START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  Blue Label
| track thread
« Back to topics
Debates over evolution in other groups
Anonymous
9 years ago
| Blue Label
I am so proud of some of you people for taking a stand with me recently on the Creation-Evolution controversy! For those who don't know what I mean, take a look at this thread:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=4646&pst=191254

And then this one, going down to the end:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=4646&pst=136877&archival=

In the past, I have allowed the duplicity of David H. to tie me up in knots, emotionally speaking. But no more! I am much stronger than I was and I won't let him or any other Creationist con artist tear me down ever again! I truly feel like a million bucks tonight!


Anonymous
Attacking the scientific method
9 years ago
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=4646&pst=191254


David has received 4 new, 84 total stars from Care2 members David H.
"Also could you tell me one scientific fact that creation science denies? Not interpretation of a fact....an actual fact. Thanks."


Nancy has received 45 new, 164 total stars from Care2 membersNancy has been awarded 1 butterflies for taking action at Care2 Nancy D.
"As far as giving you one scientific fact that creationism denies, how about the age of the Earth and the solar system, for starters?"


David has received 4 new, 84 total stars from Care2 members David H.
"Now on to the facts. You just messed up. The age of the world and universe are not observable facts. They are interpretations based on assumptions. That uniformitarianism is true is first assumed. That the decay rates have been constant since the beginning because they are now and haven't been accelerated...all assumptions made. Their are cosmologies which don't require nor interpret the universe as being as old as the interpretation you hold to but I don't think you are aware of them."

My comment --- When I saw this exchange, I became outraged for a simple reason: MOST SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE NOT BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATION. Not only do we not know the facts of evolution by direct observation, but even the internal structure of the Earth and atoms as well as the origin of the Solar system and the universe at a whole is not known via direct observation!

Supposed the sacred book of the Bellas religion proclaimed that the earth was hollow. Scientists measuring earthquake waves to determine the internal structure of the Earth say that it has a core of iron and nickle. A follower of Bellas would deny this "fact" and merely say it was an "interpretation" of data that might also be just as useful to indicate that the Earth is hollow. "You are acting on blind assumptions regarding how earthquake waves operate underground," the Bellasite would tell the scientists.
Would that be fair?
Anonymous
9 years ago
Dale do you realize what is saddest? he is not a con artist , he actually believes in this %#&!*%.
Anonymous
9 years ago
dale, no one is worth your blood pressure going up.
dale
9 years ago
i too have argued with david h.  he likes to argue but he's not very reasonable, as i'm sure you've noticed.  he apparently cannot understand that religious beliefs are not epistemologically equivalent to scientific ones.  he'll say basically anything, no matter how stupid it may seem to everyone else, to shield his indoctrinated views from legitimate criticism.  he is also certainly willing to lie and distort others' posts in an argument.
9 years ago
 Simona is right, though. If these people were trying to delude us, rather than deluding themselves, it would be infinitely less depressing to argue with them.
Anonymous
hollow earth
9 years ago

Hi, Dale, seems you are too young to know, but this Hollow Earth debate did take place when I was a boy - and the ID debate strongly reminded me of it! Same stupid kind of argumentation...

 

9 years ago

No matter how many books and ''witches'' the empire burned at the stake, the earth remained round.

The peddlers of barbaric fables can not change reality, but only corrupt the children within it.

LIES require threats of ''Hell'' and denial of ''Heaven'' to ENFORCE them upon the innocent children TRAPPED in sunday schools.

Truth requires NO ENFORCEMENT, just patience.

 

Anonymous
A thread with a collection of links to other debates.
9 years ago
Anonymous
More of the fish guy's follies
8 years ago

This just in: Americans even fatter

Here I took what had merely been an attempt by Freediver to insult an entire nation of people and turned it into an explanation for the problem based on an evolutionary hypothesis. I humiliated him so badly!

This just in: Freediver's even dumber

Some people never learn, do they?

I busted him here too!

8 years ago
First two threads are good Dale!  I don't belong to the third group so I couldn't read that thread. 
Anonymous
That last thread
8 years ago

Oops! I forgot that it was in a group closed to public veiwing. Anyway, here all you need to see from it:


Dale H.
Dale has received 47 new, 1722 total stars from Care2 membersDale has been awarded 64 butterflies for taking action at Care2Dale has 1 Golden Notes.
 

I have learned from experience that debating with Freediver on anything often leads to a slugfest because he will argue with his opponent on point, counter-point,  point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, point, counter-point, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on until his opponent finally is exhausted and throws in the towel. That's really the ONLY way he can "win" an argument like this.

But there is a better way to discredit him and that is based on the principle that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And such a blatant weakness is found HERE:

If someone makes an observation, comes up with an hypothesis, then makes more observations to check whether it agrees with the hypothesis, and continues making such observations indefinitely, that is not science.

I can totally refute that assertion with just one word:

Astronomy

8 years ago
Sometimes I think the fish guy just argues in order to be heard by someone.  I don't think he's really interested in actually learning from anyone else.  Debating him is really worthless IMO.
8 years ago

There is no debate about evolution.

there are scientific facts supportin evolution and then there are people who believe we popped up here like magic.

thats not debate........ thats just crazy.

and the fish guy is totally off his rocker....

and you cant debate with complete nitwits, too much effort and no payback

Anonymous
Dann U.
8 years ago

It is indeed instructive to occationally engage in debates with the Creationist opposition, but do not ever expect to "win" such a debate by proving your opponent wrong. Not only are their premises totally different from yours, so are their standards for judging if something is true or even plausible. Quite simply, even if they use the language of science to spread their propaganda, they do not use genuine scientific methods at all, but rely on religious prejudices to make their case. And some of them are even willing to lie outright.

Scientific debates, if done properly, eventually end when the necessary evidence is discovered in the physical universe to disprove the claims of one side. But Creationists make their case in such a way that their case can never be disproven in a scientific way. And at the same time, they think evolution could be opposed by "proofs" that really have no substance to them at all. 

Idiotic Creationist Claims

Evolutionism contradicts with Science...

Intelligent Design v. Darwin--Field Stories

Reviewing Richard Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale”

8 years ago

Dale,

exactly my point.... that with creationists id'ists..... there is no debate.  they go off of faith we go off of scientific discovery....

Anonymous
8 years ago

I'm a creationist viewpoint and I have no problem having discussions about evolution.  So that's not entirely true.  I believe in reincarnation and that doesn't exactly follow a creationist viewpoint.

Hi Dale!  Hi Dann!

Anonymous
8 years ago
Let's not have a debate here. This is a reference thread only.
Anonymous
Freediver does it again
8 years ago

Evolution of Galaxies (in Acoustic Coffee House)

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1067&pst=881952

US to breed new 'superbugs'

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1067&pst=874654

For me, dealing with Freediver's lame comments is actually more annoying than facing an opponent that is armed with actual scientific integrity.

Anonymous
Post deleted
8 years ago
The posts following this one have been moved to their own thread.
Anonymous
8 years ago

Excellent Debate on Smackdown

Excellent in what sense? The Creationist opponents were so lame there that I wondered why they even bothered to post against me. They NEVER addressed the physical evidence regarding evolution, and that's what I care about.

8 years ago
Actually, Dale, I think an honest, sincere, informed but lame creationist must admit that the physical evidence (and legitimate theoretical constructions derived from the physical evidence) does them no good at all and they have to base their claim on non-rational appeals.  But it's true, that doesn't leave much of a debate.  But I prefer sincere, lame irrationality to sleazy distortions.  Every time I argue with the practitioner of pseudoscientific reasoning, I find them slithering around like an eel, and I don't mean that in a good way.