Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
64 comments
Let me guess- you define 'losing' as 'failing to convince someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility that they're wrong and will dismiss everything you say out of hand, redefining reality as necessary to invalidate your points while claiming their own prove themselves.'
Try getting into a headbutting contest with a brick wall. I bet after you lose a few times, you won't be eager to issue another challenge.
Actually, it is the creationists who resort to unilateral attacks on scientists.
Now, my new irony meter please
"Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists."
That's unlikely, since creationist scientists don't exist.
"Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. "
Meaning creationists have nothing to say in defense of their myth, so they don't show up at the debate. The scientists have nobody to talk to.
Scientists always win debates against creationists, the creationists just refuse to acknowledge it.
Simply repeating things like "no", "nope", "you're lying", "that's fake" and "that's not a missing link, it's merely a walking fish; it's just a coincidence that God made it that way" until you are blue in the mouth, forcing your opponent to give up because you are a stupid shit, does not count as winning.
"Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact...."
Correct, but alas I suspect it's about to go downhill from here.
"....but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists."
There it is, real scientists are see the world in terms of facts and reason, fundtards view it as a popularity contest or as a "debate" such as lawyers have in court. Oh speaking of debates in court, how did Dover go for you?
"Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates..."
As well they should, evolutionary biology like all real science is too complex to be spun into 2 minute soundbites.
"....preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists."
Dude, cut back on the mirror polish!
Getting frustrated after dumping 10 truckloads of evidence at your feet and still hearing 'goddidit', is not losing.
Showing the fossil timeline and getting told 'goddidit' is not losing.
Spending your life dedicated to the pursuit of learning, and having some idiot with a bible tell you you're an idiot because 'goddidit', is not losing.
Look beyond your little world, look at a real text book, look at things around you, you'll realize that god didn't do it.
And your right, most scientists are sick and tired of this debate. The evidence is there, they've shown it to you, why should they show up to be told they are 'of the devil' and that 'goddidit'?
This is because facts are not decided by popularity polls, you don't get to vote on what is true and what is not, and being able to debate well and being a rational, responsible scientist are different things.
As to why scientists don't debate creationists much anymore, it's because being scientists they have drawn the obvious inference from observing previous encounters that: (a) you are not interested in facts, (b) you are not interested in truth, and (c) you are not interested in logic. This is what scientists do, synthesise from the available evidence.
"Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists."
Screaming, pulling of hair and running away gibbering wildly is often the result of debating a creationist. It should not, however, be seen as losing the debate so much as losing one's mind.
Not everyone is as impervious to creationist stupidity as the creationists themselves, after all.
"Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists."
They probably discovered their health insurance doesn't cover psychiatric care when they subject themselves willingly to creationist nonsense.
It's pretty obvious why he thinks that creationists always win debates. Creationists simply do not report failed interviews or debates. Take the recent debate between PZ Myers and Geoff Simmons of the Discovery Institute.
The debate went horribly for the IDiots. PZ slammed the poor little creationist with his unholy sword of reason and evidence! During the debate there was a thread posted on Uncommon Descent's website so that posters could discuss the radio show as they listened to it live. There were so many complaints about how badly Simmons performed that the entire thread about the radio show was deleted. Now these weren't trolls complaining about the show, these were honest to goodness, die hard IDiots.
No wonder they think they win all the debates, they just put the debates they lose down the memory hole.
Scientific debates occur within scientific journals where each publication is peer reviewed and cold hard evidence is required. Creationists consistently lose scientific debates.
Popular debates occur in front of audiences. Creationists often win these. It takes only a few minutes to present a truckload of unsubstantiated assertions which take 15 to 20 minutes each to properly refute.
Name one. Show me these debates that ToE accepting scientists have lost against creationists. Those scientist who do debate you, mop the floor with you. Those scientist who decline to debate you just have better things to do than trying to push facts into your dense, little head.
If losing a debate means to refuse to debate with guys who just reject evidence and reject to use the scientific method, well, maybe losing is not that bad. If antibiotics still work is thanks to those "losers"
Osiris:
Holy shit that link annoyed the hell out of me. The whole time I had to stop myself shouting "Will you just answer the fucking question?"
I'm off to a creationist talk tomorrow, if it's going to be this weasely in dodging the facts, I may well get arrested for chair flinging.
Wow, that's just wrong.
@ SurfinSeaOtter
It's worse than that.
Ironically Henry Brickhead is not that wrong.
Any person that wastes time with creationists effectively loses to, even if they "win" the argument.
Creationists don't seek to exchange arguments in a formal debate according to a thesis-anthithesis-synthesis style, they seek approval. Just by "being there" they have achieved that goal.
Invite a Creationist - You lose.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
The irony meter didn't burst, but it IS pouring smoke and making an alarming whining noise as the needles spin. Aren't you the people who claimed Darwin was a racist and who really like to use out-of-date sources from the beginning of the last century along with out-of-context quotes from Gould and others?
Well, if you call that losing a debate, it is because creationists don't respond to logic beyond "it is good, so goddidit"
Evolution is fact. People, including athiests and humanists, get confused between microevolution which we see around us all the time and Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Darwin's theory can be tested against, has been proven accurate and of course has been refined over time. The same can't be said for Creation.
I'm yet to see or hear of a valid, sensible, articulate, scientific debate where a creationist has handed an evolutionist (such generalization of terms, is it a biologist, botanist, geologist, astronomer, etc?) his or her ass.
BCD's comment making the comparison between arguing with creos and playing chess with pigeons was hilarious - and quite true. However, I would prefer the mental image of trying to have a chess competition with a troop of baboons:
They too, would knock over all the pieces and shit on the board - but they would also spend time pulling things out of each others' assholes and examining them, grooming for fleas and eating them, whooping and screetching so loudly that no other conversation could be heard; there would be occasional internecine disputes between dominant males... Evedntually, the whole chess area would be in total chaos.
Afterwards, they would run off, taking most of the chess pieces and bits of broken board with then. They would then conceal themsleves in some unapproachable location and proceed to hurl shit and derision at all who approach until it is time for the next chess game.
There's something in that thing you call a "scientific textbook", but the rest of the world calls a collection of myths, that goes something like "You should not justify idiots". You'd know that if you read it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
