Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Lost causes?

lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:49:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I think a large part of the frustration occurs when people start discussing when they haven't created a common ground yet. For scientific discussions, this common ground at the very least has to be a common set of facts. For instance, if both parties don't accept that there is a foot print on the ground and the dimensions of the foot print, they have no common ground for discussing what made the footprint.

Then the two parties need to figure out what processes they actually agree upon. Do both accept heredity? More specifically, do both have the same understanding of heredity so that they can properly say they are talking about the same thing? What about fossilization? Gravity? When each figures out what facts they agree upon and processes they both accept occur, then they can actually discuss the things the disagree on based on the common ground of that which they do agree on. But then again, it's the Internet, so most people don't feel like doin' all that. ;)
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

While this might seem true in some cases, very few people are going to go to the trouble to read lengthy articles on subjects for which they have little interest. These are discussion forums, and while I totally laud the practice of supplying sources, I still think that discussion of personal views is the most important venue of communication.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:46:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:49:24 PM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I think a large part of the frustration occurs when people start discussing when they haven't created a common ground yet. For scientific discussions, this common ground at the very least has to be a common set of facts. For instance, if both parties don't accept that there is a foot print on the ground and the dimensions of the foot print, they have no common ground for discussing what made the footprint.

Then the two parties need to figure out what processes they actually agree upon. Do both accept heredity? More specifically, do both have the same understanding of heredity so that they can properly say they are talking about the same thing? What about fossilization? Gravity? When each figures out what facts they agree upon and processes they both accept occur, then they can actually discuss the things the disagree on based on the common ground of that which they do agree on. But then again, it's the Internet, so most people don't feel like doin' all that. ;)

I like this post. I might also add that it's important for all parties of a discussion be willing to put forth the effort to make their points clear instead of taking the lazy route and abbreviating everything they say.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on the development of homosexuality within the womb. To be fair, all I did was ask you questions about the paper at hand. I never stated that your theory was wrong right away, but asked you critical questions that the OP didn't answer. Instead of giving me a logical responce to these questions, you kept saying you couldn't give me the time. You said I was being irrational and ignorant. This was foolish, as when you make an assertion, you should be required to answer all questions on a given topic. You instead tried to troll me saying I didn't read it or to use my head. Your theory is just that, a theory. I am not a fool for asking questions.

It is actually you who are irrational in scientific discourse.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:15:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:51:27 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on the development of homosexuality within the womb. To be fair, all I did was ask you questions about the paper at hand. I never stated that your theory was wrong right away, but asked you critical questions that the OP didn't answer. Instead of giving me a logical responce to these questions, you kept saying you couldn't give me the time. You said I was being irrational and ignorant. This was foolish, as when you make an assertion, you should be required to answer all questions on a given topic. You instead tried to troll me saying I didn't read it or to use my head. Your theory is just that, a theory. I am not a fool for asking questions.

It is actually you who are irrational in scientific discourse.

This was actually made more to address the evolution and Big Bang deniers out there. I saw a few threads in the religious and science sections and read the comments and it made me cringe.

I also would like to point out, once again, that it appeared as if you did not read the article when you did not know what I meant by "fetal T" right away when it was a main part of the article. When this happened I simply refused to answer a few questions that I knew were answered in the article and some that I felt would be easily explained by a comprehension of the article. Because of the appearance of a lack of reading the article, not just skimming through it for points you felt you could attempt question, I responded the way I did. If you TRULY read it, I am sorry. I just feel that you did not read the entire thing objectively (btw, did you click the image of figure 1 to look at the other parts of that?) based off of some of the questions you asked, not understanding the term "fetal T" right away, and the time frame between me posting the link and you asking questions.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:20:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 10:15:37 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:51:27 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on the development of homosexuality within the womb. To be fair, all I did was ask you questions about the paper at hand. I never stated that your theory was wrong right away, but asked you critical questions that the OP didn't answer. Instead of giving me a logical responce to these questions, you kept saying you couldn't give me the time. You said I was being irrational and ignorant. This was foolish, as when you make an assertion, you should be required to answer all questions on a given topic. You instead tried to troll me saying I didn't read it or to use my head. Your theory is just that, a theory. I am not a fool for asking questions.

