How best to argue against creationists

[Tristesse]

Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this. You’re not getting it.

The hypothesis is the same as the conclusion, whether you want to call it assumption, hypothesis, conclusion or explanation of the facts or whatever. The conclusion or hypothesis is TESTED.

Answers in genesis is honest about their belief in the bible, YES! But the bible is not there evidence. They are honest about their motivations, YES, but their motives are not the evidence! How many times do I have to say this. They say anything that goes against the bible is false because they will investigate further, they are intellectually honest.

Also they don’t cherry pick evidence, they look for evidence to support there view, YES, but any evidence that does not support it, they will either explain it, or say they do not YET know and will seek further investigation.

Actually evolutionists do the same thing, if something goes against their theory, they will either explain it or call it an anomaly. So quit the double standard here. Also if they are making predictions and then looking to see if those predictions are right, that just means they are LOOKING for evidence to support their hypothesis, so evolutionists do the same thing as creationists. Get off the trip.

Also if I say that my belief in hell and Christianity is right and all others are wrong, and that means you would be in trouble if I am right, so what would you do if you found out after you die if I was right? That is a valid good question, what is wrong with that question? The same could be asked by a person who believes in the greek gods, if there gods are true and I find out later that they were, then I would be in trouble, what would I do? Again, it is a valid question. The question is posed to a person in order to find out if they take the issue LIGHTLY or SERIOUSLY. And to see how HUMBLE they are or not.

IT’s not a failer.

Also NOT everyone who believes in a God believes it out of emotionalism. Also SOME who are atheists believe it out of emotionalism. So, get off this.

PS where is that quote at in AIG ""anything that goes against a literal interpretation of the bible is false" i want to look at the context, thanks.

No, jollybear. I'm afraid it is you who are not getting it. A conclusion is something you've reached after carefully considering the evidence, etc... A hypothesis, is a suggested explanation of some observed phenomenon that doesn't quite have all the evidence needed to draw a conclusion. So, the creationist starts with the conclusion, before drawing evidence to make sure his conclusion is valid.

I wasn't questioning answers in genesis' motives. I believe they have a strongly held conviction to their beliefs. I'm sure they have what they interpret as evidence for their beliefs. But how convenient that all of the evidence seems to point in the direction of their conclusion they've already drawn before investigating. I'm not drawing a correlation here, just pointing that out.

I don't have a double standard when it comes to evolution. Because, even if evolution were not correct, that doesn't mean that creationism is correct. We could have no explanation at all, and that still doesn't mean that creationism even offers a viable solution, it's just a bald assertion. The same way I don't have a double standard when it comes to astronomy and astrology. One side has evidence and the other simply asserts they have evidence.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Actually evolutionists do the same thing, if something goes against their theory, they will either explain it or call it an anomaly.

I'm not sure what an 'evolutionist' is. is that anything like a biologist? In any regards, this is a key point here, and you are absolutely mistaken.
If evidence could be found that could not be explained by biological evolution, biological evolution would be falsified. Falsifiability is a cornerstone of science. If something can not be falsified, it can not be 'true' in any reasonable way. That evidence has not yet been found to counter the theory (Like say, a modern human skeleton from 6 million years ago) is a good indication that it is likely true.

How exactly would one falsify creationism?

 

[painted wolf]

Also they don’t cherry pick evidence, they look for evidence to support there view, YES, but any evidence that does not support it, they will either explain it, or say they do not YET know and will seek further investigation.

Yes they do cherry pick... they flat out say that anything that goes against literal scripture is false... no matter what.
That is the definition of cherry picking.

PS where is that quote at in AIG ""anything that goes against a literal interpretation of the bible is false" i want to look at the context, thanks.

I and others have already given it... but since you seem to have missed it... here it is again, with a link to the full page.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

*emphasis mine
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Here is one of their "semi-technical" articles on the extinction of the dinosaurs... Direct Bible quotes and the dismissal of anything that might contradict the scripture.
The extinction of the dinosaurs

For most creationists, the extinction of the dinosaurs, as well as other extinctions, is not a mystery. In fact, the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures has an easy answer—they simply died in the Genesis Flood (except those dinosaurs likely taken on the Ark, which probably died soon after the Flood). Genesis 7:21, 22 states:

‘And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.’
​

Of course it has an easy answer... you just have to shoe-horn the evidence to fit the answer that was already given to you in the Bible.

