Can you Please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?

General Discussion
21
If you simply look at it from his perspective, of course it’s ridicule.
His perspective is a dishonest on - he's pulling us around by the nose - you want me to pretend these efforts are sincere when they are the tactics of confusion and stultification.
Is this even a conversation?
NO it's not a conversation and love never intended to start a serious one!! - did you watch any of that video - was that a conversation. Serious what about that side and what they are deliberately doing???

As for your last paragraph - that’s a diversion.

 

… and the Clinton’s,… they’ve done more harm than good - Mr Reagan Lite with a Twist of Left and the loser who never figured out how to talk to We The People - but who the DNC had to shove down our throats.

 

22

If you want to talk about broken records look at the childish tactics of diversion, ridicule, deception, blaming every f’n thing on others, never ever ever admitting to mistakes and learning from that. Oh but that’s not a broken record, simply the needle stuck in the same ever deepening rut.

Decades worth of it.

I’m damned tired of the “broken record” too, grotesques failures to communicate after grotesques failures to communicate.

December 31, 2018
d) Considering our dysfunctional public dialogue, in 14 verses.

December 31, 2018
c) Intellectually Confronting Faith-Based thinking and Dogma Driven Deceptions

December 30, 2018
a) Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?

April 27, 2019
Considering John Kerry’s Failure to Communicate with GOP’s T. Massie 4/9/2019

April 30, 2019
Kerry v Massie, A Study in Democratic Party Failure. April 9, 2019

January 10, 2017
#11 Debating GOP Disconnect From AGW - Difference of Opinion. Not Even!

February 21, 2012
Murdoch Media Ignores DenialGate News

February 22, 2012
It’s Time That Climate-Change Deniers Were Exposed ~ David Suzuki

February 28, 2012
Anatomy of Denialist Tactics, or how to know you’re being conned

May 23, 2012
SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

January 24, 2013
Donna Laframboise’s Blind Spot… and the Manhattan Project

June 1, 2012
John Cook lists "The 5 Characteristics of Scientific Denialism

January 14, 2013
Tobacco industry & Heidelberg appeal ~ T/H to jules-klimaat.blogspot

and so on and so forth.

 

Maddy wants to go on her walk, so enough of the broken record, which has produced today’s world with its dangerous global warming and all the increasing disruption and destruction it promises, and now thanks to typical Faith-Blinded Republican arrogance, and denial of well Understood Natural Processes the new ball game on Earth, uncontrolled COVID-19. So don’t worry, this broken record me won’t be around for ever, so I figure I might as well get it out now, while I still can. :expressionless:

 

23

Well, at least we agree on the Clintons, but you didn’t get my point. Do you remember being hopeful back in the 90s? That a draft resisting member of our generation was in the White House? I also voted for Paul Wellstone that year, one of the few times I voted for someone that I really believed in.

Try this as a thought experiment, and first, remember that you know nothing about lovescience2020. Imagine it’s a little kid, maybe one you care about. They heard something in school and either they didn’t get it right or the teacher is actually dead wrong. Either way, it’s the kid you should be focusing on. Wouldn’t you treat them with compassion and be sure they know you heard what they said first, then untwist whatever it was that needed untwisting? Would you tell them to stop listening to their teacher or to all teachers, or would you point them to the library and explain that school is where you learn how to learn and that you need to start using those skills?

It’s not that absurd of an analogy, given that most people didn’t pay attention in school and forgot most of it once they left, and don’t read books, and parts of it outdated a few years after you leave anyway.

24
Try this as a thought experiment, and first, remember that you know nothing about lovescience2020. Imagine it’s a little kid, maybe one you care about. They heard something in school and either they didn’t get it right or the teacher is actually dead wrong. Either way, it’s the kid you should be focusing on. Wouldn’t you treat them with compassion and be sure they know you heard what they said first, then untwist whatever it was that needed untwisting? Would you tell them to stop listening to their teacher or to all teachers, or would you point them to the library and explain that school is where you learn how to learn and that you need to start using those skills?
Yes, imagine ...

Been hearing it for decades. I’m hoping you can think of examples where I do play very nice - with answers along with links so they can learn more on their own. Heck seems to me we have such a thread on a different board going on right now.

