On the ethics of debate

Relevant? It wasn't relevant where you first brought up the ToE, it was off topic. I also see no obligation to answer a particular post if I am confronted with a dozen other posts to me -- seems to me I ought to be allowed to chose whom to debate. And I also see no obligation to post to a particular thread, AND I don't see the relevance of your question about the definition either. The usual definition is a change in the frequency of alleles. I've spoken to that definition here and there. No. A common definition around here to discredit the opposition. One gets called unethical and dishonest for simply declining to engage in discussion, even with a person who is known to be extremely rude and not very knowledgeable too perhaps. Not necessarily only yourself. For the above reasons I believe this is uncivil and unfair. You have to have a person's consent to engage in dialogue with you in the first place.

Everybody questions my position on God as it is, no big deal there. I've had a lot to say on evolution, there's no reason for me to have to say anything on the subject to a particular person on demand.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-18-2005 08:00 PM

Sigh, purpledawn gave the reasonable response to this, and I don't want to get into it at all, but at least I have to say that I haven't Can you link where I said that? I can't imagine saying that evos don't BELIEVE their own assertions. Of course they do. I've also said I can understand its persuasiveness. And I suggested a way one should go about verifying the assertion, which I highly recommend to all.{AbE: In other words, there's no fraud, just self-deception, even self-deception of a high order one could say.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-18-2005 11:01 PM

Although I get your point about "hoax" and "fabrication" honestly I never think of the ToE fantasy as in any way CONSCIOUSLY manufactured by anyone. Those words are merely to get across its falseness and artificiality. It IS a huge joke, a hoax. But again it's in the category of SELF-deception, not fraud. People genuinely believe it. Emperor's New Clothes perhaps.However, all this carrying on about my comment at this point is way overkill. Let's review the circumstances here. Completely off topic, Robin mentioned my "execrable" science and a book he is reading about evolution, and that inspired me to suggest, off topic of course, that he investigate the ToE in a particular manner. That suggestion ought in itself to be regarded as a contribution on the topic of the ToE. Truly, if you [I'm thinking of the hapless "layman" here] take a major media presentation of some new discovery that supposedly validates the ToE, and try to find out the particulars about it, you will find yourself in a self-validating hall of mirrors and uncover very very few actual facts. I used to spend a fair amount of time trying to track down the facts.But Bkelly went on in the off-topic mode to demand this and that response from me. Suggesting a new thread for the purpose would be fine, but there can't be any compulsion to join in it, and the thread he offered didn't seem to me to be particularly relevant or interesting so I didn't go there.Now we have this thread where I'm being accused of all manner of crimes when all I did was rather offhandedly give my well-known view of the ToE in an off-topic sequence. However, you enjoy accusing me so much, I think I'll just let you continue without me.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:41 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:52 AM

Overlooked this in my previous post. Interesting that you bold the first part but leave out the part that qualifies it. Even if the ulterior motives are hidden from themselves. Yes. Sometimes the dogged refusal to grant the slightest credence to even the most obvious statement of the opposition, so common at EvC, does suggest ulterior motives. But I don't think these are conscious even if I often suspect that all it would take sometimes is some rigorously honest soul-searching to reveal to oneself that such motives ARE involved. It is quite possible to go racing on with a fundamentally dishonest argument simply by refusing to stop and think about it carefully. This is not conscious fraud, but it is self-deception.

In the manner I describe in this post , that is, considering whether it is presented as a story you can only take on faith, and trying to track down the facts behind it.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 02:01 PM

Genetics IS very complicated and makes that aspect of the discussion complicated, so when you get it all figured out I hope you will let us in on it. But it's really the interpretation of fossils that I've tried to track down, and I should have stuck to that. Somebody really should research all the popular reports on the various fossil finds over the last, oh, fifty years or so, and all the contemporary reports in both the media and the scientific journals of the time. I never went farther than checking out some books from the library that simply continued the same pattern of asserting that such and such is a great find that fits in such and such a place in the evolutionary tree and is so many kazillion years old etc. HOW they know all that -- you will NOT find a word on it. Even such ploddingly factual information as where it was found and in what condition and under what circumstances and what was nearby and at what depth and so on. Instead what you get is a TALE, a fanciful reconstruction of its supposed history. It's all a labyrinth of self-validating assertions.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 02:48 PM

I don't see that it backs it up. And it is off topic so I guess a new thread will be required to pursue it.

The DNA similarity is no more compelling than the observable physical similarity is it? There is also great DNA similarity between mice and men. None of this demonstrates descent, but merely economy of design.

Go for it.

I don't mind if it's one-on-one if that makes it easier to follow, as I'm sure it will. But how about a Mediocre Discussion instead of great debate, in which both parties of execrable science (or is yours less so?) aim to understand things better and perhaps invite in expert testimony from time to time? I mean I really would like to understand the genetics better but not the way it usually goes here.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 04:18 PM

People really should review the sequence before offering an opinion on this sort of thing. Robinrohan made an off-topic remark about my dealings with the ToE, I gave him an off-topic answer about the ToE being a hoax and suggesting he test the ToE in a certain way, and bkelly had a major conniption fit that I dared to have a negative opinion about the ToE, as if that were anything new. It WASN'T "a legitimate question!!!" It was a rude off-topic interruption. Suddenly this minor tit-for-tat with RR has been dragged into bkelly's major outrage and I'm supposed to respond to this whole other context I have absolutely no interest in at the moment. I was not talking to bkelly, he rudely interrupted. He then pointed me to another thread about definitions of the ToE which as far as I could see was completely irrelevant to the point, so I didn't go there, about which he complained even further. Before I knew it I was being upbraided for all manner of crimes against science, nothing new there either really, and bk continues to rudely complain about this. I've simply taken to ignoring him.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 08:45 AM

Thank you.