Another dinosaur graveyard that has recently made the scientific news is in Mongolia, also known for its many dinosaur eggs. This is one of the few graveyards that some scientists believe was buried, not by water, but by ‘catastrophic’ sandstorms.158,159 Just recently a ‘brooding’ oviraptorid was found on top of fossilised eggs in Mongolia.160 David Weishampel says that what these dinosaurs ate in the desert is a problem. Moreover, the unique preservation of a brooding dinosaur

‘… owes a great deal to rapid death and burial in what must have been a powerful sandstorm, so sudden that we are left with the impression of an animal freeze framed in the act of nest brooding.’161
​

It is doubtful a sandstorm could freeze-frame a brooding dinosaur. Usually any little disturbance will cause an animal to leave its eggs. There is the added question of how the dinosaurs are to be fossilised in a desert. It is more likely this powerful sandstorm was a ‘giant watery sandwave’ in a catastrophic flood.

Of course it's more likely to be a flood... that fits scripture. Let's ignore anything that supports the fact that the Mongolian beds have no characteristics of flooding... let's also ignore the fact that many nesting animals don't flee the nest but hunker down to protect the eggs. Minor details when one has the answer already.


That is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Again, I'm sorry Jolly but there is no science here... it's just apologetics dressed up.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

Ok, look at the part your not highlighting though.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Plus if I may add, I have read articles on their website where they did admit not knowing something, but encouraged more investigation.

Also creation or design can be falsified if you can prove chance did it. You can't. You haven't. And I PREDICT you won't (one of the the predictions of design)

Also whether one starts with a conclusion or a hypothesis, either way, it does not matter, what matters is if the conclusion or hypothesis is tested and is willing to go through that test. If one starts with a conclusion or hypothesis and then seeks evidence, it don't matter, what matters is adressing the evidence on it's own merit.

That is all I am trying to say. Who cares about motives, who cares about statements, dogmas, faith, hypothesis, what matters is adressing questions, countering arguments, making arguments and presenting evidence and explaining evidence. < that is what matters.

 

[Tristesse]

Ok, look at the part your not highlighting though.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Plus if I may add, I have read articles on their website where they did admit not knowing something, but encouraged more investigation.

Also creation or design can be falsified if you can prove chance did it. You can't. You haven't. And I PREDICT you won't (one of the the predictions of design)

If you think chance is the explanation for evolution, then you don't understand evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, look at the part your not highlighting though.

Let's not move the goal posts shall we...

AIG clearly states that the scripture is the only measure of truth for any evidence they encounter. You may have missed this earlier, but I am sure you will make sure to correct this mistake when you talk about AIG and their scholarly works in the future.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, look at the part your not highlighting though.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Obviously you're not quite understanding what it's actually saying. Take a deep breath, read it again. If you still don't understand, I'll explain:

It's saying "if anything contradicts the Bible, it is false - and even if there is evidence of it, just assume that evidence was wrongly interpreted or that there is not enough information".

The part you highlighted is nothing more than a method void creationists to avoid facts.

Plus if I may add, I have read articles on their website where they did admit not knowing something, but encouraged more investigation.

Examples...?

Also creation or design can be falsified if you can prove chance did it. You can't. You haven't. And I PREDICT you won't (one of the the predictions of design)

What does chance have to do with anything?

Also whether one starts with a conclusion or a hypothesis, either way, it does not matter, what matters is if the conclusion or hypothesis is tested and is willing to go through that test. If one starts with a conclusion or hypothesis and then seeks evidence, it don't matter, what matters is adressing the evidence on it's own merit.

And the evidence of creationism is...?

That is all I am trying to say. Who cares about motives, who cares about statements, dogmas, faith, hypothesis, what matters is adressing questions, countering arguments, making arguments and presenting evidence and explaining evidence. < that is what matters.

And this is what has been done hundreds of times, and is why creationism is still not valid science, probably never will be valid science, and is thrown out of every court when it opposes or asserts itself as science.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Another question: Where did the rock and 'natural forces' come from?

