Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

[Alceste]

It's hard to ignore what does not exist. When I see a reply by Painted Wolf though there's usually at least an attempt to present a serious, substantiated claim that isn't riddled with complete misrepresentation. If only the others would follow suit.

Shermana, in your "time for evolution" thread, you TOTALLY IGNORED dozens upon dozens of completely serious and thoughtful responses in order to zero in on a handful of people who are fed up with this kind of nonsense and can't be bothered to hide it. The only replies you offered to the serious replies was to completely dismiss them for not being EXACTLY what you wanted somebody to say, or EXACTLY the way you wanted them to say it. You didn't address a single point of serious criticism anyone raised. Then made your ludicrously specific demands about what everybody is supposed to say and how all over again, insulting and generalizing about the rest of us all the while. It's MADNESS to complain that others are not treating your arguments with respect.

Sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes people need to take a good hard look in the mirror without the martyr goggles distorting their perception. The whole thread is there if you want to have a look at it again without the goggles.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, in your "time for evolution" thread, you TOTALLY IGNORED dozens upon dozens of completely serious and thoughtful responses in order to zero in on a handful of people who are fed up with this kind of nonsense and can't be bothered to hide it.

Utter hogwash. I've asked for elaboration on each contention and gotten nothing but generalities and straw men, including justifications for demanding me to look up their own claims for them when they're not actually substantiating anything. It seems even the concept of burden of proof is lost on them. If anyone should be fed up with nonsense from the other side, it's Creationists.

You didn't address a single point of serious criticism anyone raised.

Anyone is welcome to go to this thread and see if there's an ounce of truth in this sentence. By all means Alceste, keep this up. I thoroughly appreciate comments like this. You make my job much easier. Perhaps what Alceste is meaning, since I highly doubt she didn't see me questioning those like JohnHanks on their very generalizing claims, is that she simply doesn't like the fact that I'm asking them to substantiate their one-liners and provide counter-evidence. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt though and just assume she skimmed over and missed a few pages of my responses.

Another perfect example of how misrepresentation is about all your side seems to be capable of.

Please, unless you're able to actually bring up a single issue of these "Dozens upon dozens" you claim and demonstrate that my response to them was somehow adequately addressed, stop embarassing yourself. And I'd like to see what you consider to be "adequately addressed" while we're at it. Let's see if you're even able to mention a single one, and then I'll be happy to link to where I addressed it, thanks.

 

[Alceste]

Utter hogwash. I've asked for elaboration on each contention and gotten nothing but generalities and straw men, including justifications for demanding me to look up their own claims for them when they're not actually substantiating anything. It seems even the concept of burden of proof is lost on them. If anyone should be fed up with nonsense from the other side, it's Creationists.


Anyone is welcome to go to this thread and see if there's an ounce of truth in this sentence. By all means Alceste, keep this up. I thoroughly appreciate comments like this. You make my job much easier. Perhaps what Alceste is meaning, since I highly doubt she didn't see me questioning those like JohnHanks on their very generalizing claims, is that she simply doesn't like the fact that I'm asking them to substantiate their one-liners and provide counter-evidence. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt though and just assume she skimmed over and missed a few pages of my responses.

Another perfect example of how misrepresentation is about all your side seems to be capable of.

Please, unless you're able to actually bring up a single issue of these "Dozens upon dozens" you claim and demonstrate that my response to them was somehow adequately addressed, stop embarassing yourself. And I'd like to see what you consider to be "adequately addressed" while we're at it. Let's see if you're even able to mention a single one, and then I'll be happy to link to where I addressed it, thanks.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3423453-post166.html

There you go. Enjoy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Utter hogwash. I've asked for elaboration on each contention and gotten nothing but generalities and straw men, including justifications for demanding me to look up their own claims for them when they're not actually substantiating anything. It seems even the concept of burden of proof is lost on them. If anyone should be fed up with nonsense from the other side, it's Creationists.

Well the reason why is because you have to recieve a certain amount of education in these things. Usually its gained in high school. For you to seriously have a debate in evolution you need to increase your understanding of it bya great degree. That is what I have done several times and it has gone totally ignored. We have an entire thread I wish you would go through.

One of the hour long videos I sent you gave you dozens upon dozens of specific examples with in depth explinations and elaborations. Why did you not watch that video? It can do more than I can in text as it has visual examples and is done by someone with a doctorate in evolutionary biology. I have a minor in biology so when I can I refer to someone with better knowledge than myself for educational purposes.

However it seems to be a remarkable trend with creationists that they do not want to discuss the evidence but rather the very few points in which they feel refutes evolution. This is one reason why we get so aggrivated by creaionists. Its because they don't seem to be intrested in an honest discussion. I have had a few cases where this was not so. But I stress the very few part.

 

[Shermana]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3423453-post166.html

There you go. Enjoy.

I sure did.

