Don't Expect Polite Debate

[grayman]

Once again I get to read a letter to the editor concerning evolution in my local paper.

Some quotes:

Evolutionists are still pounding the same tired rhetoric they have spewed for 150 years, they grasp any "revolutionary" idea as proving the theory they espouse yet denigrate any contradictory finding by creationists. We can only guess at the amount of money spent by evolutionists attempting to disprove biblical history only to prove the Bible's account correct.

This one is ironic in my lowly opinion:

My main concern is we are raising generations who have given up the power of the brain for the convenience of science and will follow whichever jack-ass that brays the loudest.

I know it's more of the same. I just wanted to share with any that may find this amusing or interesting.

My apologies to those that feel they wasted their time reading this.

 

[SezMe]

I assume William Coursen is the creationist. Local guy? Know anything about him? Wouldn't it be great if we evolutionists had an ounce of power she seems to think we do.

 

[The Atheist]

These are the types with whom any possible dialogue can only be a complete waste of time.

Send 'em my way and I'll line them up for the kick in the nuts treatment.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Darla you ignorant slut.

First you play into the atheists hands by saying that evolution "proves the Bible wrong." Well guess what hon? If your interpretation of Genesis is literal only and otherwise we should toss the entire Bible you're helping to create a lot more atheists... which I'm assuming isn't your goal.

And where ever did you get this load of crap from?

...a more in-depth study indicates that his original papers were insufficient to interest the scientific community in his musings. It took 25 years, three or more collaborators and a major cleansing to be able to sell his book, and in this day, he would have been sued for plagiarism. This proves only that controversy sells books. Darwin's heirs made money.

I would love to see evidence of this claim which I bet you cribbed from one of the more out there (which is saying a lot) Creationist resources instead of being an assertion you can support.

Finally, while you're giving history and Constitutional Law lessons in your letter, you might have mentioned something more recent than Scopes. Perhaps Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguilard or Kitzmuller v. Dover.

Your letter could have been distilled down to three or four sentences if we trimmed the screeching rhetoric and just stuck to facts - three of I just showed you were wrong about, but at least you wouldn't have sounded like a raving loon.

 

[EHLO]

The style of argument used by Darla seems to be increasingly common and as such is more frustrating than ever.

They throw words together that make sense but contain so many factual/logical flaws that it's impossible to construct a simple, rational response without resorting to ridicule (or abuse or violence).

Is there a simple rebuttal to such ramblings?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is there a simple rebuttal to such ramblings?

On Internet message boards there certainly is. You just snip out the garbage and concentrate on their factual errors. Unfortunately in live debates/discussions it's hard to do so. The best thing to do is what I notice guests on C-SPAN's Washington Journal do. Ignore the rambling, write down the easily rebutted claims, nuke 'em, then cover points in detail that need more explanation. In a debate, as long as you have a note pad, that's fairly easy. In a discussion, you just have to wrap tightly onto the errors and ignore the blather.

(see, there isn't even a simple response on how to rebutt the ramblings )

 

[EHLO]

I wonder if this is why most atheists/skeptics are quiet at dinner parties... I must admit I have trouble countering even simple creationist comments like "Evolution is just a theory".

Of course it is! Blah!

 

[fishbob]

The style of argument used by Darla seems to be increasingly common and as such is more frustrating than ever.

They throw words together that make sense but contain so many factual/logical flaws that it's impossible to construct a simple, rational response without resorting to ridicule (or abuse or violence).

Is there a simple rebuttal to such ramblings?

Sometimes, newspapers print rebuttals. Many papers accept letters by e-mail - about as simple as you can get.

 

[Blank]

I've ran into a lot of these elusive studies, that seem to prove pretty much anything. Sometimes they're apparently even "scientific" studies.. No luck in getting any solid references or anything that might actually give any way to even critisize the veiled argument from authority.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

The statement that Darla (the letter writer) wrote "given up the power of the brain for the convenience of science", is making me dizzy. It is such a bizarre concept that I'm somewhat speechless (typing challenged?).

Charlie (convenience of science, hee hee hee) Monoxide

 

[LawnOven]

I wonder if this is why most atheists/skeptics are quiet at dinner parties... I must admit I have trouble countering even simple creationist comments like "Evolution is just a theory".

Of course it is! Blah!

There's always the old chesnut, gravity is "just a theory" too.

 

[kmortis]

These are the types with whom any possible dialogue can only be a complete waste of time.

Send 'em my way and I'll line them up for the kick in the nuts treatment.

TA,
Around these parts we prefer the more genteel term "roshambo". Please make a note of it.

-kmo

 

[Iamme]

The style of argument used by Darla seems to be increasingly common and as such is more frustrating than ever.

They throw words together that make sense but contain so many factual/logical flaws that it's impossible to construct a simple, rational response without resorting to ridicule (or abuse or violence).

Is there a simple rebuttal to such ramblings?

You mean like, if they were to say nutty things like .."How (else) can you explain that a river or aquifer, that provides what we (and everything organic) need for sustainance and everything organic, just keeps flowing and never quits?"

If someone said that to you, can you quickly counter that one, more than saying that " it just does that...lucky for us." ??

Or how about this oft used crutch by fundies: "How do you think an eye got here?!" And then you say something really intelligent to trap them by saying, "Why dummy, it wasn't an eye at first but just a sensor to light!" And then they say something really stupid again like, "Well, can you provide any evidence that anything outside the topic of evolution has allowed the creation of anything as complex as an eye?..or a clock?...without a designer?"

You have to be quick folks. You have to have answers for such questions. And fundies will throw plenty more of these at you.

 

[Tanstaafl]

You mean like, if they were to say nutty things like .."How (else) can you explain that a river or aquifer, that provides what we (and everything organic) need for sustainance and everything organic, just keeps flowing and never quits?"

Rain. And melting snow.

 

[The Atheist]

TA,
Around these parts we prefer the more genteel term "roshambo". Please make a note of it.

-kmo

Sorry mate, I tried to look that up in my dictionary and it only said:

Genteel, Gentility: Unknown in NZ.

Lost me, mate.

 

[money]

Or how about this oft used crutch by fundies: "How do you think an eye got here?!" And then you say something really intelligent to trap them by saying, "Why dummy, it wasn't an eye at first but just a sensor to light!" And then they say something really stupid again like, "Well, can you provide any evidence that anything outside the topic of evolution has allowed the creation of anything as complex as an eye?..or a clock?...without a designer?"

You have to be quick folks. You have to have answers for such questions. And fundies will throw plenty more of these at you.

Good point Iamme! What would be your answer if a fundie said something really stupid like that to you?

 

[Daylight]

After debunking all the lies, ask her why she needs to lie? And since the 10 commandments forbid lying, ask her to prove where god says she is allowed to lie. And if she is allowed to lie, then how could creationism be true since those advocating it are allowed to lie.

It’s always much more fun to play in their yard instead of defending your own.

 

[brodski]

I wonder if this is why most atheists/skeptics are quiet at dinner parties... I must admit I have trouble countering even simple creationist comments like "Evolution is just a theory".

Of course it is! Blah!

Thats why i love this site http://www.notjustatheory.com/ (which I think is the work of a forum meber)

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's always the old chesnut, gravity is "just a theory" too.

Damn right. Don't let any of those Newtonists confuse you about it being a fact. The bible is clear the sun goes around the earth, no matter what Newton says.

 

[Beerina]

We can only guess at the amount of money spent by evolutionists attempting to disprove biblical history only to prove the Bible's account correct.

No need to guess: $0.00.

Now if you want to talk about the money spent attempting to prove the Bible correct, and failing, then that money may run into the hundreds of millions or even billions.