Thread for Jan... what would it take?

[mountainhare]

In numerous threads regarding evolution in the past, Jan has challenged people to justify why they believe that evolution is a 'fact'. Upon doing so, Jan conveniently ignores their responses, and parrots her question ad nauseum. Meanwhile, she touts strawman arguments regarding evolutionary theory.

I think that it is obvious that the vast majority of posters here that attempting that approach with Jan is futile, as she pulls all the strings, and basically forces everyone to play by her rhetorical rules.

Instead, I've decided to make the discussion a bit worthwhile.

Here are several very simple questions for Jan. They don't require pages of text, or numerous thesis'. However, they will help us determine Jan's honesty and reasonableness.

Jan:

1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'?

2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact?

3. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes ('microevolution') from accumulating to produce 'macroevolution' (a large change)?

 

[Zeno]

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "Yep, same with everybody else too."
Son: "Hmmm....I just thought of something. This means evolution is impossible."
Dad: "How so? Please explain."
Son: "Well, if the genes were already in existence in the previous generation then there is really nothing 'new'. I suppose a crude analogy would be that Mom holds 44 playing cards and Dad also holds 44 playing cards. When someone is born 22 cards are selected at random from each and a new unique stack of 44 cards are produced, but none of the cards are really new."
Dad: "Interesting analogy. Yes, that really does seem to chop down the tree of evolution."
Son: "There also seems to be genetic patterns in people, which we call race."
Son: "There are white, black, and asian people and since the same genes are being passed down, those patterns will always exist."
Son: "Whether you move forward or backward in time, there will always be and has always been white, black and asian people."
Son: "Man has always existed in his present form and always will continue to do so."
Dad: "I get your point son."

 

[QuarkMoon]

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "Yep, same with everybody else too."
Son: "Hmmm....I just thought of something. This means evolution is impossible."
Dad: "How so? Please explain."
Son: "Well, if the genes were already in existence in the previous generation then there is really nothing 'new'. I suppose a crude analogy would be that Mom holds 44 playing cards and Dad also holds 44 playing cards. When someone is born 22 cards are selected at random from each and a new unique stack of 44 cards are produced, but none of the cards are really new."
Dad: "Interesting analogy. Yes, that really does seem to chop down the tree of evolution."
Son: "There also seems to be genetic patterns in people, which we call race."
Son: "There are white, black, and asian people and since the same genes are being passed down, those patterns will always exist."
Son: "Whether you move forward or backward in time, there will always be and has always been white, black and asian people."
Son: "Man has always existed in his present form and always will continue to do so."
Dad: "I get your point son."

I'll light a bong to that. :m:

Not because I agree, but because it was a trippy conversation. Mainly because I have no clue how their conclusions matches their observations. Genetic makeup being present in our parents does not dispute evolution in the slightest bit. Also, their observations are false. The same exact genes aren't being passed down each and every generation, that's propostorous. If you research the ancient Human fossils being found in Africa, we have changed quite a bit since those Humans walked the Earth. As for current Humans having very small differences in genetic makeup and DNA, this explaination is given: "In fact relative to many other species, we're almost clones of each other. This is consistent with a recent origin for our species and also with the view, held by some scientists, that there was a bottleneck some time in our recent evolutionary past. It seems likely that within the last 200,000 years, the human population went down to a very small number, to maybe only 10,000 or 20,000 people, reducing the genetic diversity that gave rise to today's population. This may well be why humans today show a relatively low diversity compared with many other species."

 

[water]

Here are several very simple questions for Jan. They don't require pages of text, or numerous thesis'. However, they will help us determine Jan's honesty and reasonableness.

This is an ad hominem.

1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'?

2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact?

3. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes ('microevolution') from accumulating to produce 'macroevolution' (a large change)?

If you are any kind of a scientist, then you shall know that science is inherently relativistic, it cannot produce absolute truths. Science itself says that.