It is actually you who are irrational in scientific discourse.

This was actually made more to address the evolution and Big Bang deniers out there. I saw a few threads in the religious and science sections and read the comments and it made me cringe.

I also would like to point out, once again, that it appeared as if you did not read the article when you did not know what I meant by "fetal T" right away when it was a main part of the article. When this happened I simply refused to answer a few questions that I knew were answered in the article and some that I felt would be easily explained by a comprehension of the article. Because of the appearance of a lack of reading the article, not just skimming through it for points you felt you could attempt question, I responded the way I did. If you TRULY read it, I am sorry. I just feel that you did not read the entire thing objectively (btw, did you click the image of figure 1 to look at the other parts of that?) based off of some of the questions you asked, not understanding the term "fetal T" right away, and the time frame between me posting the link and you asking questions.

I did read the article, but it was also a ton of pages, and I was also conversing with you at the same time. No, I didn't know what fetal t was, because it was a unnessecary abbreviation. Using abbreviations on topics such as science is confusing and wrong to do. None the less, I read the article, and ou outright refused to answer my questions. There was 5 big one's that you never answered. Instead calling me ignorant, and assuming I didn't read a huge article (I can't remember the page count). Even so, debate sites aren't about throwing random studies in peoples faces. You are responsible for developing and explaining them yourself. Despite the fact I read your study, you continued to dodge answering the questions within it by claiming I was lying.

That is not how you debate, and I am still open to have my questions answered anytime. What I want to know, is why did you expect I would know a word that you were to lazy to spell out.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:25:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 10:20:39 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:15:37 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:51:27 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on the development of homosexuality within the womb. To be fair, all I did was ask you questions about the paper at hand. I never stated that your theory was wrong right away, but asked you critical questions that the OP didn't answer. Instead of giving me a logical responce to these questions, you kept saying you couldn't give me the time. You said I was being irrational and ignorant. This was foolish, as when you make an assertion, you should be required to answer all questions on a given topic. You instead tried to troll me saying I didn't read it or to use my head. Your theory is just that, a theory. I am not a fool for asking questions.

It is actually you who are irrational in scientific discourse.

This was actually made more to address the evolution and Big Bang deniers out there. I saw a few threads in the religious and science sections and read the comments and it made me cringe.

I also would like to point out, once again, that it appeared as if you did not read the article when you did not know what I meant by "fetal T" right away when it was a main part of the article. When this happened I simply refused to answer a few questions that I knew were answered in the article and some that I felt would be easily explained by a comprehension of the article. Because of the appearance of a lack of reading the article, not just skimming through it for points you felt you could attempt question, I responded the way I did. If you TRULY read it, I am sorry. I just feel that you did not read the entire thing objectively (btw, did you click the image of figure 1 to look at the other parts of that?) based off of some of the questions you asked, not understanding the term "fetal T" right away, and the time frame between me posting the link and you asking questions.

I did read the article, but it was also a ton of pages, and I was also conversing with you at the same time. No, I didn't know what fetal t was, because it was a unnessecary abbreviation. Using abbreviations on topics such as science is confusing and wrong to do. None the less, I read the article, and ou outright refused to answer my questions. There was 5 big one's that you never answered. Instead calling me ignorant, and assuming I didn't read a huge article (I can't remember the page count). Even so, debate sites aren't about throwing random studies in peoples faces. You are responsible for developing and explaining them yourself. Despite the fact I read your study, you continued to dodge answering the questions within it by claiming I was lying.

There were too many factors, in my perception, that pointed to you not reading it. Can you also post the 5 main questions in a response to this so that it is easier to address them when I get the time?

That is not how you debate, and I am still open to have my questions answered anytime. What I want to know, is why did you expect I would know a word that you were to lazy to spell out.

