Creation vs evolution total [relism] vs [Ferrets54] Commentary thread

[Incesticide]

That's what a lot of people said about participating in the fight against Hitler.

Although I guess a special exception could be made here. I don't believe I've seen a single post by Total Relism that was remotely related to the Total War franchise.

I fail to see the similarities. Following a policy of appeasement is hardly the same thing as actively choosing not to debate somebody who quite obviously is never going to shift from his position and who even more obviously simply ignores anything thrown at him. In this case, TR isn't advising a school board or funding an eminent statesman for election. Personally I believe that placing a basic guide to evolutionary biology in the scriptorium, along with links to counter creationist arguments would be a much better idea than endless debate that lead to nowhere. I myself think that on the internet do not feed the troll/creationist is an excellent maxim. In my opinion, the only reason that would make sense to get into a debate with the likes of TR would be to avoid younger forum members getting the wrong idea - that creationism is a valid alternative.

Incidentally, I've rarely made posts related to the Total War franchise myself. I became active on the forums because I noticed that the standards of writing and debate here can be pretty good and to be able to contribute to the scriptorium in future.

[DisgruntledGoat]

Arguing with TR is like arguing with a brick wall. He, like some others, have come to the TWC to preach. He isn't interested in debating, that's why he ignores any arguments and repeats his message over and over. He is preaching and the only way he knows how is to repeat, repeat, repeat. Its the same way he was indoctrinated he can't help himself.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I fail to see the similarities. Following a policy of appeasement is hardly the same thing as actively choosing not to debate somebody who quite obviously is never going to shift from his position and who even more obviously simply ignores anything thrown at him. In this case, TR isn't advising a school board or funding an eminent statesman for election. Personally I believe that placing a basic guide to evolutionary biology in the scriptorium, along with links to counter creationist arguments would be a much better idea than endless debate that lead to nowhere. I myself think that on the internet do not feed the troll/creationist is an excellent maxim. In my opinion, the only reason that would make sense to get into a debate with the likes of TR would be to avoid younger forum members getting the wrong idea - that creationism is a valid alternative.

Incidentally, I've rarely made posts related to the Total War franchise myself. I became active on the forums because I noticed that the standards of writing and debate here can be pretty good and to be able to contribute to the scriptorium in future.

I was referring more to the intelligentsia of the day who were fervently anti-war, rather than the governments.

What Disgruntled Goat said as well.

[Ying, Duke of Qin]

Arguing with TR is like arguing with a brick wall. He, like some others, have come to the TWC to preach. He isn't interested in debating, that's why he ignores any arguments and repeats his message over and over. He is preaching and the only way he knows how is to repeat, repeat, repeat. Its the same way he was indoctrinated he can't help himself.

I assure you, not all Christians are like that. Some can be perfectly reasonable without compromising what they consider to be the truth.

While preaching could, in theory, be efficient in some mediums, I do not think it is appropriate for a debate forum. I don't think it's necessarily due to indoctrination - many people just prefer reading off little soundbytes or tidbits of information that they pick up from their news source. TR may simply be a zealous individual who's trying to save souls on behalf of God. The only problem: according to Christianity, God does the work, not people.

(I'm a biologist, yes, but comparative religion and mythology also interest me greatly. )

TR has already PMed me asking me for a debate. I've declined on two grounds. First, a debate isn't a debate if one side shows no ability to comprehend or understand the other's arguments. Second, I doubt God approves of such meaningless waste of time - he's definitely not making any headway getting through other folks, and I don't think Christians browse this forum on that regular of a basis - certainly not enough to be encouraged by his writing, if any encouragement can be found.

Note that I'm not necessarily attacking AnswersinGenesis or whatever other organization that may be pushing such a viewpoint. This is, after all, debate commentary. Attacking source is probably one of the worst arguments one could make. I'm just pointing out that it's probably best to do the research yourself and go as deep as you can rather than believing in what someone else has stated. Wiki can be a reliable source. Encyclopedias can be reliable sources. Until retracted, we can assume peer-reviewed journals to contain good science. Many people just label something as "creationist" or "evil" and leave. That's not necessarily conductive to good discussion.

For the record, in case anyone's going "hurr, Ying is fleeing from an actual argument":

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My message to TR. Perhaps I was overly harsh.

He who answers before listening - it is his folly and shame.

- Proverbs 18:13.

If you're Christian, perhaps you should consider the words in 2 Timothy. "Avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife."

I do not debate people who have yet to learn to listen or understand others.

My response from him was:

sorry i dont know what you mean

The verse I cited is also found in his signature. I consider that to be rather ironic. TR, in case you're reading this: this isn't an attack against your beliefs or your values or even you. This is just one random girl - a third party - on the internet giving you a suggestion. It makes your argument much more persuasive if you can show the other debater that you understood their position without resorting to juvenile name-calling.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

This is just one random girl

Shouldn't you be a duchess then?

[Ying, Duke of Qin]

Shouldn't you be a duchess then?

