Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[Clint Edwards]

I notice you didn’t define either word

I notice I don't have to

 

[AV1611VET]

There are several poster here who answer creationists objection with intelligently.

With intelligently what?

You didn't finish telling us how intelligent evolutionist poster [sic] are.

 

[DaveDavids]

In order for there to be an actual debate, for one, you have to " acknowledge the principles ", this is the classical basis for debates, for if you cannot agree what is being debated on, there is no debate at all

Also, it seems when a lot of people enter into what they refer to as " a debate " ,they do so under the pretext they are not wrong, never wrong, nor will they openly admit to being wrong to their opponent, in many cases they will flat out refuse to accept they even could be wrong

They'll just keep repeating their claims like it somehow adds gravitas to a statement by repeating it

Again, this is not debate

The internet really has spawned a mentality in people where they just refuse to admit they could be wrong, they refuse to accept any knowledge from outside their own knowing as valid or legitimate, ( Again, that's not debate, not even close ), worse, it has bred a generation of people who confuse access to information with actual knowledge and understanding that comes with study

Example:

I used to waste a lot of time trying to " debate " with people online, but then I saw that people in many cases would just Google up an easy answer, and they always seemed to have all the answers ready

But then I asked myself, would they be able to speak / teach at great length on the topic/s without the internet in front of them ?

Like just sitting around a campfire ?

The answer would be " no " in most cases

So, if one cannot actually argue / debate from retained knowledge that comes from study, they are not teachers, they are merely overly-opinionated, and in many times just ignorant

There's a phrase I like from Wolfgang Pauli : " This is not even wrong "

 

[Uber Genius]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

If the intent is to call out logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks, and red herrings, it might be advisable to avoid the sweeping generalization fallacy by suggesting "Evolutionists always."

But your suggestion of a discussion format that looks at the best explanation of biological diversity based on evidence one premise at a time is helpful. My sense is that many on this site lack the background for such intellectual rigor. But I could be wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

With intelligently what?

You didn't finish telling us how intelligent evolutionist poster [sic] are.

For a guy who chronically uses "anthropomorphic" instead of anthropic principle, you come across as a pedant.

 

[HitchSlap]

In order for there to be an actual debate, for one, you have to " acknowledge the principles ", this is the classical basis for debates, for if you cannot agree what is being debated on, there is no debate at all

Also, it seems when a lot of people enter into what they refer to as " a debate " ,they do so under the pretext they are not wrong, never wrong, nor will they openly admit to being wrong to their opponent, in many cases they will flat out refuse to accept they even could be wrong

They'll just keep repeating their claims like it somehow adds gravitas to a statement by repeating it

Again, this is not debate

The internet really has spawned a mentality in people where they just refuse to admit they could be wrong, they refuse to accept any knowledge from outside their own knowing as valid or legitimate, ( Again, that's not debate, not even close ), worse, it has bred a generation of people who confuse access to information with actual knowledge and understanding that comes with study

Example:

I used to waste a lot of time trying to " debate " with people online, but then I saw that people in many cases would just Google up an easy answer, and they always seemed to have all the answers ready

But then I asked myself, would they be able to speak / teach at great length on the topic/s without the internet in front of them ?

Like just sitting around a campfire ?

The answer would be " no " in most cases

So, if one cannot actually argue / debate from retained knowledge that comes from study, they are not teachers, they are merely overly-opinionated, and in many times just ignorant

There's a phrase I like from Wolfgang Pauli : " This is not even wrong "

Feel better now, having got that off your chest?

 

[Ophiolite]

A typical response, attack the poster, not what is posted. The angry new evolutionist's have been using this tactic for years now, Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.

So, if you are serious about an intelligent discussion we must first define the terms we are arguing over. Please provide your definitions of abiogenesis and macroevolution. I would welcome your own definitions, but would be happy with any published definition that you can stand 100% behind.

 

[DaveDavids]

Feel better now, having got that off your chest?

Feels great to speak my mind

Does it bother you ?

 

[HitchSlap]

Feels great to speak my mind

Does it bother you ?

Not in the least. Rant away.

 

[DaveDavids]

Contributing a well thought out opinion is " ranting " ?

This is the type of " debater " I was referring to

I can easily turn around and invalidate anything you say by merely labeling it ?

So much for debate

RIP

 

[HitchSlap]

Contributing a well thought out opinion is " ranting " ?

This is the type of " debater " I was referring to

I can easily turn around and invalidate anything you say by merely labeling it ?

So much for debate

RIP

Indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

For a guy who chronically uses "anthropomorphic" instead of anthropic principle, you come across as a pedant.

Ouch! I guess you deserve a touché rep for that one.

I haven't lost any sleep over it though, since both of those words are sciency; and getting science wrong is one of my trademarks.

In short, I don't care.

 

[DaveDavids]

If you say so

I'd like to hear more of your opinion personally, don't clam up on me

 

[HitchSlap]

If you say so

I'd like to hear more of your opinion personally, don't clam up on me

Was this directed towards me?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Contributing a well thought out opinion is " ranting " ?

This is the type of " debater " I was referring to

I can easily turn around and invalidate anything you say by merely labeling it ?

So much for debate

RIP

I wouldn't take it personally, Hitchslap kinda stopped trying with these debates a while ago. Came as a huge shock to me after returning to this site after being gone for a bit.

 

[pitabread]

There lots of fields of biology that are in fact tangible and real... evolution is not one of them.

Sure it is. Modern evolutionary theory is an applied science. There are even companies with patents based on evolutionary theory.

Tell me, if we are, according to evolution, essentially just animals, why would you feel the right to judge me if I followed my instincts and killed someone.... some one I perceived as a threat, you know survival of the fittest? Do you pass that judgement on to other animals that exhibit the same behaviour? Why not?

Science isn't prescriptive; it's descriptive. You're not going to find a moral justification in the theory of evolution for killing someone any more than you'd find moral justification for pushing someone off a building in Newton's theory of gravity.

Please consider trying to answer my question as it's genuine... I can never figure out the purpose of behaving morally if we are nothing more than an evolved animal.

Humans are social creatures. There are benefits to behaving in a cooperative fashion and shared morals facilitates that.

 

[Brightmoon]

I notice I don't have to

. So you’ve left me with the assumption that you can’t . Given your other posts I feel that’s a reasonable assumption. I’ve rarely met a creationist who could . They usually give some pseudoscience definition that’s not accepted by the mainstream science community and the reason that I asked is because creationists have their own bizarre versions of evolution that, in no way, matches anything from mainstream science.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No, actually it’s god’s idea. You should read Exodus 20 when you get a chance.

What part of this chapter is offensive to you? Servitude was God's idea but not the basterdized form of slavery we had in the US.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Sure it is. Modern evolutionary theory is an applied science. There are even companies with patents based on evolutionary theory.

You can patent a theory? Interesting...

Humans are social creatures. There are benefits to behaving in a cooperative fashion and shared morals facilitates that.

Humans are also manipulative, greedy, selfish, covetous, lustful and a myriad of other behavioral constructs, Why is the social aspect the one that has precedence?

 

[Speedwell]

You can patent a theory? Interesting...



Humans are also manipulative, greedy, selfish, covetous, lustful and a myriad of other behavioral constructs, Why is the social aspect the one that has precedence?

If the theory works, you can patent applications of it.

But I wonder why you think the theory of evolution has to explain our capacity for moral awareness?