The debating skills of evolutionists

If you think I am slow in asking that question, then you are intellectually challenged as I suspected.
I want to know why you think these things are or are not the case: my answer is irrelevant to determining your thoughts.
(By the way, as far as I can see you have answered it once.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you should work on your comprehension skills. It may be unpleasant for you to be told that you are committed to a delusion, that you have no ability to comprehend evidence, scientific methodology, or any of the tons of data from palaeontology, genetics, zoology, botany, developmental biology, microbiology, etc that demonstrate the reality of evolution. I am indifferent to the discomfort that you do, or at least should feel. However, you do need to be continually reminded that you are discarding the use of the one thing that distinguishes us from most other animals and that is a brain capable of powerful reasoning. Now that does make me sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok, now I am sure that when you insulted me on earlier posts you were just projecting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If this is true than why isn't once enough for you?

 

"Then you should work on your comprehension skills. It may be unpleasant for you to be told that you are committed to a delusion, that you have no ability to comprehend evidence, scientific methodology, or any of the tons of data from palaeontology, genetics, zoology, botany, developmental biology, microbiology, etc that demonstrate the reality of evolution."

It isn't uncomfortable at all. I understand the hurling elephant fallacy very well. And since you have arrived here that is all I have seen from you. Snobbery followed by childish comments and void of substance.

"I am indifferent to the discomfort that you do, or at least should feel. However, you do need to be continually reminded that you are discarding the use of the one thing that distinguishes us from most other animals and that is a brain capable of powerful reasoning. Now that does make me sad."

No, I don't think it does. I think it was just another insult which is apparently your idea of an argument. That is, very sad.

 

Now let me ask you a question Ophiolite. Did you read the information debate that I posted between Dr. Max and Dr. Spetner?

 

I have not been insulting you. I have been stating some straightforward facts. Facts that are evidenced by each of your posts.
Stating a fact, even if that fact seems unpleasant to you, is not an insult. If you beat your wife, it is not an insult for me to call you a wife beater.

My first comments that you likely interpreted as an insult were these: I understand that your emotionally biased religious deviance prohibits you from recognising this evidence, while your apparent intellectual limits prevent you from understanding it. However, your incredulity, ignorance and intellectual limitations in no way invalidate the mountain of evidence that those willing to use the brain God allowed to evolve do understand and appreciate. Logic indicates that words demonstrably written by humans and containing much ambiguity will not have been derived from God. Believing that this is the case is a clear deviance from logical thought. The only reasonable explanation for such an illogical deviation is supression of the logical faculties by emotion.

I do not know if you are, or are not intellectually limited. That is why I carefully modified the phrase with the word apparent. Your refusal to accept simple facts and to draw logical conclusions from these facts suggests that either you are a liar, or intellectually challenged. I have chosen the second option precisely because it is not insulting.

You repeatedly express disbelief at well established aspects of evolutionary theory: your inability to believe is absolutely no argument against the theory. It is merely another example of your own limitations. I'm sorry if you find that also insulting, but you are the one exposing your limitations to the world. I am merely pointing at them.

Again, I described you as ignorant. That is self evident. Do I really need to demonstrate it?

I could go on through each of my posts. In each instance you will see that not once have I insulted you, but simply reported objectively upon your biases, areas of ignorance, or limited intellect. An insult would be calling you a self indulgent, vindictive cretin. I see no evidence to support such a description and have no intention of applying it to you.

May I ask why you are so opposed to evolution? In your own words, and your own time.

 

"I have not been insulting you. I have been stating some straightforward facts. Facts that are evidenced by each of your posts.
Stating a fact, even if that fact seems unpleasant to you, is not an insult. If you beat your wife, it is not an insult for me to call you a wife beater."

Even if you feel a person to be an idiot, calling them one is still an insult. You seem to be logically impaired on this point. But since I have openly stated I welcome all attacks, that is not the issue. A few jabs here and there can be part of the fun of an informal discussion. It is when that is all you offer, it begins to make me suspicious that it is all you have.

"My first comments that you likely interpreted as an insult were these: I understand that your emotionally biased religious deviance prohibits you from recognising this evidence, while your apparent intellectual limits prevent you from understanding it. However, your incredulity, ignorance and intellectual limitations in no way invalidate the mountain of evidence that those willing to use the brain God allowed to evolve do understand and appreciate."

yes, and are you able to discern that this is nothing but insult? Again, don't assume that I was offended by this, I am not. My skin is thick. But surely even you should realize that this is just meant to offend and demean and nothing more. It is your bias and no more a statement of "fact" than the moon is made of cheese. When it comes to evolution, genius is not required and I am more than equipped to discuss the basics with anyone. I have had discussions with scientists at universities on many occasions. And I have found that many, if not most, are woefully unprepared to defend neodarwinism.

"Logic indicates that words demonstrably written by humans and containing much ambiguity will not have been derived from God. Believing that this is the case is a clear deviance from logical thought."

