Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Given that my problem is you saying something egregiously illogical that's rather telling.
Get a clue. If you can't understand what I was getting at, then I can't help you. I have been through this with you over and over again. All that will happen is that you will find some knit picky thing to point out and take wrong. You are thinking too much and understanding too little.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Get a clue. If you can't understand what I was getting at, then I can't help you. I have been through this with you over and over again. All that will happen is that you will find some knit picky thing to point out and take wrong.
You've been over nothing. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to defend the idea that the existence of a different stance proves that both should be ignored.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are thinking too much and understanding too little.
You really do sound like the Buddhist Jack Trick. What possible reason could I have for blindly "understanding" a claim that doesn't make sense in the first place?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've been over nothing. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to defend the idea that the existence of a different stance proves that both should be ignored.
YouTube is what I was talking about. You ignored that didn't you? I was talking about a characteristic of YouTube. People on a one to one communication are less likely to lie or fabricate information. However, YouTube thrives off of bullshit.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You really do sound like the Buddhist Jack Trick. What possible reason could I have for blindly "understanding" a claim that doesn't make sense in the first place?
I have no idea what a "Buddhist Jack Trick", and I really don't care.
Then you watch the videos and give us a run down.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
YouTube is what I was talking about. You ignored that didn't you? I was talking about a characteristic of YouTube. People on a one to one communication are less likely to lie or fabricate information. However, YouTube thrives off of bullshit.
Anyone monologuing a position (like in a book or documentary) would be subject to exactly the same problem. I don't see how that's a reason to say they're automatically discredited. I entirely fail to see the point in giving a totally meaningless reason that something is wrong or not worth paying attention to as it makes one look evasive, if that's a "lack of understanding" I feel a bit sorry for you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you watch the videos and give us a run down.
Don't really have the time to watch the whole thing but it seems to me that Ross is trying very hard to reconcile his Christian beliefs with his scientific knowledge and that Hovind doesn't understand the Big Bang and strikes me as something of a hypocrite from the "if something has to be explained then it's a cult" thing.
Overall from watching the first segment my main complaints would be that Hovind makes a lot of claims about science but fails to back them up with science while Ross makes a lot of points that involve real testable science and observation but tries to spin them so that Christianity must be true.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who is them? You are making no sense here.
The author of a particular book.
Author A writes a book about how chocolate is a flavor.
Author B writes a book about how chocolate is not a flavor.
The existence of each book does not discredit either book, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.
Similarly:
YouTube Guy A posts about how chocolate is a flavor.
YuoTube Guy B posts book about how chocolate is not a flavor.
The existence of each does not discredit the other, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The author of a particular book.Author A writes a book about how chocolate is a flavor.
Author B writes a book about how chocolate is not a flavor.The existence of each book does not discredit either book, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.
Similarly:
YouTube Guy A posts about how chocolate is a flavor.
YuoTube Guy B posts book about how chocolate is not a flavor.The existence of each does not discredit the other, rather we should judge the works on their logical merit.
See again, you didn't get what I was saying. You are definitely thinking too much. 🙄
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you've produced a statement that falls apart under scrutiny and the problem isn't that the idea is flawed it's that people are thinking about it?
No, you are being an ass who likes to find a little manusha and make a big deal about it. Sorry if I insulted you, but you just couldn't get my point.
Originally posted by Digi
The average KMC poster doesn't have an hour+ to spend watching a series of videos on a topic that they likely already have a basic understanding of and have formed an opinion on.
I posted the video thread because I though it to be educational, if not thought provoking. If my video thread proved to be too lengthy (for some), there are plenty others to participate in. It is a free world. I understand your point, but understand, that all threads are different in topic and length.
Originally posted by Digi
If you want to engage people in debate without being trolled, you're going to have to take a few points that you think are valid or interesting from the videos, put them into your own words, and present them in a way that doesn't scream "Here, watch this" but rather "Here's a few things I think, why don't we talk about them some?" and use it as a jumping off point for discussion.
I posted a video thread; I think you are taking such action far too serious. Your either interested in my thread or your not! No need to convince.
Originally posted by Digi
If you want people to invest their time into something, anything (including KMC discussion), you have to give them valid reasons to want to pursue it.
Again, members are either interested or they are not. No need to convince.
Originally posted by Digi
It would be like a teacher throwing Shakespeare at kids and telling them to read, instead of first introducing the topic, providing some introductory exercises, and finding ways to engage them with the material before beginning, or helping them to connect the work to their own lives.
Again, I think you are taking this far too serious! I simply posted a video thread. Your either interested or your not. Members of the forum have a choice to view a video thread or not (and to participate). I have no obligation(s).
Originally posted by Digi
I've seen the first kind of teacher. Nobody likes those teachers.
Okay... good luck in college! Moving on. What were your views on the video thread?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
ushom i beleive no less than three times ive showed you that this man is a liar and a demagogue whose arguments have been utterly raped by science{the great flood and the grand canyon being one of those }. why then do u continue to post this stuff?
facts dont matter when you have ideology?
So he asked for my thoughts, genuinely seeming like he wanted to see what was going wrong. Then he ignored each and every point. Why am I not surprised?
ushome, how many people have watched more than about 3 minutes of the videos and commented on them? Don't you think there might be a reason for that? Your stubbornness reveals your ignorance.
Originally posted by Digi
So he asked for my thoughts, genuinely seeming like he wanted to see what was going wrong. Then he ignored each and every point. Why am I not surprised?ushome, how many people have watched more than about 3 minutes of the videos and commented on them? Don't you think there might be a reason for that? Your stubbornness reveals your ignorance.
He doesn't want to loose the argument. 😉
To all members of the forum-
First, please relax. Get a grip amongst yourselves.
As previously stated, this thread was posted for the pleasure of the forum. Some members, however, may not want to watch the video post in its entirety. That is fine, and more power to you! But others may want to watch the entire video post, and I was curious to get their opinions (over the video post itself). My opinion, unless asked for it, is irrelevant. Can we, as members of the forum, please refrain from future unnecessary charges and/or hot air? All I've done is posted a thread and stated (in the latter) that I'm a supporter of the "Old Earth" view, proposed by Astronomer Hugh Ross. What's the big deal?!
If no one is interested in this thread, so be it. If that is truly the case, I'm no longer interested. Understand? I'm not perfect, but I try to bring a different perspective to this forum (while communicating my views). Some of you, have got me all wrong.
With all said, let's hit the reset button and start over. Watch the video post (or do not)! Feel free to comment or don't. I do not care. However, if someone presents a question, comment and/or concern to me, I will answer to the best of my knowledge. Other than that, let it go!