Jump to content


Why Is Evolution Singled Out?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 November 2009 - 09:27 AM

Of all the sciences, Evolution is the one most reviled and attacked.

Many say that evolution doesn't mention any god or creator deity in it doing anything.

Neither does:

Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Medicine
Biology
Geology
any combo of the above, ie Astrophysics to Biochemistry to Planetology (Astro-geology)

Evolution, actually a subset of Biology and other disciplines, is just as falsifiable just as Einstein's Relativistic Physics is.

So why is Evolution singled out more than any other?

View Post


It's because only a religion can compete with a religion.

All the others in that list = real science. That is why they do not compete with real religion.

It would be very enlightening if you can explain what makes evolution so different from the others in that list that it could compete with religion on the level that it does. No one has been able to answer that question.

#42 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 09:45 AM

It's because only a religion can compete with a religion.

All the others in that list = real science. That is why they do not compete with real religion.

It would be very enlightening if you can explain what makes evolution so different from the others in that list that it could compete with religion on the level that it does. No one has been able to answer that question.

View Post



Because it is not a real question. Science does not compete with "religion" anyway. Some people's particular view of some particular religions, yes, i guess so.

ToE isnt a seperate field of study, or "science" in the sense that physics is of course. Its a subset of biology, and evolution is a THEORY within biology. it is not a separate "science".

Evolution is a theory not a science.

Same as quantum theory is a subset of physics, not a "science" in itself.

Physics contradicts a great deal of the literal interpretation of the Bible

Physics, chemistry, etc all contribute to and reinforce biology, a subset of which is evolution. None have ever found anything in their fields that indicates any problems with ToE.

If you think that contradicting the information presented in the Bible makes something a false science, then they pretty much all are false.

Or none of them are.

#43 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 November 2009 - 10:10 AM

Because it is not a real question.  Science does not compete with "religion" anyway.  Some people's particular view of some particular religions, yes, i guess so.


You are skirting the question by stereotyping it so you don't have to answer it. Which shows you are in denial of truth that answering that question would reveal.

ToE isnt a seperate field of study, or "science" in the sense that physics is of course.  Its a subset of biology, and evolution is a THEORY within biology.  it is not a separate "science".

Evolution is a theory not a science.

Same as quantum theory is a subset of physics, not a "science" in itself.


Some might disagree with you.

Physics contradicts a great deal of the literal interpretation of the Bible


Then you are a Bible scoffer. Can you list these contradictions?

Physics, chemistry, etc all contribute to and reinforce biology, a subset of which is evolution.  None have ever found anything in their fields that indicates any problems with ToE.


No problems = perfection. Perfection = absolutes. You see even when you don't realize it, you imply things that make evolution unfalsifiable. Because no problems means all the evidence has been found. And all theories explained. And no more research needs to be done. Is that the case?

If you think that contradicting the information presented in the Bible makes something a false science, then they pretty much all are false.

Or none of them are.

View Post


Spoken like a true Bible scoffer.

What is a Bible scoffer?
2 Peter 3:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

1) Always questioning the coming of Christ.
2) Denial that by God's word age was added unto the creation.
3) Denial of the canopy.
4) Denial of the world wide flood.
5) Denial of judgement of ungodly men.

Bible scoffers will not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

#44 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:58 AM

You are skirting the question by stereotyping it so you don't have to answer it. Which shows you are in denial of truth that answering that question would reveal.
Some might disagree with you.
Then you are a Bible scoffer. Can you list these contradictions?
No problems = perfection. Perfection = absolutes. You see even when you don't realize it, you imply things that make evolution unfalsifiable. Because no problems means all the evidence has been found. And all theories explained. And no more research needs to be done. Is that the case?
Spoken like a true Bible scoffer.

What is a Bible scoffer?
2 Peter 3:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

1) Always questioning the coming of Christ.
2) Denial that by God's word age was added unto the creation.
3) Denial of the canopy.
4) Denial of the world wide flood.
5) Denial of judgement of ungodly men.

Bible scoffers will not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

View Post



Well no Im not skirting the question, its not a real question.

Even if you think it is. And I didnt stereotype anyone.