I enjoyed watching you completely ignore my entire exchange, I'd love to see you point out anything in what you quoted that's actually a detailed, substantiated rebuttal. I addressed the only thing that was actually cogent, the issue on comparing humans to other organisms. Like I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply missed out on that entire exchange because you were in a fluster.

 

[Shermana]

Well the reason why is because you have to recieve a certain amount of education in these things. Usually its gained in high school. For you to seriously have a debate in evolution you need to increase your understanding of it bya great degree. That is what I have done several times and it has gone totally ignored. We have an entire thread I wish you would go through.

One of the hour long videos I sent you gave you dozens upon dozens of specific examples with in depth explinations and elaborations. Why did you not watch that video? It can do more than I can in text as it has visual examples and is done by someone with a doctorate in evolutionary biology. I have a minor in biology so when I can I refer to someone with better knowledge than myself for educational purposes.

However it seems to be a remarkable trend with creationists that they do not want to discuss the evidence but rather the very few points in which they feel refutes evolution. This is one reason why we get so aggrivated by creaionists. Its because they don't seem to be intrested in an honest discussion. I have had a few cases where this was not so. But I stress the very few part.

Sure, I'll watch your video when I dig back through the threads, as I've had to respond to many people in between my cold-calling, and I'll get back to you on that. I'm very much interested in honest discussion. I question whether those on the other side are, and the evidence is overwhelmingly a no.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sure, I'll watch your video when I dig back through the threads, as I've had to respond to many people in between my cold-calling, and I'll get back to you on that. I'm very much interested in honest discussion. I question whether those on the other side are, and the evidence is overwhelmingly a no.

I have presented the information. Hopefully you are able to objectivly look at it. I have never considered the creationist vs evolution debate to be a faith vs science debate. Even if I convince you that evolution is 100% real it should not rebuke your faith in god. I was a christian for many many many years while also accepting evolution. Evolution was not what caused me to loose faith in god. They are seperate things all together.

 

[johnhanks]

... since I highly doubt she didn't see me questioning those like JohnHanks on their very generalizing claims...

Very specific comments on Ewert et al arguments here and here. So far unaddressed by your good self. It's so much easier, isn't it, resolutely to look the other way and complain that no-one is addressing the issues?

 

[johnhanks]

I addressed the only thing that was actually cogent, the issue on comparing humans to other organisms.

No, you absolutely did not. What you did was throw up some biologically illiterate flim-flam about "the transition from Chimp to Humanoid to Human", which has nothing to do with anything in Ewert et al - despite your repeated demands that the rest of us focus solely on the contents of the paper.

Nor can the point in question be dismissed in the glib phrase "comparing humans to other organisms" - it was about doing a calculation using data for one very atypical species, and passing off the result as though it had general applicability.

 

[Me Myself]

The problem is, there is no real debate.

And until the highly improbable time when Creationists can provide objective empirical scientific evidence FOR creationism, there will continue to be no real debate.

pretty much.

I would be amazed by any "science" coming from creationism to begin with anyways.

"Hello kids, today we will teach creationism:

God did it.

Any questions? Yes Timmy"

"How do you know?"

"Wonderful question Timmy! You see, we are complicated. We have seen complicated things being done by people, so something akin to an uber amazing chuck norris like being "people" most have done everything that seems "complicated" and "beautiful" " "Any other question?"

*silence*

"okay kids, given that you no longer have questions, the creationism class has been a success. Now go forth to the world and keep that attitude of not making questions.

Remember, if you dont know God probably did it

As a homework, each will find 100 reasons why evolutionism is a religion and is wrong. Now I`ll go make out with the dangerous dangerous motorcycle riding science teacher, who ACTUALLY teaches science. Dont worry, I wont let him teach me anything...that I should teach you that is..."

Class dismissed

 

[dust1n]

OK

No. You said I did not understand evolution because I mentioned fruit flies with bacteria. Haha Stupid me.

The funny thing is you all say your evidence of one species changing into another is bacteria. The last time I checked bacteria is mostly one species. The only one who care that two bacteria that look and act the same are actually two different species is you maybe, to prove your point, and National Geographic.

lol. Names of Genera, Species and Subspecies - Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Amended) - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[dust1n]

OK. You have me there. So far evolution has not PROVED one species has become another. Bacteria is bacteria. Dogs are dogs. Roses are roses.
100 million species. There are more that have become extinct. All these have arrived in four billion years. I can't believe that.

lol.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's hard to ignore what does not exist. When I see a reply by Painted Wolf though there's usually at least an attempt to present a serious, substantiated claim that isn't riddled with complete misrepresentation. If only the others would follow suit.

