Originally Posted by Bennedict

unless you dont know the basics, which you dont.

An assumption stated as fact.

Originally Posted by Matthew

"Common sense" is garbage. People appeal to it only when they have nothing else to say, but are sticking to their unsupportable position anyway -- the intellectual equivalent of "So what?" or "Yuh-huh."

I prefer people and arguments of uncommon sense.

Not at all. There are many times where a flaw or hole in a statement becomes obvious without extensive knowledge of a subject. (usually a contradiction).

Originally Posted by fartingle

Not at all. There are many times where a flaw or hole in a statement becomes obvious without extensive knowledge of a subject. (usually a contradiction).

Finding a contradiction is a matter of understanding logic. When one finds a contradiction, one says, "You've contradicted yourself," and then points out how somebody is saying two entirely opposed things.

This is a far cry from simply declaring "It's just common sense." I certainly have no problem with pointing out contradictions, assuming they're actually there. I have big problems with baptizing a position "common sense," for exactly the reasons I pointed out already.

As you used it, "common sense" -- rather than logic -- seemed to spy a contradiction between a record-cold winter in Phoenix and global warming. And if you used logic to study things like the fallacies of composition and division, you would recognize that what is true of wholes is not necessarily true of their parts, and vice versa -- and hence would understand why your "common sense" judgment about the implications of the Phoenix winter amounts to precisely nothing.

Originally Posted by fartingle

Not at all. There are many times where a flaw or hole in a statement becomes obvious without extensive knowledge of a subject. (usually a contradiction).

i cant believe you are trying to justify your lack of knowledge about evolution.

youre a bible believer and a self-proclaimed scholar, imagine arguing the relevance of the gospel according to John without ever reading the gospel or any other gospel. would you be able to use common sense to argue something like that?

evolution is a similar matter, with the exception that its science, so you not only need extensive knowledge about the theory and it's components, but you need very extensive knowledge of the scientific method. not to mention basic knowledge at a bare minimum of taxonomy, geography, chemistry, micro-biology, genetics, heredity, and a various other scientific areas of study. im pretty sure everyone here meets these requirements with the obvious exception of you.

and you must be referring to your own arguments in saying that there are holes and flaws and contradictions within a statement.

what youre essentially saying is that you arent here to argue about evolution, you are merely trying to pick apart people's statements for the simple reason that you dont like evolution for religious reasons, even though you know nothing about it.

heres a funny:
theory A is backed up with a large amount of evidence
theory B is backed up by no evidence whatsoever
i dont understand theory A so,
theory B must be correct.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

i cant believe you are trying to justify your lack of knowledge about evolution.

youre a bible believer and a self-proclaimed scholar, imagine arguing the relevance of the gospel according to John without ever reading the gospel or any other gospel. would you be able to use common sense to argue something like that?

evolution is a similar matter, with the exception that its science, so you not only need extensive knowledge about the theory and it's components, but you need very extensive knowledge of the scientific method. not to mention basic knowledge at a bare minimum of taxonomy, geography, chemistry, micro-biology, genetics, heredity, and a various other scientific areas of study. im pretty sure everyone here meets these requirements with the obvious exception of you.

and you must be referring to your own arguments in saying that there are holes and flaws and contradictions within a statement.

what youre essentially saying is that you arent here to argue about evolution, you are merely trying to pick apart people's statements for the simple reason that you dont like evolution for religious reasons, even though you know nothing about it.

Where did I ever say that I did not undersatnd evolution? None of the arguement about common sense was about me. It started only because you guys said there is no way someone without comprehensive knowledge of a subject could argue anything.

You are trying to jump to conclusions that would seem to help you. (In reality, even if you were correct it would not help you).

Originally Posted by fartingle

Where did I ever say that I did not undersatnd evolution? None of the arguement about common sense was about me. It started only because you guys said there is no way someone without comprehensive knowledge of a subject could argue anything.

You are trying to jump to conclusions that would seem to help you. (In reality, even if you were correct it would not help you).

you dont need to say you dont understand evolution (you implied it but i wont go there), youve shown it in your answers. and youve also shown yourself to be a creationist, and creationism and ignorance towards evolution come as a package. you said many areas of evolution can be argued 'through the lens of common sense', when in fact they cannot be without a proper understanding of evolution. ill make the exact same parallel that i did earlier that you seem to have ignored: if you were debating someone on the relevance of the gospel of John, would you expect them to have a very good understanding of the gospels or would it be acceptable for them to argue using just the 'lens of common sense'?

Originally Posted by Matthew

Finding a contradiction is a matter of understanding logic. When one finds a contradiction, one says, "You've contradicted yourself," and then points out how somebody is saying two entirely opposed things.

This is a far cry from simply declaring "It's just common sense." I certainly have no problem with pointing out contradictions, assuming they're actually there. I have big problems with baptizing a position "common sense," for exactly the reasons I pointed out already.

Noone just declared "It's common sense". Logic without comprehensive knowledge of a subject is basically common sense because it is sense that is common to all people.

As you used it, "common sense" -- rather than logic -- seemed to spy a contradiction between a record-cold winter in Phoenix and global warming. And if you used logic to study things like the fallacies of composition and division, you would recognize that what is true of wholes is not necessarily true of their parts, and vice versa -- and hence would understand why your "common sense" judgment about the implications of the Phoenix winter amounts to precisely nothing.

