How best to argue against creationists

[Jollybear]

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.

They are either liars (which you don’t know that, so, don’t assume it) or they are ignorant/stupid, or they are right.

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

Yes, they do, do some science. Now whether it’s HONEST science is another thing, but the issue should be, is it RIGHT concluded science?

Also in that article you gave me, AIG said they would not engage in deliberate fabrications or lies. So they either misquoted William (the evolutionist) by MISTAKE, OR they lied by making up a quote he did not do (which is the accusation going on here), or William is lying about what HE said. But why assume the worst?

Also why assume they are lying when they themselves believe in the bible so much and the bible says to be honest, and the bible says the father of all lies is the devil. So if they believe in the bible, why would they want to practice lies? That would just make them one with the devil and NOT truly believing in the bible.

So, it makes no sense to me that they are deliberately lying.

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

I’m just going to deal with one quote in this article since I am limited for time.

Here is talk origins article

An Out of Context Quotation
"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."
- Dr. Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK), 'The necessity of Darwinism'. New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 April 1982, P. 130. (The Revised Quote Book, P. 6)
By lifting this brief sentence out of its original context the editors of The Revised Quote Book make it sound like Dawkins is in favor of teaching the instantaneous creation of animals and plants as part of a "two model" approach to "origins." However, any reader paying attention to Dawkins' use of the word, "Superficially," and to the title of Dawkins' article, "The Necessity of Darwinism," must realize that the editors have ignored the context of the quotation. In context, Dawkins wrote:
"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.
"Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist

Notice though that Dawkins implies that he does believe chance did it. He don’t know that though.

I’m not going to deal with the third link you gave since I want to get through this briefly.

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.

Huh? I don’t understand what your getting at here? I was saying some evolutionists and atheists have false motives, but who cares, what matters is addressing the merit of what they say. Some of them are dishonest, but who cares, what matters is addressing the merit of what they say. Some of them will try to support atheism and evolution by dishonest means.

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.

Ok, well, I disagree. I look at science as the quest for truth and both sides have a different view and are arguing back and forth. Your assuming AIG is being fake.

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.

You assume again.

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

 

[Jollybear]

Yes you do assume. Whether you busted them or not, you are assuming they are liars. Even if they are wrong, that does not make them liars, you do NOT KNOW they are deliberately lying, no you don’t.

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.

Goodness gracious, when will you realize that your making so many assumptions here. Even if I granted you that what you say SOUNDS like a GOOD assumption, that this is their motivation, STILL your assuming it! How do you know there trying to disguise there religion as science? Also how do you know they are TRULY against science? They will never say they are against science but that they are against the many theories in science. Either way, your still assuming. You say they are TRYING to make it look like there is a controversy, how do you know they are TRYING to make it look like that? What if they really believe there IS a controversy? Stop assuming.

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.

You took the other part of there sentence and did not understand it.

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

GOOD! This is what I LIKE to hear! Your right, THIS is what matters, whether their wrong or not, what matters is the TRUTH. That’s what matters. If there liars, then they SUCK and there bad people. But you can’t assume that, you don’t KNOW they are lying.

This is incorrect, and I advise you to retract it because I could see them suing you for slander.

1: first off, you took what I said OUT of the meaning BEHIND WHY I said it. I will quote the rest of what I said, then I will tell you what I meant by it.

“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.”

Notice WHY I said this about talk origins? I said it only because ImmortalFlame keeps saying AIG is dishonest. I think he looks foolish when he says this or when you say it too, when in fact you don’t KNOW this and it’s a cop out from STICKING to the actual merits and issues of the actual science and finding actual truth on the issues. I wanted to LOOK foolish in saying this BEFORE HIM, to show him just how foolish he looks before me when he attacks the character of AIG.

2: secondly, I don’t REALLY believe talk origins has dishonest staff (but then again, I don’t know that, perhaps some are dishonest and some aren’t, but I don’t know either way) but I doubt they are dishonest. Yes I believe they have assumptions, views, interpretations, philosophies, and science and mistakes.

3: thirdly, bull **** they will sue me.

4: fourthly, if they sue me, why not AIG sue you and immortalFlame for slandering them as being dishonest?

Give me a dam break.