Whenever you use an empirically based scientific argument in an attempt to refute a philosophical or ethical statement, you have set up a strawman -- as you are presenting your inherently relativistic statements as if they were absolute.

Face it: The whole debate between scientists and religionists, about religion and science, is just a matter of egos fighting. Scientific and religious theories and statements are just the tools for this fight.

 

[Kalypso]

Evolution is a theory. A Theory. Not a fact. I have not seen the posts in question but if she's saying evolution isn't a fact, well, she's right.

Modern Scientific Thought has only existed at most a few thousand years, evolution takes millions to occur. There's no way to definitively prove what happened over the course of the earths 4 billion year lifespan.

However, we can make educated guesses. That's what evolution, or natural selection are. Educated guesses, theories, not facts. Doesn't mean they aren't right, it means we can't prove it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Evolution is a theory. A Theory. Not a fact. I have not seen the posts in question but if she's saying evolution isn't a fact, well, she's right.

Steeeerike 1!

Try again.

 

[geeser]

zeno: welcome
lets start again

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "no, because they cojoin to make a complete new set genes"
Son: "Hmmm....I just thought of something. This means evolution is possible."
Dad: "this is how we evolved, littles steps at a time, but eventually humans got smarter, this process is still going on, and one day, who know".
"it's seem for a eight year old, your smarter than your ol'dad"
son: "yeh aint evolution great"

 

[Silas]

In numerous threads regarding evolution in the past, Jan has challenged people to justify why they believe that evolution is a 'fact'. Upon doing so, Jan conveniently ignores their responses, and parrots her question ad nauseum. Meanwhile, she touts strawman arguments regarding evolutionary theory.

I'm with water - it's somewhat ad hominem to create a specific thread for the purpose of deriding a specific forum user is bad netiquette at the least.

Secondly, I don't think Jan is a "she".

Kalypso, evidently you haven't read the responses to Jan's posts which have explained ad nauseam that Evolution is no less a fact than, say, the Atomic Theory of Matter.

Zeno, the shortest and easiest answer to your "card game" analogy is that it totally fails to take mutation into account. Not only are all the genes not preexisting because new ones are formed by conjoining, but the nature of the playing cards themselves is not fixed.

The thing is, mutation is actually an older part of the Theory of Evolution than Darwin's Natural Selection!

 

[Mythbuster]

I might get a ban for posting disturbing pics here.

Who do you think looks more human, the above photos, or chimpanzees? Chimpanzees have complete legs, arms, fingers, rectal cavities etc., these babies do not.

People wanted evidence of macroevolution in the process, they say that no one has ever documented such an event. Well this is about as close as you are going to get without watching a species over thousands of years, and if this type of change can happen with one birth, imagine how many changes could happen with 10 billion births. I tried to explain to these people that an ape didn't just give birth to a human one day, and a fish didn't just crawl out of the water, turn into a lizard, start running while transforming from an ape and then to a naked dude. But that is the manner in which the parents and Sunday school teachers of these people taught them to make evolution seem ridiculous, and yes those examples are ridiculous. However, no one really believes that is how it happened. I kept trying to explain that genetic abnormalities or mutations happen in nature all the time, thus albinos, and downs syndrome. Some of these traits, such as baldness, eye and hair color, physique, high cholesterol etc. are passed down from one generation to the next; if your mother’s father was bald you have a good chance of being bald yourself. For some reason those inherited traits are not hard for the creationists to understand but other traits are and they contend that there is no way after a millions of years (since they don't believe the Earth has even been here that long) that something that had it's roots as one species may end up as something that looks completely different, even though it still shares over 95% of it's DNA with its ancestors.

I do realize that this isn't a good example of an actual new species that could reproduce or even survive at all. So far there is really only two cases that I know of where these babies survived past their first few hours. But let’s just say that these babies were all born with fully functional organs, which is not impossible, and that this was a trait that could be passed down from one generation to the next.

