We all know utube videos bring insults, and I'm not creating this topic to whine at the ones I've received I am creating it because I basically wonder if evolutionists/atheists themselves have noticed this now, basically it seems on any video either for evolution or against it, I would say perhaps 95% of the evolutionist comments are some form of this argument;
"You don't know the subject."
"People who are over-confident like you tend to be uninformed and not competent in the subject."
"your thinking relies on ignorance of the topic, clearly"
"Everything you said shows you don't understand evolution, lies and dishonesty energise you"
Now rather amusingly one atheist, (yes I said atheist) actually commented on one video that it seemed absurd to him that all the other atheists were not providing any argument, but just using some type of personal attack so as to propagate the propaganda that anyone who questions evolution is in some way either retarded, uneducated, uninformed or incompetent.
Of course we all know how the fallacy works, it diverts attention away from any topic being discussed, onto the person instead.
But that isn't what amazes me, what amazes me is that apart from the material put forward for evolution, the only counter-arguments it's followers generally seem to have is to argue the person. (go to evcforum and type in "mike the wiz" and see what kind of tally you get for some type of personal attack aimed at me. It is definitely the main tactic for evolutionists it seems.)
My question is; why do evolutionists/atheists in particular, seem so oblivious to their behaviour? Even when confronted it's highly likely the person will attack personally.
And this isn't just limited to the web-bandit anti-theists, even evolutionary biologists want to it seems, imply we are, "liars";
Read the entry "Book purchase - Adam's quest"
CONCLUSION: The accusation of, "lying" has become a very common trend, when I look into the claims of lies from creationists I usually come across something very different, that the creationist in question simply omitted to say something the evolutionist thought was terribly important to the facts but the creationist would see as entirely weak or irrelevant.
For example one blogger attacked the geologist Steve Austin, and called "creationists liars" (an absurd generalisation fallacy, as one human behaviour won't be designated to everyone non-evolutionist. Yawn) because Austin neglected to mention that strata formed at Mt St Helens was only a very small portion but the rest of the canyon didn't contain stratification. But from our point of view as creationists, our argument would be that there is now proof such rapid strata can form quickly.
So to basically assassinate-the-character of creationists is the number one intellectual offering of evolutionists. What am I forced to infer? I'm forced to infer that they depend so heavily on propaganda because their arguments for evolution, just aren't that strong. That they live off of the reputation of science, but themselves don't have a particularly scientific attitude that would relieve them of observer bias, and reveal the evidence against their beloved theory.
(Disclaimer; The few evolutionists here such as Goku and Piasan, aren't being attacked, I am talking about the majority of people online.)
It just seems like there are two large weapons used.
1. Science is on our side.
Which is compounded by;
2. You don't understand science.
Of course a lot of the time it's clear the evolutionists claiming this themselves don't know science or are removing the focus from the fact that they may be ignorant, but it seems these two weapons-of-propaganda are what atheists are depending on, in order to win. They basically know the easiest way to influence others is to basically make out that anyone who goes against evolution is going against science and doen't understand it. In reality it's a simplistic implication anyway, even the evolution theory itself contains many facts of science creationists would largely accept. We accept for example, all of the experimental data based on population genetics, we accept there are such things as genetic drift, we accept speciation. It is misleading to say that we represent a position against science if we accept a large portion of the things the true science shows, such as speciation, (allopatric/sympatric), and natural selection, negative selection/normalised, S@xual selection, (differential reproduction). There is a whole host of scientific facts from micro evolution which we accept, we just don't accept that they support macro.
That's the easiest way to win the EvC debate (number 1 and 2), at least in terms of neurotic agreement, if you look at those two things again they are almost like a karate move by design. 1. we are science. 2. You aren't and therefore don't understand it. I can almost see Dawkins in his karate suit, nodding his head in approval. 1. sweep the leg, 2, strike them on the back of the neck.
Most people I come across treat me like I don't understand science, or haven't heard about the science behind evolution. I of course just smile gently within, immediately gauging the fact that I know a lot more than they ever would know about it, and probably a fair deal more things than they'll ever be able to figure out because it can't be taught, but I am a victim of propaganda that person has heard from the majority evos. (In other words, this propaganda does work because I have noticed it primes people I know with a stereotypical version of a non-evolutionist. That stereotype doesn't exist but the atheist propaganda has worked it seems.)