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

[Shermana]

In most debates I have seen *edit* it only involves the Creationist misrepresenting evolution and ignoring basic facts and telling the evolution what he or she believes.

Most evolutionists on forums are not angry or use personal attacks. As a whole they just laugh and mock creationist claims. Mostly a comedic relief.

And this is what I'm talking about Comrade, the Creationists would like to disagree about this "misrepresenting" and "ignoring basic facts" concept. Do you think Michael Behe is blatantly ignorant and misrepresents things?

Basically, it boils down to, "If they disagree with us, they are ignorant or misrepresenting facts".

Granted, there are Creationists who are ignorant and misrepresent facts.

But do you admit that many Evolutionists are blatantly ignorant and misrepresent facts? Or does it only go one way? From my observations, most people who feel the urge to participate against Creationism don't have more than a 6th grade science education.

But if you're saying that the entire spectrum of Creationist arguments from those who actually understand the arguments are the same, that's where the problem is.

But otherwise, we're mainly looking at an attempt to justify vitriol and personal attacks from those who even bother entering the rings.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a challenge to be respectful when faced with certain attitudes. It doesn't help that those can only survive by surrounding themselves with unadvisable environments.

 

[Shermana]

It is a challenge to be respectful when faced with certain attitudes. It doesn't help that those can only survive by surrounding themselves with unadvisable environments.

Well in that case, I guess Creationists shouldn't be expected to be respectful? Especially with the attitudes of most Evolutionists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well in that case, I guess Creationists shouldn't be expected to be respectful? Especially with the attitudes of most Evolutionists.

You wanna me to be brutally honest?

Creationists cannot survive as such while being respectful. If they decide to respect actual knowledge over passion and fear, they will stop being Creationists.

Which, of course, will happen eventually. There is no way out of that.

I only wish you were not so attached to such unsusteinable beliefs. And it is not even necessary for religious practice, so it is really a shame that it happens in the scale that it does.

 

[Shermana]

You wanna me to be brutally honest?

Creationists cannot survive as such while being respectful. If they decide to respect actual knowledge over passion and fear, they will stop being Creationists.

Which, of course, will happen eventually. There is no way out of that.

I only wish you were not so attached to such unsusteinable beliefs. And it is not even necessary for religious practice, so it is really a shame that it happens in the scale that it does.

So basically, your argument now is that all Creationist arguments are wrong no matter what, and there's no need to debate them, no need to even have a Creationist vs Evolution forum, because they're already wrong, and that Creationists cannot be respectful no matter what, even if they present their arguments in a mature and non-condescending way, because they don't respect "actual knowledge" (whatever that means). No need to actually humor them by addressing their claims, links, and such, they're just automatically wrong because they refuse to acknowledge "real knowledge". Gotcha.

Essentially you're saying that a Creationist cannot be rational and respect knowledge. Do Creationists get to say the same thing about the Evolutionists here or do such blatantly insulting characterizations only get allowed one way? Do I get to be just as brutally honest as well?

You're providing a lot of fuel for my professional Psychological evaluation of Evolutionists, I thank you for that.

Thank you for totally exemplifying the attitude I'm trying to discuss here.

Just do the right thing, and change the title of this subforum to "Creationist Bashing Forum: We don't want Creationist arguments here" and be done with it.

 

[yoda89]

I remember being greatly condemned for my view on a biblical book. I interpreted as I did. Never condemning it and said it to give insightful lessons. I was told I was stupid and did not know what I was talking to according to my own perspective on a book. Even though I had read it a hundred times because it wasn't their way.

Its difficult because most people have already determined if you are wrong or right. Few are here to learn and open to the possibility of going 'well ok that makes sense.' Its always I don't know therefore...God. As being an ex-Christian that pretty much sums it up. I sometime wonder if the deists creationists are the only ones who really listen.

I am open to view presented evidence but am rarely presented with any or it is extremely subjective.

Avoid using yall. We speak for ourselves and have a wide variety of views on different matters.

 

[Poeticus]

I was told I was stupid and did not know what I was talking to according to my own perspective on a book. Even though I had read it a hundred times because it wasn't their way.

Namaste,

Don't you know, Master Yoda? They want it as 1+1=2. They don't want your 2x+4=24...

M.V.

 

[Shermana]

I remember being greatly condemned for my view on a biblical book. I interpreted as I did. Never condemning it and said it to give insightful lessons. I was told I was stupid and did not know what I was talking to according to my own perspective on a book. Even though I had read it a hundred times because it wasn't their way.

Its difficult because most people have already determined if you are wrong or right. Few are here to learn and open to the possibility of going 'well ok that makes sense.' Its always I don't know therefore...God. As being an ex-Christian that pretty much sums it up. I sometime wonder if the deists creationists are the only ones who really listen.

I am open to view presented evidence but am rarely presented with any or it is extremely subjective.

Avoid using yall. We speak for ourselves and have a wide variety of views on different matters.

Indeed, I have a major problem dealing with those who only want to read the Bible their way and only their way.

Have you looked at the Creationist websites and examined their arguments without simply brushing them off for being Creationist?