I'm guessing that in the creationist's world, this passes for a pithy rejoinder, full of deep thought.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Cop to man with gun standing over dead body. "You're under arrest for murder."
"You can't arrest me, you have no evidence".
"You have a smoking gun in your hand"
"That doesn't prove I shot him".
"I see powder burns on your fingers".
"That doesn't prove I fired the gun. Without an eyewitness, you have no proof."
Most cops: "Put your hands behind your back."
ToE cop: "You are absolutely right. Good thing one of my stupid fellow cops isn't here. They may have jumped to wrong conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Have a good day."

Reality to Creationist: "Here's a mountain of evidence that demonstrates how life evolves from one form to another, allowing it to fully exploit its surroundings".

Creationist to Reality: "Nuh uh!".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ToE.

Do you actually think before you write some of this stuff? I mean, do you ever try to formulate a thought, capture it in a statement, review it, and then post it - or do you just hack away at the keyboard until the words look like they might fool someone that isn't paying attention, and then hit "Submit Reply"?



"Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives". - Oscar Wilde

 

[Autodidact]

Cop to man with gun standing over dead body. "You're under arrest for murder."
"You can't arrest me, you have no evidence".
"You have a smoking gun in your hand"
"That doesn't prove I shot him".
"I see powder burns on your fingers".
"That doesn't prove I fired the gun. Without an eyewitness, you have no proof."
Most cops: "Put your hands behind your back."
ToE cop: "You are absolutely right. Good thing one of my stupid fellow cops isn't here. They may have jumped to wrong conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Have a good day."

Still waiting for the powder burns, the gun, or the body. Any time now. So far you have...bupkus.

 

[Autodidact]

You are changing the subject. And I am not ignoring the fact that God 'would have to be infinitely more complex..' etc.

But to answer your question, the Bible answers at Revelations 4:11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”
As the grand Creator, Jehovah As the King of eternity (1 Timothy 1:17), Jehovah has always existed
"Before the mountains themselves were born,Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land,Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. (Psalm 90:2) Our finite minds cannot grasp fully the infinite. Space, time, numbers are things that seem to have no beginning nor end. So it is with the one true God.

That's your evidence? The bible?

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah, as ToE proponents frequently do when presented with evidence, they change the focus, move the goal posts, use the rope a dope, or simply deny any evidence was presented, instead of responding to the evidence presented. WHY? Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ToE.

1. You forget that you were just busted moving your goalposts.
2. Please show a single example of a science-proponent in this thread moving their goalposts. Or withdraw your accusation. Or sacrifice your credibility, if any.

We're waiting for you to present some evidence. If you have done so, perhaps you can quote the post?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ToE.

If you are in possession of such evidence why aren't you writing a paper to submit to a scientific journal? Surely if you could do such a thing it would be the most important and revolutionary discovery in all of science, and the ramifications would be enormous and far reaching. At the very least you would win a nobel prize.

 

[Jollybear]

If I don&#8217;t understand evolution then why do I understand what &#8220;random (or chance) mutations&#8221; means? Prove random or chance exists.

Also I am not moving the goal post for AIG, I am putting there quote in context.

The part you highlighted is nothing more than a method void creationists to avoid facts.

BINGO! This is what I have ISSUE with right here. YOUR ASSUMING THEY ARE AVOIDING THE FACTS and being intellectually dishonest.

You don&#8217;t know that. Do you? Also I am not going to be able to make you trust them, but I can ask this question. What if their NOT lying? What would you think then if you KNEW they were not lying?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/rocks.asp in this article he says THIS needs further investigation. He is not trying to avoid anything. There is no dishonesty, there is no cowerdness, if there was, I would have issue with that. But you assume he is cowering, you don&#8217;t know that. Again my question is, what if you KNEW AIG was honest intellectually and was not afraid of facts. What would you think then? I have also read a few other articles where they said something like this.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

BINGO! This is what I have ISSUE with right here. YOUR ASSUMING THEY ARE AVOIDING THE FACTS and being intellectually dishonest.

They've already admitted as much. They have said that they will not accept any evidence that contradicts the bible. Therefore they have to twist or ignore the contrary evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion. That is intellectually dishonest and the antithesis of science.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Again my question is, what if you KNEW AIG was honest intellectually and was not afraid of facts. What would you think then? I have also read a few other articles where they said something like this.

If I knew that AIG was intellectually honest and not afraid of facts, then I would say that they are simply lacking in an education in the biological sciences.

If that were the case, then a couple of basic courses in an accredited college should help them overcome that level of ignorance. We have a few members on this board that can (and will) help walk an individual through the basics, if that individual is intellectually honest, and not afraid of facts.