There are a few more than PW that offer thorough explanations, great examples, and sometimes it even comes from someone who has experience or schooling in the field being discussed. And quite a few of them do go ignored while the snide remarks are the ones that are answered.
Another trend that tends to everything to annoy to infuriate non-Creationist is how Creationist often use the same arguments, the same debates, same sources, while science is constantly discovering new things about evolution, both micro and macro.
There is no logically valid reason to deny evolution; the evidence is such that it is actually one of the most understood theories of science. But the problem arises when people that what is really nothing more than a refined process that most of us began as children, and what is something we do every day, has a bias to it to the extent photos are edited, scientific laws are contradicted, dating methods are inaccurate, there is no evidence for this or that, and then of course there is always "it doesn't make since to me so it can't be true" and/or (but typically almost always and) "it's just a theory." When people say it's just a theory, I have to resist the urge to face-palm because whenever says "it's just a theory" it is an admission of ignorance of how science works and what a theory really is. There is also the fact that many people think Darwin came up with the idea of evolution, yet they will try and use points from the Origin of Species to try to counter evolution, which is another face-palm statement.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

lol.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Yeah, I already gave this link; naturally, it was dismissed with a wave of the hand.

What you have to understand here is that this issue is not about evidence or facts, but about faith. One does not accept creationism or ID based on the evidence- there really isn't any evidence- but on faith and religious commitment. But since evidence had nothing to do with adopting ID, it certainly will be ineffectual in trying to convince someone to reject ID.

 

[dust1n]

Oh, I know. I just find it hilarious with statements like "last time I checked bacteria is one species" and "bacteria is bacteria. dogs are dogs. roses are roses." I'm not even sure creationists really know what a bacterium is.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh, I know. I just find it hilarious with statements like "last time I checked bacteria is one species" and "bacteria is bacteria. dogs are dogs. roses are roses." I'm not even sure creationists really know what a bacterium is.

All creationist/ID arguments against evolution are, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, based on strawmen or misunderstandings of evolution.

Every. Single. One.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not to mention the background assumption- which is itself completely erroneous- that this is an EITHER, OR proposition; either evolution is true, or ID is. If evolution is false, ID is true, by default as it were.

Thus, they think that arguments against (strawmen of) evolutionary theory count as arguments FOR ID/creationism; but since this is NOT an either, or situation, this is simply false. If evolution turns out to be false, it is not the case that ID becomes the default position- rather, we're left with NO theory, and are back to the drawing board. (especially since ID isn't even a viable option, given that it is not a well-formed scientific hypothesis to begin with)

 

[Ouroboros]

There is no logically valid reason to deny evolution; the evidence is such that it is actually one of the most understood theories of science.

I have a suspicion that Evolution is one of the most researched sciences simply because of all this "controversy" the last 150 years. It's also one of the few sciences that rely and intersect with almost all other sciences. Geology, ecology, math, computer science, even sociology and economics, all overlap with how evolution works in not only the biological sense, but on a "game theory" level of things. Even science itself evolves based on "survival of the best ideas."

 

[Shermana]

No, you absolutely did not. What you did was throw up some biologically illiterate flim-flam about "the transition from Chimp to Humanoid to Human", which has nothing to do with anything in Ewert et al - despite your repeated demands that the rest of us focus solely on the contents of the paper.

Nor can the point in question be dismissed in the glib phrase "comparing humans to other organisms" - it was about doing a calculation using data for one very atypical species, and passing off the result as though it had general applicability.

My questioning you and asking you to substantiate your claim (and I corrected it to "Chimp-thing" as is the word I usually use otherwise) is biologically illiterate flim flam? Dismissed? Nothing to do with the paper? Ummm no, it had to do with your critique of the Review. Did you forget what you were talking about?

So apparently I can't even ask people to elaborate on their assertions, and somehow this is a deviation from the critique of the Review by asking how it directly relates to the Review.

And your comment here:

In your OP you demanded a great deal of work from your respondents. Why don't you do a little yourself?

As I pointed out, was a response to asking you to substantiate what you were saying, asking me to back up your claim for you. If you don't like the idea of being asked to back up what you're saying, at least try not to shift your burden of proof on me, if you need a primer on how burden of proof works on the claims you make, I'll be happy to help you out.



Do try harder to misrepresent me and justify your unwillingness to back up your points, that was quite an embarrassing attempt. Especially when you're going to say it had nothing to do with the paper when I was directly responding to you about something in the paper that you said.

Please, try harder, anyone reading that link which you kindly provided can see that I simply asked you to substantiate your claim, so I'm sorry if you don't like being asked to actually elaborate on what you're saying, but that's not my problem.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, I already gave this link; naturally, it was dismissed with a wave of the hand.

What you have to understand here is that this issue is not about evidence or facts, but about faith. One does not accept creationism or ID based on the evidence- there really isn't any evidence- but on faith and religious commitment. But since evidence had nothing to do with adopting ID, it certainly will be ineffectual in trying to convince someone to reject ID.

Yeah, I used that link once. The response (not, I might add, by Shermana) was to simply say 'I don't click on links...either put your own arguments in the thread, or don't...'

To which I kinda just mentally shrugged. I personally have never conducted an experiment on any of the evolutionary theories, nor found any evidence. So of course I am left with reading and trying to understand the arguments of others. So, somehow, posting to a well-set out set of arguments is disingenuous, whilst paraphrasing them without a source is not.