 

[bobhikes]

So basically, your argument now is that all Creationist arguments are wrong no matter what, and there's no need to debate them, no need to even have a Creationist vs Evolution forum, because they're already wrong, and that Creationists cannot be respectful no matter what, even if they present their arguments in a mature and non-condescending way, because they don't respect "actual knowledge" (whatever that means). No need to actually humor them by addressing their claims, links, and such, they're just automatically wrong because they refuse to acknowledge "real knowledge". Gotcha.

Essentially you're saying that a Creationist cannot be rational and respect knowledge. Do Creationists get to say the same thing about the Evolutionists here or do such blatantly insulting characterizations only get allowed one way? Do I get to be just as brutally honest as well?

You're providing a lot of fuel for my professional Psychological evaluation of Evolutionists, I thank you for that.

Thank you for totally exemplifying the attitude I'm trying to discuss here.

Just do the right thing, and change the title of this subforum to "Creationist Bashing Forum: We don't want Creationist arguments here" and be done with it.

You seem to understand well. Are you trying some psychological trick to make them see the errors of there way. They are locked in there one view and as Wilma pointed it out there are lots of others here the same way.

It is rare that people (humans) have a truly open mind.

 

[yoda89]

Indeed, I have a major problem dealing with those who only want to read the Bible their way and only their way.

Have you looked at the Creationist websites and examined their arguments without simply brushing them off for being Creationist?

I do and had for many years previously being a theist. Attending a theist schooling system I analyzed every area. In many ways taught not to think for myself. OR if I did so to always incorporate doctrine in new ideas. I am personally much more eager to discuss philosophy. Paradox's and possible causes of effects unknown.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... Do you think Michael Behe is blatantly ignorant and misrepresents things?

Yes, I do.

For instance, in another thread, misinformation was presented from Behe concerning HIV and mutation rates. And judging from what Behe said, he is either ignorant of of Vpu, or misrepresenting HIV (lying).

 

[Iti oj]

I'll say it Creationist are wrong. now lets debate about something interesting like an exchange of letters between Darwin and Falconer, where Falconer (writing a paper) that Darwin set down the foundation but he need not be surprised if his successors greatly altered his ideas while erecting the theory. To which Darwin Replied that he not only expected but hoped that much the frame work to stand while much of the origin to be thrown out as rubbish.

Notice the difference between foundation and frame work.
who was right?

I have whole quotes and sources.
I should probably mention Steven Jay Gould.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, I do.

For instance, in another thread, misinformation was presented from Behe concerning HIV and mutation rates. And judging from what Behe said, he is either ignorant of of Vpu, or misrepresenting HIV (lying).

Okay, but I don't see where exactly it was demonstrated that Behe presented misinformation and lies or was shown ignorant of the VPU protein. Feel free to link to where this was shown to be objectively wrong with a thorough debunking.

 

[Aquitaine]

LOL - "Evolutionists"... :biglaugh:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Behe in ‘Edge of Evolution’

“Like malaria, HIV is a microbe that occurs in astronomical numbers. What’s more, its mutation rate is 10,000 times greater than that of most other organisms. So in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world. Yet all 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. If we see that Darwin’s mechanism can only do so little even when given its best opportunities, we can decisively conclude that random mutation did not build the machinery of life.”

That is, unless you are ignorant or misrepresenting HIV and Vpu,

Courtesy of Ian Musgrave PhD, Professor of molecular pharmacology/toxicology, University of Adelaide

 

[Shermana]

Pandas Thumb Fails to Refute Michael Behe on HIV Evolution - Evolution News & Views

The best argument Smith makes for the power of Darwinian evolution is the observation that the Vpu proteins found in different strands of HIV can reside in different parts of the cell (she observes, "Subtypes [sic] B Vpu prefers ... to be in the Golgi, helping degrade CD4, while Subtype C Vpu prefers to be in the plasma membrane, assisting with the release of new viruses"). Does this imply that Vpu recently evolved a new function? Hardly. As this paper from Klaus Strebel, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, explains, Vpu generally performs both functions Smith cites: "Vpu has two primary biological activities. These include the degradation of CD4 in the endoplasmic reticulum and the augmentation of virus secretion from the plasma membrane." Strebel's paper continues:

Vpu consists of an N-terminal hydrophobic domain, that functions as membrane anchor, and a hydrophilic cytoplasmic domain. ... The cytoplasmic domain contains sequences critical for CD4 degradation while the membrane anchor domain has a critical function in regulating virus release and plays an important role in the formation of cation selective ion channels.
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.
There appears to be no hard evidence that Vpu acquired any new functions since it infected humans. Since all Behe stated is that since HIV has infected humans, it has "changed ... very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery," it appears that Behe was refuted in no way, shape, or form by Abbie Smith. Smith provides no evidence for any type of HIV evolution beyond what Behe already acknowledges has taken place.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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, ignore the actual counter-argument, double down on the same point the Creationist/IDer is arguing against without defending against the claims, dismisses them and handwaves them or ignore the rebuttal to their own counter-arguments, and then get silent when they agree to address creationist-science claims and it turns out the "Creationist science" actually is not as easy to debunk as they thought? Is there even any point in a Creationist stepping into the ring if there's not going to be any serious debate? What about this subject causes those on the Evolution side to more often than not act so immaturely?