I expected you to know without me spelling it out because the paper itself used that abbreviation many times on important parts. It was not laziness that lead me to use the abbreviation, it was because I was using the term the way the paper used it.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:29:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 10:25:15 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:20:39 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:15:37 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:51:27 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on the development of homosexuality within the womb. To be fair, all I did was ask you questions about the paper at hand. I never stated that your theory was wrong right away, but asked you critical questions that the OP didn't answer. Instead of giving me a logical responce to these questions, you kept saying you couldn't give me the time. You said I was being irrational and ignorant. This was foolish, as when you make an assertion, you should be required to answer all questions on a given topic. You instead tried to troll me saying I didn't read it or to use my head. Your theory is just that, a theory. I am not a fool for asking questions.

It is actually you who are irrational in scientific discourse.

This was actually made more to address the evolution and Big Bang deniers out there. I saw a few threads in the religious and science sections and read the comments and it made me cringe.

I also would like to point out, once again, that it appeared as if you did not read the article when you did not know what I meant by "fetal T" right away when it was a main part of the article. When this happened I simply refused to answer a few questions that I knew were answered in the article and some that I felt would be easily explained by a comprehension of the article. Because of the appearance of a lack of reading the article, not just skimming through it for points you felt you could attempt question, I responded the way I did. If you TRULY read it, I am sorry. I just feel that you did not read the entire thing objectively (btw, did you click the image of figure 1 to look at the other parts of that?) based off of some of the questions you asked, not understanding the term "fetal T" right away, and the time frame between me posting the link and you asking questions.

I did read the article, but it was also a ton of pages, and I was also conversing with you at the same time. No, I didn't know what fetal t was, because it was a unnessecary abbreviation. Using abbreviations on topics such as science is confusing and wrong to do. None the less, I read the article, and ou outright refused to answer my questions. There was 5 big one's that you never answered. Instead calling me ignorant, and assuming I didn't read a huge article (I can't remember the page count). Even so, debate sites aren't about throwing random studies in peoples faces. You are responsible for developing and explaining them yourself. Despite the fact I read your study, you continued to dodge answering the questions within it by claiming I was lying.

There were too many factors, in my perception, that pointed to you not reading it. Can you also post the 5 main questions in a response to this so that it is easier to address them when I get the time?

Name one? I told you I had read them and they weren't being answered. I could say you didn't read it, as you were unwilling to give me answers to my questions. I asked you very simple one sentence questions, most of which could be explained in one to three words, and you refused to answer. This is not my fault. It is that your article is flawed and you didn't read it yourself to give me the answers within.

If I believed you had read the article yourself, then I would have the answers to my questions right now.

That is not how you debate, and I am still open to have my questions answered anytime. What I want to know, is why did you expect I would know a word that you were to lazy to spell out.

I expected you to know without me spelling it out because the paper itself used that abbreviation many times on important parts. It was not laziness that lead me to use the abbreviation, it was because I was using the term the way the paper used it.

No, I don't. You cannot expect people to know a word that you were to lazy to fully spell. This doesn't imply that I didn't read it. It implies that I only know words fully spelled and in the American dictionary. The paper didn't abbreviate it. You did. Notice how I eventually figured out what you were saying before you started spelling it out properly.
Next time, when someone is debating science with you, make sure to utilize terminology correctly.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:57:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 10:29:46 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:25:15 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:20:39 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:15:37 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:51:27 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on the development of homosexuality within the womb. To be fair, all I did was ask you questions about the paper at hand. I never stated that your theory was wrong right away, but asked you critical questions that the OP didn't answer. Instead of giving me a logical responce to these questions, you kept saying you couldn't give me the time. You said I was being irrational and ignorant. This was foolish, as when you make an assertion, you should be required to answer all questions on a given topic. You instead tried to troll me saying I didn't read it or to use my head. Your theory is just that, a theory. I am not a fool for asking questions.

It is actually you who are irrational in scientific discourse.

This was actually made more to address the evolution and Big Bang deniers out there. I saw a few threads in the religious and science sections and read the comments and it made me cringe.