How do you argue such a position from premise to conclusion? If I agree with you that some parts of the bible are ambigious, I must conclude that it could not have been inspired by God? Does not logic dictate that God is higher than man in his thoughts and understanding? And isn't it reasonable that he may choose to make some things appear "ambigious" to one person, and yet clear to another? This is exactly what Jesus stated when he said "I praise you Father Lord of Heaven and Earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent, but didn't reveal them to babes". Sounds like the answer to your objection was offered prior to it being made. To my mind, it makes perfect sense that a just and holy God would not allow we "simple folks" to be left out.

"The only reasonable explanation for such an illogical deviation is supression of the logical faculties by emotion."

Again, are you sure that it is an illogical deviation? I don't think you can argue that conclusively. It seems to me that your argument becomes circular here as all who embrace the bible as Gods word must therefore be making an emotional decision in your view. You would need to study this in great detail and made a large sample. I know of people who resisted the bible but felt compelled by the evidence they perceived as being compelling, to embrace it. What of them?

"I do not know if you are, or are not intellectually limited. That is why I carefully modified the phrase with the word apparent."

Everyone is intellectually limited. You could have stated this for anyone on this forum and been correct. You chose to pin this upon me because my positions are at odds with your own and those of a large amount of scientists. Wouldn't it be wiser to stick to the arguments themselves, rather than make my intelligence quotient your main focus?

"Your refusal to accept simple facts and to draw logical conclusions from these facts suggests that either you are a liar, or intellectually challenged. I have chosen the second option precisely because it is not insulting."

This is a loaded statement. You have not shown that I cannot draw logical conclusions. You have simply stated that I cannot. I think it would be more accurate, and logical for you to attack the instances where you feel my logic was faulty, and give me an opportunity to either rebut this claim or admit that you are right rather than make sweeping generalizations. I am human and have many failings, and like anyone I have lied a few times in my life. But I don't think anyone who knows me would say that I am a liar. Again, another sweeping generalization from a person who before insulting me, acknowleged my being correct on a couple of my points.

"You repeatedly express disbelief at well established aspects of evolutionary theory: your inability to believe is absolutely no argument against the theory."

There are no well established facts of evolutionary theory. You simply have asserted this without support. The only thing established about evolution is that most scientists believe it. Even the definition of evolution is ambigious.

"It is merely another example of your own limitations. I'm sorry if you find that also insulting, but you are the one exposing your limitations to the world. I am merely pointing at them."

No need to be sorry for anthing here. You simply need to be embarrassed for substituting attacks and insults for an argument. My logic leads me to believe it is because you either feel somehow "above this discussion" or your abilities to engage me are limited.

"Again, I described you as ignorant. That is self evident. Do I really need to demonstrate it?"

Ignorant about what? Evolution? I am ignorant about a lot of things, you need to be specific. I have not claimed to be a practicing scientist. I have published no articles in any journals. What I claim is that observational evidence for molecules to man evolution is lacking. If you feel you can prove me ignorant on this point in a laymans discussion, have at it.

"I could go on through each of my posts. In each instance you will see that not once have I insulted you, but simply reported objectively upon your biases, areas of ignorance, or limited intellect."

again, you have no idea what an insult is, nor what a fact is, nor how to discuss your views with others. But don't worry, I am here to get you all straigthened out.

"May I ask why you are so opposed to evolution? In your own words, and your own time."

Sure, for one I think it is a great deception. I think it is anti-knowledge which leads to erroneous conclusions in medicine for example. It is an axiomatic belief about the past which flys in the face of my own axiomatic positions. It is a belief, similar to my own, held to with ardor and faith. It is the doctrine of atheistic secular humanism a religion I appose. It breaks the laws of science. In short, it is an elaborate and ingenius fairy tale for grown ups, like you.

 

Incorrect. The intent of an insult is to demean. I do not need to demean you, since you are doing a fine job of this already.

I have seen no evidence that you have anything that would make a proper discussion worthwhile, or even possible.

And now, with intention to insult, your skin may not be the only thing about you that is thick. I do not expect you to be offended because I have not offered an insult. I had credited with you enough common sense not to offended by an objective statement of fact. Your protests suggest I may have been to kind.

Genius is unecessary: true. I did not suggest otherwise. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you have any ability to discuss the issues, but merely to deny, deny, deny.

Since most scientists at university are not biologists or geologists I am hardly surprised. And you know what? Most geologists would be unprepared to defend Bowen's Reaction Series, not because it is false, not because they are uneducated, but because defence of an established theory is hardly the primary function of a scientist. (Most people accept the world is round. Very few can defend that position with any conviction.)

I gave you an abbreviated argument. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is the word of God. Not a single shred of evidence. Then you have all the other Holy Books, some of which are at odds in so many ways with the Bible. To believe that a self contradictory work of man is the work of God is an insult to God.

What evidence? It is one thing to see evidence for God, it is quite another to arrive at the confused conclusion that the Bible is her work.

Don't be cute. It doesn't suit you. I mean you are more limited than most.

