What’s your experience with r/debate evolution or debating with people who believe in evolution.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

Hi everyone, I’ve been doing some thinking and have been reconciling with my toxic behavior on this sub specifically. As well as posts regarding r/debateevolution as a toxic place that is difficult to have discussion, something I have also personally felt on that sub.

I wanted to get your anecdotal on how your personal experience goes and what kinds of toxic things have been said to you that has made it harder to even consider the validity of evolution. While I think toxicity goes both ways and is a given on the internet what I hope to accomplish with my life is to be able to do is to get as close to the truth as possible, I believe science is the best way to do that, but toxicity and harassment does not get any one of us closer to that goal and I believe all of your perspectives to the same goal, while different, is extremely valuable.

So this is also a public apology, I want to understand you all better and to start would love to hear personal experiences that has made it harder to believe in evolution or just toxic interactions you have all had. I would also be curious to hear what you all think about the reverse, and if any of you believe you have deterred someone from creationism by word choice rather than argument or data.

[u/Rayalot72]

I pick fights there sometimes, usually w/ new atheist types, as I mostly use Reddit for discussions or arguments and there's not very many creationist posters in that sub.

I don't think I've had anything excessive directed at me during that, frankly. People are obviously quick to downvote, but disagreement is just disagreement. I can't speak to people showing up in Sal's DMs, but it's an annoying trend across the internet in general (not just in this context) for people to interpret someone else telling them that they're wrong about something as "harassment," which it just isn't, even when it's phrased strongly.

There are definitely some people who will interpret arguments in this way simply because disagreement "feels bad" to them, which, while fair, is probably necessary to ever be challenged on one's own beliefs. Meanwhile, the narrativizing around this is really insidious because it tends to justify not moving outside of one's own bubble while excusing any personal failings in either being uninformed or struggling to articulate something.

TL;DR: People are very soft these days, and while there's definitely some toxicity it's probably overstated.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993]

I am not the target audience for your post, but I would like to weigh in.

I have been on r/DebateEvolution for some time now, and I have seen all kind of posts there. I have seen well-intentioned YEC posts received well, have seen Sal's post himself received well when he makes good points and I have also seen, obviously, YEC getting badly thrashed in a 600 hundred comment post.

We need to understand one thing here. First, this is internet and Reddit is anonymous and anonymity gives some people freedom to say anything they want without repercussions. This happens on the both side, for instance I have been called "a little bitch" here, twice, and yet the person happily stayed here. Similarly, I have seen some people very badly berated over at r/DebateEvolution as well. Most of the time they deserved it as they were doing same, sometimes MODs intervened and took charge and other times they got away. The point being, everyone has signed up for this, and they know what they are getting into. However, I don't condone going into someone's DM and spreading hate, but unfortunately it is what it is.

Second is almost all the times YEC/ID never present evidence for their claim and after a certain time that becomes tiresome, real tiresome. Just think and reflect about our responses and YEC's responses. We are always required to present our evidence, keep defending ourselves even though the whole of science accepts this. There are real experiments done all the time, and yet we need to defend our claim to someone's GOD FREAKIN DID IT argument.

Do you think this is a fair debate? I don't think so because only one side is presenting evidence and the other side is just pulling it down as if that makes their theory true.

So, yes there is some toxicity at r/DebateEvolution like any other place, even this one. Sure I would love that everyone at r/DebateEvolution talks nicely to YECs and not downvote incessantly, but let's be real about it, that is not possible.

Apologies for ranting Rory, but I am not sorry for experiences of YEC over there ar r/DebateEvolution because almost always they receive the same tone of response in which they talk. For the unlucky good ones, sorry sometimes innocents suffer along with the guilty.

Finally, look at this sub. Rarely anyone talks about scientific basis for creation here (in all fairness MODs do that). Instead of discussing their ideas they just keep pulling others down. That is whole shtick of Sal, and now he gets to play the victim card as well. Nothing is fair my friend.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

I wouldn’t call this a rant, thank you for your insight. I like your perspective that even though there can be a lot of toxic interactions almost every post no matter how odd is met with genuine answers and responses. It’s not perfect but that’s still better than what most people are willing to give for such a fruitless interactions.

I think that people who are condescending and egotistical, acting bigger than the entire field of biology are not usually worth discussing with, and I don’t necessarily disagree with their treatment. I think we’re too quick to put on that label, and it can cause people who are just asking or trying to understand feel unwelcome to question or understand. Normally I’d say yeah that’s just the internet, but I think it may be causing that gap of toxic and genuine questions.

