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

[Shermana]

We do want Creationist arguments. It is too bad that they have been put in the backburner for far less respectable things (such as unfounded conspiracy theories) in disguise.

Oh you do? Apparently I can't even quote from a Creationist site that quotes secular studies and papers as with Tumbleweed's example. And if anything goes against the mainstream science or says that they're not being honest, it'll be written off as Conspiracy theory.

It's pretty see through that your side is not actually interested in debating. Don't pretend like you are.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

EvolutionNews.org, is a blog from The Discovery Institute where Behe is a Senior Fellow.
And the author of the above mentioned blog? A biologist? A biochemist? No?

It's attorney Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs
for the Discovery Institute.

More than that. Reviewing the Pandas Thumb article ....
here The Panda's Thumb: ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses....
It becomes rapidly clear that Mr. Luskin is truly misrepresenting the author's notes....and in fact, directly contradicting (lying about? :cover: ) the author's points.

 

[Shermana]

More than that. Reviewing the Pandas Thumb article ....
here The Panda's Thumb: ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses....
It becomes rapidly clear that Mr. Luskin is truly misrepresenting the author's notes....and in fact, directly contradicting (lying about? :cover: ) the author's points.

I'd be interested to hear how exactly Luskin is misrepresenting, specifically. Thanks.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

If you have the where-with-all to go one step deeper into reality you could try an actual article on the subject of molecular (evolutionary) changes occuring within the HIV particles/viruses...such as this...
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence/HIV/COMPENDIUM/1996/PART-III/2.pdf
...And this, along with many, many others like it, is why the likes of Behe and Luskin, and 'The Discovery Institute' are passed by by credible followers of reality.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” -- Mark Twain
Part of what Twain was getting at, is that it is SO easy to lie, and propogate it; while truth/science is slow and tedious and detailed and difficult. So the scientific community, faced by a continous and often repetative barrage of claptrap and pseudo-science, and vitriol and hatred .....these thoughtful people REALLY DO try, again and again to point out the errors in the liars' messages....only to be called "haters" and "liars" themselves??
Post after post, article after article, month after month, and year after year.....the SAME errors/lies committed by the same individuals (or worse, new converts to the mass of errors/lies). :no::no::no:
That is why. The debate is over. It ended years ago. Now there is only religion and politics, CONSTANTLY beating on the walls of reality, demanding that science bend its knee and respect their 'errors' as equals.

 

[secret2]

Oh you do? Apparently I can't even quote from a Creationist site that quotes secular studies and papers as with Tumbleweed's example. And if anything goes against the mainstream science or says that they're not being honest, it'll be written off as Conspiracy theory.

It's pretty see through that your side is not actually interested in debating. Don't pretend like you are.

What the freaking freak is "secular studies"? Good lord.

 

[Shermana]

If you have the where-with-all to go one step deeper into reality you could try an actual article on the subject of molecular (evolutionary) changes occuring within the HIV particles/viruses...such as this...
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence/HIV/COMPENDIUM/1996/PART-III/2.pdf
...And this, along with many, many others like it, is why the likes of Behe and Luskin, and 'The Discovery Institute' are passed by by credible followers of reality.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” -- Mark Twain
Part of what Twain was getting at, is that it is SO easy to lie, and propogate it; while truth/science is slow and tedious and detailed and difficult. So the scientific community, faced by a continous and often repetative barrage of claptrap and pseudo-science, and vitriol and hatred .....these thoughtful people REALLY DO try, again and again to point out the errors in the liars' messages....only to be called "haters" and "liars" themselves??
Post after post, article after article, month after month, and year after year.....the SAME errors/lies committed by the same individuals (or worse, new converts to the mass of errors/lies). :no::no::no:
That is why. The debate is over. It ended years ago. Now there is only religion and politics, CONSTANTLY beating on the walls of reality, demanding that science bend its knee and respect their 'errors' as equals.

So is that a no to my request to point out specifically where Luskin misrepresented?

Oh well if the debate is over, you should all have this forum closed down and just rename it to Creationist Bashing Board.

 

[Shermana]

What the freaking freak is "secular studies"? Good lord.

It means studies or papers that aren't done by Creationists, such as the one quoted by Luskin.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'd be interested to hear how exactly Luskin is misrepresenting, specifically. Thanks.

That's the point many have already tried to turn your head to.

Please. Please read the young Ms. Smith's article. If you wish to see where Luskin seems to have stopped reading, try from ....
"Turns out a LOT of evolution has been going on in HIV-1 since it was transferred to humans 50-60 years ago. What are the biochemical implications of these differences?

In humans, there are two functions of Vpu5 – one is inducing the degradation of CD4 molecules. CD4 is the host cell receptor HIV needs for infection. Removing CD4 from the cell surface prevents superinfection (more than one virus infecting the same cell) and helps prevent newly released viruses from turning around and infecting the same cell (also prevented by an HIV maturation step involving protease). To put this the simplest way possible, Vpu involves the evolution of at least two protein-protein interaction sites – one to interact ............"