No. You have done that for us.

I am fascinated by the scale of self delusion practiced by someone with views such as yours. The only way I can reconcile the existence of such stupidity is to presume stupidity. I am open to alternative porposals. No convincing one have been forthcoming.

Bunkum. There are libraries full of well established facts. They underpin all the biological sciences. Failure to see them is evidence that you are either deliberately obtuse, mentally sick, or irredeemably foolish. (Not an insult. For an insult I would have added something about the size of your genitalia.)

Yes. You are ignorant about evolution. If you were not so ignorant you could not make the ignorant claim that there are no well established facts about evolution.

And finally: observational evidence for molecules to man evolution
That is the heart of the matter. I don't give a flying **** about the place of man in the evolutionary scheme of things, yet it seems this is central to your entire objection. And it is that attitude that permeates your entire position that I find much more than objectionable, I find it despicable and, more than that, perhaps even evil. It represents a species obsession and an underlying fear of insignificance that my Darwinian genes perceive as a definitive weakness.

Given those differences I doubt we can have any useful dialogue, so I'll just take the occassional snipe when I see you post something especially revolting.

 

@ Dan

HOW TO 'SPLIT' QUOTES:

If you want to perform some special function within a post you must use Tags, they look like this:

[keyword ] text goes here [ /keyword ]

The quote tag looks like this: (remove the '-' )

[-Quote] text goes here [-/Quote]

which produces this:

If you want the Quote box to show who posted the quote, do this: (again remove '-')

[-Quote="name goes here"] text goes here [-/Quote]

Other tags include:

I italic
B Bold
U Underline

You can also click the 'Go advanced' button and then click on the button at the top (second row from the top, third from the right, looks like this)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This will insert a Quote tag into your post, you then copy and paste in the author's name and the relevant post.

 

Thanks entropy, Dan's slack posting style has been brought up before. Seems despite the alleged degree he couldn't figure it out himself, ....

 

Always happy to help.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I aim to remove some of the communication barriers by improving technological literacy.
Hopefully it leads to a more productive debate, although I'm enjoying this one as it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's see, "bla bla bla bla bla attack bla bla bla antichristian bigotry bla bla insult bla bla bla attack insult attack bla bla bla elephant hurl attack bla bla"

I got it, you offer nothing because you have nothing

Sums up:Given those differences I doubt we can have any useful dialogue, so I'll just take the occassional snipe when I see you post something especially revolting.

thanks dear, we shall anxiously await your irrelevent input

 

Ok thanks again for helping me out. I will give it a shot and see if I can get it right this time. dan

 

the degree is as real as my technilogical ineptitude!

 

And he still can't figure out the quote tags.

Evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth because it fits the observed facts the most closely. There is no alternate explanation that does this better. In fact, there really is no alternate explanation at all. The only people who cannot accept this are those blinded by religious dogma. You are here to use the pseudoscientific work of others to try and insult people you don't agree with because their incredulity about your dogmatic beliefs is insulting to you. But all you are achieving is making yourself look foolish and petty. Ophiolite was being too kind.

 

Lets sum up. No one here was able to offer an observed irrefutable series of information gaining mutations in the germ cells of any organism. If there were any, I am sure Dr. Max would have been able to offer them. What we have been offered here are "dinobird" fossils and a few examples of information losing mutations, which are simply fossils of birds outside of evolutionary sequence (thus demonstrating the circular nature of the geological column). We are told that evolution is attested to by "overwhelming scientific evidence from all branches of science" but what we are offered is "evolution is attested to by overwhelming scientific evidence from all branches of science".

 

Nice work Dan, good of you to drop by and learn nothing.

 

For one rare occassion I find myself in agreement with (Q). Tell me Dan, have you ever actually read an evolutionary text book? Or a research paper on the subject? Or even a popular work? If so would you like to detail them here? You know, give us a quick synopsis of the arguments they contain. Demonstrate that a) you have read them and b) you understand what they are saying, even if you don't agree with it. Would you like to try that, or are you going to continue your rejectionist 'arguments'.
Yes. I like this idea. Give us the synopsis of one work and then tell us where you feel the idea/argument presented falls down. We might actually get somehwere. (Assuming you don't chicken out. You wouldn't do that would you?)

 

If I went through 4 years of college and earned a degree in science followed by a degree in science education and 30 credits toward my masters and didn't read a research paper what does that tell you about the state of modern education? Perhaps this could happen in Australia, I don't know. At any rate I am sorry but I will decline your silly challenge and counter you with one of my own little man. Go back and read the Max Spetner debate and give me a synopsis of your conclusions as to how Max did, how Spetner did, and what advice you could offer either of them. If you do well perhaps we can arrange a debate with you and Dr. Safarti. I believe he lives near you and would be anxious to meet you. Provided of course that you demonstrate a basic comprehension of science principles and are able to actually say something in a debate. I would not want to embarrass my evolutionist friends by picking a straw man to debate a real scientist.