I also would like to point out, once again, that it appeared as if you did not read the article when you did not know what I meant by "fetal T" right away when it was a main part of the article. When this happened I simply refused to answer a few questions that I knew were answered in the article and some that I felt would be easily explained by a comprehension of the article. Because of the appearance of a lack of reading the article, not just skimming through it for points you felt you could attempt question, I responded the way I did. If you TRULY read it, I am sorry. I just feel that you did not read the entire thing objectively (btw, did you click the image of figure 1 to look at the other parts of that?) based off of some of the questions you asked, not understanding the term "fetal T" right away, and the time frame between me posting the link and you asking questions.

I did read the article, but it was also a ton of pages, and I was also conversing with you at the same time. No, I didn't know what fetal t was, because it was a unnessecary abbreviation. Using abbreviations on topics such as science is confusing and wrong to do. None the less, I read the article, and ou outright refused to answer my questions. There was 5 big one's that you never answered. Instead calling me ignorant, and assuming I didn't read a huge article (I can't remember the page count). Even so, debate sites aren't about throwing random studies in peoples faces. You are responsible for developing and explaining them yourself. Despite the fact I read your study, you continued to dodge answering the questions within it by claiming I was lying.

There were too many factors, in my perception, that pointed to you not reading it. Can you also post the 5 main questions in a response to this so that it is easier to address them when I get the time?

Name one? I told you I had read them and they weren't being answered. I could say you didn't read it, as you were unwilling to give me answers to my questions. I asked you very simple one sentence questions, most of which could be explained in one to three words, and you refused to answer. This is not my fault. It is that your article is flawed and you didn't read it yourself to give me the answers within.

If I believed you had read the article yourself, then I would have the answers to my questions right now.

I will give two examples of what cast doubt. Not understanding the term "fetal T" right away, and the time frame between me posting the link and you asking questions.

That is not how you debate, and I am still open to have my questions answered anytime. What I want to know, is why did you expect I would know a word that you were to lazy to spell out.

I expected you to know without me spelling it out because the paper itself used that abbreviation many times on important parts. It was not laziness that lead me to use the abbreviation, it was because I was using the term the way the paper used it.

No, I don't. You cannot expect people to know a word that you were to lazy to fully spell. This doesn't imply that I didn't read it. It implies that I only know words fully spelled and in the American dictionary. The paper didn't abbreviate it. You did.

Really? So, if I find the paper abbreviating it that puts more doubt on you actually reading it. Let's see, I will be nice and only look for the abbreviation "fetal T" and not the abbreviation "T" whcih was also used.

http://tinypic.com...
http://tinypic.com...
http://tinypic.com...
http://tinypic.com...
http://tinypic.com...

Five different links ought to be enough to prove my point.

Notice how I eventually figured out what you were saying before you started spelling it out properly.
Next time, when someone is debating science with you, make sure to utilize terminology correctly.

If you want to actually debate something you go to the debate section, you do not just comment in the comment section of a poll.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 6:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:43:51 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

While this might seem true in some cases, very few people are going to go to the trouble to read lengthy articles on subjects for which they have little interest. These are discussion forums, and while I totally laud the practice of supplying sources, I still think that discussion of personal views is the most important venue of communication.

I agree with this insofar as a discussion confines itself to personal views, by which I presume you mean opinions. But more often than not in my experience, the discussion inevitably shifts to one or both parties trying to demonstrate the correctness of their personal view or the wrongness of another's, a judgment that requires evidence to be introduced in many cases (ie. science). At this point, personal views alone are going to be meaningless unless one party can demonstrate that they are an authority on the subject at hand. Barring this, sources will be necessary, though it is generally considered polite from my experience to tailor the source to the level of the other party(ies) in the discussion.

If people are just discussing personal views, they are under no particular burden to know what they are talking about. I think people should know what they are talking about before forming an opinion on something, but this is the Internet, so we have to lower our standards a bit I guess. But if people begin evaluating another's view, then they are under a burden to know what they are talking about and be able to demonstrate that they know what they are talking about through sources in many cases. Hopefully that wasn't too convoluted.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 4:32:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 6:39:40 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:43:51 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

While this might seem true in some cases, very few people are going to go to the trouble to read lengthy articles on subjects for which they have little interest. These are discussion forums, and while I totally laud the practice of supplying sources, I still think that discussion of personal views is the most important venue of communication.