So what would happen if the babies born with sirenomelia as in the photos above, were all abandoned in one place because of this defect, isolated, and were able to reproduce, carrying on this gene that causes sirenomelia? What if they were abandoned by the sea and although they were unable to walk, they were able to swim 5 xs faster than humans and therefore were able to get to all the food sources in the sea before people with legs and therefore were able to benefit from this defect, survive and carry on as a civilization? What if one of these babies was then born with another genetic defect such as gills, or a blow hole and were able to stay underwater for longer periods of time, and therefore were able to get to the oceans food sources 10x faster than their predecessors and therefore survived as the others died and thus only passing on the their genetic mutations of no feet and gills? Wouldn't that be the macroevolution that everybody says doesn't exist? It almost seems like sirenomelia could have been the first phase of that separation of species. And if what I described above happened over a million years, and what originally came from air breathing humans, on land, with feet, became a webbed leg fish eater with gills that could survive in the sea, don't you think the DNA would be a bit different than what it started out as? And if so, wouldn't this count as a new species, even though the first time it appeared it was called a deformed human?

I am not making an argument for fish babies per say, if you do any research on sirenomelia you would come to the conclusion that the above is impossible. But what if they weren't so deformed and what if it was just a group of albinos that got isolated from the rest of civilization and instead of living in the sea or above ground, they were forced to live in caves due to sun exposure. Wouldn't the ones with better eye sight be more prosperous in such an environment, wouldn't they have a higher survival rate therefore, more likely to pass good vision on to their offspring? And over time wouldn't we eventually have a race of powder white cave dwellers with great eye sight but with extreme sun sensitivity?

These are all just hypothetical examples that draw correlations to modern human development. I know you all think I am crazier than a shit house rat but there is a point being made; you just have to find it.

 

[charles cure]

If you are any kind of a scientist, then you shall know that science is inherently relativistic, it cannot produce absolute truths. Science itself says that.

science itself says nothing, its a process, not a meeting of the Elks club. scientific method is a means by which hypotheses are demonstrated to be either practical or impractical. observing a process and coming to the conclusion that it exists and is in use, at least according to the data and conditions under which the experiment(s) were performed is not a pronouncement of truth, it is logical proof of a hypothetical statement. fact and truth are not the same thing. science proves fact or not fact, it doesnt have anything to do with the truth and "science" as a whole doesnt make claims, individual scientists do.

Whenever you use an empirically based scientific argument in an attempt to refute a philosophical or ethical statement, you have set up a strawman -- as you are presenting your inherently relativistic statements as if they were absolute.

you dont set up a strawman, you just seek to compare two things that shouldn't be compared. science isnt philosophy or ethics. you can say however, according to an overwhelming amount of scientific data produced over the course of at least a century, the statment that evolution is a natural process through which speciation, adaptation, and genetic diversity are acheived is supported by fact and can be demonstrated to exist. that isnt relativism on any level. the data may be contested at any point by conflicting data or opposite conclusions of similarly conducted experimentation, but in order to challenge that validity, the other SCIENTIFIC argument should be equally valid. to challenge a scientific theory with a philosophical belief is pretty pointless. especially in the case that you have zero factual data to back up the claim that you submit as an alternative process to the one supported by scientific evidence.

Face it: The whole debate between scientists and religionists, about religion and science, is just a matter of egos fighting. Scientific and religious theories and statements are just the tools for this fight.

science doesnt fight religion. thats where you are wrong (though im not surprised). science makes claims based on discoveries, experiments, data, observation. these claims are then tried and tested many times by different people in different situations under different conditions. after a concept has proved itself many times it usually gains acceptance in the scientific community, usually followed by society as a whole. science has never set out to "disprove" religion. science does not set out to disprove anything, only to support a particular idea or concept with empirical data. religion has always been the challenger, because science, in its attempts to understand natural processes and phenomena has often come to conclusions that contradict the myopic views of one religion or another. the religious authority then attempts to denounce science as an uncertainty, and has mostly in the past, attempted to derail the work of those producing alternative views to the ones held by religion, or has used force to cause the scientist to recant his or her conclusions. thats how the science/religion debate has been conducted, its not a battle of egos as much as it is a struggle for those in positions of religiously based wealth and authority to cling to some measure of power over the hearts and minds of the populace in order to secure their own interests.

