How best to argue against creationists

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Prove that order exists.

Both are entirely nonexistent traits which we enforce on things. Something that is defined by us as "random" simply means that we have no means of predicting it. Likewise, something defined as possessing "order" simply means we can make sense of it or understand it in a particular way.

Neither are inherent traits in anything.

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

No you're not, you posted the exact same quote just with a different emphasis. The context was exactly the same.

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

Because they usually are. It's not an assumption, it's something I know they do and something the AiG statement of faith facilitates.

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?

If they're not lying, then have them present evidence of creationism or evidence against evolution that isn't based on misunderstanding, misinformation or already debunked science.

What reason do I have to trust them if they never do any of the above?

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.

Congratulations, you've managed to find a single example of basic academic humility in the creationist camp. That's like trying to say you respect science because you accept the theory of gravity. You don't grow a halo just because you admit the basic fact that something needs more investigation before reaching a conclusion.

 

[darkendless]

OMFG i'm taking the "rapid formation of granite" page to work so we can all have a good laugh.

Perhaps the tool that wrote that would care to study the rock cycle (taught to 15 years olds) again before he completely ignores basic geology.

That wasn't even smart.

 

[Jollybear]

Prove that order exists.

Both are entirely nonexistent traits which we enforce on things. Something that is defined by us as "random" simply means that we have no means of predicting it. Likewise, something defined as possessing "order" simply means we can make sense of it or understand it in a particular way.

Neither are inherent traits in anything.

So correct me if I am wrong, what I hear you telling me is that chance NOR order exists? Do I have it right?

No you're not, you posted the exact same quote just with a different emphasis. The context was exactly the same.

Yea, I highlighted what was ignored. That is correct.

Because they usually are.

Did you not just see what you did? You just assumed AGAIN by saying “because they usually are”. Your assuming they USUALLY are dishonest. This is what needs to stop, what needs to START is answer all questions, address all arguments (no matter how foolish they sound, because they don’t sound foolish to the one making them, and it is more helpful to address them). Stop assuming people are dishonest, or stupid, or ignorant, come to a debate with an OPEN mind and start with the foundation of trust and stay the heck away from people’s motives! Learn how to DEBATE! That’s what you guys need to learn.

It's not an assumption,

Your assuming again and then denying it by saying it’s not an assumption. Deny it all you want. Go right ahead. But don’t dare call someone else dishonest if you’re going to be it by denying you made an assumption.

it's something I know they do and something the AiG statement of faith facilitates.

Yea, you sure like to say you know without telling me how you know.

Yea, we all know what AIG statement of faith is, sure. But their statements of faith is not there evidence, and not their arguments, nor is the bible there arguments either. Goodness.

Congratulations, you've managed to find a single example of basic academic humility in the creationist camp. That's like trying to say you respect science because you accept the theory of gravity. You don't grow a halo just because you admit the basic fact that something needs more investigation before reaching a conclusion.

Unbelievable. I am asked for an example where they are honest in admitting more investigation is needed, and then you still attack the character of creationists. Your sick man.

We can’t win with you guys, no matter what we do, we just can’t win with you. Seriously, no matter what we do, this way or that way, your going to have this distrust in your heart toward creationists, attacking there character and motives.

Just sick, I have nothing else to say to it, but sick.

I wish more meaningful dialogue and debate and discussion and conversation would go on in forums and in real life as well. Oh how I wish. But it is such a rarity that it goes on. But the odd time it does, it’s like a refreshing drink of water in a dry land.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gave up arguing with creationists long ago. It didn't work. Now, I just explain why I see evolution as an inevitable result of certain conditions
(eg, mutation, long time frame, natural selection, stochastic processes, fitness functions). I don't tell'm they're wrong, but I offer the opportunity
to see that there is reason behind my views. We may still disagree, but often we have some common understanding about the underlying science.
One fundie friend is now less hostile towards the ToE now, & acknowledges that it could be part of God's method of creation. I find this way more fun.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So correct me if I am wrong, what I hear you telling me is that chance NOR order exists? Do I have it right?