I did not use it. I merely pointed out the absolute knowledge of a subject is not necessary to find a flaw. It was a comment beside the debate.

I also did not only talk about a the winter in Phoenix. The scientists behind "global warming" were shown to have manipulated information (a.k.a. they lied).

Originally Posted by Bennedict

you dont need to say you dont understand evolution (you implied it but i wont go there), youve shown it in your answers. and youve also shown yourself to be a creationist, and creationism and ignorance towards evolution come as a package.

Are you so foolish? I know what Evolution teaches and have seen its flaws through study.

you said many areas of evolution can be argued 'through the lens of common sense', when in fact they cannot be without a proper understanding of evolution. ill make the exact same parallel that i did earlier that you seem to have ignored: if you were debating someone on the relevance of the gospel of John, would you expect them to have a very good understanding of the gospels or would it be acceptable for them to argue using just the 'lens of common sense'?

Look back. I never said "many areas of evolution". You added the word "evolution" because you wish that I had said it. Also the word "many" implies "not all" so your example means nothing.

Originally Posted by fartingle

Are you so foolish? I know what Evolution teaches and have seen its flaws through study.



Look back. I never said "many areas of evolution". You added the word "evolution" because you wish that I had said it. Also the word "many" implies "not all" so your example means nothing.

if you wish to prove me wrong about your lack of knowledge about evolution, ill happily provide you with a very basic question that you cannot look up on the internet. if you dont want to answer it, dont.

the act of a species developing a variation without any sort of selection pressure is called what?

"many areas [of a given topic] (this topic being evolution, you might as well have said evolution) can be argued through the lens of common sense alone."

Originally Posted by Bennedict

if you wish to prove me wrong about your lack of knowledge about evolution, ill happily provide you with a very basic question that you cannot look up on the internet. if you dont want to answer it, dont.

the act of a species developing a variation without any sort of selection pressure is called what?

Isn't that a little too basic???

Of course, not answering that, or even answering it does not stop someone from demonstrating their total ignorance.

Originally Posted by trebor

Isn't that a little too basic???

Of course, not answering that, or even answering it does not stop someone from demonstrating their total ignorance.

absolutely. ive found however that creationists are usually unable to answer the most basic of evolution questions.

i could have asked 'if we evolved from apes why are there still apes?' and most creationists would not know, but fart has the internet to answer that for him.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

if you wish to prove me wrong about your lack of knowledge about evolution, ill happily provide you with a very basic question that you cannot look up on the internet. if you dont want to answer it, dont.

the act of a species developing a variation without any sort of selection pressure is called what?

"many areas [of a given topic] (this topic being evolution, you might as well have said evolution) can be argued through the lens of common sense alone."

Well I have no idea what it is called but I would deduce that the only way for that to happen is isolating a population, which means the term probably contains that word in some kind of conjugated latin form? Perhaps combined with genetic drift as the term for unselected genetic change?

I do not think knowledge of terminology is necessarily the definer of knowledge of a subject even if it is an excellent way to detect formal education on the subject.

Not to mention it is very difficult to carry on a discussion when complex concepts are often shortened to one scientific term.

Assume you could not look up ohm's law.

Do you remember it of the top of your head (I do), if the answer is no does that render you ignorant of electricity?

Originally Posted by trebor

Isn't that a little too basic???

Of course, not answering that, or even answering it does not stop someone from demonstrating their total ignorance.

Could you please answer it trebor, of course I can't tell if you google it but you will know if that means anything to you.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Well I have no idea what it is called but I would deduce that the only way for that to happen is isolating a population, which means the term probably contains that word in some kind of conjugated latin form? Perhaps combined with genetic drift as the term for unselected genetic change?

I do not think knowledge of terminology is necessarily the definer of knowledge of a subject even if it is an excellent way to detect formal education on the subject.

Not to mention it is very difficult to carry on a discussion when complex concepts are often shortened to one scientific term.

Assume you could not look up ohm's law.

Do you remember it of the top of your head (I do), if the answer is no does that render you ignorant of electricity?

very close, you know what it is because you and i have talked about it before.

its not terminology, its an important aspect of evolution and answering it would be an indication of knowledge about the subject. SHH! its not for you!

if you didnt know anything about ohms law, you would not build a guitar amp. thats my point.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

its not terminology, its an important aspect of evolution and answering it would be an indication of knowledge about the subject. SHH! its not for you!

lol, well could you pm it to me, curiosity killed the cat.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

if you didnt know anything about ohms law, you would not build a guitar amp. thats my point.

Point taken, that was actually a terrible example.

What I meant to ask was 'if you knew ohm's law but couldn't remember it was called that....'

The point I was trying to make was conceptual grasp as opposed to specific nomenclature or case knowledge is a more accurate proxy of knowledge.

In my work I certainly look up many formula and answers on a routine basis, They wouldn't do my any good without the conceptual glue to frame them into a coherent venture so I see that conceptual glue as superior.

To support this I also have the fact that few people remember everything they learned in school or even college, yet they still keep teaching it because once you learn the conceptual identities any particular element of reality the damage is done (damage meaning the ability to understand and put to productive venture in this case).