I would strongly encourage such an individual to ask for just such help, if they are sincere in their pursuit of knowledge.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If I don’t understand evolution then why do I understand what “random (or chance) mutations” means? Prove random or chance exists.

Not “random (or chance) mutations”. But rather through the natural process of Evolution according to natural and physical Laws.


Get it?

 

[Autodidact]

If I don’t understand evolution then why do I understand what “random (or chance) mutations” means? Prove random or chance exists.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense. You want someone to prove there is any such thing as randomness? Why? What difference would it make. ToE works whether there is "really" random mutations or some pattern. It comes out the same.

Also I am not moving the goal post for AIG, I am putting there quote in context.

You are confused. An important part of science is that if a hypothesis is falsified, you have to give it up or modify it. That's how we learn stuff. AIG has stated that they will not modify their hypothesis (literal Bible) no matter what. So you know they're not doing science. If they find something that seems to falsify it, they will ignore it, distort it, lie about it, do whatever they have to do to rescue their hypothesis. That's the opposite of science. By claiming to do science, they are lying. They're not, and they know it. They just need to sound "sciencey" to fool people like you who want to be fooled.

BINGO! This is what I have ISSUE with right here. YOUR ASSUMING THEY ARE AVOIDING THE FACTS and being intellectually dishonest.

I have just explained how their entire enterprise is one big lie.

You don’t know that. Do you? Also I am not going to be able to make you trust them, but I can ask this question. What if their NOT lying? What would you think then if you KNEW they were not lying?

I would think they were incredibly stupid and ignorant. How could they be so inaccurate, so far off, without lying?

The rapid formation of granitic rocks: more evidence in this article he says THIS needs further investigation. He is not trying to avoid anything. There is no dishonesty, there is no cowerdness, if there was, I would have issue with that. But you assume he is cowering, you don’t know that. Again my question is, what if you KNEW AIG was honest intellectually and was not afraid of facts. What would you think then? I have also read a few other articles where they said something like this. [/quote]

Well, Woodmorappe is himself an odd and dishonest character. He has published under at least one psuedonym, then quoted himself to appear as if someone supported him, when the someone was him. Here is a site that refutes his intellectual dishonesty in detail. When he says "more study is needed," that is simply not true. Yes, more study is probably needed to the phenomena he discusses (about which I am ignorant) but I don't think that if in occasional rare instances something has been shown to happen in 100 years, we need to study to see whether it happened in one year. Obviously, 100 does not equal 1.

The fact is that the work he cites does not support his position. This is common for AIG. They distort findings to suit their hypothesis.

Remember, all of geology started out with this hypothesis. Christian creationist geologists in the 19th century went out looking for the evidence they knew would support what the Bible told them. They soon found out it doesn't. They were shocked, but honest, and began to develop the old earth theory, which turned out to be correct. It has now been verified by every possible method anyone has been able to think of. (If you want to discuss old earth geology, we should probably start a thread.) To hold on to a hypothesis that has been disproved is not honest and not science.

 

[Smokeless Indica]

Let us discuss/debate the methods for dealing with creationists. I argue that the worst thing a person can do is to argue the facts with a creationist. So long as they have their faith nothing you show them about the fossil record, dating methods, etc, will change their position. Instead, the only sensible thing to do is avoid specif questions about the science and the facts and instead turn the debate around, get to the root of the problem, which is fundamentalism. The debate must be focused on the question of why? Why is it so important that evolution be wrong? Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis so important? When they claim that no one has ever witnessed macro evolution, ignore it and return with the question why is that such a threat to your faith? Fundamentalism is the enemy in this debate and not ignorance of science.

On a side note I just want to say how annoyed I am with the fact that the term creation (creationist, creationism etc) has come to be connected the way it has with the most fundamentalist interpretations of the doctrine. In the broadest sense, I consider myself a creationist because "I believe in one God, the Father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen". But if I were to label myself as such, people would instantly think I reject evolution and believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old. Annoying, they must be stopped, we must restore creationism to its rightful place of honor!

Why argue it at all? People are going to believe what they want to believe and I think it's wrong to try to change that. If your trying to explain to someone your beliefs and they start saying your wrong and their right then you should just stop talking to them. IMHO no one is either wrong or right because no one knows for sure.