Why are we so bad at this?

Only creationists believe this, because they can't actually deal with what science actually states.See, creationists have no clue about how to do actual scientific research into claims, so instead they misrepresent and create ridiculous strawmen to debunk and then go "AHAH! GOTCHA" like it means something.Prove me wrong though, point to any scientific research that states consciousness and life leached from a rock.You can't, because it doesn't exist. But these kind of statements show the rest of the world how out of touch you are.You realize right, that your ignorance of the actual science doesn't impress here... Right? You get that, right?

What bullshit, here let's try this again, you made this statement: I said that's a strawman, I told you to prove me wrong and show me where any science shows this.Your answer is a deflect and a challenge to somehow fit to your strawman understanding of things.That's not how it works.As it stands, you made a strawman, and I'm again telling you, go on, provide evidence for this statement, show me any science that shows this. If you can't or won't, then you're basically admitting you're just making shit up.Why would I need to answer your questions when you can't even provide evidence for your own statements, I'm wasting my time here talking to someone who can't do anything but make strawman versions of something (In this case abiogenesis).So again, the challenge here, provide any scientific text that agrees with your strawman of "consciousness leached from a rock"That, or be honest and admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

More deflection, let's try it again, I'll have to simplify it because you obviously don't understand the question, you said: Unless one believe the fairy tale that life and
consciousness leached from a rock.This is your fairy tail, it has nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis. Prove me wrong, show me any kind of scientific source that states this. If not, concede that no scientist claims this and this is just your own fabrication.Maybe then we can move on and go in depth on some of your other bullshit, but not before you give an actual honest answer to this query about your statement.Let me repeat it Show me a scientific source for this claim or concede that you can't.

No no, this is what you believe evolutionary scientists believe, that's what the problem is.Again, you keep deflecting from the challenge, which really makes you look dumb.Show me a scientist that believes this, any scientific work will do.You can't, because there is no scientist that believes this yet you for some reason think they do.Hence, it's a strawman. And if you won't allow yourself to say "Yeah, I was wrong on that" and actually learn what science actually states. Then there is no point to answering any other question on the matter, because it is based on YOUR premise, your idea that scientists believe this.So the quest for an answer continues.Show me a scientists, a scientific text, a study, anything that shows that scientists believe what you say, if you do not, then you're dogmatically holding on to a lie. Why would I converse further with someone who lies to himself so vehemently?It's so weird. Everyone gets stuff wrong, it's in fact a part of science to be pointed at mistakes and to correct them with all the information available.But again and again, you keep holding on to a lie you don't have evidence for, namely that Unless one believe the fairy tale that life and
consciousness leached from a rock. Show me any scientist that believes this, and if not, admit you were wrong.Everyone is wrong at times, that's a part of life, we're not all knowing, but again, just holding on to this false belief is you lying to yourself.And I don't understand why.

Unless one believe the fairy tale that life and
consciousness leached from a rock.

Evidence?You keep going off on tangents about other stuff, stuff you also don't provide evidence for.But I don't care, because like I said, as long as you don't provide evidence for this statement up here, I don't need to move on.It's so simple. Just show evidence for this statement you made above. Or admit that you don't have any evidence and we can move on.

This time you got a little closer, but you still couldn't answer the challenge. I mean come on, I don't care what some website may say, because that wasn't the point.YOU are saying that scientist believe this: Point me to your source for it, and seeing as scientist supposedly believe this to you, you must have a scientific source of any kind that shows this.If you do not, just admit it. I think people here would berate you less for just being honest and answering questions. In fact, if you actually, really let someone here challenge your sources and you display them honestly, you'd be getting a lot more discussion going in depth about them.But you just don't want to do that, and it's so odd to me. You don't believe in change though, I'll tell you that much, because otherwise you'd challenge yourself by being honest about sources for your statement.You'd say where you got this from: So once again, show me a scientist or anything scientific that states this, that shows that there are those that believe this.

So I'm assuming you don't have a source to support the idea that scientists believe what you say. In other words, it's all hot air.Again, there is no point in discussing anything else when you won't answer a very simple question.Show the sources. Until then, the only thing you're getting, is me repeatedly asking that question and nothing else.Go show your source for your belief about scientists. Or be honest and say there is no such source and it's just your own personal belief about scientists.

