Why are you unconvincing?

You are missing the point. You assume that those of us who are posting for evolution are trying to convince the otherside. I can only speak for myself. I am here as a counter point. I am here to represent the truth against the world aka an fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil. It is a fabricated saying ,but it is a saying with a noble intent. Don't care how the truth (in this case scientific facts) will be received. Say them, because they are true.

These are not "my own turth", they are repeatable verifiable facts.


You are also missing, that your thread is running in circles, and you seem to prefer that to be the case. Could it be you are wrong?

a reply to: Noinden

I could absolutely be wrong.
My OP was a question as to why people think they can't convince anyone.

No one is willing to take responsibility and think that it could be their fault.

As someone who is interested in convincing people I'm curious as to why I'm incapable of it.
I think blaming others for my inability to convince people is a cop out and I'm looking to see if others have any solutions.

But all the teachers are blaming their students.
Maybe it is the students fault, I just think there has to be alternatives and so I have to circle back to the OP and ask the question over and over.

But either there's a strategy out there to convince people or I'm wrong and there isn't.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You are making a whole bunch of random statements now. Indeed it is as if you are trying to shift the goal posts on your own topic. That is a logical fallacy.

SO a couple of points.

(a) I don't think I am unconvincing. I pick my battles. Thus a dyed in the wool creationsist is not a target to try and convicne.
(b) I'm not blaming others. I am identifying those who refuse to be convinced. I clearly am someone who has been convinced, as I am deeply spiritual, but also deeply commited to a career in Science.
(c) You seem to think that those of us who present the truth, ar e here to convince others, and that is the only reason. You clearly don't understand science by these statements.

I can only conclude, this is another bait thread from you.

because bias. no ones gonna change their mind, especially not from a argument on the internet. people are too cowardly to admit they dont know everything and they refuse to flirt with the idea that they dont and should change their mind when presented with better evidence.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You are making a whole bunch of random statements now. Indeed it is as if you are trying to shift the goal posts on your own topic. That is a logical fallacy.

How is that random? I see nothing in my previous post not related directly to my first. I thought I've been extremely consistent, some may even say I've been going around in circles. If you point out the fallacy I am happy to address it.

SO a couple of points.

(a) I don't think I am unconvincing. I pick my battles. Thus a dyed in the wool creationsist is not a target to try and convicne.

OK, if we get to pick the battles then everyone is convincing.

(b) I'm not blaming others. I am identifying those who refuse to be convinced. I clearly am someone who has been convinced, as I am deeply spiritual, but also deeply commited to a career in Science.

I consider blaming and identifying those who refuse to be convinced the same thing and it's picking battles.

(c) You seem to think that those of us who present the truth, ar e here to convince others, and that is the only reason. You clearly don't understand science by these statements.

I definitely think it's the main reason, it is for me. It's the Origins and Creationism Thread, look at the other posts. Anyone of a scientific mind in here is trying to convince as far as I can see.

I can only conclude, this is another bait thread from you.

Please point out the previous one and I'll explain it to you. I have no interest in a bait thread.

I think I can clarify this for you scientifically.

I can not convince Raggedyman therefore I am unconvincing,
You can not convince Raggedyman therefore you are unconvincing.
Raggedyman could name 8 more off the top of his head that were unconvincing.

That gives enough of a sample size to see the pattern of Raggedyman and unconvincing always popping up.

If the goal is to convince people, which I think it is.
We shouldn't ignore half the problem.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry for dragging you into that.

It's called projection. There are 2 primary sources of natural born leadership projection whereby others listen and follow.

1. Filled with knowledge, experience, extroversion, and self-confidence, communications are overpowering and compelling leaving everyone in effective range attached to ones' vision.