It seems to be a general trend. Even in the professional world, attacks on Behe's works are basically all ad hominem and rarely if ever an attempt to debunk the claims of science involved. The argument that "There's no science to debunk" is in itself yet another smear that's ultimately proof that they're not even capable of addressing what they want to smear.

Are evolutionists not interested in actual debate on this subject?

Are evolutionists simply looking to have a good bashing time without any of that pesky debate involved?

Are evolutionists simply content to go by an appeal to authority of the provenly-overwhelmingly-atheist-majority as if that alone settles all evolution debates?

Why even have sections on debates between evolutionists and creationists if evolutionists aren't remotely interested in mature, solid discussions and simply want to make it attack fests?

Is the basis of the evolutionist point of view simply to try to ridicule the Creationist point in hopes of relieving themselves of the actual need to debaet their claims, as if they can just say "Oh Creation.com is all lies" and that's that?

Is this an honest method of debate? Or is this simply a tell-tale evidence of total intellectual dishonesty, vitriol-based tactics and laziness?

Can you point to examples of this happening? Where criticisms of Creationist claims are what you are saying they are?

Also, I highly suggest that if you have serious issues with RF handling (since I noticed you brought it up in another post), to discuss it in Site Feedback with staff.

 

[LuisDantas]

So basically, your argument now is that all Creationist arguments are wrong no matter what, and there's no need to debate them, no need to even have a Creationist vs Evolution forum, because they're already wrong, and that Creationists cannot be respectful no matter what, even if they present their arguments in a mature and non-condescending way, because they don't respect "actual knowledge" (whatever that means).

That is about the measure of it.

It comes with the usual yet unfortunate decision to define Creationism not as the belief that there is a Creator behind it all (which would not clash with Evolutionism, btw) but instead as some sort of "resistance" to Evolutionism.

Resisting the facts may be thrilling, but it is not particularly admirable.

There is a reason why Darwin and Wallace found out about Evolution independently. There is a reason why people from all kinds of metaphysical beliefs end up endorsing the findings of evolution when they actually have access to the data and the experiments. There is a reason why for all its motivation and popularity the Creationist movement has not and will not rise over just expressing mistrust and something that seems to want to be defiance, despite statements of "proving evolution wrong" coming a dime a dozen all the same.

Those reasons are, quite simply, that Biological Evolution is quite well-documented; finding out about it was as unavoidable as finding out about gravity; and as it turns out, there is no true reason, even from a strictly religious or theological perspective, to even attempt to deny its existence. It has no value whatsoever as an argument against the existence of God, and is only very rarely presented as such.

But if you hear the tale from so-called Creationists, you would think there is a major conspiracy attempting to sell Evolutionism out there, and that it will "fail" any day now.

That is just not a very mature or very respectable story for people to listen to. Sorry, but that is the truth.

No need to actually humor them by addressing their claims, links, and such, they're just automatically wrong because they refuse to acknowledge "real knowledge". Gotcha.

There is no shortage of information or availability to same, even just inside RF. At some point we must stop pretending that there is an even ground to start with.

Sure, it makes us seem rude. But there is only so far to go with kindness before one has to refuse to be played for a fool. And there is a whole lot of passionate "Creationists" that, with varying degrees of insistence, do their best to force people to choose between reassuring them or challenging them.

It just isn't our fault that it is so. In fact, I often find it incredible that it is so. But what is a person to do?

Essentially you're saying that a Creationist cannot be rational and respect knowledge.

No, there is a third possibility; he can be ignorant as well.

That has become increasingly difficult with the ready availability of relevant information, but there are those who manage, often out of misguided pride alone.

Do Creationists get to say the same thing about the Evolutionists here or do such blatantly insulting characterizations only get allowed one way?

You tell me.

Do I get to be just as brutally honest as well?

Sure. Tell me when you want to stop.

You're providing a lot of fuel for my professional Psychological evaluation of Evolutionists, I thank you for that.

Whatever. I don't fail to see that you have a set goal and little regard for how you will arrive there.

It is not my responsibility to choose the wisdom of your goals, nor of your justifications.

Thank you for totally exemplifying the attitude I'm trying to discuss here.

If you say so.

Just do the right thing, and change the title of this subforum to "Creationist Bashing Forum: We don't want Creationist arguments here" and be done with it.

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.

Of course, it is not like there is a whole lot of options once one takes as a premise that evolution "may" be untrue after so many decades of quality findings. It is just not possible to put up a good fight once the end result is already established. Which makes the existence of the current form of Creationism far less than intelectually useful, until and unless we decide to analyse it from a sociological perspective. By any other measure it is just useless.

 

[Shermana]

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.

Did you even read the quote?

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. You just write off the source without looking at what it says. It quotes other studies.

If you can't even address what it even says without going right after the source, that's just a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Why don't you just put a sticky on this section that says "Creationist, don't even bother bringing your Creationist websites to the table, we won't even look at them".

So until that happens, I take it you can't actually debunk what the quote says.