Off-topic, but 公, the historical rank in which is translated to duke, has no female equivalent in Chinese. And the equivalent female rank is a bit too girlish on the internet.

On another note: I just read this paper here. The one on uh, bacterial resistance by Anderson. I'm not sure if this is the proper argument to make, but I think the framework of the paper is a bit off. Mutations happen at random - we will not know whether or not a mutation is beneficial until the environment changes. The idea of losing or gaining fitness with "descend with modification", as Anderson noted, seem to have its order mixed up. You don't determine what is fit and what isn't until the environment is determined. A reversion back to WT is just that - a reversion back to WT. Without context, we cannot say whether or not WT is more fit than its mutant counterpart.

EDIT: ... Or am I just not getting something from the publication?

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm

[Nyxos]

[...] placing a basic guide to evolutionary biology in the scriptorium, [...]

write one I'll take care of the rest

[Incesticide]

Arguing with TR is like arguing with a brick wall. He, like some others, have come to the TWC to preach. He isn't interested in debating, that's why he ignores any arguments and repeats his message over and over. He is preaching and the only way he knows how is to repeat, repeat, repeat. Its the same way he was indoctrinated he can't help himself.

True enough, which would make it all the more effective to stop agreeing to debate him.

I'm just pointing out that it's probably best to do the research yourself and go as deep as you can rather than believing in what someone else has stated. Wiki can be a reliable source. Encyclopedias can be reliable sources. Until retracted, we can assume peer-reviewed journals to contain good science. Many people just label something as "creationist" or "evil" and leave. That's not necessarily conductive to good discussion.

The problem with doing that is that hardly anybody has the time to go through every tidbit of evidence with a fine-toothed comb. When working in the sciences, people tend to assume that other scientists have got their work right, otherwise there would be no end to the reading list.

write one I'll take care of the rest

To be quite honest, I'm planning to eventually - although at the moment I'm working on another essay that deals with how science should influence public policy. Since I'm off to BC for a couple of months, then moving back to Malta, I probably won't be able to start work on it until October or November this year, but I'll keep you informed if I ever do get started on it.

[Don in the North]

so TR claims he has worked for 'liberals' before.
i had no idea political representatives employed people with such low literacy ability. i thought for such a high profile job; a person would needed specific qualifications, one being comprehension of the english language and its application.
i am not insulting the guy, merely calling his bluff.
worked for the liberals my ASS

[MathiasOfAthens]

I am sure TR believes he responded to each claim of ferrets, the claims of "new information" but he really hasnt. He did a lot of copy pasting that he thought answered Ferrets but it didnt... it was pretty much off topic.

[Admiral Piett]

TR attempts to bewilder his opposition with a wall of pasted quotes from a prominent website and then goes on an odd pull at Ferrets' sympathy and is trying at every venue to compare him to himself in an attempt to prove they are personal equals. (Of which there are none) What's entirely evident is that TR does not understand the material he himself is posting. Just sees something that looks vaguely like it could be counteracted by his propagated source material and then glues it into his post. When questioned for his material, he simply responds with off-topic references and then posts more unsourced material from other websites in a desperate attempt to keep the debate going nor accept that he doesn't fully understand what his opponent is debating - or he himself for that matter.

This is typical tactics for a newcomer to debate forums.

[Gordon Freynman]

I would say Ferrets should have lain some rules down, but given TR's past debates I doubt it would have mattered much.

[Marechal Ney]

I would like to quote from the posts of TR.

so know respond to any of my responses tell me why you think any evidence you presented is information gaining? with reasoning not statments

If someone makes sense of that, I will consider petitioning the CdeC to make an award, "The TWC Translator's Award", and give it to whoever can translate that above phrase into proper English (American or British).

[MathiasOfAthens]

Translated:

so know respond to any of my responses tell me why you think any evidence you presented is information gaining? with reasoning not statments

Now you can respond to any if not all of my responses. Tell me why you believe the evidence you presented is "information gaining?"

Unable to translate this.

with reasoning not statments

What is reasoning and what is a statement and why is a statement not acceptable?

[Incesticide]

What is reasoning and what is a statement and why is a statement not acceptable?

I think by "statements" he means dogmatic assertions.

Shall we go 50/50 on that CdeC award?

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think by "statements" he means dogmatic assertions.

Shall we go 50/50 on that CdeC award?

So any scientific fact Ferrets presents to TR he will immediately assume to be a dogmatic assertion without fact. How can you possibly win?

[Incesticide]

So any scientific fact Ferrets presents to TR he will immediately assume to be a dogmatic assertion without fact. How can you possibly win?

You can't.

I assumed we'd proved that two or three pages back.

[MathiasOfAthens]

with reasoning not statments

So this translated equals

with biblical reasoning not scientific statments backed by evidence and fact

[Incesticide]

Precisely my man, precisely.

[Manco]

Oh look, he STILL doesn't know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis.
Yet I've seen it explained to him probably more than a dozen times.