"some may disagree" all they like but they dont have a valid basis.


From my perspective it is you who is in denial and afraid of / incapable of accepting what it would mean if you were confronted with reality.


"no problems = perfection. Perfection = absolutes. You see even when you don't realize it, you imply things that make evolution unfalsifiable. Because no problems means all the evidence has been found. And all theories explained. And no more research needs to be done. Is that the case?
Spoken like a true Bible scoffer.



Oh my. WHO is stereotyping?

This progression of no problems = pefection etc is not at all realistic nor waht I said intend think and has no bearing on reality.

Nobody has ever found a valid problem with ToE. Nobody found a valid problem with the fact that the sun is hot.

Perfection is as theoretical ideal that can never be achieved by people.
Im the lat one to say any theory is perfect.

And I have said a thousand times that any sci theory is falsifiable. doesnt mean it can be falsified... maybe it cant. Falsifiable is not the same thing.
No theory is going to be perfect, and of courseearch needs to be done.

Is that the case? None of that paragraph is the case.

#45 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 November 2009 - 12:03 PM

Logical deduction is not faith.  Unless you consider "faith in one's own abilities" to be faith.

We may never see a Macro to occur.  Then again, we've never seen an atom or an electron.  We've never seen Hydrogen fuse into Helium in the Sun's interior.  We've never seen the Sun's interior.

"Macro" Evolution, speciation actually, is slow.  Speciation basically is when two almost identical animals can't produce viable offspring and even that is not 100% correct, witness donkeys and horses.

What happens when a population gets cut off from the main pool of animals is they change as to better adapt to the area they are in.  How much adaptation depends on how different the ecology of the sites differ.  So at some point, if the ecologies are different enough to cause selective pressures in different areas of the genetic code of the animals, there will be a "speciation event".

At some point, an individual will born born to the cut off group that if mixed back into the original population, it will not be able to produce a viable offspring with any individual in the "old group".  this will be even though its parent both could have done so.  Even still this is not write in stone.  There is still a good chance that it may have offspring with a member of its group that when placed back into the "old group", this offspring of a non-viable subject could still mate with a member of the "old group".

Only when there is enough separation and the need to even look different is there going to be a speciation event.  And yes, that takes a very, very long time.

View Post


You logicaly deduced that since scientist's haven't seen an atom or Hydrogen fuse into Helium that therefore the unseen, unproven macro is "possible"?

How do you know something takes a looong time if you've never even seen it happen? What makes you "believe" this? Faith does. What's the evidence that you are deducing this from? From unseen atoms?

I have visible, observable evidence that cars, computers and watches require an intelligent source to produce them therefore I deduce from this (among the literal thousands of other observable man made examples I could cite) that the universe, the earth and all life on it must require an intelligent source as well. Now why is that NOT a logical deduction? Why is your "logical" deduction more reasonable based on something you've never seen nor can cite any example of it ever happening or ever able to even know this for sure based on your idea that it takes a loooong time?

#46 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:40 PM

You logicaly deduced that since scientist's haven't seen an atom or Hydrogen fuse into Helium that therefore the unseen, unproven macro is "possible"?

How do you know something takes a looong time if you've never even seen it happen? What makes you "believe" this? Faith does. What's the evidence that you are deducing this from? From unseen atoms?

I have visible, observable evidence that cars, computers and watches require an intelligent source to produce them therefore I deduce from this (among the literal thousands of other observable man made examples I could cite) that the universe, the earth and all life on it must require an intelligent source as well. Now why is that NOT a logical deduction? Why is your "logical" deduction more reasonable based on something you've never seen nor can cite any example of it ever happening or ever able to even know this for sure based on your idea that it takes a loooong time?

View Post



You didnt see the Mississippi river build its delta or a redwood tree grow

Do you have any idea why a snowflake grows the way it does?
Surely each one is not individually designed?

let some water flow across the ground. Be patient; it will dig a canyon, there will be meandering, cut off ox bows, braided channels, cut banks, tributaries. dis tributaries, a delta, and all the rest.

Nobody needed to design it. Just let it go and it makes itself from raw materials and basic forces. Just like everything else.