But please, regarding love…2020

May 14, 2020 at 9:36 pm #328322

@lovescience2020

Hi all, Can you please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?

Is Homology Evidence for Evolution? | Long Story Short (although “love” hides the title from us)


You really think those are the words of someone interesting in learning about something?

Then his follow up.

You know the game - you been watching it unclose long enough - but you pretend it ain’t so.

 

But the point isn’t “love” and his motives - the point is you are f’n condoning that video as some sort of constructive intellectual exercise ! When it is nothing but a malicious con job to belittle serious science and stupefy people.

Not one second is about explaining or teaching or learning!!!

This is how the “rationalists”, et al. keep losing, by allow the mesmerists to take our eyes off the important issues.

We should be focusing on exposing their fraud - along with expounding on the tactics and braintrust and financing behind them.

Instead Democrats, etc continuing to play by their script while squandering and losing all the teaching moments.

 

So sad, really really tough to make peace with.

Thanks for the sounding board.

 

 

point is that you are treating that video as though it were a serious effort.

Rather then detailing the utter malicious fraud that

25
You really think those are the words of someone interesting in learning about something?
No. Did you see my answers? I specifically tell him that I'm not playing his game.
the point is you are f’n condoning that video as some sort of constructive intellectual exercise !
what did I say that condoned it?
Rather then detailing the utter malicious fraud that
Have you heard of this thing called trolling? It's when someone puts up a question, knowing it's BS, having no plans to seriously engage any feedback. You did exactly the thing I did, took one example from it, showed how it was lie, and what happened? They ignored you. At that point, I quit engaging the "details" and only addressed the fact that they are not engaging at all. There is no difference between someone who doesn't really believe what they posted and is just messing with you and someone who is experiencing severe cognitive dissonance and doesn't know how to engage. Neither one of those is going to listen to reason and evidence right out of the gate. I believe in reason and evidence, but I also believe in human psychology and in tactics for getting people to listen.
26
“Center for Inquiry” sounds like a place to present queries, to me.
This is very deep. You are impressive.
27

Tim is way more impressive. Why because he

what did I say that condoned it?
Would me calling what you did Silent Acquiescence - make it any better?
I’m not going to find a link for you right now, but my guess is, that one is a problem with not understanding how geology works, given that childish graphic of arrows pointing to layers of rock.
Anything less than pointing out that those two videos are deliberates acts of out and out deception - lacking Good Faith arguments - plus misrepresenting facts and monstrous omissions. etc, etc, etc, is a failure to communicate.

That is exactly the silent acquiescence and acceptance, normalizing that I am screaming about.

As rationalists have been doing for way tooo long and tooo much of it. Today’s disasters being a direct result of falling asleep on the job. Never recognizing the malicious villainous political forces hiding behind these Creationists and Faith Blinded jesus pimps for profit and their Alt-Right political agenda, that at this point offers human nothing but short and long term self-destruction.

28

And why are we so silent - because Liberals apparently lack the spiritual strength to look a God Liar into the eyes and say - NO! I KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING FOR GOD - YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR YOUR EGO AND PETTY HUMAN AVARICE.

29
"As rationalists have been doing for way tooo long and tooo much of it. Today’s disasters being a direct result of falling asleep on the job. Never recognizing the malicious villainous political forces hiding behind these Creationists and Faith Blinded jesus pimps for profit and their Alt-Right political agenda, that at this point offers human nothing but short and long term self-destruction."
I agree. I think that rationalists need to be more. That is, take on and harness the natural human emotions that we have to motivate the insurgency that is now our best hope to fight back against the forces of lies and ignorance that are taking greater hold these days. We must still be rational, but that is no longer enough.
30

Well that’s two of us, how do we find some more. :slight_smile:

31

Idk, yet.

