Why are we so bad at this?

So now you are resorting to crass dishonesty with a bait-and-switch?The reason why you are unable to convince us of anything is because you constantly resort to dishonesty and lies. Worse, you keep using lies that we already know far better than you to be lies and we know why they are lies. Furthermore, we have known about and studied those lies for decades and have even engaged in refuting them ourselves. All you know about those lies is how to recite them by rote, but you understand nothing about them beyond that.Here is Zucadragon's question (Message 75, (24-Feb-2025)): And after more than two weeks of your stubborn refusal to answer his question, here is his immediate response to your wanting him to repeat his question again: Instead of offering anything written by a scientist AS EXPLICITLY REQUESTED, you offer up Daniel Dennett, A PHILOSOPHER. But then it turns out that what you quote isn't even written by Dennett, but rather BY A JOURNALIST, Joshua Rothman (Daniel Dennett's Science of the Soul by Joshua Rothman, New Yorker, -- OBTW, there's an example of a bibliographic citation which also contains a LINK, both of which you need to learn how to use).In order to quote from a scientist, YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY QUOTE FROM A SCIENTIST. Or is that concept so far advanced for you that it is incomprehensible? So stop with your stupid and extremely dishonest evasive bullshit and JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!As long as you continue to practice crass dishonesty, you will never be able to convince any of us of anything, because we will always know that you are just lying to us yet again.

"Specified complexity of the cell" is nothing but creationist bullshit, "ID" bullshit in this case. WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT BULLSHIT TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND?Though, quite surprisingly, you just made a half-way honest confession: all your attempts to convince us have been through lies and utter bullshit. It really is true that the pessimist must be the happiest person possible: 99.9% of the time he has the satisfaction of being right and 0.1% of the time he is pleasantly surprised.This is especially true in your extensive use of creationist claims. Even if you yourself are too willfully stupid to know that they are all lies (and know nothing more about them beyond mere rote memorization) , WE know them very well, having in many cases studied them for decades and so we not only know that they are false, but we also know WHY they are false (including exactly how they had lied about their purported scientific sources).How could you possibly think that you could convince us with lies that we already know full well are lies? That is why you are unable to convince us. It isn't stubbornness on our part, but rather your own failings of arrogant ignorance, self-delusion, and hatred for the truth.Now add to that your recent admission (Message 121) to have fallen for perhaps the most pernicious of creationist lies: your belief that your faith depends directly on creationist claims and that if any creationist claim should prove to be a lie (which they all are, so that discovery is inevitable) then that would disprove God. That has to be the absolutely stupidest thing to stake your faith on, but Stupid is the game that you're most experienced at playing. A little St. Augustine (De Genese ad litteram, 4th Century) since it is a propos. While it undoubtedly will go right over your head, I still offer it for everyone's edification. I was going to emphasize certain parts, but then realized that I couldn't decide what to not emphasize:

St. Augustine:

---

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

​

"And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

---

In summary, you do not realize the great damage you do to your position and to your religion and gods when you post outrageously false assertions that everybody knows are false.You will never be able to convince anyone of anything when all you ever present to us is bullshit lies coupled with crass dishonesty. How could you ever possibly expect any different result?

Out of curiosity: Standing by for total silence (even the crickets are acting like creationists -- happens every time we turn on the lights).  Note to Percy:

Gods, see, this is the frustration and why 'we are so bad at this'.Instead of answering what I asked for, you answer with a journalist's opinion, not a scientist, no scientific text, no nothing, and even then, it doesn't answer my question in the slightest because I want an answer to this: Life and consciousness leeched from a rock.You realize that science is pretty exact right? If I say "You were born from your mother" that's a statement easy to check. But if I say "You leeched into existence from your mother" that is an entirely different statement. Right? You realize that that statement doesn't make sense, right?You're using words and saying things without realizing that they mean something.I'ma give you one more chance to simply answer the inquiry, if not, there's no point in talking about anything else, because again, if this is so damn hard for you to do, nothing else will be easy with, nothing at all.So, one more time, show me a scientist, a scientific text, anything related to science that shows that they believe that 'consciousness and life' leeched from a rock.We can't have a discussion about a scientific topic if you can't realize that words mean something, saying something as an argument means something and if you make an argument, you have to support that argument or admit you can't.Because otherwise you'll just be shifting definitions whenever you feel like it, like in this post: This is a whole different argument.If you don't understand that, what's the point?Or this one. Is closer to the original, but still different.My persistence is purely on getting you to answer my simple inquiry, and then, after you've done that, given a straight answer. You can ask me any question on any topic and I'll answer to the best of my ability.So, life and consciousness leeched from a rock. Who says that but you?