That isnt the hard part. the hard part is where the raw materials came from.

Give your creator credit for having the sense to know how to make stuff that can take care of itself, just like that river I had you make.

#47 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:58 PM

I have visible, observable evidence that cars, computers and watches require an intelligent source to produce them

View Post


Of course they do. Cars, computers, and watches don't reproduce and have baby cars, computers and watches. They are manufactured.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2009 - 03:04 PM

Of course they do.  Cars, computers, and watches don't reproduce and have baby cars, computers and watches.  They are manufactured.

View Post


And, amazingly enough, they didn't spring from nothing either :)

#49 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 03:17 PM

And, amazingly enough, they didn't spring from nothing either  :)

View Post



Wouldst say the snowflake or the river valley is manufactured?

#50 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2009 - 03:39 PM

Wouldst say the snowflake or the river valley is manufactured?

View Post


If by manufactured you mean designed? Absolutely!!

Unless, of course, you're insinuating they came from nowhere or nothing? Now that would be magic, and would require an enormous amount of faith. :)

#51 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:05 PM

If by manufactured you mean designed? Absolutely!!

Unless, of course, you're insinuating they came from nowhere or nothing? Now that would be magic, and would require an enormous amount of faith. :lol:

View Post



dont use the word insinuate ok? its not nice, and implies all sorts of things youi have no reason to be implying.

you think every single snow flake was designed individually. ok

and the river you could make, in miniature or bigger, would you say that all the details were designed, or that they form themselves...?

give it a few minutes thought at least, its not something that anyone knows the answer.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:19 PM

dont use the word insinuate ok?  its not nice, and implies all sorts of things youi have no reason to be implying.

you think every single snow flake was designed individually.  ok

and the river you could make, in miniature or bigger, would you say that all the details were designed, or that they form themselves...?

give it a few minutes thought at least, its not something that anyone knows the answer.

View Post


First off, I don’t find myself bound by your sensibilities, so don’t feel so obliged as to tell me what words I can and cannot use. Secondly, I asked a question that you can answer in the affirmative or the negative, but if you choose to pretend to be offended by the question, that is your prerogative. Thirdly, if I were implying, I would have come out and said it, I usually don’t mince words.

Rivers cannot form themselves; they are an effect of a cause, just as the riverbed is the resultant of the river. There is obvious design behind the entire process, and the answer isn’t that hard to find. That is, of course, if you aren’t blinding yourself to the evidence.

#53 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:53 PM

First off, I don’t find myself bound by your sensibilities, so don’t feel so obliged as to tell me what words I can and cannot use. Secondly, I asked a question that you can answer in the affirmative or the negative, but if you choose to pretend to be offended by the question, that is your prerogative. Thirdly, if I were implying, I would have come out and said it, I usually don’t mince words.

Rivers cannot form themselves; they are an effect of a cause, just as the riverbed is the resultant of the river. There is obvious design behind the entire process, and the answer isn’t that hard to find. That is, of course, if you aren’t blinding yourself to the evidence.

View Post


Well Ron i would not dream of telling you what words you can and cannot use.

I do tho have a right to decide what words i will and wont accept being used on me. i expect you do the same; we all do.

i asked you politely not to use a word that is as offensive as calling me a "chink" would be. If you understand what the word 'insinuate" means then you would see why I dont care to have it used to describe what I say.

its insulting, and its inaccurate. so please dont use it ok? Polite request. Im not a bad person who deserves to be spoken to that way. Im not offended but I will be if you continue to say it. Polite request. Ok, please?


I do of course know why you asked the irrelevant question about if i think things came from nowhere, but i dont choose to take the bait.

i know how to bait too, but Im not going to do it.

Now, on to other things..............

We both know perfectly well how rivers are formed. i think we both know cause and effect pretty well.

You can take a garden hose and make a little river yourself. you choose to believe that there is a design behind the entire process. In a certain sense I agree. One place we'd disagree is how far behind the process.


I dont think a god would need to design how rivers work, not directly. Just make gravity, thermodynamics, atomic attraction etc like so, and everything will work out from there.

Its not an unreasonable idea that needs to be squashed.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:59 PM

Well Ron i would not dream of telling you what words you can and cannot use.