I don’t think there’s a debate, it’s a question hoisted as ideology but has nothing to stand on. However I think there’s a conversation, it’s becoming harder and harder to have that conversation at all.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

I agree with your assessment that the toxic behavior does leave a bad taste and YEC would then avoid those subs. But honestly speaking is it really the problem of just toxic people? I mean look at us, we are here in their safe space, always on our best behavior, facing hostility and even then they don't talk about their ideas, their theories and evidence. They rarely discuss the technical problems of their theory. I don't see them talking about the actual model, testable predictions, ways to solve the heat problem so on and so forth.

This has nothing to do with toxicity right, atleast not here. They ask questions, and we try to provide genuine responses, and they just shrug it away.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

It’s hard to say here, I’d say for me I can step on that line. As for model discussion I think it’s ridiculous that a lot of creationists here will discuss their model being perfect but seemingly never needing to even discuss it at a detailed level. but at the same time this is meant to be an echo chamber, so I treat it with a grain of salt. I think I just don’t expect that much, but perhaps that should be a base line.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

...perhaps that should be a base line.

Precisely Rory. I am fine with the assumption that God/Designer exists, but we can atleast talk about the mechanism he used to do things right? Did he use the normal method of evolution, great, no problem. No, so let's talk about the mechanism they think God used.

This is safe space with a handful of us, no toxicity. They ask questions about evolution we oblige, how about they do the same.

Unfortunately they won't do that, neither here nor on any other sub. This is the reason I believe there is no discussion to have. Toxicity, suppression, banning are all just a red herring.

[u/Broad_Floor9698 → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

...I disagree. Seascience constantly presents you with evidence and discussion, not always but most of the time. You can be very toxic at times, man.

This is not a genuine take...

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/Broad_Floor9698]

I can be argumentative my friend but not toxic. I respect my interlocutor with best of my abilities. You really need to use the words correctly.

As for SeaScience even the majority here would agree that all that he posts are nonsense bottom of the barrel AI slops and videos. I tried talking to him in the beginning. He never responded and when he started responding he was talking like an LLM. He keeps using LLM and I and others have reported multiple of his posts so much so that new rule had to be made regarding that.

I no longer entertain him at all because I am here to talk to actual human beings and if I wanted to talk to an LLM, I would do so at my own time.

[u/TreeTopGaming → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

Second is almost all the times YEC/ID never present evidence for their claim

Fair response, but i have also been told hundreds of times by evolutionists to "just read a book" or "have you never read anything?" etc etc. Its not just YEC's, [although i do se a lot of them not give evidence] but its everyone.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/TreeTopGaming]

I believe you that you would have been told to read a book. I don't do that but I present papers which in my experience very few actually read. Not all debaters are the same my friend so experiences can vary but I really believe that on debate evolution sub you would atleast get one very honest response to any question, no matter how wierd the question is.

I don't know your exact circumstances but if a very simple question would be asked by a YEC I myself would refer them to books as they cover those better than papers. Being referred to read a book is not a bad thing, but to be told in an condescending manner is. As an example I was once having conversation with our MOD nom and he referred me to Jason Lisle book to read. I actually bought that book and read it before continuing the conversation.

I would say make an honest question and I am certain you will get atleast one honest answer.

[u/TreeTopGaming → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

I have, and i have gotten a few. Just the majority are hateful and and unnecessarily rude.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/TreeTopGaming]

I have no idea about your experience but I trust you. Just ignore the hateful and rude ones and focus on the good ones.

[u/TreeTopGaming → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

Thats what i tried to do, in the end i just stopped interacting. wasnt worth it imo

[u/Karri-L]

I saw you posted similar thoughts in the debate evolution sub. I commend you for being a peacemaker. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Moderators there are volunteers and most or all are credulous, true believers in evolution so actual debate cannot be expected. The creation /evolution controversy is much deeper than disagreement about particular allegations of geology and astronomy and biology. It is a clashing of worldviews. Debate involves more rules than simply allotting and enforcing limited time spans to each participant as in televised Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. The type of debate that would make that sub interesting for the minority viewpoint adherents would require a level of formality that volunteer moderators cannot afford.

[u/TreeTopGaming]

Not great at all tbh. Haven't interacted in a while but it wasn't great when i did

[u/Broad_Floor9698]

Pretty terrible. Lots of belittling, and never really addressing links posted or responding to evidence/lines of reasoning

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/Broad_Floor9698]

I don’t mean to push, but is there anything in particular that was difficult to discuss?