I know this is getting kinda off topic, but also, it's a great exercise in just what is at the core of how bad we are at convincing someone of something else. Right now, the big problem is that definitions are thrown around a lot and they have whatever meaning the poster is conveying at the moment.But they change, they're slippery, at one point it's leeching life and consciousness from a rock. The next, it's chemicals from rocks to life. Something completely different. There is no clarity and thus, no headway can be made, because whatever response I can give, will never fit a changing description of what Candle3 believes is going on.It really shows how, even though he claims to be scientific about things, he can't setup a straight story without constantly changing the details in a slippery way. He won't abandon a stupid statement either.It would be so easy, he could simply say "Yeah, I worded things wrong there, there is no scientist that thinks this" and then we could hone in on his real question and get an answer for it, but with all this slipperiness going on, there's really no point in going further, because no answer will fit an ever changing question with no clear definition.

From the opening post: Are there people for whom it isn't possible to find that "correct moment", who perhaps have too much invested to ever let their guard down? I think so.--Percy

As Candle3 said in Message 100, he just Googled "Scientists who believe life leached from rocks". Of course he didn't find any scientists who believe anything like that, only results that included those words. And he left out that he also claimed that it is believed that consciousness also leached from rocks.Concerning the journalist's quote, while leaching from rocks is is very common way for chemicals to dissolve or become suspended in water, it's not the only way. Many chemicals of life have been found on rocks in space, for instance the asteroid Bennu, on which there are amino acids and the bases that form nucleotides. In other words, it is not uncommon for the chemicals of life to just be sitting out there.The particular way that the chemical constituents of the first life came to be in the right place at the right time is a minor matter. The elements comprising these chemicals are common throughout the solar system, including Earth, and they readily form organic chemicals. What matters is that the chemicals were present in a conducive environment. What were the chemicals, what was that environment, what was the process? We don't know.While there is a great deal of research and speculation about abiogenesis, very little is actually known about it with any meaningful confidence. And, as you've been trying to point out, no scientist would ever say anything like "life and consciousness leached from a rock." (Candle3 in Message 63)But Candle3 won't accept this information because the requisite trust is not there.--Percy

ZUC, you stated:"You realize that science is pretty exact right? If I say "You
were born from your mother" that's a statement easy to
check. But if I say "You leeched into existence from your
mother" that is an entirely different statement. Right?
You realize that that statement doesn't make sense, right?"***We can witness were babies are formed, and where they
come from. I was in the delivery room when both of them
were born. I observed their birth.There is historical science and there is observational/
operational science.Historical science is subjective. Our opinions are shaped by
our paradigm or world.Both atheists and creationists know that fossils exists. This is
a good example of historical science. How we interpret these
fossils are subjective.How the universe came into existence, and how all the
varieties of organisms and animals on earth is also
subjective. There is no way that we can go back in time
and observe either.True science is observable and/or operational. Operational
science is the process by which we sent men to the moon.
It is responsible for the creation of the telephone, microwave,
computer, etc...Operational science is the method but which surgeons
developed the knowledge and skill to perform open heart
surgery, and other highly sophisticated medical procedures.Historical science can lead men to ponder and speculate,
even to think deeply, but we cannot recreate what happened
in the past.It makes no difference how we believe that life came about,
we cannot recreate how it happened.Whether atheists/evolutionists or creationists historical
science requires faith.​

You evaded, yet again, but at least this is a fun evade. I give up trying to have you answer just my one inquiry. You wanna talk about these weird definitions of science? Open up a new topic, I'll join in.But only with the rule that we stay on this one singular topic. We're going to get a clear definition on historical and observational/operational science, we'll pin it down and we'll discuss this.But if you stray away to lists of other stuff, get off track, I'm not going to go through this whole mess again. Or you can pick any other topic really you wanna talk about, in a different thread. As long as we stay on that topic.You up for it? If you are, I look forward to seeing a new topic proposal from you on any one topic and we'll get into it. I'd go for a great debate on it just so it's the two of us and no one else.Just as long as you can stick to the topic of your choosing.