What a waste of time this is, I really need to get back to redOne77

First, there is no such thing as a creation scientist--I hope I've made that clear by now.

No you haven’t.

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.

It’s not just the theory of evolution they promote, they also speak against the design view, thus against the God view.

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.

Yes there is controversy, there is lots of arguing and disagreeing within science and there fields. I heard one famous evolution scientist say “science is nothing but arguing”.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Notice though that Dawkins implies that he does believe chance did it. He don’t know that though.

I’m not going to deal with the third link you gave since I want to get through this briefly.

No, he is talking about the statistical improbability of things and the tendency of Creationists to insert God into those probabilities. Not blind chance. Your insertion of "He don’t know that though." is a find example of how AiG's Quote Mining misleads the reader.

 

[Jollybear]

Tambleweed41

The difference being, one can show the pseudoscientific and dishonest tactics used by AiG.

You may be able to show where they are wrong, you cannot show if they lied unless they confess it or you catch them in the lie. But you have not caught them in a lie, you may catch them in a mistake. But that’s it.

Unless you can back up the above statement against TalkOrigins, then you are once again guilty of dishonesty.

I am ONCE AGAIN? So now your not only assuming talk origins is dishonest, your assuming I HAVE been dishonest myself and that I am doing it AGAIN?

You guys really are ridiculous. If I am dishonest for saying that about talk origins, then SO ARE YOU dishonest for saying AIG is dishonest!

Do you get it? No, I don’t think you will ever get it.

First off, you misunderstood my purpose for saying talk origins is dishonest. You did not read a part of what I said. So, I could call you dishonest for doing that, but guess what, I UNLIKE THE LIKES OF YOU, won’t do that, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you missed it, or you did not understand it. So, I’m not dishonest and I was not dishonest BEFORE either. There is not one time on this whole forum I have been dishonest. And there is not one time you can PROVE me as being dishonest. So if you continue to claim I am, without proving it and knowing it, then you are only BELIEVING this. If you claim you KNOW it but not believe it, then your lying to yourself.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, they do, do some science. Now whether it’s HONEST science is another thing, but the issue should be, is it RIGHT concluded science?

I have yet to see any actual science that has been done... a lot of opinion articles have been written using other peoples work, but that isn't science.

Perhaps you can link to a scientific experiment of study they have done?

And Honest science is very much the issue... you can't have Right science without Honesty. Which is why there are so many science papers that can be summed up as : "well that didn't work" or "that is not what we expected".

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ImmortalFlame


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.

Once again, you're assuming that "order" is a definable trait. Just because we can predict it, does not mean that it suddenly possesses the innate quality of "order". It's the other way around: We see it as being ordered because we see a pattern in it. Order is something we enforce on the world in order to understand it, it is not an inherent quality on the things we observe. Your assertion that randomness is simply order that we "do not understand yet" is no different to the assertion that order is randomness "that we're just trying to make sense of". If you're going by this definition, you asking us to "prove randomness exists" makes no sense, since anything we cannot predict or defies predictions by definition is "random" - and these events are known to occur.

Do you understand?

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

No, I'm not. I'm saying that randomness and order do not exist as inherent traits in the world around us any more than "art" or "beauty" do. They're things we see in the world in order to enhance our understanding of them, and therefore we cannot prove that they "exist" any more than you could prove that "beauty" exists as an innate facet of the material world.

I will thank you not to construct strawmen of my arguments.

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.

Once again, that has nothing to do with recognizing order as an innate facet of that object - it is not. It is something we use to understand the differences between certain systems and objects - it is not a tangible thing that can be "tested" for or "proven to exist".

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.

No, what it's saying that nothing can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record, and makes no reference to evidence whatsoever. It is flat-out telling people to deny or dismiss the existence of any evidence that may contradict the Bible in any capacity, regardless of validity. Do you seriously not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that approach?

Considering you were lecturing me earlier on open-mindedness, you must be able to see this.

“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.

Considering that there is no such thing as "proof" in science, only "evidence", that means that nothing is capable of changing their minds.

Once again, you're bending over backwards to twist what they are saying. It is extremely clear what they are saying, and it clearly isn't open-minded.

So, they are open minded to be proven otherwise.

