Anyone else notice this pattern?

It has been my experience that the vast majority of those who cry and whine about a "condescending tone" also have a vastly inferior understanding of the subject material.Do you honestly expect anything other than a condescending tone when explaining for the hundredth time information taught in Junior High science classes to a Creationist who just won't get it?How many times have we had to correct Creationists who even use scientific terms incorrectly after having them explained to them in the same thread, let alone all of the threads before that?When speaking from a position of superior knowledge of science to one whose proficiency in that arena is less than that of a teenage child and who yet purports to be able to refute virtually the entire body of scientific theory, condescension is inevitable.I honestly couldn't care less if you're offended by such a tone. I'm offended that people try to argue against science from ignorance, and believe that such ignorance is a good thing.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

It's not our fault if you feel inferior when being told you're wrong. When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old and backs it up by saying radiometric dating is wrong without any evidence for that, or uses the word "theory" incorrectly for the fiftieth time in two pages, or otherwise demonstrates that they don;t even have the barest comprehension of the subject matter they are arguing against, the rest of us will correct them.If we sound condescending in doing so, well...this is a debate forum. If being on the losing end of a debate hurts your widdle feelings, feel free to not participate.There is a difference between avoiding attacking an individual and making a person "feel bad." Telling people the Bible is full of inaccuracies and outright mythology offends quite a few people here, and misuse of scientific terms offends others. Whether one party feels bad after the argument is concluded is irrelevant to whether one side is correct or not.Offense is irrelevant. Empathy is irrelevant. Your anger is irrelevant. All that matters is the argument. The best way to combat someone you feel is being condescending or offensive is to prove them wrong.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yawn. I assume there was supposed to be a "not" in there, right? So it is your position that ignorance is, in some cases, a good thing. I strongly disagree. You assume that education and intellect require a closed mind - this is far from the case. Honest, rational people of any level of education will accept the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no claim is to be trusted unless it can be backed up with evidence.If a Creationist were to, for example, provide me with incontrovertible evidence that refutes a position I believe to be true, I will accept the position that has the best evidence and makes the most accurate predictions about the natural world.My beliefs are tentative, and rely on evidence. The beliefs of a Creationist were written a few thousand years ago, and tend not to change a whole lot. What, exactly, do you know that I do not? I'm certainly not omniscient, but I'd like to know what you're referring to.And annoyed? Not really. I just don't care if someone is offended over the course of a debate, so long as the offense is not related to bigotry. I'm not sure what you're saying. Please elaborate.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

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.

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.

It means that critical thinking skills, logical analysis of an argument, and general skepticism are not inborn traits for the vast majority of people, and they must be learned. Higher education does not only teach facts, though that is part of it; more importantly, education teaches a person how to think in order to distinguish a rational, convincing argument from a logically flawed position. If a person is continuing to parrot disinformation after being told, repeatedly that their information is inaccurate?If I argued against the existence of elephants by claiming elephants are supposed to be able to fly like in the movie Dumbo, and you informed me that, not only do elephants exist, my information is incorrect and they cannot fly, and I continued to argue that they cannot possibly exist because ears are not wings, you would think I was either an idiot, stubborn, or simply dishonest. And you'd be right. Are you kidding? The only time I can think of this happening is when a person of greater intelligence takes advantage of a less intelligent person for monetary gain. You know, like used car salesmen, or Televangelists. I don't think you understood my statement. The Theory of Evolution is very specific. It makes certain statements, and does not make others. Creationists tend, almost universally, to insist that the Theory of Evolution makes predictions that, in fact, it does not. Since scientists are the ones who define the Theory of Evolution, they would be the group in a position to dictate what the predictions and statements of the theory actually are. When Creationists make claims about the statements and predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that are simply untrue, it's no more valid than a 5-year-old claiming that the Theory of Gravity says that elephants should be able to fly by flapping their ears. Much like Christians get to decide what their particular brand of the faith believes, and an outsider who claims they believe something else would be the one in the wrong.If I have any misconceptions regarding the Theory of Evolution and what its claims actually are, I fully expect and welcome correction from people who actually know better. This group, typically, does not include Creationists with a 5th grade or lower understanding of scientific concepts. If your position were true, then no teacher, anywhere, would ever be able to teach a student, as people of lesser intelligence cannot understand people of greater intelligence. Were you not able to learn to read in grade school despite your teacher possessing a vastly greater level of knowledge on the subject?When I say we "take it easy," I mean that - many of us avoid direct argument and the heated debate that goes on here otherwise, and focus on helping the new individual to understand what the position of science actually is. We don't care about whether they eventually "convert" to Evolutionists - the goal is simply helping them to understand what they're arguing against, so that their arguments are not set against a false Theory of Evolution that doesn't really exist and no scientist believes. I most certainly have experienced condescension. The problem here is that I simply don't care if I come across as condescending to a Creationist who insists on using scientific terms incorrectly after being shown they are wrong a hundred times. If a Creationist asks me to explain to them what the Theory of Evolution actually says as opposed to what Answersingenesis or Ray Comfort say that it says, I'll try to avoid condescension and speak to the person in a respectful and hopefully helpful manner. If they insist, after being corrected for the hundredth time, that the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory," or that it predicts that we should see monkeys giving birth to cows, I'll treat them like the idiots they are.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