Dwise, you stated:"Specified complexity of the cell" is nothing but creationist bullshit, "
ID" bullshit in this case. WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT BULLSHIT TO
CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND?"***You are a funny guy, Dwise. But you are two dimes short
of 25 cents if you expect anyone to believe that the itty, bitty,
simple cell created itself.Darwin had no idea of the complexity of the cell. But we now
understand the impossibility of this happening. Darwin knew
nothing about epigenetics. He based his ridiculous assertion
on bird beaks.If you are a creationist, say so!!! Are a TE?Atheists believe in long, long, long eons of time. It is their
God. For them time can accomplish anything, even the
impossible.But, time cannot break the law of biogenesis, which states:Life only arises from pre-existing life. Also, that living
organisms produce only more living things like themselves.I believe this law, exactly life a sincere, honest scientist would
do.Science vs. atheists.​

Really? I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm in the bathroom.The topic is about how to persuade successfully. How well would you say your current approach is working?--Percy

Percy, atheists are not doing very well when it comes to
persuading creationists to accept their worldview. It almost
as though they know their paradigm is wrong.The atheists have the numbers on this forum, but they lack
the evidence.Satan controls our educational system. Evolutionists and
atheists are terrified of allowing intelligent design to be
taught alongside evolution.The last thing these atheistic professors want is to debate
creation scientists.Only evolutionists receive grant money from the universities
and government. Creation scientists need not apply. And many
of them keep a low profile because they could lose tenure, as
well as face ridicule.Head atheists Richard Dawkins has said that the universe and
and many things in it has the appearance of design, but in
all his infinite wisdom, he declares that this is a deception.When asked how the first cell arose, he muttered, we are not
certain, must it must have been.... Blah, blah, blah.How is this supposed to convince anyone that he knows what
he's talking about?Allow A/E and creationists to hash it out in the classroom.
Isn't the purpose of higher education to exchange ideas,
and differing points of view?

What "atheists" are trying to do that? I'm an atheist and have been one for 60 years. I certainly have not heard of any efforts to "[persuade] creationists to accept [our] worldview", let alone the existence of such a "worldview."Could you please enlighten us as to just exactly what that "worldview" is supposed to be and to describe some of the efforts that you are alleging? Now, I know that I have repeatedly tried to convince you that you should not use lies and dishonest tricks while attacking a crude strawman caricature, but rather you should oppose evolution by opposing EVOLUTION ITSELF and to do so using truthfulness and honesty.Is that the "atheist worldview" that you're talking about and that you oppose so bitterly? Truthfulness and honesty?It doesn't make for a good look on your religion, that it's opposed to truthfulness and honesty.Again, you should consider switching to a different religion, such as Christianity. I wouldn't normally recommend Christianity, but even it looks a lot better than your current religion does. But why restrict it to atheistic professors? What about the science professors who are Christians? Like Dr. Kenneth R. Miller PhD Biology, a self-described "creationist" since he actively practices his Christian faith while at the same time a staunch opponent of "creation science" (AKA "creationism"). He beat both of the ICR's "big guns", Drs Henry Morris and Duane Gish, in two separate debates in Tampa (Morris on 19 Sep 1981 and Gish on 21 March 21 1982). When Miller had debated Morris earlier () at Brown University, the ICR declared Dr. Miller to be "the most effective evolutionist debater Dr. Morris has encountered to date."Dr. Miller entered into the Tampa debates because the local schools had already mandated teaching creationism. Although the ICR tried to declare a victory in his debate with Dr. Morris ("[the debate outcome] seemed to materially strengthen the creationist position in the Tampa area"), in reality the schools put their creationism mandate on hold.

quote:

---

[Dr. Miller's second Tampa debate with Gish] was different. The television stations and newspapers weren't interested. The school board had recently put a hold on implementing the creation-science curriculum, and only three hundred people showed up for the debate. Apparently the people of Tampa had become a bit bored with the issue. Of course, the Arkansas court decision had come between these two debates, which probably made the biggest difference. But teachers had informed Dr. Miller previously of how great an impact his debate with Morris had in helping them in their efforts to combat creationism.