I agree with this insofar as a discussion confines itself to personal views, by which I presume you mean opinions. But more often than not in my experience, the discussion inevitably shifts to one or both parties trying to demonstrate the correctness of their personal view or the wrongness of another's, a judgment that requires evidence to be introduced in many cases (ie. science). At this point, personal views alone are going to be meaningless unless one party can demonstrate that they are an authority on the subject at hand. Barring this, sources will be necessary, though it is generally considered polite from my experience to tailor the source to the level of the other party(ies) in the discussion.

I see no reason why a person cannot use a logical proposal to promote any personal opinion. Then his statement is open to be challenged by counter-logic. At certain points a good source can be a very helpful thing. The problem arises when the debate becomes too personally emotional, and people stop using logic while they revert instead to insults and gibberish. The point is that if I simply want to read about a subject I am perfectly capable of using Google on my own. What would be the sense of merely exchanging sources for each other to read?

If people are just discussing personal views, they are under no particular burden to know what they are talking about. I think people should know what they are talking about before forming an opinion on something, but this is the Internet, so we have to lower our standards a bit I guess. But if people begin evaluating another's view, then they are under a burden to know what they are talking about and be able to demonstrate that they know what they are talking about through sources in many cases. Hopefully that wasn't too convoluted.

No, I got your meaning, and I agree with a lot of it. There have been many cases where I have provided sources and then asked another person to reciprocate, but it is rare that I get a useful response. Usually they just ignore the request, but even when they do provide a source of their own it is often lengthy and of dubious value to the conversation. And of course when it comes to religion there is a very good chance that any source you might provide will simply result in the source itself being labeled biased. The best thing I know to do is to try to focus on having discussions with persons who have shown their skill and personal worth.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:40:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 4:32:11 PM, Idealist wrote:
I see no reason why a person cannot use a logical proposal to promote any personal opinion. Then his statement is open to be challenged by counter-logic. At certain points a good source can be a very helpful thing. The problem arises when the debate becomes too personally emotional, and people stop using logic while they revert instead to insults and gibberish. The point is that if I simply want to read about a subject I am perfectly capable of using Google on my own. What would be the sense of merely exchanging sources for each other to read?


Certainly a discussion cannot be had just by exchanging sources because it just devolves into a source-war or worse yet a quote-war. And if the discussion isn't about claims about the natural realm, and are essentially wholly opinion-based or wholly logic based, then sources would be much less important.

No, I got your meaning, and I agree with a lot of it. There have been many cases where I have provided sources and then asked another person to reciprocate, but it is rare that I get a useful response. Usually they just ignore the request, but even when they do provide a source of their own it is often lengthy and of dubious value to the conversation. And of course when it comes to religion there is a very good chance that any source you might provide will simply result in the source itself being labeled biased. The best thing I know to do is to try to focus on having discussions with persons who have shown their skill and personal worth.


I can appreciate this view as well. I've been involved in discussions that devolved into evaluating sources with one side doing a much better job at it than the other side. The side that was doing a poorer job usually ended up claiming the side doing the better job was not fairly evaluating their source.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 7:32:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.

I know why I can't win, it is because the majority of creationists are brainwashed, closed minded, and scientifically illiterate. If someone falls under all three of those then it is pointless to keep going because they won't listen to anything outside of their own dogma.

As for documents about evolution:

http://www.jstor.org...
http://www.jstor.org...
http://www.jstor.org...
http://www.jstor.org...
http://www.jstor.org...

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 5:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 7:32:48 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.

I know why I can't win, it is because the majority of creationists are brainwashed, closed minded, and scientifically illiterate. If someone falls under all three of those then it is pointless to keep going because they won't listen to anything outside of their own dogma.

