This what draws me to RF more than anything out - observing how other minds process information. Creationists are the richest but not the only source material. The anti-vaxxers, MAGA's defending Trump, climate deniers, and people trying to reconcile contradictory scripture are interesting to observe.
People have asked why bother - you're never going to change any of those minds - and I tell them that I know that and that that is not my purpose. I have referred to it as "tapping the glass" as with an aquarium to see the reaction. You've seen my discussion lately with Cladking. It's clear to me (and probably you and others) that he will never define intelligence or will he address the question of why that is (cognitive blindness of some sort or trolling).
It can't, but that's not an issue for the claimant, and I find that interesting. Do they not see the incoherence? Or do they not care? It has to be one of them, doesn't it, but good luck getting any useful feedback to help decide the matter.
For whatever reason, I have never gotten tired of this activity. I find that kind of thinking endlessly fascinating and wonder why some people are that way (the groups I just named) while others are very different in their approach to processing information, trusting reason and empiricism to find answers and gain knowledge.
Yes, disregarding what has been written and failing to even mention seeing it is one of the commonest techniques.
That's a good question. With Yours True, I believe that she is sincerely interested in learning but can't. She brings links here that don't sound like they come from creationist sites suggesting that she is Googling and reading science, but to no avail. Maybe it came from a creationist or JW source anyway.
But I think what's commoner is representing that one cares about reason applied to evidence, since when you or I provide a link, it's generally not looked at. People don't want to say, "I just choose to believe it and don't care if that's unreasonable or contradicts evidence I can't interpret anyway" So they say, "Show me your evidence" but then don't look at it.
But that's fair. I frequently don't look at links provided from such people, but then again, unlike the creationists I just described, I'm not asking for any, either. But those can be fun at times, too - studying the so-called "pious fraud" (aka lying for Jesus) - and trying to identify the misinformation and/or specious argument. Here's one I read a few years back and refer to at times. Scroll down to "One Athiest [sic] Lie After Another" for a fine example of this dishonesty, one which I refer to when explaining why not going to such sites for information is not the genetic fallacy. From DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution :
"During the first half of the 20th century, that fact [humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, other apes 24] would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce."
That's a compelling argument to somebody unfamiliar with human chromosome 2. Chromosome dropout would be lethal, but not end-to-end fusing of chromosomes, and it would be difficult to find fault there unless one went to a knowledgeable and reputable source. I would warn Your True not to take information from such sources for just this reason, and continue going to Google
Maybe rethink your purpose. Forget about teaching such people. It isn't happening. That doesn't mean to stop teaching. Others will read and learn from you. I will.
And now you know both aspects of posting here at what I call humanist school. The teachers are the lecture section and tapping the glass is the lab section. One can learn from both.
Besides those two, I post for practice constructing and evaluating arguments including identifying and naming fallacies and practice at writing.
What you wrote was incorrect, so I would agree if that wasn't what you meant, although I see (coming up) that you're still making the same mistake.
Then you've misunderstood what you read. Here, you've gone back to using the word "only"
No, I'm sure you didn't make that up, but it also seems like you don't understand what it says. Did you see the word reproduction? That's an essential aspect of evolution, as is natural selection. Those are mechanisms to promote the transmission of genetic information through populations over generations. Mutation is NOT the mechanism that caused you and any sibs you have to be different from your parents and each other.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with what you transformed it into when you tried to paraphrase it.
That's fine. I was hoping to see you acknowledge that "All new genes come from mutations" does NOT mean that only mutation can change populations over time. New genes (mutation) are an important factor but not the only factor. No need to answer again if your answer isn't that you can now see that those are different ideas - one yours, the other from an external source that you quoted.
