Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:21 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, Faith, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,107 Year: 9,143/19,786 Month: 1,565/2,119 Week: 325/576 Day: 128/98 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 151 of 318 (450494)
01-22-2008 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by pelican
01-22-2008 4:33 AM


Re: Don't Consent
dameeva writes:

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

I doubt Eleanor Roosevelt ever experienced feeling inferior...

The on-topic point is why in the world you would boldly state something so questionable. This is an example, though a rather mild one, of one of the complaints of this thread, when people declare things as so that they couldn't possibly know, and which seem unlikely anyway.

This is the wrong place to look for sympathy, empathy, or understanding. It is a debate board. It's all about the battle.

And who do you suppose is going to battle for those who cannot respond in enough of an academic way that you can understand, if not me?

Is this really what it seems to be, an argument that the dumber you are the better your comprehension?

The correlation that I would note is that the more incoherent or unintelligible the idea, the more it requires ignorance and/or incoherent thinking for someone to accept it.

As Zawi pointed out in Message 3: Someone who is wrong about an issue can increase their persuasiveness if their writing skills are superior to that of their opponent's, giving them an unfair advantage in debate,...

Exactly!!! This thread proves this point. Those who are wrong believe they are right because they imagine they are superior in more than their writing and debating skills.

Ah, the hypothesis of the articulate incompetent! The fact is that clarity and accuracy of expression stem from knowledge and coherent thinking. Cogent arguments built upon evidence are not produced by dumb luck.

Haven't you noticed? They do maintain their distance. There is only me who is a glutton for punishment and I do get pummled and one day the 'pummelers' will see themselves and stop it.

The realistic hope is that the pummeled will learn that ignorance and slothful thinking lie at the core of their problems.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 4:33 AM pelican has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1352 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 152 of 318 (450495)
01-22-2008 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by pelican
01-22-2008 8:35 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Maybe you are over educated and cannot comprehend that not all people comprehend in the same the way as you. Perhaps you could try a different way of explaining yourself that is easier to understand.

If my level of education qualifies as "overeducated," I'd hate to see what you'd call the board members with PhDs.

I find it ridiculous that anyone could consider education to be a potential negative. Critical thinking skills are bad? Arguing from a position of at least some knowledge is less desirable than complete ignorance?

Such a position is completely insane. It rests on the idea that those who are educated will be "locked" into the ideas taught in school, and that their minds are closed to new information. This premise is completely false. Those who have been well-educated typically have excellent critical thinking skills and are extremely open to a good argument based on evidence.

Let me put it to you this way: if you have cancer, is there any sane reason to go to a highschool dropout who doesn't know the first thing about human anatomy instead of a trained doctor? How about if you just have the flu? Would you have anyone other than a trained engineer design a bridge?

It goes even beyond that here. You don't need a biology degree to understand Evolution - I have a pretty good grasp on it, and I simply work in IT. The problem here is that Creationists on the whole are either incapable or unwilling to even learn the most basic concepts of the position they argue against. Yes, this means they are either intellectually incompetent, lazy, or stubborn beyond all reason. When a Creationist who has been posting for years and has had Evolution explained in great detail in multiple threads still posts the exact same nonsense strawman arguments they used on day one, (for example, claiming Evolution predicts a cat to give birth to a cow somehow), how can such a person be described as anything other than intellectually lazy, stubborn, or simply dishonest?

Under what precise circumstances is ignorance or outright stupidity a positive trait?

I am well aware that there are different methods of absorbing information. I am also aware that advanced subject matter will make very little sense to someone without even the most basic background in the subject. When engaged in debate with a Creationist who is genuinely trying to learn about the opposing position, most of us try to "go easy" on them and help them understand, answering whatever questions they have. If a Creationist wants to learn about what misconceptions they have about Evolution, even if they still intend to argue against it, most of us are more than happy to help them at least debate honestly rather than using the same old inaccuracies and outright lies they've been fed.