They exist, but they don't exist as inherent traits in things. It's something we identify based purely on predictability or lack of. Therefore, it is not something that can be "proven" to "exist", because it's a means of understanding something, but not a physical thing in itself.

Do you understand?

Yea, I highlighted what was ignored. That is correct.

Except that it wasn't ignored. What's more, it made no difference to the point being made and was almost entirely irrelevant. You didn't even seem to understand it, and you're the one who put the emphasis on it.

Did you not just see what you did? You just assumed AGAIN by saying “because they usually are”. Your assuming they USUALLY are dishonest. This is what needs to stop, what needs to START is answer all questions, address all arguments (no matter how foolish they sound, because they don’t sound foolish to the one making them, and it is more helpful to address them). Stop assuming people are dishonest, or stupid, or ignorant, come to a debate with an OPEN mind and start with the foundation of trust and stay the heck away from people’s motives! Learn how to DEBATE! That’s what you guys need to learn.

If a group of people have lied, continue to lie, rely upon misinformation and have dubious motives, it is not as assumption to assume that they are lying, rely upon misinformation of have dubious motives. There's no assumption involved - I know they are, because I have read their arguments and the responses to those arguments from actual scientists.

I have an open mind to whatever facts they might present. But the reality is that they either never present those facts or those facts are repeatedly demonstrated to be false.

Your assuming again and then denying it by saying it’s not an assumption. Deny it all you want. Go right ahead. But don’t dare call someone else dishonest if you’re going to be it by denying you made an assumption.

More nonsense logic from you.

Yea, you sure like to say you know without telling me how you know.

See above.

Or, if you want a better example, why not post some of their claims and see in what ways I can demonstrate that the claim is dishonest?

Yea, we all know what AIG statement of faith is, sure. But their statements of faith is not there evidence, and not their arguments, nor is the bible there arguments either. Goodness.

And you see no problem with the idea of a statement of faith that reads that all facts that contradict a preconceived conclusion must be deemed false by default?

Do you understand that that's the very definition of a "closed mind"? Not only that, it's basically them declaring that truth and facts simply aren't important to them. In other words: they are intentionally dishonest.

Unbelievable. I am asked for an example where they are honest in admitting more investigation is needed, and then you still attack the character of creationists. Your sick man.

Because admitting more investigation is needed is the most basic and simple suggestion a scientist could make. Why should I suddenly turn my head away from the hundreds of lies these people tell just because they suggest "further investigation is required" in a couple of articles? How does that make me "sick"?

We can’t win with you guys, no matter what we do, we just can’t win with you. Seriously, no matter what we do, this way or that way, your going to have this distrust in your heart toward creationists, attacking there character and motives.

Just sick, I have nothing else to say to it, but sick.

Then please go ahead and present some science.

I wish more meaningful dialogue and debate and discussion and conversation would go on in forums and in real life as well. Oh how I wish. But it is such a rarity that it goes on. But the odd time it does, it’s like a refreshing drink of water in a dry land.

Then get off your soapbox and present some science.

 

[McBell]

A subdivision or even a single house requires a builder. Any reasonable person would not argue to the contrary. A single cell is immeasurably more complex than a house. It's intricate design argues that there is a designer. Now multiply that by billions of intricately designed entities, living and non-living. You say I have to show a creator is required. If that were the case, it could be similarly argued that a home requires we prove that a homebuilder built it and that it didn't evolve. The argument is ludicrous and specious.

Problem with this particular little rant is that it has been shown that a creator is not required.

Do not get me wrong.
I am not saying that a creator not being required equates that there is no creator.
Only that said created is not required.

A court case can be decided on the basis of evidence presented without eyewitnesses.

True.
However, what does that have to do with the subject?

No one alive today can be an eyewitness for Creation.

Thank you captain obvious.
Again: what does this have to do with the subject?

However, the evidence for Creation and a Creator is overwhelming to persons willing to honestly examine the facts.

Really?
Then why has no one presented this "overwhelming" evidence?

As the Bible states at Romans 1:20,21: "For [Gods] invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened.