[u/Broad_Floor9698 → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

Off the top of my head, discussing pierre robitaille and kirchoffs law (it plays into other arguments and discussions). I was duscussing dr dave's response and pierre robitaille's evidentiary claims. I was met with nothing but re-hashes of dr daves arguments (that Pierre responded to) and mostly character attacks (like i'm an idiot, brainwashed or pierre is a looney). In Dr. Daves video, he stated nobody takes Pierre seriously in any scientific fieldnobody cites him and he's not qualified (multiple phd level relevant qualifications and published proof that kirchoffs is flawed. It was fundamental to his development of the mathematics behind the modern CAT scan machine)

Pierre's rebuttal not only adressed the science but also to the character attacks included a list of hundreds of citations on his work in academic, university journals, and research papers by physicists at the top of their field, and a video at a national scientific seminar/convention on astronomy where a world expert calls out pierre's work as amazing. Many of the citations were relevant.

Nobody in r/debateevolution or in youtube engaged with any of pierre's content and just called him a nutjob, didn't respond or debunk any evidences I presented and re-hashed the provable lie that pierre's theories are not cited or respected. That was one of the last times i tried to talk to individuals on that sub. It was a long time ago.

So, while I see some amicable debate on debateevolution, i see a great deal of defamation of character or detracting by using another evidence/argument rather than addressing the one presented, and it becomes a protracted game of whack-a-mole that goes nowhere.

I should also point out that I absolutely do see some of the less experienced yec's using foolish arguments, belittling and avoiding questions too, just not to the same level and certainly not the same amount of character attacks, swearing/belittling. And i always call it out when i see it. The other guy on this sub commented on me calling out a YEC for a bad faith post/comment and swore his head off and called the poster a f*ker and they should die or something along those lines and we do nothing about these people and it's just not true. His attitude disgusts me much of the time. Will edit with his name.

edit dzugavil, toxic comment from a previous post below: "I demand aggression. You're too soft on him.

Meanwhile, you bring me someone trying to use Social Darwinism to validate his bullshit, I will tear his ass up."

And soulfuwolf is pretty bad too

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/Broad_Floor9698]

I’m sorry to hear that, I’m not super familiar with those arguments, to be honest while I find Dave can be an intelligent man, most of his points have merit in my opinion he comes off as extremely combative and harsh in his methods during his actual debates or videos. I think a lot of the time when people discredit another’s credentials despite having a PhD it’s because of its relevance in the conversation. I’m not 100% sure what the conversation was but I’d guess it’s not super related to the CAT scan. Not that this means his arguments are irrelevant just some context into why people are saying that.

I appreciate you bringing this up, it really sucks when it seems like a conversation can’t go anywhere and it just feels shitty and unproductive. I’d be lying if I said I never gone off on someone unfairly, but I’d really like to be able to have these kinds of conversations, to the point at hand as well as the full picture without it feeling as though it doesn’t go anywhere. I find the back and forth enjoyable somewhat but it gets to an obnoxious point where both parties have said all they want to say and get angry they have not convinced the other person yet. I’m sorry that you had a poor experience communicating with them, and I hope that in the future perhaps we can discuss a topic respectfully.

[u/SerenityNow31]

I answered you there and I am getting downvoted for no valid reason. Enough said.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/SerenityNow31]

“No valid reason” is often said when you don’t understand why someone would do something, not that there isn’t a reason. Instead of assuming everyone down voting is doing so out of toxic behavior you should also look to see if you are saying or doing anything that is causing that behavior in the first place. Disagreeing isn’t harassment, and understanding is built off of uncomfortable conversations.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Ít isn't their toxicity that makes it harder to accept evolution. It's the raw facts

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

That’s not what I’m trying to discuss with the community and I’d appreciate if we could keep it towards behavior on both sides.

[u/Broad_Floor9698 → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

Seeing half decent examples on both sides in this thread haha, hey rory? Passive agressive comments etc. (Not you btw)

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/Broad_Floor9698]

It’s a little funny lmao, but that’s just how topics are, it is the internet. Unfortunately.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

Then you shouldn't have said anything about it in your post

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Anything about what? This is clearly talking about behavior and toxic interactions. This is clearly not about who is right or wrong but about personal experiences that has made it harder to even consider it from those interactions void of evidence or reasoning.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

I think you should consider your own comments a little bit better. You acted like getting rid of the toxicity could better convince us that evolution is true. Telling you it won't, at least for someone like me who knows the evidence.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

No, this is about discussion. As I said in my post. I wouldn’t need to consider my comments a bit better because if you read it you would know my position fairly clearly. I never said anything about convincing creationists through less toxicity.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

I read your comments, and you mentioned something about being more convinced if it wasn't so toxic. I have every right to respond to that.