But when a poster comes to an Evolution debate forum, doesn't understand even the most basic principles of Evolution, doesn't have even a flimsy grasp of scientific terms that were taught in Jr. High, and still claims to be able to refute Evolution and still posts the same inaccuracies after they've been pointed out a dozen times...how can anyone expect those who do know what they're talking about to not come across as condescending?


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 8:35 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 9:34 PM Rahvin has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 153 of 318 (450496)
01-22-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by pelican
01-22-2008 8:24 AM


Re: Anything is possible
Heinrik writes:

What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us?

That's a silly proposition. We all only know a tiny bit of all knowledge, so we are all of us ignorant of almost everything. The question being asked is why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something. The king in The King and I says, "Sometimes I'm not even sure of what I absolutely know," but the rule for creationists seems to be, "I'm especially sure about things of which I have absolutely no clue."

Presumably those of us who are not poker players would not join a poker discussion board and start arguing with members about poker strategy. We know we don't know anything about poker, at least compared to those who play all the time. But a goodly number of creationists with almost no knowledge of biology or evolution think nothing of coming here and arguing for post after post about how wrong evolution is, all the while rejecting most of the valid scientific information that is provided to them. It's incredible and seems extremely unlikely that people could behave this way when you think about it in clinical terms, but it happens here literally every day.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 8:24 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Trixie, posted 01-22-2008 11:20 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 6:21 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 172 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 5:01 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 154 of 318 (450501)
01-22-2008 10:30 AM


A wonderful example was posted by LucyTheApe just yesterday at Message 5 in the The Tesla Challenge thread:

LucyTheApe writes:

>OC: ”Gravity is the weakest force of all.”

Come on sidelined, gravity is the greatest force of all.

Seldom right but never in doubt, I guess.

So, those of you arguing against the premise of this thread, what's the explanation for LucyTheApe's faux paux. Why does he boldly state something of which he is clearly so ignorant? I assume it's because he thinks it's just so obvious, but clearly he hasn't given the issue a moment's thought before typing. Consider an iron nail sitting on a table. The gravity of the mass of the entire earth is pulling down on that nail, yet a tiny magnet has no problem pulling the nail up off the table. That's because the electromagnetic force is far stronger than gravity.

Obvious, right? Yet LucyTheApe is going to string out diversion after diversion and make the science side explain every little detail, no matter how obvious, and he'll do this for post after post and thread after thread until in the end the original topics never actually get discussed.

Hence the frustration on the science side.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 1:09 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 155 of 318 (450508)
01-22-2008 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
01-22-2008 9:48 AM


Just to add to what Percy said
Some of us may be highly educated in scientific fields, but that dosn't mean that we can only understand what fellow scientists are saying. I'm sure I'm only one of many on here who have experience of teaching at undergraduate and post-graduate level. To be able to acheive this with any modicum of success requires that we strive to explain things to students in language which is pitched at their level of education in the given subject matter. No-one involved in teaching just expects students to learn facts parrot fashion in language they don't understand. We want them to understand why certain things happen and how they happen, not just that they happen.

The more I learned in my career in science, the more I discovered I didn't know in my own field! That meant having to be constantly open to new ideas, to asking questions, to learning.

Those creationists who come on here without much of an idea about, for example, genetics and proceed to tell us that they know more about the subject than the specialists tend to get pretty short shrift. They don't come here to learn, they don't come here to debate - they come here to show how much more knowledgable they are about a subject they know nothing about and they will not believe that they know nothing about it.

A poster on here once claimed that the number of possible sequences of animo acids which could make up a chain of DNA was huge, since there were about 20 amino acids to choose from for each position on the DNA molecule. On that basis, he declared evolution to have been impossible and presented his calculations to demonstrate this.

When it was pointed out to this poster that DNA chains weren't made up of amino acids, but nucleotide bases, of which there are only four (thus making his calculations worthless) he was having none of it. He knew best. I make chains of DNA on a daily basis - it's called PCR (polymerase chain reaction). I add the building blocks and an enzyme to glue them together. I add four nucleotide building blocks. I add no amino acids (other than those which make up the enzyme). At the end of it, I have the same number of amino acids I started with, very few nucleotide bases left and I now have strands of DNA made from the nucleotide bases I added. Even after this, our poster still insisted that amino acids make up the sequence in DNA, not nucleotides.