2. Communications are overpowering and compelling leaving everyone in effective range attached to your vision because you are a fraud and master bullsheeter. A superior actor and liar able to even believe your own fraud.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Of course we get to pick our battles. I may be a Celt, but I know when to paint on the wode, and run into battle You seem to have a major disconnect with the reasons for debating these things. Do you not understand the idea of "truth against the world" perhaps?

You are judging the reasons people are posting here rather than asking why they post. For some of the creationists, they admit it is a form of missionary, or witnessing. They feel they are doing their deities work. Others just like to argue.

So again, I return to you sending this thread in circles. People give answers, you shift goalposts, to make the thread vague.

As for Raggedyman. Neither of us have tried to convince the others. Thus your logic is flawed, and your thesis fails.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

^^^^^^ THIS^^^^^^

As a theistic scientist. I accept based on the evidence that evolution is the best theory. I accept that evidence as I've been involved in gathering some. But also as a theistic scientist, I don't discount that there is the supernatural. I just don't mix my faith with my day job Science does not need religion, and religion does not need science. Mixing the two causes issues.

When I started my PhD (in the mid 1990s) there was a guy in the honours class behind mine, who was (and is to this day) a rabid fundamentalist. He insisted on disrupting a honors level (fourth year) paper on the chemical evolution of the solar system. He could have opted out of that paper, but no he had to go, and try and enforce his faith. Needless to say, it was a bad experience for him, the academic involved was not understanding, and he was not given special dispensation to write non-scientific hogwash.

Similarly as a scientist (or a pagan) when I took some religious studies papers for interest during my PhD, I did not try to enforce my science background.

No one has the right to be offended that their own spiritual path is not being catered too. If it is not being openly attacked, and hell its been a while since your faith is a target (in the west at least).

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

A few people already nailed it, it's not about being convincing, it's about being stubborn. When somebody is so deeply invested emotionally in a belief system or ideology, reality can take a back seat and the ostrich just puts his head in the sand. You could have a top biologist or geneticist explaining evolution step by step and giving numerous examples from their work, and they would still pretend it's all fake. There is simply no convincing irrational people. Rational people can be convinced by hard evidence.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

That's not easy, I'd prefer not to refer to other's responses to get your response.

Unless everybody's answer is just that the other person is stupid.

Ooh
I don't think noinden is stupid.
That's ingenuous, I think they are quite logical

You are trying to play a game, please dont

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Noinden

I could absolutely be wrong.
My OP was a question as to why people think they can't convince anyone.

No one is willing to take responsibility and think that it could be their fault.

As someone who is interested in convincing people I'm curious as to why I'm incapable of it.
I think blaming others for my inability to convince people is a cop out and I'm looking to see if others have any solutions.

But all the teachers are blaming their students.
Maybe it is the students fault, I just think there has to be alternatives and so I have to circle back to the OP and ask the question over and over.

But either there's a strategy out there to convince people or I'm wrong and there isn't.

you are trying to trick people into admitting that maybe their position is the wrong one by asking them why some people are unconvincable. if the polio vaccine is so effective why are people still dying? being convincing has nothing to do with other people being willing to be convinced. your mistake is in assuming that if someone is convincing, everyone else will automatically be convinced because +30 charisma or some crap. this is not dungeons and dragons, there are people who don't believe in gravity and simply cannot be persuaded otherwise. you may as well ask why there are morons. because in the immortal words of Ron white: "you can't fix stupid".

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Noinden

I could absolutely be wrong.
My OP was a question as to why people think they can't convince anyone.

No one is willing to take responsibility and think that it could be their fault.

As someone who is interested in convincing people I'm curious as to why I'm incapable of it.
I think blaming others for my inability to convince people is a cop out and I'm looking to see if others have any solutions.

But all the teachers are blaming their students.
Maybe it is the students fault, I just think there has to be alternatives and so I have to circle back to the OP and ask the question over and over.



But either there's a strategy out there to convince people or I'm wrong and there isn't.

