Principia

LOL! N. Alonso is a blowhard. After reading this ARN thread, I am almost ashamed to have thought he was anybody worth debating.

EDIT: The best exchange:

theyeti

You're surely right about one thing. Debating Nelson is a waste of time. If you refute one of his arguments, he will typically respond by repeating his argument ad nauseam as if that alone makes your refutation untenable. In the rare event that you get him to recognize that you've rebutted his argument several times, he will try his best not to understand your rebuttal, or bring up a completely unreated issue. He never concedes that he's mistaken about anything; the best you can do is get him to give up. Perhaps most annoying is how he cites articles and essays that make the exact opposite point that he wants them to make, and no amount of explanation will make him see otherwise. I was foolish enough to get into it with him on this AE thread (though for some strange reason pages two and three won't show up). He cites this Wedge Update where Philip Johnson says the following:

Now here's the fun part. Nelson posts this in response to my claim that Johnson is ambiguous about the age of the Earth in order to placate the YECs. Apparently Johnson's caveat was lost on him. And even after careful explanation, he still refuses to acknowledge that Johnson has given us no way of knowing what he really believes. Johnson believes in an old Earth because he says so, regardless of what else he said. The first two words are all he seems to be reading; the rest of the article and its implications are ignored.

theyeti

Principia

The: You're surely right about one thing. Debating Nelson is a waste of time.

Principia: It might be a "waste of time," but I'd do it for the pure entertainment value of it.

The: If you refute one of his arguments, he will typically respond by repeating his argument ad nauseam as if that alone makes your refutation untenable.

Principia: Yeah, I noticed that. It is a rather annoying debate tactic, but isn't that the point?

The: In the rare event that you get him to recognize that you've rebutted his argument several times, he will try his best not to understand your rebuttal, or bring up a completely unreated issue.

Principia: You give him too much credit for even trying. Personally, I think your opponent's ignorance ought to be the de facto assumption when engaging an IDiot.

The: He never concedes that he's mistaken about anything; the best you can do is get him to give up.

Principia: Hmm... This is a contradiction. Earlier you said: "In the rare event that you get him to recognize that you've rebutted his argument several times, he will try his best not to understand your rebuttal, or bring up a completely unreated issue." Logically speaking, I don't see how he'd ever "give up," unless you give up first. So clearly, there must be something better to do.

The: Perhaps most annoying is how he cites articles and essays that make the exact opposite point that he wants them to make, and no amount of explanation will make him see otherwise.

Principia: Yes, this supports your contention that "[h]e never concedes that he's mistaken about anything," but completely refutes the idea that "the best you can do is get him to give up." It is infinitely better to reveal his stubborness and ignorance, than for you to give up.

The: I was foolish enough to get into it with him on this AE thread (though for some strange reason pages two and three won't show up). He cites this Wedge Update where Philip Johnson says the following: Principia: But, I think Nelson demonstrates an important point principle of quote mining. Never quote more than you need to. EDIT: Did WRE erase the posts? It looks like it... But then, he would have erased more of the critics posts than Alonso's..

The: Now here's the fun part.

Principia: Oh, but I'm having so much fun already...

The: Nelson posts this in response to my claim that Johnson is ambiguous about the age of the Earth in order to placate the YECs. Apparently Johnson's caveat was lost on him. And even after careful explanation, he still refuses to acknowledge that Johnson has given us no way of knowing what he really believes. Johnson believes in an old Earth because he says so, regardless of what else he said. The first two words are all he seems to be reading; the rest of the article and its implications are ignored.

Principia: You gave it your best shot. Nelson comes from a long line of debaters who feel compelled to overwhelm an argument by the volume of words thrown in response to it. The line-by-line breakup of a post suggests to me that he didn't even bother reading or absorbing the entirety of an argument, but rather that he possessed a singularly close-minded goal of disagreeing with everything you wrote. I vaguely remembered another YECer who used the same technique...

theyeti

You're probably just mocking Nelson's debate style, but I meant that if he recognizes that you addressed a given argument, then he'll start misinterpreting it or dragging in irrelevancies. Under no circumstances will he admitt that you have provided an effective counter-point, even if he thinks his argument is still sound. For instance, I've never seen him say, "well, you bring up a very good point, but...". Of course my experience with him is limited, so I can't say for sure.

That's about the long and short of it. BTW, are you able to read those pages? I can't. I spent a fair ammount of time on my last response to Nelson, though it was bascially just saying what I said before but louder, since he didn't acknowledge it the first time. And charlie_d had a response on that thread too, and he's always good for a zinger or two. I would like to see them again.

theyeti

Nelson Alonso

Don't worry guys, you're gonna have plenty of opportunity to see whether my arguments are either "volume of words" or logical reasons, right here in this forum . I'll have more to say when I come back from my trip, as I am currently away from my home, but here are some nice little tidbits.

Theyet:
Three times has Theyeti changed what he has said about Johnson concerning this issue, three times . First he said that Johnson was skeptical of the age of the earth. When I documented that Johnson specifically stated he accepted the scientific consensus about the age of the earth, Theyeti changed his argument saying he was leaving himself an escape hatch. Here for some reason, he says Johnson is ambigious. Actually, as I said in my response, all he says is that he would have more confidence if scientists wouldn't rely on philosophical assumptions, not only that, but he states quite explicitely that his main concern is over the mechanism of evolution.

