Rules C&A Guidelines
No proposition for debate is clearly stated.
The article referenced is interesting and merits discussion or debate, but should either be in 'Random Ramblings' or reinitiated as a new topic for debate, with a proposition.
______________
Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.
There is no information that every can be presented that can't be ignored or denied by evolution deniers..
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
There is no information that every can be presented that can't be ignored or denied by evolution deniers..
That may be true by definition. No true Scotsman... No true denier of evolution is deterred by a fact supporting evolution; however they shift the game by playing 'macro' vs 'micro' and whenever a 'gap' is filled, they point to the two new gaps on either side of the new discovery.
Test: Anyone on the forum who agrees they were once an 'evolution denier' who became aware of new facts and became an evolution believer?
There is no information that every can be presented that can't be ignored or denied by evolution deniers..
That may be true by definition. No true Scotsman... No true denier of evolution is deterred by a fact supporting evolution; however they shift the game by playing 'macro' vs 'micro' and whenever a 'gap' is filled, they point to the two new gaps on either side of the new discovery.
Test: Anyone on the forum who agrees they were once an 'evolution denier' who became aware of new facts and became an evolution believer?
That is not a complete test. There are people who have been evolution deniers that changed their mind. However, I can also pick out examples of people who do not absorb information that contradicts their firm beliefs, despite that information being objective ,and repeatable. There are also people who claim that UFO's are evidence of angels and demons.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