rmagruder
Posts: 20
Joined: June 2006
|
Honestly, I don't even know where to start.
I feel like I should just blurt out "42" and be done with it!  (and you doggoned well better know where THAT reference is from).
I agree with the notion that we shouldn't turn this into a 'linkfest', because honestly, on a clear day you can link forever. Personally, I don't mind going and reading a link, and then a rebuttal to that link and then a rebuttal to that rebuttal. But they always end up in a stalemate, with each side thinking they won, the other guy lost, and is complete imbecile.
After having reviewed the thread here, and over at PT, the sheer tone is daunting. I've been called an IDiot, a complete moron, ignorant, clueless, etc. I plead guilty to having brought some of this down on myself, but I suppose
There are people on both sides of this debate that are far more knowledgeable than me. I don't presume to debate fossils with any of the scientists list here or on AIG or anyone (and yes they have a scientist list that includes biologists, biochemists, physicists and mathematicians, unless they are lying about the degrees they hold ..).
I think rather than tread down roads that we've all been down a 1000 times (does it really stay entertaining?), I'm more interested in some of the human factors.
E.g. Given the level of putdowns I've seen thrown at anyone on the other side of this debate, what is a layperson supposed to conclude when they see a list of degreed/published scientists who disagree with Darwinian orthodoxy on this issue. Does their disagreement with orthodoxy mean they are lesser scientists? Even if they are actively working and publishing in their fields of biology, mathematics, chemistry, etc?
It was stated that even a layperson can deduce between illogical or unreasonable arguments, whatever the level of education they have vs. the person making the arguments.
It is also interesting to see the "close minded" charge thrown around. And yet, I see here and in other articles and reviews that "evolution is a fact and cannot be questioned by any rational person". It was compared to someone trying to prove that Apollo 11 didn't happen, for example.
The problem with the above approach is first, that it appeals to an attempt to humiliate an opponent rather than reason with them, and secondly, that the conclusion is assumed to be true from the outset. How would someone distinguish a 'close minded creationist' from a 'close minded evolutionist' in this case. Both are firmly convinced that they have exclusive ownership of 'fact'. Both claim that the other has not proven its case or disproven its own.
I am greatly disappointed by tactic of "debate by putdown" exhibited here. I'm not holding myself up here as above it. I engaged in it and got trashed as I probably deserved. But it doesn't seem to be improving with time. I've tried to back off from being incendiary, but I still see a fair amount of flame being sent my way. Some people are unwilling, or unable, to move past it. So they continue to debate by putdown and contempt.
How does one even BEGIN a discussion built upon that foundation. It's pretty obvious to me that the people calling me closed minded have pretty much closed their own minds. They've got all the evidence they feel they need to warrant doing so (and by itself that's not saying a lot. If I want to prove the Illuminati is trying to take over the world, there's no end of resources on the Internet I can find to back up that claim).
So, what this long post is driving at really is this...is there any way the 'game' can be played without it getting personal? Or do we simply concede that there's no way to avoid terms like "IDiots", "Clueless", "ignorant", "Scientifically illiterate", "Moronic" etc. when confronted with someone who doesn't see eye to eye with you? Is that what this debate has ultimately become?
Randy
|
