Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Barcs

Stop making excuses and post your evidence and papers. You posted FOUR piece of unsubstantiated conjecture above and sourced ZERO of it.

Considering you don't know how to tell if something is a footprint or not I think I'll save my time.

Plenty of evidence in this article showing that dinosaurs are thousands of years old and lived contemporary with humans, therefore showing the evolutionary narrative is wrong. But considering you don't know how to identify a footprint without asking the scientists I don't think any evidence will override your conditioning.

a reply to: cooperton

Complete failure. As usual. I love how you deflect again to more BS instead of backing up a single friggin claim. What a joke.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Please link the research papers. The petrified footprints one from 1992 cannot be found and the few abstracts I found say nothing about human footprints. I doubt that was ever actually published in a journal. This was debunked a long time ago. Real human footprints do not look that perfect, ESPECIALLY not one allegedly from 290 million years ago.

Info on footprints

Look at the picture there to see what ACTUAL hominid footprints look like.

For the other one, every site that comes up is a creationist site. LMAO @ claiming these are peer reviewed journal articles. Again, post the direct links to the papers instead of dishonest screen shots with false claims that come from AIG and other creationist websites rather than scientific articles or journals. Funny how you have no standards at all for what you post, but then hold everyone else to insane standards. You committed appeal to authority fallacy to a T.

And of course the first 2 have no sources whatsoever, we are supposed to just take your screen shots on faith. Come on dude. Stop the hypocrisy!

Can you show me any empirical evidence regarding apes evolving from old world monkeys 25-30 mya? A mandible fragment from an unidentified animal does not suffice.

Yes, it does suffice, not to mention the comparisons from old world monkeys to early apes and the entire theory of evolution that is backed by so much evidence, which you have still to this day not debunked a single piece of evidence for anything. You just cherry pick little things here and there as the be all end all, when evolution as a whole has been thoroughly substantiated and this is just one transition among millions. Even if they don't have tons of evidence of this single transition, it's OBVIOUS, and scientists have been working on this for decades. You don't care though. You have a narrative and you are loyal to it above all else, regardless of actual research.

So the ball is in your court. Post the research papers instead of silly screen shots from creationist websites.

There is nothing linking any species 'evolving' into a completely different species...and that's what you're trying to claim here.

Except that you’re completely wrong and there is copious evidence supporting the MES

The evidence is very clear about that.

Yet you’re completely incapable of demonstrating anything resembling evidence because you don’t have any. You have an opinion that’s not grounded in facts or reality.

Many species are extinct, which once lived alongside humans...

Nobody disputes this.

None have 'evolved' into other species, as we all know...

Yes, as you claim, not as we all know.

You cannot 'link' those extinct species to any other species...

Not every species evolves. Some go extinct and that’s it for that species.

If those species were already extinct, before humans were around, what would happen?


They would claim those species 'evolved' into other species, of course.

You seem to have an entirely false narrative in your head that doesn’t exist in Anthropology or Paleontology. We don’t and never have claimed that every extinct species has merely evolved into a new species. Species go extinct and dead end. Nobody claims otherwise. Some species do evolve. This is a fact regardless

It's simply nonsense.

What’s nonsense is your refusal to read anything that disputes your perceptions that of reality which means you refuse to look at things objectively while ranting and raving nonsense. You have no ground beneath your feet here. Nothing to support your opinion in anyway aside from tantrums.

I don't care about your pile of papers, they are worthless crap. They all assume 'evolution' is true, and move along from that point. Start with crap, end with more crap, this is a complete joke! A farce.


Your argument is not that long-extinct species have 'evolved' into different species, and nothing else....

Your argument is that ALL species are continually evolving into different species. Right?

Are you, or are you not, making that very argument here?


You've claimed all species on Earth - today - are continually 'evolving' into different species, right?


Therefore, all species on Earth - TODAY - should indicate they are 'evolving' into different species, over the past centuries, as well...right?


And if not, then they are obviously NOT continually evolving into anything else, since nothing at all even indicates such a thing occurs over time. Agreed?


If you cannot support your claim with all the living species on Earth, today, which have stayed the exact same species over thousands of years, which is certainly NOT a case for 'continuous evolution into different species', then it's rather obvious to see why you wish to ignore all this evidence on hand...

But it's evidence, and you can avoid it all you want - your denial doesn't matter one bit to me.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Please link the research papers. The petrified footprints one from 1992 cannot be found and the few abstracts I found say nothing about human footprints. I doubt that was ever actually published in a journal. This was debunked a long time ago. Real human footprints do not look that perfect, ESPECIALLY not one allegedly from 290 million years ago.

Info on footprints

Look at the picture there to see what ACTUAL hominid footprints look like.

For the other one, every site that comes up is a creationist site. LMAO @ claiming these are peer reviewed journal articles. Again, post the direct links to the papers instead of dishonest screen shots with false claims that come from AIG and other creationist websites rather than scientific articles or journals. Funny how you have no standards at all for what you post, but then hold everyone else to insane standards. You committed appeal to authority fallacy to a T.

And of course the first 2 have no sources whatsoever, we are supposed to just take your screen shots on faith. Come on dude. Stop the hypocrisy!

Can you show me any empirical evidence regarding apes evolving from old world monkeys 25-30 mya? A mandible fragment from an unidentified animal does not suffice.

Yes, it does suffice, not to mention the comparisons from old world monkeys to early apes and the entire theory of evolution that is backed by so much evidence, which you have still to this day not debunked a single piece of evidence for anything. You just cherry pick little things here and there as the be all end all, when evolution as a whole has been thoroughly substantiated and this is just one transition among millions. Even if they don't have tons of evidence of this single transition, it's OBVIOUS, and scientists have been working on this for decades. You don't care though. You have a narrative and you are loyal to it above all else, regardless of actual research.

So the ball is in your court. Post the research papers instead of silly screen shots from creationist websites.

There is nothing linking any species 'evolving' into a completely different species...and that's what you're trying to claim here.

Except that you’re completely wrong and there is copious evidence supporting the MES

The evidence is very clear about that.

Yet you’re completely incapable of demonstrating anything resembling evidence because you don’t have any. You have an opinion that’s not grounded in facts or reality.

Many species are extinct, which once lived alongside humans...

Nobody disputes this.

None have 'evolved' into other species, as we all know...

Yes, as you claim, not as we all know.

You cannot 'link' those extinct species to any other species...

Not every species evolves. Some go extinct and that’s it for that species.

If those species were already extinct, before humans were around, what would happen?


They would claim those species 'evolved' into other species, of course.

You seem to have an entirely false narrative in your head that doesn’t exist in Anthropology or Paleontology. We don’t and never have claimed that every extinct species has merely evolved into a new species. Species go extinct and dead end. Nobody claims otherwise. Some species do evolve. This is a fact regardless

It's simply nonsense.

What’s nonsense is your refusal to read anything that disputes your perceptions that of reality which means you refuse to look at things objectively while ranting and raving nonsense. You have no ground beneath your feet here. Nothing to support your opinion in anyway aside from tantrums.

I don't care about your pile of papers, they are worthless crap.

So is that an admission that you refuse to read anything contrary to your uneducated opinion? Thanks for clearing up how deep your confirmation biases run.

They all assume 'evolution' is true, and move along from that point. Start with crap, end with more crap, this is a complete joke! A farce.

How would you know this since you haven’t read anything that could possibly have information that is contrary to your naive and ignorant worldview? You are the farcical joke here, not the science you have zero understanding of.

Your argument is not that long-extinct species have 'evolved' into different species, and nothing else....

Do you know how to read? That’s the exact opposite of what I said. There are evolutionary dead ends that go extinct and lead to nothing new. You will do anything you can to continue your false narrative built on lies and willful ignorance. It’s really pathetic how ignorant you truly are.

Your argument is that ALL species are continually evolving into different species. Right?

Are you, or are you not, making that very argument here?

All species continue to adapt to their specific species eco-niche. Adapting new heritable traits doesn’t necessarily mean that they will definitely evolve into a new species. Are you capable of having a discussion without lying and misrepresenting facts?

You've claimed all species on Earth - today - are continually 'evolving' into different species, right?

No,you’re the one insisting that is my claim. Perhaps remedial reading would be a good idea for you since you don’t have any comprehension skills.

Therefore, all species on Earth - TODAY - should indicate they are 'evolving' into different stuff , over the past centuries, as well...right?

Yes species alive today is the same as they were 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are becoming a new species. It also doesn’t mean that they are not. You can’t use a generic blanket statement to discuss an entire sub field of biology.

And if not, then they are obviously NOT continually evolving into anything else, since nothing at all even indicates such a thing occurs over time. Agreed?

Not agreed.

If you cannot support your claim with all the living species on Earth, today, which have stayed the exact same species over thousands of years, which is certainly NOT a case for 'continuous evolution into different species', then it's rather obvious to see why you wish to ignore all this evidence on hand...

There’s nothing to ignore on your end as you’ve provided yes evidence to support your position. Simply denied any evidence to the contrary.

But it's evidence, and you can avoid it all you want - your denial doesn't matter one bit to me.

Of course denial doesn’t matter one bit to you. If it did, your entire existence would immolate because denialism is all you have to back up your nonexistent viewpoint. You have nothing at all except ignorance and illite.

originally posted by: peter vlar
So is that an admission that you refuse to read anything contrary to your uneducated opinion? Thanks for clearing up how deep your confirmation biases run.


How would you know this since you haven’t read anything that could possibly have information that is contrary to your naive and ignorant worldview? You are the farcical joke here, not the science you have zero understanding of.


Do you know how to read? That’s the exact opposite of what I said. There are evolutionary dead ends that go extinct and lead to nothing new. You will do anything you can to continue your false narrative built on lies and willful ignorance. It’s really pathetic how ignorant you truly are.

Your argument is that ALL species are continually evolving into different species. Right?

Are you, or are you not, making that very argument here?

All species continue to adapt to their specific species eco-niche. Adapting new heritable traits doesn’t necessarily mean that they will definitely evolve into a new species. Are you capable of having a discussion without lying and misrepresenting facts?

No,you’re the one insisting that is my claim. Perhaps remedial reading would be a good idea for you since you don’t have any comprehension skills.

Yes species alive today is the same as they were 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are becoming a new species. It also doesn’t mean that they are not. You can’t use a generic blanket statement to discuss an entire sub field of biology.

There’s nothing to ignore on your end as you’ve provided yes evidence to support your position. Simply denied any evidence to the contrary.

Why you think acting like a puffed-up pseudo-intellectual is going to help your worthless argument is beyond me.

I've already gone through some of your sources, so don't try to bs me about what is, or is not, said within them. I know it very well.


There are so many flaws in the evolution arguments, it's staggering...


What is the goal? To understand how millions of different species came to exist on Earth, today.

By ignoring all of the actual evidence, on hand, it serves only to HIDE the truth.

a reply to: turbonium1
You keep talking about the”evidence” against evolution yet you post nothing by conjecture laden hyperbole and yes actual science to support your unsubstantiated claims. You haven’t read the citations and you prove it with every response you post.

The only one puffing themselves up as a pseudo intellectual in this discussion is you. I’m not some half assed keyboard warrior who refuses to support anything I say champ. I actually did the work, earned the degrees, did the work in labs and the field and purposely attempted to falsify other people’s work. I’ve also postulated hypotheses that couldn’t be substantiated with technology at the time that has since been proven factual. I’ve been on both sides of the coin and I know when something is total Bs and when it’s legit. Your entire world view is dictated by imbeciles like Ken Ham and the brain trust at ICR with yes actual work of your own put into it. You may disagree with my position but pseudo anything I am not. The only farcical information comes from you Andy coop.


Nice try though. You’ve got nothing but personal ad hominem and delusion to back up your claims.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I don't care about your pile of papers, they are worthless crap. They all assume 'evolution' is true, and move along from that point. Start with crap, end with more crap, this is a complete joke! A farce.

This sums up your arguments along with all of Coop's to a T. Pure ignorance and no honesty whatsoever. You assume evolution is false and ignore ALL confirming evidence. It's pathetic. You guys are both robots, unable to deal with reality. You hold scientific research to impossible standards of proof while believing all kinds of other unsubstantiated conjecure on a whim out of emotion, just because it goes with your religion. You never scrutinize a single creationist claim at all, you just accept it blindly and fight against evolution blindly. It's old. Hovind is a failure and a fraud and so are people getting paid to spread his bull#.

a reply to: turbonium1

Evidence has been presented to you. You have dismissed it. I can only presume that this is either because you do not understand it or, more likely, you have to dismiss inconvenient facts that instantly disprove your hogwash.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1
You keep talking about the”evidence” against evolution yet you post nothing by conjecture laden hyperbole and yes actual science to support your unsubstantiated claims. You haven’t read the citations and you prove it with every response you post.

The only one puffing themselves up as a pseudo intellectual in this discussion is you. I’m not some half assed keyboard warrior who refuses to support anything I say champ. I actually did the work, earned the degrees, did the work in labs and the field and purposely attempted to falsify other people’s work. I’ve also postulated hypotheses that couldn’t be substantiated with technology at the time that has since been proven factual. I’ve been on both sides of the coin and I know when something is total Bs and when it’s legit. Your entire world view is dictated by imbeciles like Ken Ham and the brain trust at ICR with yes actual work of your own put into it. You may disagree with my position but pseudo anything I am not. The only farcical information comes from you Andy coop.

It was a well-deserved response, sorry to say...

Your idea of 'evidence' is not actually valid evidence, at all. That's the whole problem here....


Why is your idea of 'evidence' to not look at all living species on Earth, over thousands of years, to right now?

Is that evidence, or not?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1
You keep talking about the”evidence” against evolution yet you post nothing by conjecture laden hyperbole and yes actual science to support your unsubstantiated claims. You haven’t read the citations and you prove it with every response you post.

The only one puffing themselves up as a pseudo intellectual in this discussion is you. I’m not some half assed keyboard warrior who refuses to support anything I say champ. I actually did the work, earned the degrees, did the work in labs and the field and purposely attempted to falsify other people’s work. I’ve also postulated hypotheses that couldn’t be substantiated with technology at the time that has since been proven factual. I’ve been on both sides of the coin and I know when something is total Bs and when it’s legit. Your entire world view is dictated by imbeciles like Ken Ham and the brain trust at ICR with yes actual work of your own put into it. You may disagree with my position but pseudo anything I am not. The only farcical information comes from you Andy coop.

It was a well-deserved response, sorry to say...

So your approach is to act like an infant and claim that your tirades are “well deserved”? You’re a child parading as an adult if that’s your standard retort.

Your idea of 'evidence' is not actually valid evidence, at all.

Yet you haven’t once actually falsified any of it. You make inane blanket statements as if your personal opinions are facts. You haven’t even demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the massive body of evidence supporting the MES. You make claims and pretend that they’re based in reality while your opinions are not at all based in the reality of the universe we all live in.

The irrational excuses you make for Why evidence you disagree with is somehow not evidence, simply because you don’t understand the material can be mind numbing. Because that’s all you provide, hyperbolic conjecture and confirmation biases. You’ve got nothing else at all.

That's the whole problem here....

No, the real problem here is how you insist that your worldview is the only possibility and because of this, you refuse to look at anything contrary to your views and on those rare occasions that you claim to have looked at it, it’s very clear and rather quickly might I add, that you don’t understand what you’re reading and that it’s far above your head. I’m not

Why is your idea of 'evidence' to not look at all living species on Earth, over thousands of years, to right now?

Your false impression of how I approach evidence is your cross to bare, not mine. From the perspective of Paleoanthropology, I specifically studied and worked with the remains of Pleistocene hominids. That doesn’t mean that we don’t look at morphological and genetic evidence and use comparative anatomy amongst other tools at our disposal. Unlike you, I look a the WHOLE picture. My picture encompasses 100’s Of Thousands of years. You seem preoccupied with a very small, specific time frame, that focuses on a tiny piece of the puzzle while insisting that you can predict the past and future based on how an organism presents TODAY. That my friend is the height of hypocrisy and willful ignorance. While I look at the entire picture, you’re zooming in on a single pixel and pretending it’s the big picture

It isn’t.

Is that evidence, or not?

It’s PART of the evidence. Not the sum of all evidence.

a reply to: peter vlar

Dude, he thinks the world is flat.
Don't argue. He'll always win.

a reply to: Phage

Lol funny how we feel the need to remind people of that...

I did the same thing on the last page

originally posted by: peter vlar
Yet you haven’t once actually falsified any of it. You make inane blanket statements as if your personal opinions are facts. You haven’t even demonstrated that there is anything wrong with the massive body of evidence supporting the MES. You make claims and pretend that they’re based in reality while your opinions are not at all based in the reality of the universe we all live in.

The irrational excuses you make for Why evidence you disagree with is somehow not evidence, simply because you don’t understand the material can be mind numbing. Because that’s all you provide, hyperbolic conjecture and confirmation biases. You’ve got nothing else at all.

It's mind numbing that you don't understand that the material is all based on false assumptions that 'evolution' is true, that all species 'evolve' into other species, over X period of time, and from this, they look for any similarities between living species, and extinct species - BUT ONLY IF IT WAS EXTINCT BEFORE HUMANS WERE HERE, OR AWARE OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

That's the whole sham, in a nutshell. Look only at species which cannot be proven to NOT 'evolve' into other species, and say there is 'evidence' that they DID 'evolve' into other species! The fact it is not evidence, doesn't matter, because all of your 'experts' say it is 'evidence', and they know much more about the subject than anyone else. Appeal to authority, as usual, is all bs.

So that is your entire body of 'evidence' -species that died off before humans were here. What a joke!

Why is your idea of 'evidence' to not look at all living species on Earth, over thousands of years, to right now?

originally posted by: peter vlar

Your false impression of how I approach evidence is your cross to bare, not mine. From the perspective of Paleoanthropology, I specifically studied and worked with the remains of Pleistocene hominids. That doesn’t mean that we don’t look at morphological and genetic evidence and use comparative anatomy amongst other tools at our disposal. Unlike you, I look a the WHOLE picture. My picture encompasses 100’s Of Thousands of years. You seem preoccupied with a very small, specific time frame, that focuses on a tiny piece of the puzzle while insisting that you can predict the past and future based on how an organism presents TODAY. That my friend is the height of hypocrisy and willful ignorance. While I look at the entire picture, you’re zooming in on a single pixel and pretending it’s the big picture

It isn’t.

What did you just say here? That I'm only focusing on a small piece of the picture? Are you serious?

Is that evidence, or not?

originally posted by: peter vlar
It’s PART of the evidence. Not the sum of all evidence.

Thanks for finally admitting it IS evidence, at least, so we can move along...

As you now admit this is evidence, or PART of the evidence, it obviously deserves to be studied as much as possible, like all the other evidence has been studied, right?

Every species on Earth today, and their ancestors, over thousands of years, are considered evidence. Having quadrillions examples of evidence on hand, or on record, over thousands of years, is probably enough evidence to indicate whether or not all, or any, species on Earth, have ever 'evolved', or any signs of it, right?

Indeed, when we consider the basic theory, that suggests all species on Earth today, have evolved from other, different species, and they 'evolved' from a different species, too, and so on....that's quite an incredible claim to make, I'd say.

Anyway, let's focus on one point in particular, from that argument, because it is the most significant, most crucial, part of the evolution claim - the claim that all species are CONTINUALLY 'evolving' into other species.

Obviously, if species are not continually 'evolving' into other species, there is no 'evolution' happening, at all.

But for some reason, nobody considers the evidence on hand, over thousands of years, to be important. Or even worth looking at. Why?

It is, as you admit, considered evidence. We know that evidence must be studied, in all possible ways, WHETHER OR NOT THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR THEORY, OR DOES NOT SUPPORT IT!!

Evidence is all that matters to us, right?

First of all, this claim is from your side, not mine. The burden of proving that claim is on your side, not mine to 'disprove' a pile of papers from your side, that don't prove anything, in the first place.

I would love to be proven right about some theory I'd proposed earlier on. And really, who wouldn't? It's something to take pride in, and fame, and fortune, may follow. There are many reasons someone wants to prove their theory as being true, and for a theory like 'evolution', there are the same motivations to prove it is true, and more....agreed?

There is no point to discuss WHY such a theory would have arisen, or why it has such support, or so on.

But it's important to discuss why they chose to ignore all the evidence on hand, and the evidence over thousands of years, before now....

When they claimed that all species on Earth 'evolve' into other species, and are continually evolving, they had no intention of seeking the truth. 'Evolution' was never about finding the truth. It's the opposite, in fact.



As they've ignored the quadrillion species that have lived on Earth over thousands of years, which have never shown any 'continual evolution into another species', they can move along to 'their' evidence, which supports 'evolution', of course!


So why would I focus on the evidence over the past thousands of years is very simple - it is the only valid, conclusive evidence we have available to us. It is the only evidence REQUIRED to prove, or disprove, that theory. And, it is the only evidence that we KNOW to be true, can be trusted, validated, and confirmed, as true.

Those people who support evolution have no desire, no motive, to look at this evidence.


Because they know it is all of the valid evidence available, and proves them wrong, and liars, who are only motivated to support that lie. They have no motive to seek out the truth. That was proven long ago, when they ignored all of the valid evidence, over thousands of years.

When you dismiss it as being only 'a small part of the overall evidence', as if it's no big deal?

It's all of the valid evidence, which merely consists of over a quadrillion examples of evidence, over thousands of years.....

The 'evidence' on your side is not even valid AS evidence. And even if it WAS, the evidence your side deliberately choses to ignore proves what complete lying weasels they are.

Last point - the whole picture includes all the valid evidence over thousands of years, too.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
So is that an admission that you refuse to read anything contrary to your uneducated opinion? Thanks for clearing up how deep your confirmation biases run.


How would you know this since you haven’t read anything that could possibly have information that is contrary to your naive and ignorant worldview? You are the farcical joke here, not the science you have zero understanding of.


Do you know how to read? That’s the exact opposite of what I said. There are evolutionary dead ends that go extinct and lead to nothing new. You will do anything you can to continue your false narrative built on lies and willful ignorance. It’s really pathetic how ignorant you truly are.

Your argument is that ALL species are continually evolving into different species. Right?

Are you, or are you not, making that very argument here?

All species continue to adapt to their specific species eco-niche. Adapting new heritable traits doesn’t necessarily mean that they will definitely evolve into a new species. Are you capable of having a discussion without lying and misrepresenting facts?

No,you’re the one insisting that is my claim. Perhaps remedial reading would be a good idea for you since you don’t have any comprehension skills.

Yes species alive today is the same as they were 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are becoming a new species. It also doesn’t mean that they are not. You can’t use a generic blanket statement to discuss an entire sub field of biology.

There’s nothing to ignore on your end as you’ve provided yes evidence to support your position. Simply denied any evidence to the contrary.

Why you think acting like a puffed-up pseudo-intellectual is going to help your worthless argument is beyond me.

The article below may give you some helpful clues regarding that question, or at least the question why that behaviour is demonstrated on this forum so often:

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

Some notable subjects discussed there:

Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. ...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

It has a two-fold effect on those affected by this form of propaganda or marketing. They actually start to believe the tricks being played on them, that they are very intellectual for believing whatever is being sold to them; and then they start behaving accordingly with the typical disdain for anyone who has resisted the marketing and propaganda attempts to sell evolutionary philosophies/ideas as the more intellectual or scientific position or approach. The whole situation you asked about is either an outgrowing of having been affected like that, or you get people taking up the behaviour of using the same techniques in argumentation, possibly even thinking it's clever, but at least making use of the fact that it's effective. In that situation it's often more on purpose because it's so effective. Propaganda...it works! And it works best if you label it as "science" (a marketing label).

The next page which is linked in my signature also mentions:

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

It is that bolded indoctrination that begins to take hold in those affected by it. Evolutionary philosophers have pretty much perfected the art and the flock follows suit. And that's why those affected leave behind the impression you described as "acting like a puffed-up pseudo-intellectual".

So in short, why would someone think "acting like a puffed-up pseudo-intellectual is going to help [their] worthless argument"? Because it works and/or they have been conditioned with the behaviour (also, 'bad associations spoil useful habits'; the behaviour gets picked up by following the example of the most prominent ones who behave in this manner and get rewarded both financially and recognition-wise in spite of the behaviour, or even because of pulling it off successfully). It is particularly effective on those who are vulnerable to reverse appeals to pride that play on their fear of seeming stupid. And similar plays on the emotions of those readers who perhaps aren't commenting here or already leaning towards that which is promoted by the experts in this form of propaganda who label their marketing articles as "science" (which includes not only evolutionary philosophies but also stories about a multiverse, String theory, M-theory, and lots of other stuff and storylines in the fields of Quantum Cosmology and Theoretical Physics, Panspermia, articles about possible alien lifeforms including such things as the Drake equation and the promotion of agnostic philosophies under the marketing-label of "science" such as whenever someone says something like "there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science"; to name just the tip of the iceberg).

The last 2 posts are a perfect argument for quality over quantity.