Article ~ Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

Nor are rationalwiki, or Steve Novella's site, or a multitude of other sources shared here by the skeptic crowd my first choice for info. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP - just pointing out the hypocrisy. Mocking Valmar for sharing from a source that perhaps isn't the best isn't effective or productive, and like he and others pointed out, this "Answers in Genesis" character could be wrong about lots and lots of things, but that doesn't render everything he says automatically invalid. 

In any event, this was just a nice example of why you shouldn't just critically generalize. Didn't even take a day for you to look like a hypocrite.

Oh, I agree that it's difficult to get a conversation started with rubbish sources, regardless of where you are. No argument there.

I was pointing out that there were proponents whose main contribution to some of the skeptical topics was to rubbish skeptical posters, though (as opposed to exploring their doubt).

You just have to look at the Darwin Unhinged thread to see that there isn't any difficultly getting Paul (or myself) to talk about abiogenesis.

Linda

Nor are rationalwiki, or Steve Novella's site, or a multitude of other sources shared here by the skeptic crowd my first choice for info. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP - just pointing out the hypocrisy. Mocking Valmar for sharing from a source that perhaps isn't the best isn't effective or productive, and like he and others pointed out, this "Answers in Genesis" character could be wrong about lots and lots of things, but that doesn't render everything he says automatically invalid.

Not all sources are created equal. I'd rate Answers in Genesis a 2, while rating RationalWiki and Novella >= 8.

~~ Paul

Not all sources are created equal. I'd rate Answers in Genesis a 2, while rating RationalWiki and Novella >= 8.

You'd rate RationalWiki >= 8 ?

I view myself as somewhere in the middle of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, but I consider RationalWiki to be a joke.

Not all sources are created equal. I'd rate Answers in Genesis a 2, while rating RationalWiki and Novella >= 8.

~~ Paul

It's absolutely shocking to me that you'd rate RationalWiki an 8. I nearly can't fathom it - like Chris, to me RationalWiki has long been a site that has very little, if any, valuable input whatsoever. When people link to or quote from it I generally think that they're not coming from a very sophisticated or informed background. I wouldn't even rate Wikipedia an 8 when it comes to controversial topics.

I was pointing out that there were proponents whose main contribution to some of the skeptical topics was to rubbish skeptical posters, though (as opposed to exploring their doubt).

You just have to look at the Darwin Unhinged thread to see that there isn't any difficultly getting Paul (or myself) to talk about abiogenesis.

That's exactly what I'm saying here - do you think that you, Paul or steve were "probing" or "exploring" Valmar's position here? You were just mocking, obviously. 

And you can look all over PQ and find more than enough proponents willing to discuss a wide variety of issues with you and other skeptics. Like I said to begin with, there's been an enormous amount of patience with you and steve in terms of discussion without it devolving into outright mud slinging for a number of topics. Point being that skeptics aren't generally treated poorly here - just the same as you're saying you'll discuss the topics in depth, so too will the vast majority of proponents here. There are skeptics just as guilty of your accusation, so it's pretty much a pointless and fairly baseless thing to point out.

You'd rate RationalWiki >= 8 ?

I view myself as somewhere in the middle of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, but I consider RationalWiki to be a joke.

As an example, I'd quote in its entirety, the final section of the RationalWiki article on the Ganzfeld experiment, which is entitled "Usual outcome":
In reality, the entire "experiment" is a trick. The "experiment" is not always done in a soundproof room. The "receiver" and the "experimenter" can easily hear when videos were playing during the "experiment". Involuntary cues are given to the "receiver" during the selection procedure.

No evidence of any kind is cited to support these claims.

You'd rate RationalWiki >= 8 ?

I view myself as somewhere in the middle of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, but I consider RationalWiki to be a joke.

I think many of the articles are reasonable when compared to available sources. In particular, they include references. But I'll certainly admit there is a bias.

~~ Paul

It's absolutely shocking to me that you'd rate RationalWiki an 8. I nearly can't fathom it - like Chris, to me RationalWiki has long been a site that has very little, if any, valuable input whatsoever. When people link to or quote from it I generally think that they're not coming from a very sophisticated or informed background. I wouldn't even rate Wikipedia an 8 when it comes to controversial topics.

Ah, perhap you're talking about articles concerning psi. Yep, in that arena I tend to ignore RationalWiki.

Maybe 8 is a tad high.

~~ Paul

As an example, I'd quote in its entirety, the final section of the RationalWiki article on the Ganzfeld experiment, which is entitled "Usual outcome":
In reality, the entire "experiment" is a trick. The "experiment" is not always done in a soundproof room. The "receiver" and the "experimenter" can easily hear when videos were playing during the "experiment". Involuntary cues are given to the "receiver" during the selection procedure.

No evidence of any kind is cited to support these claims.

Yes, that article sucks.

Okay, I give. I'll drop RationalWiki to 3. It's only fair to consider it as a whole. And there must be some reason why I almost never link to it.


~~ Paul

That's exactly what I'm saying here - do you think that you, Paul or steve were "probing" or "exploring" Valmar's position here? You were just mocking, obviously.

I was, yes.

~~ Paul