 

[charles cure]

Evolution is a theory. A Theory. Not a fact. I have not seen the posts in question but if she's saying evolution isn't a fact, well, she's right.

Modern Scientific Thought has only existed at most a few thousand years, evolution takes millions to occur. There's no way to definitively prove what happened over the course of the earths 4 billion year lifespan.

However, we can make educated guesses. That's what evolution, or natural selection are. Educated guesses, theories, not facts. Doesn't mean they aren't right, it means we can't prove it.

youre wrong about that almost completely. here is a pretty decent explanation of what a scientific theory is and how it differs from an half-baked idea you came up with while you were mowing the lawn.

from www.wilstar.com/thories.htm

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

 

[Silas]

Charles - misprint in your link. Corrected: http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

I tried to explain to these people that an ape didn't just give birth to a human one day, and a fish didn't just crawl out of the water, turn into a lizard, start running while transforming from an ape and then to a naked dude. But that is the manner in which the parents and Sunday school teachers of these people taught them to make evolution seem ridiculous, and yes those examples are ridiculous.

I think we ought to be fair - frankly this is how evolution is not infrequently taught by science teachers in schools, and illustrated by official scientifically inclined textbooks! That is why Creationists continue to have ammunition to fire at less than fully informed people who believe in Evolution because they were told to, just as Creationists believe what they do because they were told to. Anti-Creationists have to spend half their time explaining that frogs do not spontaneously turn into elephants and the like - arguments I've seen on forums, let alone creationist literature.

 

[charles cure]

Charles - misprint in your link. Corrected: http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
.

thanks for the correction Silas.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'?

Something which is known to be the case.

A "scientific fact" is an observation which has been comfirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.

2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact?

.

Evidence that conforms to the above definitions.

3. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes ('microevolution') from accumulating to produce 'macroevolution' (a large change)?

As macroevol has not been observered, this question is (to me) irrelivant, you could just as well ask me; What mechanism prevents small genetic changes from accumulating to produce terrorists?

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

As macroevol has not been observered, this question is (to me) irrelivant, you could just as well ask me; What mechanism prevents small genetic changes from accumulating to produce terrorists?

For the past 300 years, all of the accumulative evidence gained from the fossil record, repeatedly confirm and observe large scale macro-evolution.

We share a common ancestor because when evolution finds something successful, it transcends all species on it's branch of the tree of life. I know it's hard to imagine how one species can turn into another, but it would be so slow and gradual, it's like asking... When does a river become a canyon?

 

[mountainhare]

water:

This is an ad hominem.

No, it was not an ad hominem, you pulla. Hint: An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem.

If you are any kind of a scientist,

Ahh, now who's engaging in an ad hominem?

then you shall know that science is inherently relativistic, it cannot produce absolute truths. Science itself says that.

Correct. Who here is disputing that? Although I'm pleased to see that you didn't sleep through all your Philosophy 101 classes.

Whenever you use an empirically based scientific argument in an attempt to refute a philosophical or ethical statement, you have set up a strawman -- as you are presenting your inherently relativistic statements as if they were absolute.

Straw man argument. I done no such thing.

Face it: The whole debate between scientists and religionists, about religion and science, is just a matter of egos fighting. Scientific and religious theories and statements are just the tools for this fight.

False dilemma fallacy and straw man mixed into one highly fallicious argument. Colour me not impressed!

Silas:

I'm with water - it's somewhat ad hominem to create a specific thread for the purpose of deriding a specific forum user is bad netiquette at the least.

Look again, retard. This thread isn't created to 'deride' Jan. It's created because time after time on this board over the past year, Jan has repeated the same old shit, 'Show me evidence of evolution, that's not evidence, la la la'. What's amazing is that dumb fucks on this board play right into her hands by...