This is not evidence.
This is merely ratification.

 

[McBell]

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."

I do not understand why you seem to think that an eyewitness is so crucial for proving creation.

If there was even the smallest hint of evidence for creation, then it would have been presented long long ago.

 

[Tiberius]

Prove that order exists.

I would propose that things are ordered if someone can look at what has come before and then use that knowledge to predict what will come in the future.

For example, the string of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 is ordered because you can predict that the next number will be 14.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would propose that things are ordered if someone can look at what has come before and then use that knowledge to predict what will come in the future.

For example, the string of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 is ordered because you can predict that the next number will be 14.

But does that order actually exist, or is it simply a quality you are forcing on to something?

 

[David M]

Yea, we all know what AIG statement of faith is, sure. But their statements of faith is not there evidence, and not their arguments, nor is the bible there arguments either. Goodness.

It clearly lays out what they will use to evaluate evidence and what they will use as the basis of their arguments. In both cases it is the bible.

It makes it clear that the only evidence that can be valid is that which agrees with the bible. It excludes any evidence that contradicts the bible up front because it contradicts the bible.

That is why they are never going to do any science and why they are dishonest when it comes to science and reality.

 

[Tiberius]

If it is something I am forcing onto the numbers, where did I get it from?

In any case, I am not forcing it. The property of those numbers to be represented by objects arranged in two rows with equal numbers of things (ten can be represented by two rows of five) is not something I have put onto the number.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If it is something I am forcing onto the numbers, where did I get it from?

Your brain, obviously.

Human beings understand things better if we can define them. When something displays a pattern, we identify that pattern and define it as "ordered". In fact, this sense of "order" is not a tangible property of that object, the whole concept of something being "ordered" is not a result of the properties of that object, but a result of us observing the object and making an attempt to understand it.

When we see a building, we say it is ordered. When an earthquake causes that building to crumble into dust, we say it is disordered. Yet there is no inherent difference between the two - no defining principle which says "this is order" or "this is not order", it is simply a means for our brains to understand something.

In any case, I am not forcing it. The property of those numbers to be represented by objects arranged in two rows with equal numbers of things (ten can be represented by two rows of five) is not something I have put onto the number.

And yet you need numbers in order to make sense of them. The objects bear no numbers, but the concept of numbers is a human construct we created in order to make order of things. Again, "ten" is not a tangible property to those objects.

The point is, you cannot scientifically "test for" or "prove the existence of" order, because "order" is an abstract mental construct, just as "randomness" is an abstract mental construct. Therefore, Jollybear asking me to "prove the existence of randomness" is no different to somebody asking me to "prove the existence of art" or "prove the existence of taste".

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

They exist, but they don't exist as inherent traits in things. It's something we identify based purely on predictability or lack of. Therefore, it is not something that can be "proven" to "exist", because it's a means of understanding something, but not a physical thing in itself.

Do you understand?

I see what your trying to say but I disagree with it. Here’s why I disagree: if we UNDERSTAND something in nature, that would mean we would then have the ability to predict it, thus it would have ORDER to it. If we don’t understand something, we would then not have the ability to predict it, but that would not mean by default that chance is involved in it now just because we don’t understand it. It would still have order to it, we would just not UNDERSTAND that order.

By saying there is no randomness NOR order, your basically saying everything that exists, is STILL. Everything is NOT STILL.

Watch this, I don’t understand cars, I don’t study cars, I don’t read about them, I’m not a mechanic, but when I look at a car, I KNOW there is ORDER to the car even though I do NOT understand how it works. But I still know even though I don’t understand it, it’s not random either.

You understand?

Except that it wasn't ignored. What's more, it made no difference to the point being made and was almost entirely irrelevant. You didn't even seem to understand it, and you're the one who put the emphasis on it.

Yes it was relevant. You did not understand it. I am going to put the emphases on it again.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

The reason why they say this is because there is OTHER evidence for the bible being TRUE, that other evidence is through archeology and history and even spiritual experience and miracles. And YOUR evidence for your position is questionable.

“Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Notice they say the word EVIDENCE and NOT proof. In other words if it was PROVEN your position, they would believe it. Also evidence IS subject to interpretation and that by fallible people who do not possess all information. If they did, it would be proven.

So, they are open minded to be proven otherwise.

It’s YOU that does not understand and yet you persist in accusing them as being dishonest. Mind you, dishonest IS WILLFULL and deliberate. What if we went around calling you dishonest, would you not think that is a cop out from our part? That’s how we look at it when you do it to us. We also look at it as thinking you’re an ***.

Maybe I should treat you how you treat us? Heck, why don’t I do it just to show you how foolish you look to me. Watch below:

Talk origins is dishonest, they always use arguments and evidence that has been refuted long ago by creation scientists. They are either dishonest or they don’t have a complete education of all the facts, or they are just plain stupid. And they are lying to you and got you deceived. They KNOW the facts though and they know they are twisting them. Their main dogma to believe in is a materialistic worldview or naturalism. They don’t believe in God or the spirit realm.

If a group of people have lied,

There you go again, you assume they HAVE lied. Why not rather assume they have been wrong and then deal with the wrong?

continue to lie,

There you go again assuming they are continuing to lie. Maybe it’s you lying to yourself because you know that you DO NOT KNOW they are lying. Yet you continue to lie to yourself in saying you KNOW they are lying. Liars are usually cowards and seekers of power, remember that, so stop lying.

rely upon misinformation

If you want to assume this, it’s better than assuming someone has lied, but even this, if you assume it, then you have to give the RIGHT information where the misinformation was relied on. And that is just what I have been saying all along. Get off the motives and attacking the character, and get on with learning how to debate.

and have dubious motives,

If there honest about their motives, why attack their motives? Their motives are not there evidence. Everyone has motives, you do, I do, talk origins does, AIG does. LEARN HOW TO DEBATE MAN! Good debate skill or good dialogue skill is not going after motives, it’s addressing the arguments, questions of the other.

 

[Jollybear]

it is not as assumption to assume that they are lying,

Yes it is an assumption for you to assume they are lying. YES IT IS! Your either lying to yourself, or you have deceived yourself to the extent of really believing that you KNOW they are lying when in fact you don’t know.

rely upon misinformation

You would do well to STICK ONLY WITH THIS statement here. Forget motives, forget accusations of their lying, forget all that junk, stick with this statement and build on it and learn how to debate against misinformation. That’s what you need to do.

of have dubious motives.

Some atheists have dubious motives, WHO CARES though! I don’t care, I care about the MERIT of what they have to say! Why can’t you do the SAME for my side?

There's no assumption involved - I know they are, because I have read their arguments and the responses to those arguments from actual scientists.

Who cares if you read from other scientists responses to their arguments, they would probably have answers to their responses. That’s what goes on in a debate. One side makes arguments, the other side debunks them, then the other side again debunks there debunks and it keeps going. You may assume they are wrong, don’t assume they are lying, that just makes you an idiot.

I have an open mind to whatever facts they might present.

Do you now? Do you really? This whole post you just gave me makes it look like your NOT open to any facts they present to you. What it makes you look like is that your only open to BASH the character and integrity of AIG or any other creationist organization.

But the reality is that they either never present those facts or those facts are repeatedly demonstrated to be false.

Well if they are demonstrated to be false, then you wait for their responses to how their first facts were demonstrated to be false. Wait and see what they have to say for themselves, don’t ASSUME they are lying.

More nonsense logic from you.

I disagree, I think you have nonsense logic. You see how meaningless this conversation is going? It’s not helpful, it’s pathetic, and it really gets us NO WHERE near the borders of the debate, where the actual issues are at.

Or, if you want a better example, why not post some of their claims and see in what ways I can demonstrate that the claim is dishonest?

That sounds like a good idea, but I want to get back to asking questions to redOne77. Perhaps after that we can do this good idea.