Scientists are not salesmen. We're not in the business of selling a product to the public. If the evidence from over 500 scientific journals which focus on evolution isn't enough to satisfy the naysayers, then that's their problem.

As I said before, "convince" really doesn't apply to this topic. The information is out there for anyone to access. If someone has a contrary view, then it's incumbent on them to report their evidence. It's not very different than a court of law. If a person is accused of a crime, that person must present credible evidence to prove that he/she is not guilty. The word "convince" implies that someone can sell a bill of goods to anyone if he/she is a good salesman. That's not the case in science or a court of law. It's about hard evidence not salesmanship.

I have offered to debate evolution in the debate forum on several occasions. Never had any takers. I wonder why......

a reply to: Phantom423

Because your stamped, registered, seal of approval, properly linguized proposals and "evidence" automatically hold more water in your mind, and in the mind of the trained civil sheep. Reality is not concerned with fitting a storyline. Defense is a reaction. Life is proactive.

From the outside, its a sad situation no one wants to participate in. Are you mad your heart doesnt have an off button? Angry that you dont control your birth? All because your mind grew from the reflected waves rather than the input signal they oppose??

Ooops, Im supposed to believe the tree of life is a physical tree, like a walnut tree??? Because YOU say thats what ancient coded texts claim???

originally posted by: JuanDope
a reply to: Phantom423

Because your stamped, registered, seal of approval, properly linguized proposals and "evidence" automatically hold more water in your mind, and in the mind of the trained civil sheep. Reality is not concerned with fitting a storyline. Defense is a reaction. Life is proactive.

From the outside, its a sad situation no one wants to participate in. Are you mad your heart doesnt have an off button? Angry that you dont control your birth? All because your mind grew from the reflected waves rather than the input signal they oppose??

Ooops, Im supposed to believe the tree of life is a physical tree, like a walnut tree??? Because YOU say thats what ancient coded texts claim???

I suggest you write a letter with your comments to all 500+ scientific journals which report research on evolution. And take a pill - I think you need one.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
you are trying to trick people into admitting that maybe their position is the wrong one by asking them why some people are unconvincable. if the polio vaccine is so effective why are people still dying? being convincing has nothing to do with other people being willing to be convinced. your mistake is in assuming that if someone is convincing, everyone else will automatically be convinced because +30 charisma or some crap. this is not dungeons and dragons, there are people who don't believe in gravity and simply cannot be persuaded otherwise. you may as well ask why there are morons. because in the immortal words of Ron white: "you can't fix stupid".

If you need to be tricked to consider the possibility you are wrong, then you're an idiot.

And you can convince someone. How many days of waterboarding until Kent Hovind accepts evolution?

Creationist's aren't these sickly people incapable of reason. Thinking that of them could be the barrier that stops any productive conversation.

a reply to: Noinden

Now you're spouting random statements.

When you convince Raggedyman of evolution I will apologise to you.
Until then you are unconvincing.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are trying to play a game, please dont

It's not a game.
Surely you feel the same about the evolutionists you speak with.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't convince anyone of your side.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: TzarChasm
you are trying to trick people into admitting that maybe their position is the wrong one by asking them why some people are unconvincable. if the polio vaccine is so effective why are people still dying? being convincing has nothing to do with other people being willing to be convinced. your mistake is in assuming that if someone is convincing, everyone else will automatically be convinced because +30 charisma or some crap. this is not dungeons and dragons, there are people who don't believe in gravity and simply cannot be persuaded otherwise. you may as well ask why there are morons. because in the immortal words of Ron white: "you can't fix stupid".

If you need to be tricked to consider the possibility you are wrong, then you're an idiot.

And you can convince someone. How many days of waterboarding until Kent Hovind accepts evolution?

Creationist's aren't these sickly people incapable of reason. Thinking that of them could be the barrier that stops any productive conversation.

thanks for reinforcing my points. and Im not talking about creationists, I'm talking about people in general who are too stubborn to be corrected.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You're welcome.