... Yet they refuse to accept any evidence that is contrary to their preconceived notions.

What, exactly, is your definition of "open minded"?

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 ***.

They're the ones who set out guidelines for their followers telling them to outright dismiss or deny any and all evidence which contradict their beliefs. That's a willfully ignorant and dishonest stance.

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.



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

I've already asked you about three times to present to me their evidence or findings so that I can demonstrate to you exactly why they are dishonest or wrong. Instead of getting on your soapbox, why not do what I asked so you can see for yourself?

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.

See above.

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.

I've asked you to present evidence from the beginning, it's you who keeps accusing me of being unfair or having no basis for my opinions. I can clearly demonstrate why I am correct if you just present some of their supposed studies or findings.

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.

If you want to see their motives, just look again at the AiG statement of faith. Stop seeing it with your rose-tinted glasses and actually read the thing. Their motives are clearly on display, and those motives are clearly not for the good of science.

 

[Jollybear]

Tambleweed41

No, he is talking about the statistical improbability of things and the tendency of Creationists to insert God into those probabilities. Not blind chance. Your insertion of

"He don’t know that though." is a find example of how AiG's Quote Mining misleads the reader.

No, Dawkins clearly by the quote believes in blind forces or…chance.

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.”

That Is his quote, Richard Dawkins clearly believes in chance.

Looks like your misquoting Richard Dawkins. And if I am misquoting or misunderstanding him, then he sure don’t know how to communicate exactly what he is saying. It’s one of those.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Now you're the one making assumptions.

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.

And it's what I've done hundreds of times before and what I continue to do. And why should I not question their motives when their motives are clearly dishonest, and why should I not accuse them of lying when I have read their lies and have recognized them as such?

Again, if these things are wrong, then please present some of their science and see if it holds up to my scrutiny.

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?

Because I've already dealt with them hundreds of times. If you want me to deal with the "merit" of things they have to say, then present them and stop wasting our time with this moralizing.

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 can assume that they are lying if they have been demonstrated to lie in the past, which they have.

Why do you automatically assume that I have no past involvement in this field of discussion and am making unfounded assumptions? I can tell you that I am actually quite educated with regards to this debate, I do not just pluck my opinions out of thin air. Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and rather than slapping my wrist for expressing those opinions you should actually present a case against them.

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.

You wouldn't know, because you haven't actually presented any facts yet in spite of my asking. Once again your hypocrisy rears it's head as you make unfounded assumptions about my character. Of course I'm open to any facts they present - they just very rarely present them, and when they do they are usually distorted. This is not me talking from prejudice, this is me talking from experience.

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.

Unless they have been demonstrated to lie. By your standard, nobody can be deemed a liar no matter how knowingly they distort facts.

What's more, AiG and other creationist organizations, very rarely if ever respond to what scientists tell them. For example, many creationists organizations still tout the idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. This is clearly false, as any educated scientist would tel you. What's more, claims such as irreducible complexity have already been tested and found to be false, and yet the concept of irreducible complexity is still the poster-child for many creationist arguments.

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.

Then present those issues rather than moralizing.

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.

Why wait? Why not just paste some links?

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?

Fair enough, although I see no reason why you can't simply do as I've requested and post some creation science for me to directly respond to.

What's more, you can't "report" me for demonstrating claims to be dishonest. That's not a personal attack.

I see a problem with holding onto a belief that contradicts a clear fact.

But that isn't what they are saying. They are saying any fact which contradicts their belief must by definition be false. This is the very definition of "close mindedness". Why is it that you accuse me of being close minded for calling them dishonest, yet when they openly require their adherents to deny or dismiss facts that contradict their preconceived beliefs it's not close minded?

There's no two-ways around it. That is a clear and blatant double-standard.

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?

Because it's fundamentally a massive PR campaign to force religion into science classrooms and force evolution (which they see as being contradictory to their beliefs) out.

If they've been doing research, present it.

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.

Now that's a personal attack that I could report you for.

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.

Then present some of their supposed facts.

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.

So, one sentence is enough to display that an entire organization is honest?

Once again, this is a huge double-standard. You might as well conclude that I'm honest just because I've said the following statement:

"The earth is round."

