Talk:Question Evolution! - CMI's Rebuttals to Responses to Questions 1 through 3
Is anyone planning on answering doing this?— Unsigned, by: 99.199.53.35 / talk / contribs
- No. They want to write articles about gender studies and chit chat in block messages.
03:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have a crack at answering them sometime, although I don't really know how to word the answers. Mainly because the rebuttals are generally either crying bias or of the "oh look a squirrel" variety. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)Is it worth going through going through these item-by-item again? At some point it becomes an exercise in last-wordism, and if all they need to do is spout nonsense... — Unsigned, by: PeterL / talk / contribs 04:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Either answer the questions or remove the RationalWiki response section. If someone new to the whole creation vs. evolution debate came into this page they would simply think that CMI had irrefutable points. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 04:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- >Implying a creation vs evolution debate even exists.— Unsigned, by: 99.199.53.35 / talk / contribs
- It's worth it because us and CMI are who comes up on top for a number of related searches. It presents an oportunity to check back and see where their rebuttals are merely repetition, which itself is an informal "logical fallacy," something like argumentum ad fuque i sedit agin, and whether there the original article needs clarification. I wouldn't expect CMI to give more attention to this. If they do, Peter is right that it wouldn't warrant a response, or at least not much of one. 15:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Even if CMI doesn't respond to this, as "Spoke to Him" said, people are going to think that they had irrefutable points. If CMI goes out of their way to make a rebuttal page, I think we should too.
- Hence people working on answers. I hadn't seen that Armondikov also wrote some good stuff in his userspace before I ever realized CMI had responded in the first place. It'll happen, even if it's slower than you and I would like. 03:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hence people working on answers. I hadn't seen that Armondikov also wrote some good stuff in his userspace before I ever realized CMI had responded in the first place. It'll happen, even if it's slower than you and I would like.
- Even if CMI doesn't respond to this, as "Spoke to Him" said, people are going to think that they had irrefutable points. If CMI goes out of their way to make a rebuttal page, I think we should too.
- It's worth it because us and CMI are who comes up on top for a number of related searches. It presents an oportunity to check back and see where their rebuttals are merely repetition, which itself is an informal "logical fallacy," something like argumentum ad fuque i sedit agin, and whether there the original article needs clarification. I wouldn't expect CMI to give more attention to this. If they do, Peter is right that it wouldn't warrant a response, or at least not much of one.
- >Implying a creation vs evolution debate even exists.— Unsigned, by: 99.199.53.35 / talk / contribs
- Either answer the questions or remove the RationalWiki response section. If someone new to the whole creation vs. evolution debate came into this page they would simply think that CMI had irrefutable points. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 04:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)Is it worth going through going through these item-by-item again? At some point it becomes an exercise in last-wordism, and if all they need to do is spout nonsense... — Unsigned, by: PeterL / talk / contribs 04:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have a crack at answering them sometime, although I don't really know how to word the answers. Mainly because the rebuttals are generally either crying bias or of the "oh look a squirrel" variety. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate the fact that you guys are thinking about taking on this task, but CMI ain't ever gonna quit. There'll just be endless rebuttals to the rebuttals to the rebuttals... that's all those cats do. It literally is their day-job. Anyway, in these situations I always think of that line from Life, the Universe, and Everything: "The point is that people like you and me, Slartibartfast, and Anonymous readers of this site. --- particularly and especially Anonymous readers of this site. --- are just dilettantes, eccentrics, layabouts, fartarounds if you like. We're not obsessed by anything, you see, and that's the deciding factor. We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win." --Inquisitor (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dilettantes, maybe, but we've also got credentialed people with long work histories in relevant fields interested in contributing. We've also got graduate students who know what they're doing and a young blogger with an exceptional amount of experience engaging prominent creationists head on. I wish there were more. Maybe there are. I don't think people ought to quit just because someone else may keep going. If nothing else, completing these responses will give us an opportunity to give fresh eyes to common creationist canards tune up other creationist material. 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that they'll respond to this. The response was posted over a year and a half ago. Besides, we wouldn't want a laymen to think that they beat us. Furthermore, if no one's gonna write the responses, it seems rather fruitless to keep this page up.
- K. We start ignoring you now. 12:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- K. We start ignoring you now.
- It's unlikely that they'll respond to this. The response was posted over a year and a half ago. Besides, we wouldn't want a laymen to think that they beat us. Furthermore, if no one's gonna write the responses, it seems rather fruitless to keep this page up.
Question 3 Answer 1 responded to. Frostbyte, 01:40, 5 Feb 2014 (UTC)
Never understood why fundies act like evolution is unquestioned by scientists[edit]
Scientists are always raising questions about evolutionary processes. That is a given about any scientific theory like gravity or geological processes. I just love how fundies misrepresent questioning scientific theories. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 I can’t help but to suspect that it comes down to psychological projection — and of course bad faith (pun absolutely intended). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)