Scott:
I don't know why you are arguing with me as JXD over at AE, but I am scratching my head more over the fact why you show these guys an incomplete dialogue. Are you afraid that they are going to see how I caught you in your blunder about Mader's textbook?
Scott stated that he had Mader's textbook on his lap and that Wells was lying about the peppered moth story and quite a few other things in the book. However, unless Scott is some kind of insect, he couldn't have had Mader's textbook on his lap because it is actually a series of books. And yes, it did have the peppered moth story, as well as the two pictures of moth glued to a tree trunk. Duh!

More later, ta ta.

pz

It looks to me like theyeti hasn't changed his argument at all. I've heard Johnson speak, and he presented himself as a fundamentalist who does not believe in an old earth; he is also a dishonest snake who will cater what he says to his crowd. He intentionally leaves ambiguous what his beliefs are to make that easier.

So all those things that theyeti said are true and accurate.
Whatever are you talking about? Wells refers specifically to Mader's 6th edition in Icons, and I should think that even if it were a multivolume text (which I find rather unlikely), I don't see how you can claim it is anatomically unlikely for someone to pull the book down and verify what's said in it.

It's also not at all improbable that Wells was lying about the contents. I've got the Campbell, Guttman, Raven, and Starr books here, and I've compared them to Wells' characterization. Wells is a dishonest fraud.
I can't say that I'm looking forward to your return if this kind of superficial, trivial twisting of words is all you can manage. I am thoroughly unimpressed...except that you have managed to confirm all of your critics' worst descriptions of you in one brief post.

Nelson Alonso

PZ:[
It looks to me like theyeti hasn't changed his argument at all. I've heard Johnson speak, and he presented himself as a fundamentalist who does not believe in an old earth; he is also a dishonest snake who will cater what he says to his crowd. He intentionally leaves ambiguous what his beliefs are to make that easier.

So all those things that theyeti said are true and accurate.


Nelson:
Then surely you can reply specifically to my documented reference where Philip Johnson specifically states that he accepts the current scientific consensus about the age of the earth. And surely you can reference where he states that:

1. he does not believe in an old earth.

2. That he caters to his audience.

When I'll return, I'll be checking to see if any of these claims are substantiated.

PZ:
Whatever are you talking about? Wells refers specifically to Mader's 6th edition in Icons, and I should think that even if it were a multivolume text (which I find rather unlikely), I don't see how you can claim it is anatomically unlikely for someone to pull the book down and verify what's said in it.

Nelson:
Actually I have photocopies of the peppered moth pictures as well as all the other "Icons" Wells gives Mader's books failing grades for. Scott was completely dishonest when he said they didn't exist. Most likely he had no idea that the textbook was actually a series of books, which is why he said he had a single book on his lap.

PZ:
It's also not at all improbable that Wells was lying about the contents. I've got the Campbell, Guttman, Raven, and Starr books here, and I've compared them to Wells' characterization. Wells is a dishonest fraud.

Nelson:
I will be looking into all those textbooks, and I will be posting quotations and pictures from those textbooks as well. I'd have to warn you, anti-IDists have a poor track record when it comes to these kinds of accusations.

PZ:
I can't say that I'm looking forward to your return if this kind of superficial, trivial twisting of words is all you can manage. I am thoroughly unimpressed...except that you have managed to confirm all of your critics' worst descriptions of you in one brief post.

Nelson:
No surprise here as I know you are the moderator of a board called "infidels" which is clearly anti-IDist, I hope you are willing and ready to have someone on board who is willing to give the dissenting viewpoint. Nuff said, be back soon.

theyeti

Oh boy, I can't wait.

Nelson, your utter inability to read between the lines is utterly baffling. I attempted over and over again to point out the obvious fact -- obvious to everyone without ideological blinders -- that the ID movement is unwilling to alienate its YEC contingent by taking a clear, unambiguous stance on the age of the Earth. You are at best nitpicking; at worst, just lying. If taken literally, the question of whether Johnson expressed "skepticism" on the age of the Earth may be debatable. I think his words qualify as expressing skepticism. Saying that one hasn't bothered to investigate the issue (as if we really believe that) and that one would have "more confidence" if not for the supposed bias of scientists qualifies as skepticism in my book. Skepticism does not equal absolute denial -- it can even entail partial yet conditional acceptance -- which is a subtlety that you're apparently unable to grasp. Nevertheless, like I said, this is at best a nitpick. My point was that the ID movement avoids cricizing the YECs at all costs, and the way in which Johnson goes out of his way to issue a caveat that he hasn't really looked into the issue so he can't say for sure is a perfect example of this. Your only response has been simple denial. Do you really think that given the context, "skepticism", "ambiguity", and "escape hatch" have any real distinction? Three times my ass, I've been saying the same thing all along and you're too dense to figure it out.

Which is basically the point I had been making all along. This is just the "Big Tent" strategy. Focusing on the mechanism at the expense of the facts of Earth history is precisely how they've avoided the issues that would otherwise divide the ID movement. But those issues are highly relevant, and this is at best a disingenous strategy. Agreeing upon a set of basic facts should be the first step in building a theory, not the last. All you have done is simply deny the relevancy of things like the age of the Earth and common descent, and when I make a point about why they're relevant, you just repeat your assertion over again. You have been either unable or unwilling to understand what I have said. Like I said, it is a waste of time.

theyeti

Principia

Yeah I got you the first time. I thought the inability to admit an error was the hallmark of an IDiot. Maybe I was wrong. Well, we're about to find out for ourselves, eh? And the fool rushes in... Yeah, neither can I. I think someone ought to email WRE and ask. I can see Frances' post, but wanted to know what charlie had posted.

Principia

Your honors, may I be granted leave to treat this gentleman as a hostile witness?