1. Not asking Jan to specify what she would consider evidence of evolution. By not doing so, this allows Jan to continue dodging and ignoring indefinitely. In fact, attempting to meet her demands is like attacking an invisible ghost, because you don't know what it looks like, or where it is.

2. Not asking Jan what she considers a 'fact'. This allows her to continually shift the goalposts.

3. Posting huge ass chunks of evidence, and when Jan ignores + labels these articles 'jargon, bullshit, and bias', they just post more articles which they feel are wonderful pieces of evidence for evolution. Jan then dismisses that evidence, and the whole process is repeated. Thus nothing is ever achieved, because the 'evolutionists' here are continually the defence, trying to attack a shimmering ghost (Jan's vague demands). It's a fucking waste of time, and the 'evolutionists' lose out, because far more time is required to find, post and explain the articles, than to parrot the tired old claim 'Where is your evidence!? That's not evidence! Bullshit, jargon and bias! Where is your evidence?!'

I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. From now on, Jan is to engage in proper discussions. That means that each side...

1. Clarifies their position.

2. Is allowed to ask reasonable, clear, specific questions.

3. Is obliged to answer reasonable, clear, specific questions.

4. Is obliged to demonstrate that they have read any evidence posted by the opposition before they dismiss it as 'bullshit, jargon, and bias'. And if the opposition does indeed dismiss it due to these reasons, they must exactly show where/why the evidence is 'bullshit, jargon, and bias'.

Jan:

1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'?

Something which is known to be the case.

Your answer is too vague, Jan. Try again. This time, explain what you REQUIRE before you acknowledge a naturalistic explaination as fact. For example, do you require direct observation of the event? If there is enough evidence to support an inference, will you consider it a fact?

Stop goofing around, Jan, and just answer the question.

A "scientific fact" is an observation which has been comfirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.

Finally, something of substance. Yes, I would say that what you are describing pretty much accurately sums up what a scientific fact is. Although direct observation of the event is not necessary.

“ 2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact? ”

Evidence that conforms to the above definitions.

Another vague answer! Once again, Jan, stop fucking around and answer the question. What evidence would convince you that macroevolution is a fact? Name something specific, otherwise this discussion is worthless. If I'm going to convince you, you need to tell me exactly what I need to show you in order to convince you. Otherwise you just engage in your habitual 'shifting the goalposts' fallacy, where you scream 'irrelevant', 'jargon', or 'not good enough'! when posters try to meet your vague demands. Such rhetorical tactics merely demonstrate that you are not genuinely interested in discovering the truth, but are merely trying to push your propaganda. If you want to regain some credibility, and show that you are interested in an honest discussion, I suggest you cut the crap and start engaging in proper debate.

“ 3. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes ('microevolution') from accumulating to produce 'macroevolution' (a large change)? ”

As macroevol has not been observered, this question is (to me) irrelivant,

No, it is not irrelevant, and once again you are dodging the question. Answer it. What mechanism prevents microevolutionary changes accumulating to form a macroevolutionary change?

 

[Silas]

Silas:

I'm with water - it's somewhat ad hominem to create a specific thread for the purpose of deriding a specific forum user is bad netiquette at the least.

Look again, retard. This thread isn't created to 'deride' Jan. It's created because time after time on this board over the past year, Jan has repeated the same old shit, 'Show me evidence of evolution, that's not evidence, la la la'. What's amazing is that dumb fucks on this board play right into her hands by...

*shrugs* If "retard" is your automatic response to mild dissent from your methods, then clearly netiquette isn't of importance to you. It is, however, of importance to those people who want their opinions taken seriously and responded to by both opponents and like-minded individuals. In other words, if you'd addressed this thread to me, I would take the position of not engaging in intelligent debate with someone who call other forum users "retard" and "dumb fuck" for no reason. You're criticising Jan Ardena for not responding to questions, which you presumably regard as discourteous, but you have demonstrated that courtesy doesn't matter to you, so why should he reply to you at all?