In the face of this sort of obstinacy, what are we to do? We can repeat ourselves until we're blue in the face, but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong. It's very hard to remain polite.

Sometimes we feel that we may have pitched our explanation at too technical a level and we try to simplify things - that will bring accusations of condescension. If we don't simplify it, we're accused of being unable to communicate with people at a level that a non-scientist can understand.

Another aspect of communication which seems to be a problem is that scientists use very tight definitions. This ensures that written communication between scientists cannot be misunderstood just because one scientist defines a certain term differently from another. Even very subtle differences can cause misunderstanding. Much of the scientific training is concerned with precision of the language used. One of the problems with the way some creationists write is that they are not used to this precision and use certain terms as if they are interchangeable, use terms which they regard as "close enough" or refuse to accept that the scientific definition of a term is not the same as the colloquial definition. I've lost count of the number of times that certain posters have announced that evolution is "just a theory and not a Law." They do not know and will not accept that, in science, the word "theory" is used differently from the way it is used in non-scientific communication.

If creationists want to debate science with scientists, they have to be prepared to accept scientific definitions. If they want to debate theology, then scientists would have to be prepared to use theological terminology. If they want to debate law, then both parties would have to be prepared to use legal terminology. You don't get to make up your own definitions and terminology, there has to be consensus in any given field if communication is to be successful. Sadly creationists who foray into science are not prepared to do this and so communication doesn't happen. Their posts are so open to misinterpretation because they won't express themselves clearly - they prefer to stick to their own peculiar definitions and then wonder why no-one gets what they're trying to say. Even when they are told what the problem is, they refuse to do anything about it, then complain that the problem still exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 9:48 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 4:38 AM Trixie has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 156 of 318 (450530)
01-22-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
01-22-2008 10:30 AM


LucyTheApe's dissembling over at the The Tesla Challenge thread continues. To lay it out clearly:

Tesla: like the G force that holds atoms together, being a big one, because without that, no shape of anything would be possible.

Sidelined: If by the G force you mean gravity{I believe you do} then you are dead wrong since gravity does not hold atoms together...Gravity is the weakest force of all.

LucyTheApe: Come on sidelined, gravity is the greatest force of all.

Sidelined: Jeez don't go getting all mystical on me now eh?

LucyTheApe: If sidelined wants to reduce the magnificence the effect gravity has on the universe, down to a couple of self-evident scientific statements, he should use dry scientific jargon with maybe a bit of Latin and/or ancient Greek thrown in.

To summarize, Tesla says gravity holds atoms together, Sidelined explains that it doesn't and that gravity is a very weak force, LucyTheApe replies about how wonderful gravity is, and then he just continues in that same vein that has nothing to do with gravity not being the force that holds atoms together.

Anyone care to take a swing at explaining LucyTheApe's behavior as anything other than distracting hogwash? Why do creationists do this? Why don't creationists police themselves and when they see things like this post, "Dude, you're being an idiot and making us look bad. Sidelined wasn't being disparaging of gravity, and that's not the topic anyway. And especially, why are you being an idiot in a thread discussing another creationist who's being an idiot. I mean, come on guys, get with it, you're making the whole lot of us look like idiots."

Well, I can dream.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 10:30 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by teen4christ, posted 01-22-2008 7:54 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 157 of 318 (450536)
01-22-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Quetzal
01-21-2008 7:06 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
I will also add that I have admitted being wrong several times, and also have done a lot of rethinking from my discussions here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2008 7:06 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3151 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 158 of 318 (450586)
01-22-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
01-22-2008 9:48 AM


Re: Anything is possible
Re: Anything is possible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heinrik writes:
What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us?

That's a silly proposition. We all only know a tiny bit of all knowledge, so we are all of us ignorant of almost everything. The question being asked is why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something. The king in The King and I says, "Sometimes I'm not even sure of what I absolutely know," but the rule for creationists seems to be, "I'm especially sure about things of which I have absolutely no clue."