32
Would me calling what you did Silent Acquiescence – make it any better?
No, psychologists call that mind reading. You're claiming to know my intentions.
Anything less than pointing out that those two videos are deliberates acts of out and out deception – lacking Good Faith arguments – plus misrepresenting facts and monstrous omissions. etc, etc, etc, is a failure to communicate.
So, the problem is that my insults don't have enough sting? I called it childish. I'm not going to lose sleep because I don't have as much spit and vinegar as you do. Sure, I gave him the chance that there could be a valid explanation of "finding fossils out of order", even though I know that chance is somewhere in the 0.0000n% range. But I do that to avoid the, "you can't be 100% certain" argument that is likely to follow later. I also set myself up to later confirm what I said, if he goes to the trouble of linking something or actually showing he has read an article. But I'm not going to bother doing any more work than I've already done with someone who has watched a few YouTubes and most likely has someone egging them on to post here.

You know kids in seminary are actually get assigned to this? They are told to engage atheists and report back on how it went?

33

Here’s something that takes this conversation to a bigger picture view.

Haidt is a scholar. He’s very good at being objective, you would say he’s letting people off the hook. I don’t think he does. He is aware that not everyone has the time to read books and do studies like he does. He can see how large groups of people are manipulated. You’re a member of one of those groups, as am I. Nearer the end he talks about the “polarization spiral”.

One of the good points he makes, around the middle, is that the recent generations have not been trained in democracy. Partly it’s social media, and the bigger picture of globalization, it seems like an individual can create change without partnering with a lot of strangers. That’s a huge lie.

34
CC: Would me calling what you did Silent Acquiescence – make it any better?

L: No, psychologists call that mind reading. You’re claiming to know my intentions.


What? " Silent Acquiescence" isn’t about your motivation it’s about what you DID.

The action and its result - doesn’t have anything to do with reading your mind.

You gave those video a pass - when they deserve being exposed for the blatant malicious substance-less frauds and attacks on serious science that they are!

 

Silent Acquiescence = standing by while honesty gets trampled on and serious science gets raped beyond recognition.

L: So, the problem is that my insults don’t have enough sting?
No. The problem you have no message.

So instead the message you are sending out is that expecting honesty and a level playing field is childish!!!

 

 

35
lovescience 2020 said: Can you please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow

Where he shows supposed chronology he is all over the place timewise.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk1gDk1wGhQ
Please, are you going to make a scientific argument with these two high school examples?

“Intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity” has been debunked time and time again. The arguments presented are sham.

A salesman job to further the lazy thinking of Intelligent Design.

36

Oh you snuck that one in while I was off walking Maddy.

{That is just a turn of phrase and not any implication that I think you were actually sneaking anything. :slight_smile: }

Haidt, oh lordie, well at least you didn’t find a Peterson talk to toss at me. I’ll do my best

37
So instead the message you are sending out is that expecting honesty and a level playing field is childish!!!
So, me calling the videos childish, that's acquiescence, but you calling me childish, that's some kind of well thought out analysis?

Just to prove you are not getting me, that you are not even close to reading my thoughts, you say I am expecting honesty, I don’t, and I expect a level playing field. I’m not even on the scale of expecting a level playing field. I’m standing off to the side and saying, “hey, look at that field, not level.”

You are proving my point with each new post. You are arguing with me when you should be working on your message and finding partners. And don’t tu quoque me. There’s a difference between arguing and encouraging dialog, between feedback and insults.

38

“tu quoque”?

CC, were you trying to justify your position by making Lausten out to be a hypocrite? Or were you just accusing him of hypocrisy?

Either of those would be “tu quoque”, but if the answer to the first is “no”, then the “tu quoque” would not be fallacious.

Lausten, I am not claiming you are being a hypocrite. I think you have been pretty consistent about trying to take a moderating role between extreme positions that defy moderation.

My take, however, is that the deceptive lies that are being passed around like candy these days, deserve NO attempts at congeniality. Truth is under too much threat.

 

 

39

You see, our side, (mine and CC’s), are expected by moderates to be ONLY rational and to NOT respond with added emotion, while the other side can tell the most outlandish LIES over and over and over, and hence, their lies can eventually be believed by many others.

Are we in a spiral of polarization? Yes. But I think polarization is better than a continued creeping loss of truth.

40
“tu quoque”?
I was referring to me saying he was arguing with me instead of spending his time more fruitfully, and I thought he might come back saying I was arguing with him. I was heading that off, not referring to something he said earlier.