Polly want a cracker?? Not sure what else to say to a parrot.

As for documents about evolution:

Let's play Fill-In-The-Blank. I'll go first and you finish.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was a plant, and the ending organism was a plant.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?

Sure, there's quite a bit, but quite a bit of what?? Therein lies the question.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 6:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 5:55:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:32:48 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.

I know why I can't win, it is because the majority of creationists are brainwashed, closed minded, and scientifically illiterate. If someone falls under all three of those then it is pointless to keep going because they won't listen to anything outside of their own dogma.

Polly want a cracker?? Not sure what else to say to a parrot.

As for documents about evolution:

Let's play Fill-In-The-Blank. I'll go first and you finish.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was a plant, and the ending organism was a plant.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?

Sure, there's quite a bit, but quite a bit of what?? Therein lies the question.

Are you trying to say by Plant to Plant that you want an observed change in Kingdom? This shows you are one of the dumbest creationists out there. As I pointed out at the beginning, there are such things as lost causes. You are truly a lost cause when it comes to science.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 6:29:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 6:18:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 5:55:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:32:48 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.

I know why I can't win, it is because the majority of creationists are brainwashed, closed minded, and scientifically illiterate. If someone falls under all three of those then it is pointless to keep going because they won't listen to anything outside of their own dogma.

Polly want a cracker?? Not sure what else to say to a parrot.

As for documents about evolution:

Let's play Fill-In-The-Blank. I'll go first and you finish.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was a plant, and the ending organism was a plant.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?

Sure, there's quite a bit, but quite a bit of what?? Therein lies the question.

Are you trying to say by Plant to Plant that you want an observed change in Kingdom? This shows you are one of the dumbest creationists out there. As I pointed out at the beginning, there are such things as lost causes. You are truly a lost cause when it comes to science.

So in other words you just believe that organisms can change into other types of organisms just because someone who has never seen it happen, tells you that it can happen, and calls it science?? Yet you have the nerve to talk about others who challenge that reasoning as though they are stupid. It is you who done went full retard here, if you think that rational people believe in such absurdities, just because they're taught those things in school.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 6:48:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 6:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:18:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 5:55:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:32:48 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.

I know why I can't win, it is because the majority of creationists are brainwashed, closed minded, and scientifically illiterate. If someone falls under all three of those then it is pointless to keep going because they won't listen to anything outside of their own dogma.

Polly want a cracker?? Not sure what else to say to a parrot.

As for documents about evolution:

Let's play Fill-In-The-Blank. I'll go first and you finish.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was a plant, and the ending organism was a plant.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?

Sure, there's quite a bit, but quite a bit of what?? Therein lies the question.

Are you trying to say by Plant to Plant that you want an observed change in Kingdom? This shows you are one of the dumbest creationists out there. As I pointed out at the beginning, there are such things as lost causes. You are truly a lost cause when it comes to science.

So in other words you just believe that organisms can change into other types of organisms just because someone who has never seen it happen,

Those links had speciation, change of species. You were just asking for an observed change in Kingdom. Do you know where Kingdom falls under the taxonomy chart?

tells you that it can happen, and calls it science??

There is evidence for it happening in DNA, fossil records, etc. Does not have to be directly observed. If it had to be directly observed we would not believe the Earth orbits the sun.

Yet you have the nerve to talk about others who challenge that reasoning as though they are stupid.

Because you are wanting a direct observation of evolution, a process that has been happening for around 4 billion years, to be seen in one humans lifetime. That is stupidity.

It is you who done went full retard here,

First, do NOT use the word "retard" like that. It is offensive to people. Second, how am I going full retard? Because I know how science works and you think that you do?

if you think that rational people believe in such absurdities, just because they're taught those things in school.

Let's look at the scientific consensus of evolution, shall we?
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists"
"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism"

Now, the actual scientists have an overwhelming majority agreement on evolution. So, are you saying that the overwhelming number of scientists are irrational?