That's why I was pointing out that lack of education is not a positive. Sweatshops are bad, even if they give us cheap shoes. Hell...they aren't even cheap.There is no situation where ignorance and stupidity are good things, unless you're a monster who likes taking advantage of people. I would respond that, while such a position is supported by the text of Genesis, there is no corroborative evidence to give this story any more credence than any other myth.You're moving the goalposts. I don't tell Creationists what Creationism is. I listen for them to tell me what their position is, and if I see a flaw in their argument or a falsehood, I point it out. Evolutionists don't dictate to Creationists what Creationists believe - we let them say what they believe, and then we argue against that position.I don't claim to have superior knowledge of Creationism. I've read the Bible, and used to be a Christian, but Creationists have such varied positions it's not possible to really pin them down to one standard.Creationists, however, come and attack Evolution from faulty positions, like claiming that, since Evolution predicts monkeys should give birth to housecats, or since Evolution predicts that we should see new life in a peanut butter jar, and both of these positions are false, Evolution must also be false.The problem is that Evolution makes no such predictions. Yet when told this, the Creationist continues to attack the same strawman of Evolution until he gets banned from the science forums.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

We should definitely make a Part II. Irony on this level must be allowed to continue, if only to see how far it goes before they realize they're proving our own point - even with us saying as much directly in the thread.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Which completely ignores the entire point of my statement. Lack of education, lack of critical thinking skills, and general idiocy has no positive. Some unethical people will take advantage of it, but it is never a good thing for the people who lack those skills. About some of the historical claims in the Bible, like that Jericho existed, sure. But there are a large, large number of historical claims made in the Bible that are falsified by observations of the natural world (6-day Creationism, 6000-year-old Earth, Great Flood, nearly the entirety of Exodus, etc), and claiming that the entire text is "based in reality" because a few of the historical claims are verified is like claiming Harry Potter and magic are real because London actually exists.And now you arent even just moving goalposts, you're shifting the topic. We were talking about strawman positions, and how Creationists are fond of attacking a version of Evolution that doesn't exist due to their misunderstanding and outright ignorance of science, whereas the Evolutionists here at EvC let the Creationists post exactly what their position is before attacking only that position. We aren't talking about Biblical veracity, we're talking about Creationists who find it impossible to argue against the actual Theory of Evolution and instead argue against something so scientist has ever said. Creationists make claims like this all the damned time. Why do you think we have this thread? Go to youtube, and search for things like "The Atheist's Nightmare," or just Ray Comfort in general. As previously mentioned, the peanut butter video is also quite real. Mr. Comfort, on national television in an Evolution vs. Creationism debate, once said that Evolution could not be true because it predicts weird "transitionals," like a bullfrog with the head of a bull and the body of a frog. He was entirely serious...but the Theory of Evolution predicts no such thing, and it was a strawman argument.(amusing side note: that debate was supposed to prove Creationism without invoking the Bible. In his very first statement, Comfort used the Ten Commandments to prove Creationism, technically losing the debate through his own idiocy within mere moments and establishing that he cannot even be trusted to hold to the debate rules he suggests)I'm happy to hear that you find those claims ridiculous, because they most certainly are. But they are what most Creationists honestly believe Evolution claims, and it's the reason we have to repeat ourselves ad nauseum to individuals stubbornly bringing forward the same arguments from ignorance and complete fabrications even after their errors have been pointed out several times.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Funny how, whenever a Creationist sees the evidence of how ridiculous some of his cohorts can be, the video or quote is always "taken out of context."Are you saying then that this video was a joke? The Creationists who made it are not actually saying that Evolution says we should find new life in peanut butter jars?I'd love to believe it's a joke...but after hearing all of the other claims made by other Creationists, and judging by the general tone and statements in the video (and having seen other "Christian science" apologist type videos), I find that hard to swallow. What additional context did you find that somehow makes this clip not demonstrate the tendency of Creationists to attack bizzare strawman versions of Evolution?