Presumably those of us who are not poker players would not join a poker discussion board and start arguing with members about poker strategy. We know we don't know anything about poker, at least compared to those who play all the time. But a goodly number of creationists with almost no knowledge of biology or evolution think nothing of coming here and arguing for post after post about how wrong evolution is, all the while rejecting most of the valid scientific information that is provided to them. It's incredible and seems extremely unlikely that people could behave this way when you think about it in clinical terms, but it happens here literally every day.

You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 9:48 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Rahvin, posted 01-22-2008 7:12 PM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 160 by molbiogirl, posted 01-22-2008 7:20 PM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2008 7:53 PM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 163 by teen4christ, posted 01-22-2008 8:08 PM pelican has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1352 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 159 of 318 (450605)
01-22-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by pelican
01-22-2008 6:21 PM


Re: Anything is possible
You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?

You seem to be assuming Percy is appealing to the authority of a fictional character. That's the only way you could see this as "silly..." but that's not what Percy is doing.

Fictional characters in books and movies are used to make political and ethical statements all the time. Whether the character exists or not is irrelevant if the argument they bring to the table is still valid, just as a PhD with a poor argument is still wrong.

Creationists keep on proving the point of this thread inside of the thread itself. I haven't seen this much concentrated irony in months.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 6:21 PM pelican has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 160 of 318 (450608)
01-22-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by pelican
01-22-2008 6:21 PM


Re: Anything is possible
You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?

The character in the movie may have been fictionalized, but both Anna and the King were real.

Prince Maha Mongkut was born on October 18, 1804 in the kingdom of Siam (now called Thailand). His father, Buddha Loetla Nabhalai, became the king of Siam (King Rama II) when Mongkut was five. Mongkut's mother was Queen Sri Suriyendra.

He arranged for them to receive English lessons from Christian missionaries, but the Siamese women were bored by their preaching. So Mongkut's consul in Singapore hired another woman, Anna Leonowens, to teach the king's wives and children. She arrived in Bangkok in 1862.

http://www.royalty.nu/Asia/Thailand/Mongkut.html

Yet another example of creo ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 6:21 PM pelican has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 161 of 318 (450611)
01-22-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by pelican
01-22-2008 6:21 PM


Putting this in perspective ...
There are three issues going on here ...

(1) One provided by Percy:

We all only know a tiny bit of all knowledge, so we are all of us ignorant of almost everything.

We can represent this as follows:

(2) Another is the way this affects the degree of knowledge in different areas by different people.

quote:
When in fact, the organised trained mind rarely understands anything outside of it's way of thinking.

That's crap, I do believe.
Care to provide examples, or any sort of proof for this claim?

There are many. How many times do we see scientists quoted talking outside their field of expertise and the criticism is that they don't know what they are talking about. Certainly a physicist knows more about physics than a biologist and a biologist knows more about biology than physics. In this case both have "organised trained minds" but are not able to fully understand the other field.

Anyone can have special knowledge that other people do not have.

(3) The third issue is people talking outside their area of expertize, particularly Person A talking about Person B's area of expertize ...

... and because they do not know what the other knows, they are not competent to recognize when they say\think something wrong, AND not competent to recognize when the other person is right.

When you add to this a practice of feeding false information to person A about the area of person B's special knowledge, then you get a person who (1) thinks they have some expertize in the area and (2) think they know enough to correct person B.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 6:21 PM pelican has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2008 7:03 AM RAZD has not yet responded

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3964 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 162 of 318 (450612)
01-22-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
01-22-2008 1:09 PM


quote:
Anyone care to take a swing at explaining LucyTheApe's behavior as anything other than distracting hogwash? Why do creationists do this? Why don't creationists police themselves...

This is a pattern that I have noticed not just in online debates but also debates in real life. I regularly attend student philosophy debates on campus. And very regularly, a creationist would say something totally off the wall like whales are fish. The prevalent pattern is other creationists would rally to this wacko's defense and it would actually take someone from the other side to point out the obvious error.