What smack is written into Ms. Smith's paper is an obvious reflection of what I note in my prior post.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Did you even read the quote?

Yes, I went to the blog and read the entire thing.

She is very good, as a lawyer, at twisting words.

I prefer articles about biological evolution written by those who understand biological evolution. Like biologists.

A simple and easy to understand source for the beginner is Berkley's Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so how does that clash with"

those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery -

In other words, Vpu has two different protein domains, each of which performs one of the functions cited by Smith. Thus, neither Vpu protein in the two strains of HIV acquired any new function, for as far as we can tell, both Vpus in both strains of HIV generally perform both tasks. /QUOTE]

Hmmm, seems like misrepresenting of what Behe's saying if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, I went to the blog and read the entire thing.

She is very good, as a lawyer, at twisting words.

I prefer articles about biological evolution written by those who understand biological evolution. Like biologists.

A simple and easy to understand source for the beginner is Berkley's Welcome to Evolution 101!

Okay, so basically you accuse of twisting words, and then write off the source. Well if that's what you feel is all that's sufficient, good on ya.

 

[yoda89]

It means studies or papers that aren't done by Creationists, such as the one quoted by Luskin.

The only way I view creationism to be possible is to throw out most doctrine and approach it more philosophical. Stating that there was nothing in the beginning. Some unknown event occurred was a cause to our current beliefs. Thus they unexplained events that will be understood were a manifestation of a large event. If you see another way four religion to survive without evolving and to keep changing please present it. People will eventually rid religion as more knowledge is acquired. It has to evolve how will it without constantly turning to outdated questionable doctrine and begin to believe in the power of mankind. Contrary to popular belief the masses hold the power. How will it survive without accepting science? Do you see another way?

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems in Evolution debates, whenever the Creationist posts anything, rather than actually discussing the claims, those on the TOE side generally just make snide comments, attempt to insult the intelligence.....

If it seems that way, then perhaps it's only because genuine & serious responses aren't as easily remembered as the stinging ones. But I too see much of what you claim. If the rules against personal attacks aren't strictly enforced, then perhaps a special insult free forum is needed. Something green?

 

[yoda89]

If it seems that way, then perhaps it's only because genuine & serious responses aren't as easily remembered as the stinging ones. But I too see much of what you claim. If the rules against personal attacks aren't strictly enforced, then perhaps a special insult free forum is needed. Something green?

I'm not being offensive. However I do not see a way for creationism to survive withour evolving? Do you?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

So is that a no to my request to point out specifically where Luskin misrepresented?

Oh well if the debate is over, you should all have this forum closed down and just rename it to Creationist Bashing Board.

How would you treat a constant stream of prosthelytizing from members of The Church of the Spaghetti Monster (CSM).

CSM has as much proof backing up its claims as does Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, just less history.
Clearly you are just ignorant of the visions and revelations of the Great Pasta.

Again, and again, and again.....how would you treat the next CSM member knocking at your door. And the next?
and the next?

and the next?



...and the next?

Why won't you invite them in to discuss the merits of their beliefs?
...and even if you do....another will come by tomorrow...
and the next day.

and the next day...

....

 

[Shermana]

If it seems that way, then perhaps it's only because genuine & serious responses aren't as easily remembered as the stinging ones. But I too see much of what you claim. If the rules against personal attacks aren't strictly enforced, then perhaps a special insult free forum is needed. Something green?

Yeah we could use a forum that's actually meant for debate, where sliding and smearing and dodging and attacking and avoiding questions and rebuttals and writing off sources without addressing the claims and making blanket statements and basically writing off the other side altogether isn't allowed.

It's a sad state when even the admins are attempting to justify such.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As I have said before, when Creationist present objective scientific evidence FOR Creationism, call me.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/88277-prove-creationism-id-here.html

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not being offensive. However I do not see a way for creationism to survive withour evolving? Do you?

I wasn't picking on anyone, primarily because I've avoided the creationism v evolution threads lately. (I'm not up on who is dissing whom.) Evolution (ie, science) & Creationism are just different perspectives. I think the latter is utter bunk, but this is a view I generally keep unexpressed when I'm discussing the issue with creationists. It is too ad hommy. (I just invented that phrase. Like it?)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am assuming its because of things I've said that sparked this thread.

Honestly if you come out with dishonesty and blatant lies (not necessarily you but the ones creating this so called "evidence") while at the same time disregarding all of the mounted evidence then you are not debating. You are whining and kicking your feet. I am all for actual debates. However lets not forget you were the first one to sling around false accusations in that thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

We at RF see too much presumption that the other side in an argument is being dishonest, as though they can see the truth in our side, but knowingly deny it. I've been accused of it meself at times. Sometimes it's gussied up as "intellectual dishonesty", but it's still not acknowledging that the other side can sincerely believe incredible things, & still deserve civil conversation.