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Which was my point. I'm glad we agree. So you approve of virtual slave labor, and view it as a "positive." Glad we disagree on that one. The topic has drifted just a bit from the original post, as you well know. You and I were talking about strawman arguments in the quote you replied to. Why are you so insistent on not addressing your actual replies? If you feel we've drifted too far from the original topic of the thread, that's fine, but you know full well what you were replying to when you quoted me.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Well, for instance, if someone strongly believes that the Earth is flat, and we can physically observe that it is, in fact, not flat, we know that belief is false.It's called "evidence." If it contradicts the belief, the belief is false.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong. Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.If a group were trying to force schools to teach that the Earth is flat as an "alternative theory" wouldn't you be upset? Hilarious, sure, but wouldn't it be worth arguing against?Besides, this is a debate forum. We like arguing.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

For some reason I still don't get the impression that you're arguing the "underdog" position just so that the Creationists are represented. Do you mean to say you love such "underdog" positions as Flat Earth believers?This is another very common Creationist position: that every opinion needs to be respected, regardless of its merits or veracity. This is what leads us to the "it's just a theory" and "both sides should be taught, let the kids decide" idiocy.False opinions, like Flat Earth believers, do not need to be respected. Only their right to beleive in retarded nonsense needs to be respected.Oh, and the Golden Mean fallacy, also known as the Middle Ground fallacy, invoves taking the middle-ground compromise position between any two sides of any argument, becasue clearly both sides must be the "extreme" positions. It's the argument of the eternal fence-sitter, and the fool who wants all sides to be happy even if one side is simply wrong. An example would be someone who beleives both the Flat Earth "theory" and the fact that the Earth is roughly spherical should be taught in a classroom, so that both sides are represented and happy. The position is fallacious because one side in an argument can simply be wrong, and a compromise is no more accurate. You see this very often from cdesign proponentists. That is part of the reason sites like this exist, and the reason the Dover trial happened in the first place - religion is fine, until it starts to pretend to be science. Oh, I certainly do laugh at them. The peanut butter and bananna videos are pricelessly hillarious. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out their broken logic, misconceptions and outright lies. An ueducated populace that believes in religious dogma in spite of obvious and directly contradictory evidence is worse than any WMD - how many would die if "faith healing" took over instead of actual medicine? I know this is a slippery slope argument, but the dangers of a populace that discounts science becaue "it's just a bunch of theories," has no idea of how to think critically and examine beliefs for veracity, and honestly believes that half of the science they rely on every day is nothing but a bunch of lies and distortions is very, very real. They really aren't. The Creationist mindset incorporates a persecution complex - they are taught to expect ridicule and worse in response to their beliefs, and taught that they must ignore all criticism and logic, endure any amount of ridicule or what they perceive as slander and hold to their blind faith at all costs, because everything that disagrees with them is literally a lie of the Devil. That's one of the root causes of the problem. It's usually hopeless trying to convince the Creationist him/herself. The point of the debate is intellectual exercise, and to convince the lurkers and observers who never say a word.Ridicule has its place, in such examples as the Flying Speaghetty Monster, whose Noodly Majesty was created to illustrate the silliness of YEC beliefs. But you're the only one claiming Creationists cannot understand anything. I think they have the ability, simply not the inclination. They've been told all the "answers" by their religion, and are taught specifically not to examine those beliefs and test them against reality. The reason most Creationists have such a poor writing style and fail to do even the most cursory research is simply intellectual laziness becasue they believe they already know the truth. Is this stupid? Sure. Does it mean they are incapable of anything else? I certainly hope not.Edited by Rahvin, : Quote fixing.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Accuracy is not binary. There are degrees of accuracy. Evolution has proven to be extremely accurate, on a level with the Theory of Gravity.Creationism isn't accurate at all. It's not even missing the target - it doesn't know what continent the target is on.The Theory of Evolution will always remain tentative, but because of its proven accuracy, it should be weighted considerably more than something that has the predictive accuracy of a blind man and a dart board on the other end of town."Coexistence" is not the problem. Creationists are welcome to beleive whatever they'd like. It's simply not acceptable in science classrooms.And those who spout falsehoods as truth and make statements about science without even knowing the definitions of the terms they throw around even after being corrected repeatedly deserve whatever mockery they get.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.