the answer here.
If one express an opinion about Anna Karenina, is it necessary that they have also read War and Peace.? (Those are both novels by the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, BTW, if you don’t understand the reference.)
3 Likes
I don’t suppose you’ve read any Ray Comfort books, have you, @Faizal_Ali ? So how do you know they’re not just stuffed chock-full-o’-brilliance? Huh?
5 Likes
Comments will reopen after a short break.
3 Likes
You just made my point, I think, that if we find a non-reasoning cause we discount the conclusion.
Again, utter balderdash! We are not evaluating the “cause”, but rather the effect. “Emotional or chemical imbalances [and] cognitive biases” are known to have the effect of impaired judgement, so we distrust them – not because they come from some magical, mythical, made-up-by-Apologists category called “non-reasoning cause”.
Chemical imbalances come from the exact same “non-reasoning cause” as normal brain function – brain chemistry. Likewise emotional imbalances.
And if we are to take the Apologists claim that God created our minds seriously, then that would mean that God likewise created “emotional or chemical imbalances [and] cognitive biases” – so we have every reason to distrust that-which-God-created.
“Non-reasoning cause” is simply an incoherent concept that has no currency “in real life”, and has simply been confected by apologists in order to attempt to shore up one more of their stock-in-trade – bad arguments for the existence of God.
3 Likes
But I think it has, for evolution has no reason to give us a clear perception of reality.
Well, I haven’t argued this way. Most people will say that human reason can be (by and large) trusted, this is almost an axiom.
I see no reason to trust your reasoning.
3 Likes
As @Mercer points out, that statement alone certainly gives everyone no reason to trust your reasoning. It’s incredibly forehead-slapping-silly. Honestly: you can’t think of any reason why senses corresponding to reality could be adaptive?
4 Likes