デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As a former (evolutionary) field biologist, I can tell you from experience that anytime someone refers to biologists as "evolutionists", you can pretty much ignore anything else they say. And if you choose to keep reading/listening, stand by for brain damage as you are barraged by such nonsense as above, where they make statements that presuppose the answer and/or skews the actual basis of science so badly that you'd have to expend most of your energy explaining what's wrong with the question before you can even start to answer what they were trying to ask.

In almost every case, they'll ask a twenty word question that requires two thousand words to properly answer, giving the Creationist a rhetorical advantage at two orders of magnitude, in making it appear to an unknowing audience member that there's 1) a Controversy on the subject, when there's no such thing except in the minds of Creationists, and 2) that Creationists' answers are simple and direct, while ours are complex and thus convoluted.

Thus, it is not only unworthy of a response, it may damage your brain and your spirit to engage such idiots.
Sooo don't acknowledge good points because you may be wrong? What sort of atheist are you? It's like ;shit I can't win a game that's so obviously rigged, but I'm gonna keep play in anyway because of, a , chance, yeah, that's it chance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 08:55 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 08:45 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Sooo don't acknowledge good points because you may be wrong? What sort of atheist are you? It's like ;shit I can't win a game that's so obviously rigged, but I'm gonna keep play in anyway because of, a , chance, yeah, that's it chance.

Good points? What good points? There are no good points with creationism, and rocket just doesn't want to argue bad points already refuted before.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
06-08-2015, 09:37 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows I will engage any legitimate question on the subject, and with glee.

I pointed out that if someone is using a term like "evolutionist", they're likely just parroting propaganda from "wedge tactic" Creationist websites, designed to misrepresent evolutionary biology and force people defending it into useless arguments over strawmen. Some of those strawman arguments are so idiotic, I consider them "brain-damaging" (which is, obviously to everyone except you, a joke).

It is pointless to argue with someone who has no interest in learning what biology actually says, and I recommend to all that they avoid anyone who starts with skewed phraseology like "evolutionist", as it indicates their biases in advace, which time and literally thousands of such discussions have taught me are pointless because they are rarely honest, let alone educated enough on the subject to understand the arguments they are making, much less my replies to the questions they "machine-gun" in my direction.

The fact that you read this as "demonization" is a little sad, to me. Poke around the board a little bit and see if I "avoid" anything. Indeed, I think most here would agree that I give enormous leeway and "benefit of the doubt" to anyone I think may be asking legitimate questions or wanting to have a serious discussion on the issue. If you think it is my obligation to extend that grace to those who come here with dishonest intent, evidenced in advance by easily-recognizable propaganda and terms of derision for 150+ years of hard-earned scientific knowledge and methodology in my field of expertise, then you can just focus really hard at your screen in an attempt to determine how much of a fuck I give about your opinion about such obligations:

[Image: notasingle.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-08-2015, 10:46 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
All I was saying is that I read the bit and it seemed to have a couple of good points for you to just throw it in the trash. Evidently you have some insight on dealing with that type of person. But even that would be steriotyping not cool for research purposes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 12:31 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 02:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Sounds like you didn't read the OP very closely. Metazoa Zeke is an atheist and a supporter of the theory of evolution. He was presenting anti-evolution statements in order to argue against them. He was in no way supporting those statements. He and Rocket Surgeon are on the same side.

I admit I didn't. I just read the thread title. When I opened the thread and saw the wall of text I just read the the questions. I hate walls of text. Whats funny is I thought to myself, "This guy has pretty high rep for a theist....something is not right here".

Anyways, I do think my criticism of Rocketsurgery is still valid. However I don't think he was being out of line like I previously thought. You guys were just having an atheist circle jerk so his behavior is kinda expected.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 02:50 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 09:37 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows I will engage any legitimate question on the subject, and with glee.

I pointed out that if someone is using a term like "evolutionist", they're likely just parroting propaganda from "wedge tactic" Creationist websites, designed to misrepresent evolutionary biology and force people defending it into useless arguments over strawmen. Some of those strawman arguments are so idiotic, I consider them "brain-damaging" (which is, obviously to everyone except you, a joke).

It is pointless to argue with someone who has no interest in learning what biology actually says, and I recommend to all that they avoid anyone who starts with skewed phraseology like "evolutionist", as it indicates their biases in advace, which time and literally thousands of such discussions have taught me are pointless because they are rarely honest, let alone educated enough on the subject to understand the arguments they are making, much less my replies to the questions they "machine-gun" in my direction.