​

(Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now?, Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 3 No. 2, Spring 1982)

---

Another example would be Dr. Mary Schweitzer who had started her doctoral studies as a young-earth creationist wanting to learn more science in order to fight more effectively against "evolution", but after she learned what evolution really is as well as what the evidence really is she stopped being a YEC but remained a Christian.So here are just two examples of Christians who study and support evolution, but there are many more. Are you trying to tell us that they are atheists? Why? How could you possibly justify your assessment of them? THAT IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION! Now, there are problems with creationist debates: they are a traveling snake-oil show. And they are rigged in many ways.For example, ICR's Dr. Duane Gish used a technique that came to be known as the Gish gallop:

quote:

---

The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

​

. . .

​

During a typical Gish gallop, the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies, making it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of the debate. Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably longer to refute than to assert. The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved, or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.

​

The difference in effort between making claims and refuting them is known as Brandolini's law or informally "the bullshit asymmetry principle". Another example is firehose of falsehoods.

---

Another problem is that, since the creationists run the debate show, they make sure to keep the "debate topic" very general. Whenever their opponent requests that the debate be on a specific topic (eg, radiometric dating), the creationist always refuses to debate.Gee, isn't that the opposite of your assertion? It turns out that it's the creationists who are terrified of participating in an honest debate in which the evidence can be examined.For a lot more information on debates, here's my page on creation/evolution debates in which I provide several links to articles that explain it far better than I could: Creation / Evolution Debates.One article, Winning the Creation Debate, describes a training series put out by the ICR's Dr. Duane Gish on how to set up and win a debate. From that article:

quote:

---

But more than that, these tapes show that the debate format is not about presenting and evaluating scientific evidence for (or even against) evolution, but rather to present evolution in the most unfavorable light possible without making any affirmative claims for creationism. He expects — and his audiences accept — that creationism wins by default.

​

This is why trying to have a scientific debate with a creationist — or more recently with "intelligent design" proponents — is a fool's errand. However, those that insist on embarking on this journey could learn a lot from this set of tapes — both about the opposition they will face and about rhetorical tactics that win the hearts of the general public. Of course, scientists are constrained by a respect for the evidence and complete, accurate descriptions of scientific laws, theories, research, and interpretation. Our opponents face no such strictures.

---

 So if you're so eager to debate, I'll oblige you.Let's debate. Now. We can propose a "Great Debate" topic to conduct it in.Of course, you will need to participate in it honestly, something you have never done so far. You will need to answer pertinent questions, etc.Put up or shut up!

So that's two offers to debate, and with that thread you made before and updated on Radiocarbon dating. I guess that makes for three offers to honestly deal with a specific topic that's been ignored.This probably happened before though, so most likely more than three.If it isn't accepted, I personally have no interest in this back and forth of just wordvomit with him. From my point of view, he's just a troll then.

If by "worldview" you mean the opposing views about whether God exists, then yes, I'd agree with you, but I'd add to it and say that neither side is making much headway in persuading the other. Do you think the approach described in Message 1 would work?Where Message 1 describes an online discussion group, one of the things I'd question is whether the number of upvotes really has anything to do with persuasion. It might just mean it pissed off the least number of people, or that it was thought effective by people who already agreed with it.I don't think inoffensiveness leads to persuasion. It might lead to friendship, but not persuasion. I have conservative friends and we'll never agree about politics, but politics isn't why we're friends.As noted in Message 1, burying people in facts, or in your case innuendo, insults, questionable assertions and lies, doesn't work. Scorn only makes it worse.So the question remains: How best to make progress in persuading people of your point of view? Or maybe persuasion isn't your goal. Maybe just denigrating other people and views makes your day.--Percy