Or better yet, as I am asking questions and making some arguments to redOne77, you may point out if you think I am being dishonest in something. You can do this because I am a young earth creationist. How about that? And don’t worry about the rule, I will NOT report you for it since I am ASKING you to do it. I will gladly take the beating, I don’t mind. So want to do it? But as you do it, I will be demonstrating where your clearly making assumptions, fair enough?

And you see no problem with the idea of a statement of faith that reads that all facts that contradict a preconceived conclusion must be deemed false by default?

I see a problem with holding onto a belief that contradicts a clear fact. Also realize that everyone has faith, even atheists and agnostics have faith. Plus your twisting what AIG is doing. They are not running from facts, if that is what they were doing, why the hell would they devout there life and career to their website and there organization and research?

Do you understand that that's the very definition of a "closed mind"? Not only that, it's basically them declaring that truth and facts simply aren't important to them. In other words: they are intentionally dishonest.

Did you just hear what you said? Truth and facts are not important to them. I’m sorry, I have to conclude that your not to bright. They believe the bible is the truth, so truth is important to them. They don’t RUN from facts, they devout their time and research into their website and organization. They have a staff and this is their job. Their job is to NOT RUN from facts. This is what they are FUNDED for. Use your brain man.

Because admitting more investigation is needed is the most basic and simple suggestion a scientist could make. Why should I suddenly turn my head away from the hundreds of lies these people tell just because they suggest "further investigation is required" in a couple of articles? How does that make me "sick"?

It makes you sick because it shows a clear demonstration where they ARE HONEST! Again, USE YOUR BRAIN. Also your assuming again they have spoken hundreds of lies. You can say they spoke hundreds of mistaken things, go ahead, but then you would have to show why they are mistaken of course. But don’t assume they lied. Lies are deliberate. Remember that.

Then please go ahead and present some science.

Don’t worry, I am going to continue to present some more questions and arguments to redOne77 TO HIS science. After I get out of the way the thing that makes me so mad, namely what you’re doing.

Then get off your soapbox and present some science.

Why don’t you get off your soapbox and present some explanations on how you KNOW their lying? Also when I stop talking to you is when I am going to CONTINUE to present more questions and some arguments to redOne77. I have not been on my soapbox, you have. Get off it and present to me how you know there lying. Because if you cannot tell me how you know that, then YOUR LYING TO YOURSELF. I hope your conscience torments you.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes it is an assumption for you to assume they are lying. YES IT IS! Your either lying to yourself, or you have deceived yourself to the extent of really believing that you KNOW they are lying when in fact you don’t know.

You would do well to STICK ONLY WITH THIS statement here. Forget motives, forget accusations of their lying, forget all that junk, stick with this statement and build on it and learn how to debate against misinformation. That’s what you need to do.

There are two choices. Either they are liars, or they are ignorant/stupid. Most of the information they present is incorrect, so it's one or the other.

First, I think I showed you how their entire enterprise is one over-arching lie, pretending to do science when they're not. You ignored that. Second, here are just a few of the specific lies they've been busted in:

Answers in Genesis repeats the blue-green algae lie

Here's an entire book exposing their dishonest quote mining.

Here's a good strong understandable picture of a typical lie. Click on this one.

I'll stop googling now. Let me know if you want more. They have false information on every page.

Some atheists have dubious motives, WHO CARES though! I don’t care, I care about the MERIT of what they have to say! Why can’t you do the SAME for my side?

You keep equating anti-evolutionists and atheists. That is incorrect. The two groups are anti-evolutionists and biologists-and-people-who-support-science, including Christians. You're right. The merit is what matters. They don't have any; that's the problem.

Who cares if you read from other scientists responses to their arguments, they would probably have answers to their responses. That’s what goes on in a debate. One side makes arguments, the other side debunks them, then the other side again debunks there debunks and it keeps going. You may assume they are wrong, don’t assume they are lying, that just makes you an idiot.

There are two sides, but they're not both arguing science. The two sides are science and anti-science. Actually, it's worse. They're science and fake-science. AIG is not doing science--I hope we've made that clear.

Do you now? Do you really? This whole post you just gave me makes it look like your NOT open to any facts they present to you. What it makes you look like is that your only open to BASH the character and integrity of AIG or any other creationist organization.