I do tho have a right to decide what words i will and wont accept being used on me.  i expect you do the same; we all do.

i asked you politely not to use a word that is as offensive as calling me a "chink" would be.  If you understand what the word 'insinuate" means then you would see why I dont care to have it used to describe what I say.

its insulting, and its inaccurate.  so please dont use it ok?  Polite request.  Im not a bad person who deserves to be spoken to that way.  Im not offended but I will be if you continue to say it.  Polite request.  Ok, please?

Now, on to things..............

We both know perfectly well how rivers are formed.  i think we both know cause and effect pretty well.

You can take a garden hose and make a little river yourself.  you choose to believe that there is a design behind the entire process.  In a certain sense I agree.  One place we'd disagree is how far behind the process.
I dont think a god would need to design how rivers work, not directly.  Just make gravity, thermodynamics, atomic attraction etc like so, and everything will  work out from there.

Its not an unreasonable idea that needs to be squashed.

View Post



So you somehow equate the words "Insinuate" and "Chink", so that you can pretend that I am purposefully insulting you? Maybe you shouldn't be debating if your skin is so thin that you cannot control or even make rational distinctions of rebuttals to your statements.

#55 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 07:20 PM

So you somehow equate the words "Insinuate" and "Chink", so that you can pretend that I am purposefully insulting you? Maybe you shouldn't be debating if your skin is so thin that you cannot control or even make rational distinctions of rebuttals to your statements.

View Post



Nope i am not equating them, but if I used the word "vomit" to describe what you post, it would not be polite. "Insinuate" is scarely more polite.

My skin is fine, and Im pretty good at rational distincitons. i was hooping you might like to just talk, like rational stuff instead of just sniping again. I can definitely make a rational distinction between discussing issue and being nasty for its own sake.

sorry you feel that way.

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2009 - 07:25 PM

Nope i am not equating them, but if I used the word "vomit" to describe what you post, it would not be polite.  "Insinuate" is scarely more polite.

My skin is fine, and Im pretty good at rational distincitons.  i was hooping you might like to just talk, like rational stuff instead of just sniping again.  I can definitely make a rational distinction between discussing issue and being nasty for its own sake.

sorry you feel that way.

View Post


If the word "Insinuate" were correctly used, than your offense to its use is something you need to deal with. You need to correct yourself, get over it and move on.

I answered your question, then I asked you a question. If you cannot handle the question (which was well within the context of the conversation), then you need to go talk about something else.

#57 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 November 2009 - 10:03 PM

You didnt see the Mississippi river build its delta or a redwood tree grow

Do you have any idea why a snowflake grows the way it does?
Surely each one is not individually designed?

let some water flow across the ground.  Be patient; it will dig a canyon, there will be meandering, cut off ox bows, braided channels, cut banks, tributaries. dis tributaries, a delta, and all the rest.

Nobody needed to design it.  Just let it go and it makes itself from raw materials and basic forces.  Just like everything else.

That isnt the hard part.  the hard part is where the raw materials came from.

Give your creator credit for having the sense to know how to make stuff that can take care of itself, just like that river I had you make.

View Post


The "process" of how snowflakes form is indeed a designed mechanism (if you want to put it that way). So yes, I give THE Creator ALL the credit for designing both process and product. In either case they both require said Creator, an intelligent source.

So what exactly then was your point? First we have atoms that we haven't seen and now snowflakes that we haven't seen being formed and THAT is what you hang your faith on? I guess in a small way we have something in common, for I too base my faith on the unseen but not on unseen evidence like as has been provided.

So far we have been provided a few "unseen" things to support something we've never ever seen, a macro event (and never ever will). At least I can cite something that we can all see to support my faith in the unseen. Is there any evidence that we can actually observe and see to show that macro evolution has happened and still is happening now, besides your imagination and things we haven't seen?

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 November 2009 - 02:44 AM

Of course they do.  Cars, computers, and watches don't reproduce and have baby cars, computers and watches.  They are manufactured.

View Post

They are inferior, and still they require a designer. It's rather backwards to conclude superior designs could be immune from the requirement.

