Anyone else notice this pattern?

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.

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?

I wrote

quote:

---

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?

---

You responded

quote:

---

What are the significant details that have been missed and what do you mean by 'purposely being dense??

---

Perhaps you should consider reading the rest of my post and in context of the replies to the same post by the other members?