There is so much evidence for evolution that it is laughable that people deny it. How about you try and provide a rational argument for creationism, a failed scientific hypothesis. What scientific evidence do you have for creationism?
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 6:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 6:48:10 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:18:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 5:55:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:32:48 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:28:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:08:47 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

I truly think that there are some people that you just cannot discuss science with due to their irrationality. I think that, at this point, it is best to just ignore those people and leave them with the links to scientific papers for if they wish to read them objectively.

Problem is that there are no scientific papers that provide the evidence for proof that the actual part of "evolution", that is at issue in the debate. No one doubts that organisms can vary and adapt to their environment, but there are no papers that "show" empirically that organisms can change into different types of organisms. Yet evolutionists continue to parrot the mantra that "evolution is a fact".

As for shutting down discussion on the topic, you wouldn't want to do that if the science were actually on your side. Now that you've shown that you're intelligent enough to realize that you can't win the topic, all that's left is for you to finally figure out WHY. Once you figure that one out, you'll become a creationist.

I know why I can't win, it is because the majority of creationists are brainwashed, closed minded, and scientifically illiterate. If someone falls under all three of those then it is pointless to keep going because they won't listen to anything outside of their own dogma.

Polly want a cracker?? Not sure what else to say to a parrot.

As for documents about evolution:

Let's play Fill-In-The-Blank. I'll go first and you finish.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was a plant, and the ending organism was a plant.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?

Sure, there's quite a bit, but quite a bit of what?? Therein lies the question.

Are you trying to say by Plant to Plant that you want an observed change in Kingdom? This shows you are one of the dumbest creationists out there. As I pointed out at the beginning, there are such things as lost causes. You are truly a lost cause when it comes to science.

So in other words you just believe that organisms can change into other types of organisms just because someone who has never seen it happen,

Those links had speciation, change of species. You were just asking for an observed change in Kingdom. Do you know where Kingdom falls under the taxonomy chart?

tells you that it can happen, and calls it science??

There is evidence for it happening in DNA, fossil records, etc. Does not have to be directly observed. If it had to be directly observed we would not believe the Earth orbits the sun.

Yet you have the nerve to talk about others who challenge that reasoning as though they are stupid.

Because you are wanting a direct observation of evolution, a process that has been happening for around 4 billion years, to be seen in one humans lifetime. That is stupidity.

It is you who done went full retard here,

First, do NOT use the word "retard" like that. It is offensive to people. Second, how am I going full retard? Because I know how science works and you think that you do?

if you think that rational people believe in such absurdities, just because they're taught those things in school.

Let's look at the scientific consensus of evolution, shall we?
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists"
"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism"

Now, the actual scientists have an overwhelming majority agreement on evolution. So, are you saying that the overwhelming number of scientists are irrational?

There is so much evidence for evolution that it is laughable that people deny it. How about you try and provide a rational argument for creationism, a failed scientific hypothesis. What scientific evidence do you have for creationism?

Forgot to post the source:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:06:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 6:48:10 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:

Let's play Fill-In-The-Blank. I'll go first and you finish.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was a plant, and the ending organism was a plant.

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

http://www.jstor.org...

The starting organism was ____________ , and the ending organism was _____________ .

There is quite a bit here, isn't there?

Sure, there's quite a bit, but quite a bit of what?? Therein lies the question.

Are you trying to say by Plant to Plant that you want an observed change in Kingdom? This shows you are one of the dumbest creationists out there. As I pointed out at the beginning, there are such things as lost causes. You are truly a lost cause when it comes to science.

So in other words you just believe that organisms can change into other types of organisms just because someone who has never seen it happen,

Those links had speciation, change of species. You were just asking for an observed change in Kingdom. Do you know where Kingdom falls under the taxonomy chart?

Evolutionists perform speciation when they decide to call an organism by a different species name that they call its ancestors. Speciation is an artifact of classification. Just because we classify organisms into different groups doesn't provide any evidence that an organism can change into something that its ancestors weren't. Sure there is variation, allowing an organism to adapt to its environment, but that's all science shows, variation. The rest is evolutionist's imagination.

tells you that it can happen, and calls it science??

