Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Doc Bill @ April 25 2010,12:41)|
|Step 2: Polite responses and welcome. This one from the very nice Reed who wouldn't say "shit" if he had a mouthful.|
Heh. I also made a prediction in that post (way back on page 2)
|There are many here who will engage in serious discussion, as long as you do likewise. OTOH, if you show that you aren't capable of engaging in rational discussion (e.g. Robert Byers), then eventually all the responses you get will be mockery. If you want an excuse not to address serious questions, "OMG TEH MEANIE EVILUTIONISTS SAID NASTY THINGS" is ready made for you.|
I'm sure bjray believes he is engaging in rational discussion (on his side at least!), but sadly, Gish galloping from one vague unfounded assertion to the next, while failing to acknowledge errors or respond to simple questions doesn't really cut it. Neither does "I don't really know anything about <some topic> but <insert standard creationist claim about topic>".
We've seen this a thousand times before bjray. We could replace you with a simple script that pulled from talk origins index of common creationist claims and there would be no qualitative difference in the conversation.
You can still change this. All you have to do is make an effort to learn about the topics you are trying to discuss, and actually address questions and errors, rather than jumping to the next vague claim. Given the wide range of topics involved, you'd be advised to pick a specific one (e.g. "is an evolutionary basis of morality plausible", or "has speciation been observed" or "is IC evidence for design")
Or, you can keep doing what you are doing. It's boring, but we are used to that, and it does give us an excuse to post lolcats