#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 November 2009 - 03:29 AM

I would add that the loaded question which forms the title of the thread is based upon ignorance of history. It was Genesis which was singled out by the early modern evolutionists in their strategy of making "slow, silent side attacks" on the validity of scripture.

In true polywrong form, the questioner assumes evolutionism to be some sort of branch or field of science. In order to qualify as science, proper procedures must be followed, and historically we know they were not.

To take a weaker instance Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge &c far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise.

and

P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs, & insists how easily a man may for ever destroy his own influence.

are both from Charles Darwin's letter to his son, advising him how better to proceed in publishing atheist propaganda.

In the celebrated Belfast Address of 1874, , John Tyndall said

The strength of the doctrine of evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.


The fanatically pro-evolutionism site Wikipedia reports

Huxley's reservations on natural selection were of the type "until selection and breeding can be seen to give rise to varieties which are infertile with each other, natural selection cannot be proved".[70][71] Huxley's position on selection was agnostic; yet he gave no credence to any other theory.

Darwin's part in the discussion came mostly in letters, as was his wont, along the lines: "The empirical evidence you call for is both impossible in practical terms, and in any event unnecessary. It's the same as asking to see every step in the transformation (or the splitting) of one species into another. My way so many issues are clarified and problems solved; no other theory does nearly so well".


Who was better-positioned than T.H.Huxley to know how evolutionism achieved its success? He reports:

On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views in 1860
were numerically extremely insignificant.  There is not the
slightest doubt that, if a general council of the Church
scientific had been held at that time, we should have been
condemned by an overwhelming majority.

If one reads,
http://infomotions.c...t00/oroos10.htm

Huxley is clear: the "old generation" remained unconvinced. Evolutionism's success was due to a process of replacement; a new generation arrived which chose to accept evolutionism.

It was badly received by the generation to which it was first
addressed, and the outpouring of angry nonsense to which it gave
rise is sad to think upon.  But the present generation will
probably behave just as badly if another Darwin should arise, and
inflict upon them that which the generality of mankind most hate
--the necessity of revising their convictions.

The myth that Darwin's speculations convinced men-of-science based upon merit is contrary to history, if by 'history' we mean "events that actually took place".

#60 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 November 2009 - 06:04 AM

Well no Im not skirting the question, its not a real question.

Even if you think it is.  And I didnt stereotype anyone.
"some may disagree" all they like but they dont have a valid basis.
From my perspective it is you who is in denial and afraid of / incapable of accepting what it would mean if you were confronted with reality.
"no problems = perfection. Perfection = absolutes. You see even when you don't realize it, you imply things that make evolution unfalsifiable. Because no problems means all the evidence has been found. And all theories explained. And no more research needs to be done. Is that the case?
Spoken like a true Bible scoffer.

Oh my.  WHO is stereotyping?

This progression of no problems = pefection etc is not at all realistic nor waht I said intend think and has no bearing on reality.

Nobody has ever found a valid problem with ToE.  Nobody found a valid problem with the  fact that the sun is hot.

Perfection is as theoretical ideal that can never be achieved by people.
Im the lat one to say any theory is perfect.

And I have said a thousand times that any sci theory is falsifiable.  doesnt mean it can be falsified... maybe it cant.  Falsifiable is not the same thing.
No theory is going to be perfect, and of courseearch needs to be done.

Is that the case?  None of that paragraph is the case.

View Post


So in order to always look correct, you create your own reality?

Questions are no questions unless I say so?
Perfection is not an absolute unless I agree?

Also, my reference to stereotyping was unto the question, not a person. You stereotype the question as dumb because you don't want to answer it.

I have to warn you, you are bordering on being a time waster.

Example: What if I responded to every question I did not like in the same manner as you do?

1) That's not a question.
2) That's not right unless I agree.

Now would you not start to think that debating me was a waste of time if that was the best I could do in responding?

If you don't know the answer just say you don't know. No one can know everything. I learn new things everyday from both sides of the issue. But if the person who does know what something is, or the answer. May see that you are willing to learn and explain it to you. Whether you agree with the explaination or not is not the issue. Learning what the opposing side think makes you more informed to debate.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users