[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] I still don't understand what you have a problem with the flying speghetti monster..
It's a silly creation designed by people who should know better for the sole reason of mocking other people.:| What's not to hate?
Do you even know what its purpose is because it seems like you don't understand it?
Its intended purpose is irrelevant; the fact that it was intended to show a problem in ID theory has no bearing on the fact that it's now used as a mocking tool everywhere.
The speghetti monster is a form of argument used which is used for aguments to lower them to the point of absurdity.
The problem is, people use it outside of its correct intention. Argumentum ad absurdum only works if it is consistent.
Further more in real debates it is formal, and it keeps civil,
Does everyone go through formal debates? No. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of people do NOT go through formal debates, and even then, a formal debate is not all a person needs to learn a certain subject.
yet again you are stereotyping,
Nope.
not every one is hostile towards creationism.
I never said they were.
Infact some people such as my self really don't care about the beliefs as long as it isn't argued to being true in the same way we do science or other basic logical things.
:lol: That is ludicrous. If people believe something to be true, they will argue for the truth of their beliefs. What you expect is so illogical and ridiculous that, had we applied it in real life, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.
This makes no sense, then they have no opinion on evolution..
"The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge." If a person thinks he knows he knows something about evolution, but is wrong, what should he do? He doesn't feel that he needs to ask any questions; after all, his questions have been answered already. So he's going to argue with the information he has, rather than ask out front. Common sense
Not to mention it being taught in the vast majority of schools through out the United States..
It is not taught well. Besides, that number goes only for public schools; what of homeschoolers and private schoolers whose teachers didn't teach evolution?
I am arguing about the people who try to berate it. Thats all..
And then you berate tham, and then they berate you some more, and it just doesn't stop. He doesn't leave any more knowledgeable regarding evolution; in fact, he probably leaves liking the idea even less. Thus you hinder your cause.
They arn't it goes against logic.
What is logic?
And most times these people on the board are there to troll or are so heavily indoctrinated no matter how long you explain they will just keep saying it..
Then ignore them. Don't feed the trolls.
Those kind of statements are ment to inflame/anger people, not give question in a debate.
Then ignore them. Don't feed the trolls.
specially when it comes to questions..If you asked what evolution was on this board, very unbias objective question..
Has that ever happened?
Lol what? What the heck do you mean from this?!?
Is it ambiguous? Has there ever been a topic that asks, "What is evolution" and there were unbiased answers with no mocking?
Are you suggesting that every question that is answered about evolution has some deep connatation to purposely undermine or berate religoious belief? This sounds more akin to a conspiracy theory then anything else.
See, you just disproved yourself right here. I asked a simple question. That's it. How do you respond? With this garbage you call "reasoning." You are proof against your own belief that people would answer objectively to simple questions; if I can't expect you to answer a question as simple as mine without you resorting to calling me a conspiracy theorist, then how in the hell can I expect you to answer me objectively when it comes to a question about something as controversial as evolution?:lol:
"When person after person after person brings forward the same jerk method after the same jerk method after the same jerk method of explaining the same idea, it is only natural for someone to be turned off by the idea, even if it is true. It's not stupid; it's the same case of negative association anyone has in a similar experience"There is a quote from you that basically doesn't differenciate what so ever..
:lol: "Person after person after person" does not imply that everyone acts this way; however, when a person is repeatedly exposed to such behavior, then we expect such association to happen. It's not a generalisation; you just misread. Why so defensive?
Furthermore you went before hand of saying "has that ever happened before" suggesting that apparently all answers for evolution by every one is hopelessly bias, not objective, and out to get religious beliefe.
:lol: See my response above. MY question was a simple question asking for a simple answer with no bias or underlying intentions, but thanks for doing my work for me and proving your own premise, that should a simple question be asked, a levelheaded answer will be given, completely and utterly false.
You made no distinction
Yes I did. "Person after person" is in itself a distinction between the specific "persons" to whom I'm referring. If I had said "Everyone from group x" then that would not have been a distinction.
and you are using generalized terms and said ridiculous things as "has that ever happened before?" when questions of a objective answers..
See above, and please, continue doing my work for me. It's giving my fingers a nice rest.:lol:
Or could it psosibly be that evolution contridicts creationist beliefs in a country that is vastly religious?
Correlation does not imply causation. What about Canada? They are vastly religious, yet they accept evolution. The Vatican? 100% religious and yet evolution is fine over there. How about a failing public school system? I think that has a more positive correlation than your premise.
If you sincerely think that its because of snobish remakrs, you are stereotyping..
I didn't say it was solely due to them; only that they are the biggest hindrance to their own cause.
There are plenty of explainations and to suggest that every answer you get as snobbish is because of that..
Not what I'm saying.
In the end its most likely a mixture of multiple things, parent beliefs after all evolution was still a controversial thing during the baby boomer period.. Heritage has alot to do with it.
If learning about evolution were as simple as you make it out to be, parental influence should have no major factor.
Yeah clearly because I can see that it has more to do then just that, your oversimplyfing ht eproblem..
No, you simply dismissed the case that it was at least in part due to negative association. That is ludicrous. To state that association has no effect on our lives is contradictory to some of the most well-founded theories of psychology.
As I said earlier, could it be that baby boomers and people before that their common beliefs were that of creationism>?
Sure, it could be, or it could be the terrible school system, or it could be my hypothesis.
Lol no one cares that your a creationist, it only comes into question when you try to logically or objectively arguea bout it,,
:lol: Again, to expect someone to not argue for their position is the most backwards way of thinking since the Dark Ages.
THat is all. And to even suggest that one side is more brutal then the other is bullox, we have people on both sides who are just as brutal and just as snobbish as the other.
That's true; however, the evolution side is far louder, and has greater numbers.
Theokhoth
See, you just disproved yourself right here. I asked a simple question. That's it. How do you respond? With this garbage you call "reasoning." You are proof against your own belief that people would answer objectively to simple questions; if I can't expect you to answer a question as simple as mine without you resorting to calling me a conspiracy theorist, then how in the hell can I expect you to answer me objectively when it comes to a question about something as controversial as evolution?:lol: ""
And that, is how evolution works.
Log in to comment