Great, now that we've established to your standard that I am honest, you now have to accept everything I've said. Fair enough?

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.

I would ask you to not get so emotionally invested.

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.

I love the fact that in the same paragraph you say "I have not been on my soapbox" and "YOUR LYING TO YOURSELF. I hope your conscience torments you".

From what I've seen, since I've repeatedly asked you to present evidence and you have refused, the only one here who appears to be "lying to themselves" is you. Your wild misreading of the AiG statement of faith and the degree to which you're willing to fend off any and all allegations made against them without providing any of their actual science is also a clear indication of this.

When you're ready to present to me some actual science, do so.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tambleweed41


No, Dawkins clearly by the quote believes in blind forces or…chance.

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.”

That Is his quote, Richard Dawkins clearly believes in chance.

Looks like your misquoting Richard Dawkins. And if I am misquoting or misunderstanding him, then he sure don’t know how to communicate exactly what he is saying. It’s one of those.

First, for your educational benefit...
su·per·fi·cial (s

p

r-f

sh

l)adj.1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow.
3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.
4. Trivial; insignificant: made only a few superficial changes in the manuscript.




Second, the blind forces of nature are not chance.
(Unless, of course, one want to dishonestly put their own spin on a quote taken out of context)

 

[Autodidact]

They are either liars (which you don’t know that, so, don’t assume it) or they are ignorant/stupid, or they are right.

If they are right, then science is wrong. Not just biology, but geology, astronomy, paleontology, linguistics, anthropology, cosmology, archeology and most of physics. All wrong. In other words, for them to be right, the scientific method would have to be wrong. And I'm pretty sure the scientific method works--are you?

Yes, they do, do some science. Now whether it’s HONEST science is another thing, but the issue should be, is it RIGHT concluded science?

No, they don't do science. Doing science does not mean wearing a labcoat or talking about living organisms or using sciencey words or having a nice website. It has a specific meaning. It means using the scientific method. They don't--they state that right up front. Therefore they're not doing science.

Also in that article you gave me, AIG said they would not engage in deliberate fabrications or lies. So they either misquoted William (the evolutionist) by MISTAKE, OR they lied by making up a quote he did not do (which is the accusation going on here), or William is lying about what HE said. But why assume the worst?

If someone corrects them, and they persist in their statement, then what do you call it?

Also why assume they are lying when they themselves believe in the bible so much and the bible says to be honest, and the bible says the father of all lies is the devil. So if they believe in the bible, why would they want to practice lies? That would just make them one with the devil and NOT truly believing in the bible.

Yup. Creationism does not equal Christianity. It makes for bad theology and bad behavior. I guess they probably think they're telling the truth and they're deluded, or else they value spreading what they see as Christ's message more than they value science.

So, it makes no sense to me that they are deliberately lying.

Who cares? They're wrong, they stay wrong, they don't admit facts that violate their preconceived notions. I'm not a psychologist; I'm just concerned with getting to the truth. You?

Huh? I don’t understand what your getting at here? I was saying some evolutionists and atheists have false motives, but who cares, what matters is addressing the merit of what they say. Some of them are dishonest, but who cares, what matters is addressing the merit of what they say. Some of them will try to support atheism and evolution by dishonest means.

You contrasted creationists and atheist. The correct contrast is YECs and science-proponents.

Ok, well, I disagree. I look at science as the quest for truth and both sides have a different view and are arguing back and forth. Your assuming AIG is being fake.

I don't assume; I conclude. I showed you exactly how their entire enterprise is fake. They are trying to make you believe they're doing science when they're not.

You assume again.

Show me where I'm wrong then.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thank you Jolly for providing an example of the futility of debating with certain Creationists.
(Remember, that's what this thread is about.)

You have provided some prime examples of Creationist Tactics, such as...

• INTERPRET ANY UNCERTAINTY ANYWHERE IN SCIENCE AS IMPLYING TOTAL UNCERTAINTY EVERYWHERE IN SCIENCE.
• TRUMPET ANY MISTAKES MADE BY ANY SCIENTIST, AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT THESE MISTAKES ARE CORRECTED.
• SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN.
• ANY FACTS OR EXPLANATIONS NOT IMMEDIATELY AT HAND MAY BE REGARDED AS NONEXISTENT.
• BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES AND MISQUOTES.
• USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE"
• FIND AN INSTANCE OF A SCIENTIST BEHAVING BADLY, AND USE IT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT ALL SCIENTISTS WILL DO THE SAME.
• SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND THEORIES NEED HAVE NO EFFECTS EXCEPT WHERE CONVENIENT.
• WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
• WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES, OR CRY 'FOUL'.
• WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.

