Replies

Why on Earth can't people, with rational minds, see both sides of this issue? WHY?

Excellent question... may I have a stab at it please?

Let's review the initial 10 or so posts on this thread. If you'll note we get the obligatory EVO ping list banner and the associated links that appear on practically every single CREVO thread. (But I guess that's OK since it's posted by an EVO proponent).

In this spam we are pointed to rules by which we are "allowed" to argue and the boundaries which can't be crossed least we, "by definition" proclaim ourselves ignorant.

Next we see some humorous albeit veiled references to the famous "Evolution troll's Toolkit". Rational minds would think frequent readers of these posts might recognize that there might be "trolls" from both sides of the argument. Rational minds might also assume that someone who posts on practically every single CREVO thread might also recognize "troll" characteristics from both positions. I notice in the toolkit, most of the "troll" characteristics are specific to those generally supporting an ID/C position. While there are some one might consider generic to all posters, I see none that a rational mind might consider specific to an EVO "troll", despite the toolkit's title. A few obvious to me, which might be candidates

"Darwin never said that"
"which god, there are so many"
"try getting a PhD then you'll understand"
"no real scientist believes that"
"we debunked that already"
"learn something about biology"
and my favorite... "I guess we should quit science and pray for answers"

So to use this illustration in response to your inquiry. Why would self proclaimed intellectuals, supposedly of rational minds, intentionally disregard or not report the known existence of EVO "trolls"?

Maybe they didn't notice.... Maybe they defined the boundaries and "words" so that by definition, they didn't or shouldn't look for them... Maybe they actually recognized some and chose not to say anything, hoping nobody would notice....

The symmetry is wondrous quite and revealing in my mind.... but then my mental state has been described many times on these threads by some of the best, I just don't recall rational being one of them....

The difference too is that when an evolution supporter here posts a lengthy post, they are willing to stick around and defend that post in it's particulars. In the case of Racebannon, he posted a lengthy post to me, I responded to it in detail, and he refused to defend his claims. It's not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last I am sure. If someone posts a long detailed post, and you answer it in the same detail, it's cowardice to run away.

"which god, there are so many"

I don't use that line to troll, I use that line to illustrate the problem of creationists insisting that a particular deity be assumed in abscence of a "better" explanation; assuming a deity isn't a simple matter in itself, and frequently those advocating such a position push forth a single specific deity with no reasoning given as to why that deity -- as opposed to all others -- should be assumed.

I do it to expose bad logic and sloppy thinking, not to troll.