The fact that you read this as "demonization" is a little sad, to me. Poke around the board a little bit and see if I "avoid" anything. Indeed, I think most here would agree that I give enormous leeway and "benefit of the doubt" to anyone I think may be asking legitimate questions or wanting to have a serious discussion on the issue. If you think it is my obligation to extend that grace to those who come here with dishonest intent, evidenced in advance by easily-recognizable propaganda and terms of derision for 150+ years of hard-earned scientific knowledge and methodology in my field of expertise, then you can just focus really hard at your screen in an attempt to determine how much of a fuck I give about your opinion about such obligations:

The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

You claimed that people who use the word evolutionist should be ignored or else you will get brain damage. Claims like this are obviously demonization and fear mongering. I don't even have to argue that they are because it would be like arguing the color of a white board is white.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:49 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

You claimed that people who use the word evolutionist should be ignored or else you will get brain damage. Claims like this are obviously demonization and fear mongering. I don't even have to argue that they are because it would be like arguing the color of a white board is white.
Wiki says this.

" In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.[7]"

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TubbyTubby's post
07-08-2015, 05:16 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

Does that mean that people who believe in a round earth are round-earthists?

Or people believe in the sky being blue are blue-skyists? What about those dirty no good Moonists and the starists and the planetists or all the other ists out there that believe in some space object? You know, people who believe that the moon and the stars are not actually projections but actual physical objects?

Cuz plenty of people believe they are not real.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 07:59 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
Thank you, Tubby2. It's amazing that had to be defined in its modern context, but I appreciate it.

Again, HJ, if you re-read what I wrote, it's obvious the "brain damage" (would you be happier if I said "a migraine" or "a facepalming incident" instead of "brain damage"?) is a joke, simply referring to the futility of arguing with people who are of the Discovery Institute® style of internet evolution debate. We've all seen it a million times, and the wording of that series of "Questions for the Evolutionist" gives itself away not only in the title, but in numerous little clues within the questions themselves, that there is no legitimate answer that can be given to the questioner which would satisfy them and/or make them actually pay attention to what science really teaches. It is moot and a likely source of facepalming brain-pain/damage for the "evolutionist" (still think that term has been ludicrous since the moment the Scopes Monkey Trial concluded, in 1925), and is something that people who haven't seen a thousand incarnations of the "Machine-Gun Tactic" favored by Creationists, often under the guise of ID/IC pseudoscience, might not instantly recognize.

In other words, the questions themselves are actually mini-speeches, designed to trap an honest science student (or amateur enthusiast) into a discussion that is only one-way, where the "fence-sitting" layperson ignores the complex answers given to what appear to be simple questions, and thus gets the impression that the questioner is being Reasonable, when the deeper examination reveals that they are being anything but that. It's a deliberate, disingenuous, and degrading tactic that uses the "evolutionist" as a sounding-board to try to reach the general American audience by relying on their poor scientific educations in order to "muddy the waters" in the belief that the Bible mythologies "win by default", if science can be made to seem over-complex/convoluted enough that it doesn't sound like it's solid. (This is why the "Quote Mining" tactic of incorrectly citing actual scientists is so popular among Creationists, as it gives the impression that "something is wrong with the science"... see, e.g., the first question in the list and its misquotation of a Harvard biologist, Dr. Andrew Knoll, which correctly quotes his Introduction, saying we don't know exactly how life originated here on earth, but ignores that he goes on to write a whole book on what parts we do know about it, thus giving the audience a false impression of what Dr. Knoll was saying, and of the state of the scientific knowledge. It is deliberate dishonesty and fakery/showmanship.)

To a person who argues on public forums like this, especially on that topic, it is often "playing into the hands of" those charlatans by engaging them on their grounds, as our honest OP chose to do. He did exceptionally well, I'll grant him credit, but the fact is that his answers still got long and reached the TL/DR point, as you yourself admitted, Heywood. That means the Creationist tactic worked again.

And that means I must warn others that they should avoid the frustration of fruitless answers, except as practice for their own sake in making sure they have honestly covered any objections (raised by Creationists) to their own satisfaction. It also so happens that, in addition to the frustration of learning that you are debating a dishonest person who is simply not interested in what you (or science) have to say, you learn that they are also using you as an echo-target to parrot Creationist propaganda. How many times do you think I've had to witness that occur, since 1996 when I first started debating the subject online, before I can recognize the tactic in an instant and give the advice to others?

It's a serious question: Why, in light of the above, should I do anything other than warn my fellow atheists here about that tactic/effect?

For you to suggest that I should give special dispensation to people with clear, well-recognized, dishonest intent, I say that you must not be aware of the Wedge Document, and need to educate yourself and stop helping the Creationists by playing to the "controversy" they invent by pretending there's some scientific conspiracy to ignore The Truth Of Creationism™.

See the Wedge Document for yourself: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
07-08-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

The world is stupid. Would you call someone who accepts gravity a gravitist?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: