The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[shunyadragon]

Does it?

The Tea Party movement is entirely (98%+) made up of white Evangelical Christians.

 

[Audie]

The Tea Party movement is entirely (98%+) made up of white Evangelical Christians.

Not my cuppa tea in any case. I will look to see if your 98 %
is reported elsewhere.

 

[Skwim]

I did dual majot, biology / geology, I am not a naif.
Certainly, no need to refer me to dictionaries.

I dont think you spent two seconds on what I
said, you certainly did not respond in kind.

I wont engage you on this, not this way.

I am genuinely sad that you feel as you do,
perhaps you will change someday. I hope so.

-Min

Didn't mean to back you into a corner, and, of course, I had no idea of your background. But considering just that, why you have made such basic mistakes in terminology and are unable to address my request is rather surprising.

.

 

[Audie]

Didn't mean to back you into a corner, and, of course, I had no idea of your background. But considering just that, why you have made such basic mistakes in terminology and are unable to address my request is rather surprising.

.

Whatevs, guy. I am not naive or unable,
I am disinclined.

You see mistakes, I see rationalizing,
and semantic acrobatics

For my part I am disappointed
that you choose as you
do and hope you will look beyond
what may seem to you
as good debate gotchas in a
matter of such profound tragedy.

 

[Skwim]

You see mistakes, I see rationalizing,
and semantic acrobatics

Yeah, when one isn't all that familiar with the English language, anyone pointing out its misuse its simply indulging in semantic acrobatics. Understood.

.

 

[Skwim]

That complicates the question, and is not the point, an elective surgery is one totally at the request of the woman for no medical reason. I was originally responding to a post the mentioned abortion for third trimester pregnancy, and yes this is illegal in the USA if it is an elective abortion. The poster has sense backed up and qualified their post.

This is actually getting very very much off topic and the author of the thread has requested we get back on topic,

I very much agree that the thread would be greatly improved by getting back on topic:

That the creationist's argument and its greatest weakness is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution. Creationism, a bankrupt concept whose sole basis is a single book of the Bible conceived by a shepherd.​

Not that I would ever deny anyone their religious beliefs, but when these beliefs are accompanied by lies and deliberate misinformation, which are then peddled to public schools and to an unwitting public as truth, it becomes an ethical crime that begs a painful death.

I loved the answer to question 18.

Q. The next time someone says the earth is billions (or millions) of years old, what can you say?
A. Where you there
.

 

[ecco]

I very much agree that the thread would be greatly improved by getting back on topic:

Not that I would ever deny anyone their religious beliefs, but when these beliefs are accompanied by lies and deliberate misinformation, which are then peddled to public schools and to an unwitting public as truth, it becomes an ethical crime that begs a painful death.

View attachment 23786
​

​

I understand and agree with your sentiments. However, this is not from a public school, it was from a private religious school which has since gone out of business.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Crusades" for "truth' are a christian thing.
I am not one of you people.

You made up something; I point it out, and
your response consists of making up derogatory
personal remarks.

And, no, I am not "opposed to the gospel" and it would
not be hate if I were.

You "forgot" to address the issue of Christian scruples
re making up falsehoods about other people.

I do not lie to further my ends--it is compelling enough for most to be offered a free gift of eternal life!

If you're not crusading for truth here, and if you're not open to the possibility/plausibility of the existence of a god, why are you a participant at these forums, besides making "derogatory personal remarks", as you wrote, about me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Elective abortion at this time is illegal in the USA.

You know what I meant, I'm sure.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your confusing the emotion of 'hate' with strong disagreement.

Not at all. I spend no time on Flat Earth forums or Moon Landing Hoax forums, vigorously crusading against falsehoods, posting a dozen times a day to let those people know they're wrong. Why would I do so?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do realize that a person can not accept a thing without hating it, right?
I mean, I don't accept many of your arguments, but I don't hate you.

I didn't say you hate me, I said those opposed to the gospel, i.e., people who post numerous times weekly on religious forums, without being religious, hate the ideas of substitutionary atonement, Christ's love, etc.

Choice remarks here have included Jesus and the NT doctrines are "stupid," "dangerous", "insane", "anyone who believes this is deluded.

Also, atheists post and post and post on the same things while the religious gentle folk are more content to read and learn. Just my observations.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Want to know how to find out if slavery is immoral? It's super easy. Just ask a slave.

Or you could ask yourself if you'd like to be someone's property. And from there you could probably guess that if you don't want to be owned as property, then probably other human beings don't wish to be someone's property either.

Or you could notice that slavery causes harm to the people who are enslaved and severely limits their freedom, or that it’s harmful to the societies it is practiced in.

Or you could try a little thought experiment known as the “veil of ignorance” which I find to be quite enlightening. It goes like this:

“Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.”
Veil of ignorance - Wikipedia

When we look at it that way, we tend to end up with a much more fair and just world than the one we find ourselves in.

You’re actually the one in a tough position on this one. You have a holy book that gives instructions to its followers on how to keep slaves, while never condemning the practice. So I guess you’re stuck having to believe that slavery is not immoral, because apparently you have to believe that whatever the book says is moral must be moral. So you’re stuck doing what you’re told, which I would argue is an amoral position, given that you’re not actually exercising morality in the first place.

I don't think human beings need a dictator that has no idea what it's like to be human, to tell us how to be moral. I think we can figure it out ourselves. I want to live in a world where my family is safe and happy, just as most other people do. In order to do that, we have to afford the same rights to other people as we would like to enjoy ourselves. Societies who think murdering each other is moral, don't tend to live very long.

I think we all have the same inalienable rights by virtue of being living, human beings. We’re all in this together and we don’t really have a choice in the matter.



The part I’m confused about is where you said:

“Paul tells brother to greet one another with holy kisses. The Bible says "lie with a man as one does with a woman" so we're talking sodomy of some kind, in public, for a people who had just walked through the sea and seen the Egyptians destroyed. The spirit of stupid could get one killed back then, just like now!”



No, I don’t. As far as I can tell, they are hurting no one.

I don’t know where you get off claiming that gay people aren’t all “they are destined to be.”



If they are caught by human authorities. But that has nothing to do with God. That has to do with secular societal laws that humans wrote.



Why does he have to restrict anybody’s free will? How about just having the guy trip and crack his head open on his way over to rape a child? If I knew somebody were planning on raping a child or if I were witness to it, you can bet your bottom dollar I’d be doing everything within my power to stop it. That’s the difference between me and your God. Oh, and the fact that I actually exist.

Secondly, do you not think that God intervenes by answering prayers, on occasion? If you do believe that, then perhaps you could explain why God freely chooses to intervene in answering prayers, but feels the need to sit on “his” hands watching child rape and torture, deciding only to maybe punish the guy once he’s dead. That is, unless he repents and ends up in heaven at the end. Please don’t tell me any of that is moral.

It's rather simple. I find slavery a repulsive, abhorrent concept. I do not find medieval-style indentured servitude (work for land, food, protection) abhorrent.

I also challenged you because you wrote "ask a slave". Should I ask Nazis if the Holocaust is okay, too? Why be so subjective? Because there is slavery/servitude in the animal kingdom and among insects, but you ignored that when I posted.

I hear what you're saying regarding punishment and how certain ones only see ultimate justice when they die. Are you comfortable with one standard being used to judge all persons after death? Would that be fair, or should there be more than one code of judgment?

 

[BilliardsBall]

ecco previously...

Who hates the Gospels?​

Who hates the Gospels?

I didn't say "hates the gospels (plural, the first four NT books)", I said, "the gospel (that Jesus died and rose to save people from themselves)".

Answer: Atheists who post on forums but are not open to the truth claims of Jesus, won't pray, won't investigate.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, when one isn't all that familiar with the English language, anyone pointing out its misuse its simply indulging in semantic acrobatics. Understood.

.

hope you will look beyond
what may seem to you
as good debate gotcha

Hoped but did not expect you to resist even
the cheapest shot at a "gotcha" even
though you had to make something up
to do it. The snark, that was predictable
too.

The rancid whiff of racism from you,
though, I didnt expect that.

 

[Thief]

is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.

I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of those who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be---entertaining as it may be.


If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.

sooooooo sorry to be sooooo late

I believe in God
I believe in evolution

God did it

Day Six.....Man as a species
no names, no garden, no law, go forth be fruitful and multiply

Chapter Two.....a chosen specimen and ideal living conditons
a story of manipulation and cloning

 

[Audie]

I do not lie to further my ends--it is compelling enough for most to be offered a free gift of eternal life!

If you're not crusading for truth here, and if you're not open to the possibility/plausibility of the existence of a god, why are you a participant at these forums, besides making "derogatory personal remarks", as you wrote, about me.

You made up something; I point it out, and
your response consists of making up derogatory
personal remarks.

And now your response is to again make
your falsehoods into something about me.

I suppose, that in your eyes, you do not lie.

What do you find to be the exact distinction
between "making something up" and "lying"?
They seem the same to me.

You do make things up. But you dont lie.

How does that work?

 

[shunyadragon]

Not at all. I spend no time on Flat Earth forums or Moon Landing Hoax forums, vigorously crusading against falsehoods, posting a dozen times a day to let those people know they're wrong. Why would I do so?

Not the issue. The problem is how you interpret the emotion 'hate.'

Flat earthers and Moon landing hoaxers represent about 0.00001 % of the population. Literal Biblical hoaxers represent between forty and fifty percent of the population.

 

[shunyadragon]

You know what I meant, I'm sure.

Mean what you say and say what you mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

​

I understand and agree with your sentiments. However, this is not from a public school, it was from a private religious school which has since gone out of business.

There are many privates schools and home schooling programs such as this still very much in business.

 

[ecco]

If you're not crusading for truth here, and if you're not open to the possibility/plausibility of the existence of a god, why are you a participant at these forums, besides making "derogatory personal remarks", as you wrote, about me.

Is "crusading for truth" another way of saying "proselytizing"?