The challenge was to answer one of the questions this one guy proposed. But the article doesn't mention what those questions were. It also doesn't say if any of the scientists this guy "challenged" responded or were even aware this was going on.
Wild how long an article can be without having any substance.
The linked article also doesn't include the details I mentioned, although it does have an embedded 30 minute video that I assume outlines the questions.
That's quite a lot of reading and watching to get the basic details of the point being made, don't you think?
And that's just the questions that were asked. The details about if anyone cares about this guys challenge aren't there.
Whether anyone cares or not is irrelevant, but obviously enough people care that there are multiple articles and videos about it from multiple sources. Like I tell my kids, we need to focus on what is important, and not be distracted by all the irrelevant noise. This guy is very well credentialed in his field, and has posed some very valid, serious questions about the theory of evolution. If you don't want to take the time to read/watch, that's fine, no big deal. I just found it interesting and posted for others to review or ignore as they saw fit.
enough people care that there are multiple articles
This is an appeal to popularity and is a logical fallicy. It's also not true since this is not a popular idea. My point wasn't about if anyone cares though, it was if the people he was posing the questions to cared or even knew thet he was directing his "challenge" to them. If I posed a public question to Donald Trump and he ignores it or doesn't hear about it, that doesn't lend me any credibility or make me right.
we need to focus on what is important
"We" = another group appeal implying there is a notable group that agrees with you. Not true and a false appeal to social proof.
very well credentialed in his field
Appeal to authority, another fallacy. Antony Fauci is also well credentialed in his field.
valid, serious questions
This hasn't been established, and nobody is taking 45 minutes to find out it's a clickbait waste of time.
In the future, if you want to have a real discussion about any theory, fringe or otherwise, just post the main points and whatever supports them without lengthy articles that are the equivalent of a wild goose chase and you'll at least get a discussion about those points.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 2 points 5 monthsNov 24, 2023 11:36:28 ago (+2/-0)
Wild how long an article can be without having any substance.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 [op] 1 point 5 monthsNov 24, 2023 12:30:41 ago (+1/-0)
here it is:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/origin-of-life-james-tours-sensational-60-day-challenge-to-ten-top-researchers/
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 5 monthsNov 24, 2023 13:01:02 ago (+1/-0)
That's quite a lot of reading and watching to get the basic details of the point being made, don't you think?
And that's just the questions that were asked. The details about if anyone cares about this guys challenge aren't there.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 [op] 0 points 5 monthsNov 25, 2023 12:35:23 ago (+0/-0)
Like I tell my kids, we need to focus on what is important, and not be distracted by all the irrelevant noise. This guy is very well credentialed in his field, and has posed some very valid, serious questions about the theory of evolution. If you don't want to take the time to read/watch, that's fine, no big deal. I just found it interesting and posted for others to review or ignore as they saw fit.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 5 monthsNov 26, 2023 13:26:40 ago (+0/-0)*
This is an appeal to popularity and is a logical fallicy. It's also not true since this is not a popular idea. My point wasn't about if anyone cares though, it was if the people he was posing the questions to cared or even knew thet he was directing his "challenge" to them. If I posed a public question to Donald Trump and he ignores it or doesn't hear about it, that doesn't lend me any credibility or make me right.
"We" = another group appeal implying there is a notable group that agrees with you. Not true and a false appeal to social proof.
Appeal to authority, another fallacy. Antony Fauci is also well credentialed in his field.
This hasn't been established, and nobody is taking 45 minutes to find out it's a clickbait waste of time.
In the future, if you want to have a real discussion about any theory, fringe or otherwise, just post the main points and whatever supports them without lengthy articles that are the equivalent of a wild goose chase and you'll at least get a discussion about those points.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 [op] 0 points 5 monthsNov 26, 2023 14:18:23 ago (+0/-0)
I really don't care either way.
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 0 points 5 monthsNov 24, 2023 13:47:28 ago (+1/-1)
The eyeballs proves this.