In the Tesla Challenge thread, I made the error of referring to the electromagnetic force as "electronegativity". I've been doing chemistry problems so the word "electronegativity" seems to keep popping up in my head. Anyway, Ringo jumped in and corrected me right away. That's something that I don't think I've ever seen a creationist do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 1:09 PM Percy has not yet responded

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3964 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 163 of 318 (450617)
01-22-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by pelican
01-22-2008 6:21 PM


Re: Anything is possible
Heinrik writes
quote:
You refer to my proposition as 'silly' whilst quoting a fictional king from a movie. Huh?


You are allowing yourself to be distracted by insignificant details and totally miss the point. Look at the following example.

Lucy's mom: Why did you sniff cocaine?

Lucy: Mom, all of my friends are doing it.

Lucy's mom: If everybody is playing russian roulette, would you do it?

Lucy: My friends are not playing russian roulette.

Was Lucy's mom talking about russian roulette or something else more significant? How about this following example.

Defense attorney: Dr. Berkes, are you absolutely 100% sure that this gun is the murder weapon?

Dr. Berkes: No, I am not absolutely 100% sure that this gun is the murder weapon just as I am not absolutely 100% sure that an alien spaceship didn't just land in Washington.

Defense attorney: Are you saying you believe in aliens?

Was Dr. Berkes talking about aliens or was he trying to make a more important point, that you could never bee absolutely 100% sure of anything?

You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones. Rather than purposely trying to win a debate by purposely being dense, perhaps you should consider growing up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 6:21 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2008 9:30 PM teen4christ has not yet responded
 Message 173 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 5:08 AM teen4christ has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 164 of 318 (450626)
01-22-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by teen4christ
01-22-2008 8:08 PM


Re: Anything is possible
You are allowing insignificant details to make you miss the significant ones.

Especially when you equate the insignificant details with a scorched earth exclusionary policy, and miss the significant detail that you should include everyone ... even if you need to change the name to do it :D

It is interesting how the debate can turn on the use of a single word that someone sees in a totally different (emotional?) light. The use of the word "evolution" alone (see for instance on the Evolution and the BIG LIE thread) seems to distract from the argument.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : v


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by teen4christ, posted 01-22-2008 8:08 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3151 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 165 of 318 (450627)
01-22-2008 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rahvin
01-22-2008 9:46 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Message 152 of 158
01-22-2008 11:46 PM Reply to: Message 150 by Heinrik
01-22-2008 10:35 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rahvin writes:

Those who have been well-educated typically have excellent critical thinking skills and are extremely open to a good argument based on evidence.

Are you sure about this? What does typically mean?

how can such a person be described as anything other than intellectually lazy, stubborn, or simply dishonest?

Good question! Have you an alternative?

Under what precise circumstances is ignorance or outright stupidity a positive trait?[

Another great question that I will offer an answer to. Ignorance and stupidity become a positive when others' (who do not possess the traits) derive benefit from these traits in others.

If a Creationist wants to learn about what misconceptions they have about Evolution,

Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution?

most of us try to "go easy" on them and help them understand,

I am sure this is genuine but is 'going easy' on someone helping them to understand? This doesn't mean you try the opposite of being hard on them which also does not work. The methods of trying to communicate and understand, noble as they may be, are not working.

Who amongst the educated communicators can or wants to communicate on anothers' level, other than their own? Why do many creationists and evolutionists fail to reach a common understanding? Maybe because they just want to change each others' minds or win the argument.

how can anyone expect those who do know what they're talking about to not come across as condescending?

I expect you to not be condescending with me when I do not understand or agree with you. I do not expect anyone to be condescending with me. I expect to be treated equally well as you expect to be treated. Have you experienced someone being condescending with you as an adult?

Kids have to put up with it but I do not! I hope my reply answers many of your questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rahvin, posted 01-22-2008 9:46 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2008 9:40 PM pelican has responded
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2008 9:56 PM pelican has responded
 Message 183 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 9:42 AM pelican has responded

RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019