Bram Kaandorp
Master Poster
Here's a summary of some things I experienced in a discussion about evolution. I thought they might be entertaining, maybe even helpful. Though maybe mainly saddening.
I had an argument with someone on an occult forum (this was before I embraced scepticism, and was still trying to be a constructive member of an occult/spiritual forum) with someone who thought that humans are on our planet longer than "main stream" scientists claim (al the while not questioning the age of the earth as calculated by those same scientists), and that any scientist who comes to a different conclusion is discredited as a scientist by the community. Not because he uses bad science, but because his results don't follow the Darwinian dogma (she never used the word dogma, but it was always heavily implied that main stream science has a fixed idea of things, to which all facts must conform).
The ever familiar pseudo arguments such as "the eye evolution impossibility" are also present.
She uses the abundance of oxygen on the early earth (and its effects on growth in insects) to show that “human giants might have lived”, linking into the idea of the giant skulls found around the world.
She thinks that certain shapes are inherent in nature, as "evidenced" by the many rocks with human faces, or the shape of horses in stones, using it as proof that there is some "design" in nature.
She also has the belief that aliens came here, and changed human DNA, to how we are now. However, she vehemently denied ever having implied DNA. (Then again, how else can you add rhesus monkey traits to humans?)
That's the things she believes, now for some default rambling;
A phrase which stayed with me, which really defines all her posts is "Which source does the truth come from?" in response to me asking for sources to an article's conclusion, implying that there is no “one truth”, (practically undermining her idea that the evolution theories are wrong).
Another point that came up was that: "believing in evolution impedes further investigation, because research into things which might contradict evolution will be disregarded".
Any and all attempts by me to point out that, not only was her logic flawed, but her sources were flawed as well, were swept away with non-arguments, such as "that's what main stream science wants you to think".
It suffices to say that I have stopped arguing in the thread when most people in the thread were supporting the anti-evolution standpoint, merely because they found me too rigid in my support of science.
Yes, it sounds like I'm saying “she was calling me names and she didn't take me seriously”. Sure, I felt made fun of. So would anyone, if thinks such as “I hope you will someday meet the aliens, and see the light” are said when you are trying to have a good discussion.
I think that there is just one lesson to be taken from this:
Never try to talk science on a forums where personal experience is seen as equal (or even greater to) scientific observations.
I had an argument with someone on an occult forum (this was before I embraced scepticism, and was still trying to be a constructive member of an occult/spiritual forum) with someone who thought that humans are on our planet longer than "main stream" scientists claim (al the while not questioning the age of the earth as calculated by those same scientists), and that any scientist who comes to a different conclusion is discredited as a scientist by the community. Not because he uses bad science, but because his results don't follow the Darwinian dogma (she never used the word dogma, but it was always heavily implied that main stream science has a fixed idea of things, to which all facts must conform).
The ever familiar pseudo arguments such as "the eye evolution impossibility" are also present.
She uses the abundance of oxygen on the early earth (and its effects on growth in insects) to show that “human giants might have lived”, linking into the idea of the giant skulls found around the world.
She thinks that certain shapes are inherent in nature, as "evidenced" by the many rocks with human faces, or the shape of horses in stones, using it as proof that there is some "design" in nature.
She also has the belief that aliens came here, and changed human DNA, to how we are now. However, she vehemently denied ever having implied DNA. (Then again, how else can you add rhesus monkey traits to humans?)
That's the things she believes, now for some default rambling;
A phrase which stayed with me, which really defines all her posts is "Which source does the truth come from?" in response to me asking for sources to an article's conclusion, implying that there is no “one truth”, (practically undermining her idea that the evolution theories are wrong).
Another point that came up was that: "believing in evolution impedes further investigation, because research into things which might contradict evolution will be disregarded".
Any and all attempts by me to point out that, not only was her logic flawed, but her sources were flawed as well, were swept away with non-arguments, such as "that's what main stream science wants you to think".
It suffices to say that I have stopped arguing in the thread when most people in the thread were supporting the anti-evolution standpoint, merely because they found me too rigid in my support of science.
Yes, it sounds like I'm saying “she was calling me names and she didn't take me seriously”. Sure, I felt made fun of. So would anyone, if thinks such as “I hope you will someday meet the aliens, and see the light” are said when you are trying to have a good discussion.
I think that there is just one lesson to be taken from this:
Never try to talk science on a forums where personal experience is seen as equal (or even greater to) scientific observations.