Yeah, good point, back on topic then.Eventhough the back and forth was way off topic, it does fit to provide evidence for the problem as a whole.I imagine there's a different name for this phenomenon that I can't find, but I call it the crazy man's dilemma. It's the idea that if you are in a group of people, and all these people think you are crazy or insane, then everything you say will be perceived through that lens. Even if you're 100% saying something factual, it will be regarded as words coming from a crazy man.Obviously there are quite a few variations on this, in this thread, Candle3 considers the rest here as crazy men, sinners, wrong by virtue of not believing what he does.And he dogmatically refuses to face facts head on or discuss things in a focused manner.This is a problem I see with believers all around, not just Creationism, but flat earthers as well.I remember a point where their model of the world has the south pole set up as a circle around the perceived edge of the world, like so: Many flat earthers would say, this is why no flights go to the so called south pole, because it doesn't exist, but they don't take people to the 'edge'But there are flights going to the south pole, and so, a pastor I believe actually offered to take people there, pay for it all himself and then the record could be set straight.See, one of the problems with their model of a flat world, is that it's impossible for the sun to bring light to an area 24 hours a day, though with the earths actual tilt, that's exactly what you get on antarctica.So a couple of believers in a flat earth join and they find, oh, there is 24 hour sun here, shit. Well, just say "People should make up their own mind" and once they got back home, continue doing the same thing they did before.Because it doesn't matter. Believers in things aren't looking to challenge themselves, they are very comfortable in their position and anyone that doesn't share it, is by default crazy.It's just that they haven't found the way yet to make it clear how crazy.So are we bat at convincing the other side? I'd say no, I'd say the other side is setting up an immovable wall of belief in front of themselves, and nothing is going to change that.

You know the challenge you have to answer, no further words required. That is an amazing bonkers story. I recently at least had one little success. I'm from the Netherlands and Trumps antics are of course, daily news. Lotsa discuss surrounding it as well, and I noticed someone that said something along the lines of:"Even though he's a big asshole, he does get things done, like brokering a deal for peace, or pushing Canada and Mexico into adding security"And a few other things, and so I explained to him that Trump is a master of lying, the deal brokered for peace in Ukraine comes from stabbing Ukraine in the back on a deal the US made before and it's pushing Ukraine against a wall by breaking it. Not exactly showing a good deal.As for Canada and Mexico, the fact that there were already deals on the table with Biden and nothing much changed to those deals, yet Trump claims it was his doing that made those deals possible, is just absolute bullshit.He's done nothing but yoyo around with his changes and policies.The best he's done is convince all his previous allies to see him as untrustworthy.And that worked.So can we convince hard core believers in something, probably not, but anyone on the fringe, is generally open to learning more.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the fact that you won't answer the SINGLE inquiry I did about something you said. Do I need to repeat it again?

Alright, this is us getting somewhere! So let's ignore every other thing that has happened until now and let's focus on this, alright?The inquiry I made was about this statement of yours: And I repeatedly asked you to show evidence for this statement being true. This statement didn't come from nowhere on your side. You believe scientists believe this. I'm saying it's just a strawman of the actual science, that this isn't something scientists believe at all.But I'm asking you to put forth the reason why you believe scientists believe this, the source of why you believe scientists think that 'life and consciousness' leeched from rocks.You persistently presented that you do think that scientists believe that, so the inquiry is for you to show evidence for that.And therefore, repeatedly have I asked for you to show evidence of WHY you believe this of scientists, and if there is no evidence, accept that your belief in this specific, singular matter, is wrong.It has no bearing on many other topics, but if we can't deal with this single issue in an honest way, why would I ever want to answer any of your other questions?Or try to anyways.This is a simple issue to focus on something I feel you don't have evidence for. If you do, present it, if not, accept that you don't.I'm ignorant of many things. I'm not as skilled or don't have as much experience with science as many of the folk around here I know, but that's what I honed in on this simple topic, this simple inquiry.Because if that's too hard to get a conclusion.If this one, simple issue is something that has no resolution, nothing else will ever get a resolution either.It tells me you're not interested in discussion, you're just trolling.

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.

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.

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.