They deserve to be bashed. AIG is the most honest of the lot, and they're chronic liars. Their whole enterprise is one big lie.

Well if they are demonstrated to be false, then you wait for their responses to how their first facts were demonstrated to be false. Wait and see what they have to say for themselves, don’t ASSUME they are lying.

I don't assume. I've busted them. Above are a few examples.

I see a problem with holding onto a belief that contradicts a clear fact. Also realize that everyone has faith, even atheists and agnostics have faith. Plus your twisting what AIG is doing. They are not running from facts, if that is what they were doing, why the hell would they devout there life and career to their website and there organization and research?

For propaganda. Their entire enterprise is an effort to disguise their religion as science. Why? Because they know that science works, and people respect its results. If they were honest and said, "Our position is against science," fewer people would buy it. So instead they lie and try to make it look as though there was a scientific controversy, when there is none. There is no controversy within geology, biology, astronomy, genetics or any of the other fields where they try to make it look like there is. In each instance there the scientific consensus on one side, and the YECs on the other. That's because the YEC position is based on myth.

Did you just hear what you said? Truth and facts are not important to them. I’m sorry, I have to conclude that your not to bright. They believe the bible is the truth, so truth is important to them. They don’t RUN from facts, they devout their time and research into their website and organization. They have a staff and this is their job. Their job is to NOT RUN from facts. This is what they are FUNDED for. Use your brain man.

Their job is to run as far and as fast as they can from any fact that contradicts their (interpretation of) the Bible. They say so, Jolly, right on page one.

It makes you sick because it shows a clear demonstration where they ARE HONEST! Again, USE YOUR BRAIN. Also your assuming again they have spoken hundreds of lies. You can say they spoke hundreds of mistaken things, go ahead, but then you would have to show why they are mistaken of course. But don’t assume they lied. Lies are deliberate. Remember that.

I don't care whether they're deliberate, deluded, or ignorant. They're wrong--that's what matters.

 

[Autodidact]

Talk origins is dishonest, they always use arguments and evidence that has been refuted long ago by creation scientists. They are either dishonest or they don’t have a complete education of all the facts, or they are just plain stupid. And they are lying to you and got you deceived. They KNOW the facts though and they know they are twisting them. Their main dogma to believe in is a materialistic worldview or naturalism. They don’t believe in God or the spirit realm.

This is incorrect, and I advise you to retract it because I could see them suing you for slander. First, there is no such thing as a creation scientist--I hope I've made that clear by now. Second, talkorigins draws only from peer-reviewed scientific sources, and they cite them so you can verify. If they are incorrect, then science is incorrect. AIG does not do this. Finally, remember--it's not atheism they're promoting. It's the Theory of Evolution, a specific scientific theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God. By alleging they're promoting atheism, you yourself are promoting a falsehood. You're wrong. They have Christian, atheist and other theist contributors. Your whole view is inaccurate.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok Jolly... you won't consider Talk Origins at all... but what about other creationists?

Creation Science Rebuttals - Answers in Genesis
Biblical Creation

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I am presently barred from fruballing painted wolf for this valuable contribution.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I am presently barred from fruballing painted wolf for this valuable contribution.

Not to worry. I fruballed it for the both of us.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Maybe I should treat you how you treat us? Heck, why don’t I do it just to show you how foolish you look to me. Watch below:

Talk origins is dishonest, they always use arguments and evidence that has been refuted long ago by creation scientists. They are either dishonest or they don’t have a complete education of all the facts, or they are just plain stupid. And they are lying to you and got you deceived. They KNOW the facts though and they know they are twisting them. Their main dogma to believe in is a materialistic worldview or naturalism. They don’t believe in God or the spirit realm.

The difference being, one can show the pseudoscientific and dishonest tactics used by AiG.
Unless you can back up the above statement against TalkOrigins, then you are once again guilty of dishonesty.

LEARN HOW TO DEBATE MAN!

Learn how to accepts the facts in front of your nose.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...699-how-creationism-damages-christianity.html