Wow, do people actually think attacking the speaker using veiled insults is the best way to promote their scientific viewpoint? It appears so in this thread where people hurl cleverly phrased insults back and forth rather than reading and responding to the facts presented.
Also a lot of the posters assume because someone else isn't as knowledgeable as them that they are somehow lesser thinkers. When someone says "such and such is a theory on X website." responding with "Haha, more YEC drivel" is probably not the best way to get to the truth.
Overall I see very little actual discussion, just insults and logical fallacies being hurled back and forth.
Edit: I've also noticed the logical fallacy of Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) — inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false and Ecological fallacy — inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.
Edited by lokiare, : Forgot one logical fallacy used.
So you do actually think that logical fallacies = winning the discussion. Ok.
From what I've seen since I joined and what they've posted in this thread its not some huge controversial topic. They said over on X website there is a theory. They didn't even say whether they subscribed to that theory or not. Yet they are getting attacked left and right for daring to mention a theory.