[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang = Big Fail

[alex_ro]

Thanks, Sparrowhawke, it worked.

See you all in my thread: "no big bang".

 

[Adam]

Obviously, no, I am not a YEC.


Being aware of a wordview does not mean conforming to a worldveiw. And frankly, I don't care to entertain YEC sentaments, because they are more than just not plausible. They are demonstrably flat out wrong. There's enough already out there if you bothered to look. I'm sorry, but I am unwilling to attempt to educate you on these matters. It is not my task. The YEC position isn't a position that should be taken seriously enough to bother debating.

You won't find me in your thread.

 

[alex_ro]

Obviously, no, I am not a YEC.

For me that wasn’t obvious at all - since your screen name. I had to read your posts to figure that out.

And frankly, I don't care to entertain YEC sentaments, because they are more than just not plausible.

I assure you that my sentiments are not only plausible, but actually real…

And wouldn’t you argue against yourself? Because I’m sure that my sentiments are exactly yours, only at different times. In fact, I’m sure that the entire mankind shares the very same feelings…

They are demonstrably flat out wrong.

Looking forward for your demonstration. But don’t rush in, wait for me to finish my “no big bang” thread first, because many of the things you are likely to call upon will already be addressed there.

There's enough already out there if you bothered to look.

Oh, don’t worry. I have looked. I’m SURE I actually have looked much more than you. For example, how many scientific papers have you read in your life - not Discovery TV shows, not magazine articles, but actual scientific papers?

Just ask yourself this: could it be that you are wrong? If no, why not?

I'm sorry, but I am unwilling to attempt to educate you on these matters.

But please do. I am always looking to learn new things, or to correct myself on some of the old things. The question is this: are you willing to do the very same thing? Because only THAT would be scientific, anything less would not…

The YEC position isn't a position that should be taken seriously enough to bother debating.

Tell me, do you KNOW that, or do you BELIEVE that? Because many times those are two very different things, you know…

 

[Adam]

Why would I believe something I didn't know?


As I already said, it isn't worthwhile to me to bother trying to educate you, since the information is out there (and, no, not on the Discovery Channel.) and you claim to know it but still think that you have evidence for YEC. You're not looking to learn new things. You're looking to argue.


Your mind is made up. Fine. But I'm not going to give credence to that position by pretending it is worthy to consider or discuss as a serious hypothesis.

This isn't an "either-or" scenario. While not likely, it is definitely possible that the scientific explanations are wrong. If they are, that doesn't automatically make the YEC the default alternative; it wouldn't prove your position true.


I think that is enough of the fallacies in your last post that I wish to address.

 

[Sparkey]

As I already said, it isn't worthwhile to me to bother trying to educate you

Greetings Adam,

Although I might not comment in the proposed thread (I've not yet looked nor seen it, but shall) I would be interested to hear what is said. I'd also forgive you if you should find something that you would like to say in the thread, not so much to convince Alex_ro but only to assert a counterpoint. To me, allegations and assertions need tension. Not a "you must" but "let us together consider..."

If you say out? You know yourself better than I do. If you join? I will enjoy reading your comment.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[alex_ro]

Adam, isn't the very fact that you don't want to participate in my thread admission that what you believe is (OK, I'll settle for half-way: COULD BE) wrong?

If I would be wrong, then you shouldn't have any problems proving that, don't you think?

Looking forward for you to correct me on things you would find appropriate to do so. And thank you.

 

[Sparkey]

Adam, isn't the very fact that you don't want to participate in my thread admission

Not that you've asked me, but the fact that I don't participate in the production or give editorial comments to [insert discussion here] does not make nor imply anything about me. What if Big Bird of Sesame Street fame claimed that I was not a Sparrow. Should I care? Could the fact that I do not care be construed as some sort of admission on my part? Well, sure it could. But then comes the question, do I care about that? This is a form of a discipline called "So What?" where one asks a series of questions designed to get at the heart of the matter. "So! What and Why does this matter?" Each utterance of each iterance (as in "The Tragedy of Othello by William Shakespeare; 185 Oth. "What needs this itterance, Woman?") will yield greater depth and may also be used for "Dead End" signs on the path toward understanding.

totopic

Of course this sign above applies to me as well as to others. It is not intended to apply directly to the nearest nor the furthest post as it does not relate to proximity to this, my post. Just a general thing that Moderators sometimes do.

 

[Adam]

Adam, isn't the very fact that you don't want to participate in my thread admission that what you believe is (OK, I'll settle for half-way: COULD BE) wrong?

.

Of course it isn't.

I'll gladly admit that my beliefs could be wrong.


That has nothing to do with not participating in your thread. I'll say once again, if I am wrong in what I believe, it would have nothing to do with the veracity (or lack thereof) of what you might claim in your thread.


I'll say this, though: if your thread is just more of these logical fallacies, I might pop in and name them all. That might be fun.