There is evidence for it happening in DNA,

Show me in the DNA, how you determine that humans use to be something other than human.

fossil records, etc.

You find bones of dead animals in the dirt, line them up next to something that looks similar, and I'm suppose to believe that one turned into the other. Sorry but you're going to have to do a little better than that if you want to sell that as "science".

Does not have to be directly observed. If it had to be directly observed we would not believe the Earth orbits the sun.

Ok then, you shouldn't have any problems if I want to call God a scientific principle then, correct?? I mean, if we don't need to adhere to observational, testable, falsifiable, empirical principles, then on what grounds could you possibly dismiss the idea of a creator God, as a scientific explanation??

Yet you have the nerve to talk about others who challenge that reasoning as though they are stupid.

Because you are wanting a direct observation of evolution, a process that has been happening for around 4 billion years, to be seen in one humans lifetime. That is stupidity.

What is stupidity is believing in something that I know can't happen, just because you say that it did. If no one has ever seen organisms change into other organisms, then how do you know that it ever happened that way??

It is you who done went full retard here,

First, do NOT use the word "retard" like that. It is offensive to people.

So what. Your attitude is offensive to creationists and you don't mind calling them stupid and illiterate, so don't whine when someone else talks to you with the same disrespect that you dish out.

Second, how am I going full retard? Because I know how science works and you think that you do?

First, because you're just repeating the same old mantras that evos have been using since I can remember, and they've all been refuted. Secondly, you've given me absolutely zero reason to think that you know your butt from a hole in the ground, about science. It doesn't take a 180 I.Q. to repeat the same evolutionist propaganda over and over again.

if you think that rational people believe in such absurdities, just because they're taught those things in school.

Let's look at the scientific consensus of evolution, shall we?
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists"
"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism"

Now, the actual scientists have an overwhelming majority agreement on evolution. So, are you saying that the overwhelming number of scientists are irrational?

First off, there is no poll of scientists which allows them to express doubts about evolutionism, without risking their professional reputation, as well as their job and career. So your numbers mean absolutely nothing to me. Secondly, if a majority told you that it was safe to jump off a cliff, would you join them?? An argument from majority or authority is never a winning argument because it only takes one dissenter, to be right, as Galileo would attest to. Besides, as we learn more about genetics, it makes common ancestry look even more foolish, so only the most stubborn ideologues are going to continue defending it.

There is nothing about majority opinion that makes an opinion correct.

There is so much evidence for evolution that it is laughable that people deny it.

Equivocation noted. How do you define "evolution"??

How about you try and provide a rational argument for creationism, a failed scientific hypothesis. What scientific evidence do you have for creationism?

Can you show me where any scientist has ever proposed that creation is a wholely
"scientific" proposition?? No you can't, because creationists have enough integrity to admit that there is an aspect to creation that can't be addressed by materialistic science, instead of being like evolutionists and trying to claim that organisms can morph into different organisms through "natural" reproductive processes, and calling it wholely scientific.

You started this thread, whining that you can't talk "science" with some people, so if that's what you want then let's stick to science. I'm not against talking about creation, but you need to admit to yourself that even evolutionists have to accept the biological truth told about in Genesis. If you can't admit that the proven part of evolution is what is in Genesis, organisms reproducing after their kind, then there is no point in expecting to engage in meaningful discussion with you.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:22:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 6:54:25 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
Let's look at the scientific consensus of evolution, shall we?
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists"
"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism"

I'm curious about why you would edit out the part that says that the poll used for those numbers was taken in 1991. I think you know that the poll is outdated yet you like the numbers and wanted to use them here. Heck, many of the people polled 23 years ago aren't even in the field today, so why would their opinions count in 2014.

You're not helping your own credibility here, when you purposely omit important information from your own source. That's called a lie of omission.

Forgot to post the source:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:13:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 7:14:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I guess the argument got too difficult.

No, I just never got a message saying that you responded. I am too busy to respond right now (6 page essay and 10min speech to write), but I will get to it when I can.