Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Science Section...

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 11:00:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 6:21:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?

I sort of picked that up just browsing through the thread titles. It's sad, really, but we'll just have to make do! Onward!
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:47:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?

No, because even though it seems that all people want to do is argue over evolution and creationism, the ideal of this thread is over and above that. To lower that standard is to endorse the heard to become nothing more than a heard...

I just want to add that arguing over creationism and evolution is perhaps most comparable to fvcking an oak tree. It's hard to get through, no matter how well prepared you might be and even if you do get through on some level, you're going to come out with splinters.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:43:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your derision is unfounded.

You probably believe it's that way, because you don't have the interest or level of comprehension necessary to understand the more complicated topics brought up and occasionally discussed here.

However, that's clearly the case with the majority of the people here, because most of the threads brought up regarding more sophisticated topics, such as by Slo1, do not strike the interest or are above the interest level of those that look at those threads, and they receive little attention and few responses.

Thus, if the science section were to entertain everything but creationism versus evolution arguments, there would be no argumentation here at all.

It wasn't always that way, but generally speaking, people intelligent enough to understand biology, chemistry, and physics are probably too busy engaging those topics on a more sophisticated level than on a debating website populated mostly by people between their teens and early twenties.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 8:54:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?

I think many people just find the Cre-Evo debate to be one of those open-ended subjects that is terribly interesting. Talking about our origins combines many different scientific disciplines, philosophy, religion, and ultimately pits worldview against worldview. It is an excellent way to challenge your own belief system, as well as increase your own knowledge and ability to understand the scientific aspects. It requires you to use logic and think critically. It's a multi-faceted debate that never gets settled, and is pretty easy to get someone to argue with you about. I love to argue but no other subject can hold my interest for as long as this one has.

The only downside to this subject is the fact that some people take it too personally, and many times it ends up being a battle of personal insults. When it reaches that point it just isn't worth slogging through a whole wall of text, most of which is name calling or telling you how stupid you are, to find that one sentence which actually is relevant to the debate.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:10:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:47:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?

No, because even though it seems that all people want to do is argue over evolution and creationism, the ideal of this thread is over and above that. To lower that standard is to endorse the heard to become nothing more than a heard...

I just want to add that arguing over creationism and evolution is perhaps most comparable to fvcking an oak tree. It's hard to get through, no matter how well prepared you might be and even if you do get through on some level, you're going to come out with splinters.

Arguing from the Creation perspective, I'd say that arguing with evolutionists is a lot like screwing a beehive. They tend to ignore that there is a huge hole that allowed a penis to get into their house in the first place, and turn into an angry swarm of beasts who are intent on stinging the person who is attached to the penis, until they drive him away. They can't find a way to repair the hole so that no penises can get in, so their only option is to defend it using any means available.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 4:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:10:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:47:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?

No, because even though it seems that all people want to do is argue over evolution and creationism, the ideal of this thread is over and above that. To lower that standard is to endorse the heard to become nothing more than a heard...

I just want to add that arguing over creationism and evolution is perhaps most comparable to fvcking an oak tree. It's hard to get through, no matter how well prepared you might be and even if you do get through on some level, you're going to come out with splinters.

Arguing from the Creation perspective, I'd say that arguing with evolutionists is a lot like screwing a beehive. They tend to ignore that there is a huge hole that allowed a penis to get into their house in the first place, and turn into an angry swarm of beasts who are intent on stinging the person who is attached to the penis, until they drive him away. They can't find a way to repair the hole so that no penises can get in, so their only option is to defend it using any means available.

Arguing from the evolution perspective, I'd say that arguing with creationists is a lot like being a bee and having an idiot try and stick their penis into your hive.

No matter how many times you try and explain that it is a beehive, it has honey, it has wax, it has a queen it has bees that fly in and out, they do not listen to reason and continue to state that this beehive is actually a sex box.

They make arguments such as the hive has a hole in it, it is obviously a sex box; that there is no evidence that there are any bees there, that while there are bees flying in and out, it is only evidence of being a micro hive, and not a macro hive. All because the bible says so. They get stung as a way of demonstrating this is definitely a hive and to point out that it is incredibly stupid, irrational and illogical to beleive it is a good idea to put their penis in a beehive.

So despite all the explanations that this is most definitely a hive and not a sex box, and a rather painful and embattled manhood they continue until they are in so much pain, more so that could be reasonably examined by even the most defective of sex boxes, they slink off and simply ignore that particular hive until they have had a chance to heal.

Then they find a new hive, and repeat the same argument again.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:01:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:10:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 12:47:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/28/2013 12:54:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
has the motto "Engage in a broad range of science-related discussions."

Can we save new members time and change that to "Engage in a broad range of evolution vs creationism rants"?

No, because even though it seems that all people want to do is argue over evolution and creationism, the ideal of this thread is over and above that. To lower that standard is to endorse the heard to become nothing more than a heard...

I just want to add that arguing over creationism and evolution is perhaps most comparable to fvcking an oak tree. It's hard to get through, no matter how well prepared you might be and even if you do get through on some level, you're going to come out with splinters.

Arguing from the Creation perspective, I'd say that arguing with evolutionists is a lot like screwing a beehive.

I wonder if you feel like that when you try to argue with me.

They tend to ignore that there is a huge hole that allowed a penis to get into their house in the first place, and turn into an angry swarm of beasts who are intent on stinging the person who is attached to the penis, until they drive him away.

Not only did your analogy not make sense, it was an even poorer play on mine.

They can't find a way to repair the hole so that no penises can get in, so their only option is to defend it using any means available.

You're never going to understand why the creation v. evolution argument is an absurd one to have. You're similarly never going to understand why none of it matters, and I am sorry for you about that.

I am reminded of the old phrase, a good phrase that is very applicable here...

"But for the grace of God, there go I."