 

[charles cure]

Something which is known to be the case.

A "scientific fact" is an observation which has been comfirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.

thats the problem right there. scientific fact isnt truth. the truth is something which you believe to be correct although to be technical, no one but you believes in the exact same truth that you do. a scientific fact is a fact that has been observed and tested repeatedly in a range of situations and environs and is accepted as a fact in accordance with those specific findings. a scientific fact is nothing more than a fact that is proven according to the scientific method. the truth is a wholly different, unrelated, and far more elusory concept.
.

As macroevol has not been observered, this question is (to me) irrelivant, you could just as well ask me; What mechanism prevents small genetic changes from accumulating to produce terrorists?

Jan.

macroevolution has been observed, i dont know where you get the idea that it hasnt been. the mechanism that prevents small genetic changes from accumulating to produce terrorists is called the environment. environmental variables ensure experiential differences, which in turn ensure different outcomes in terms of personality formation and decision making capability. just because evolution happens does not mean that each species is a slave to its specific genome, there is just as much influence wrought upon a person by the place where they are born and mature, the caretakers they have, and the events that happen to them. all of these variables contribute to the decision making process, thus ensuring that there is no such thing a s a genetically predisposed terrorist.

 

[mountainhare]

*Bump*

Answer my questions, Jan. They are quite simple. Surely you shouldn't have any trouble answering them, if you know what you are talking about?

I'm not letting you slip away so easily.

Sillyass:

shrugs* If "retard" is your automatic response to mild dissent from your methods,

No. Retard is my automatic response to retards, who comment on things which they are blatantly ignorant of. Calling a slippery poster to account for their rhetoric is not 'impolite', especially when they have been engaging in the same rhetoric for 1+ years.

then clearly netiquette isn't of importance to you.

Boo hoo hoo. Go cry in a corner, pissant.

It is, however, of importance to those people who want their opinions taken seriously and responded to by both opponents and like-minded individuals. In other words, if you'd addressed this thread to me, I would take the position of not engaging in intelligent debate with someone who call other forum users "retard" and "dumb fuck" for no reason.

But since when did I want your advice, opinion, or interjections, nitwit? This thread was created with the sole purpose of getting Jan to clarify her position. Not for you to derail the thread by bitching and whining about my nequitte. Fuck off. If you're upset about my 'rudeness', I'll give you 25 cents to call someone who actually cares. Or even better, bitch to the mods. But don't derail my thread.

You're criticising Jan Ardena for not responding to questions, which you presumably regard as discourteous, but you have demonstrated that courtesy doesn't matter to you, so why should he reply to you at all?

Wrong, I don't regard Jan's refusal to respond as 'discourteous', I regard it as a delibrate attempt to avoid having her position ripped to shreds. In otherwords, the height of dishonesty. Because once the opponent knows your position, and what will convince you to change your position, then he has some ground on which to stand.

You bitch about me being 'rude', ironically ignoring my (and other posters) past polite attempts to extract an answer out of Jan, to the question "what will convince you?" and "why isn't that evidence satisfactory?".
Despite the questions being simple and reasonable, we've never received an answer (except for mockery and condescending preaching). You even observe her evasiveness in this very thread!

Quite frankly, we've been too soft on Jan. From now on, no debate goes anywhere until she specifies what exactly will convince her that macroevolution = fact. Otherwise, the whole debate is pointless (which is exactly what she wants).

And why should she respond? Because that is what one is expected to do in any debate. One must clarify their position!

You don't like how I'm doing it? Fuck you. And stick your nequitte where the sun don't shine, you holier-than-thou ignoramus. Perhaps you should listen to both sides of the story before offering your half-baked opinion about who has poor 'nequitte'.
You fail at life... go away.

 

[Silas]

No. Retard is my automatic response to retards, who comment on things which they are blatantly ignorant of.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=929147#post929147

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=920689#post920689

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=919156#post919156