Creationist' Tactics

 

[Autodidact]

Yes you do assume. Whether you busted them or not, you are assuming they are liars. Even if they are wrong, that does not make them liars, you do NOT KNOW they are deliberately lying, no you don’t.



Goodness gracious, when will you realize that your making so many assumptions here. Even if I granted you that what you say SOUNDS like a GOOD assumption, that this is their motivation, STILL your assuming it! How do you know there trying to disguise there religion as science? Also how do you know they are TRULY against science? They will never say they are against science but that they are against the many theories in science. Either way, your still assuming. You say they are TRYING to make it look like there is a controversy, how do you know they are TRYING to make it look like that? What if they really believe there IS a controversy? Stop assuming.



You took the other part of there sentence and did not understand it.



GOOD! This is what I LIKE to hear! Your right, THIS is what matters, whether their wrong or not, what matters is the TRUTH. That’s what matters. If there liars, then they SUCK and there bad people. But you can’t assume that, you don’t KNOW they are lying.



1: first off, you took what I said OUT of the meaning BEHIND WHY I said it. I will quote the rest of what I said, then I will tell you what I meant by it.

“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.”

Notice WHY I said this about talk origins? I said it only because ImmortalFlame keeps saying AIG is dishonest. I think he looks foolish when he says this or when you say it too, when in fact you don’t KNOW this and it’s a cop out from STICKING to the actual merits and issues of the actual science and finding actual truth on the issues. I wanted to LOOK foolish in saying this BEFORE HIM, to show him just how foolish he looks before me when he attacks the character of AIG.

2: secondly, I don’t REALLY believe talk origins has dishonest staff (but then again, I don’t know that, perhaps some are dishonest and some aren’t, but I don’t know either way) but I doubt they are dishonest. Yes I believe they have assumptions, views, interpretations, philosophies, and science and mistakes.

3: thirdly, bull **** they will sue me.

4: fourthly, if they sue me, why not AIG sue you and immortalFlame for slandering them as being dishonest?

Give me a dam break.

What a waste of time this is, I really need to get back to redOne77



No you haven’t.



It’s not just the theory of evolution they promote, they also speak against the design view, thus against the God view.



Yes there is controversy, there is lots of arguing and disagreeing within science and there fields. I heard one famous evolution scientist say “science is nothing but arguing”.

You are missing the most basic distinction here. AIG's site contains falsehoods; talkorigins does not. They are not the same. They are different. Talkorigins is accurate; AIG is not. I'm not the least bit worried about them suing me, because they cannot prove that what I'm saying is false. TO on the other hand cares about their accuracy and credibility, and does not take kindly to people slandering them. If I were you I would publicly retract, and I am not joking.

Yes, there is controversy in science, lots of it. There is controversy about exactly when and where life emerged from the ocean, or which hominids are the ancestors of which. There is no controversy about whether ToE is correct, or how old the earth is. None. And by asking you to believe there is, they are confusing you with falsehood, whether deliberate or otherwise.

 

[Autodidact]

Tambleweed41


No, Dawkins clearly by the quote believes in blind forces or…chance.

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.”

That Is his quote, Richard Dawkins clearly believes in chance.

Looks like your misquoting Richard Dawkins. And if I am misquoting or misunderstanding him, then he sure don’t know how to communicate exactly what he is saying. It’s one of those.

You misunderstand him, probably because you do not understand the theory he is explaining. The cumulative filter part is selection--the opposite of chance.

It's not that complicated. Mutations are chance, and then natural selection, which is the opposite of chance, keeps the one that works.

Say you're trying to make a portrait of Elvis on a barn door. You throw darts at the door randomly. All the ones that fit into the portrait you keep, all the ones that don't you pull out. At the end you get a portrait that looks as if someone made it with darts. Actually they selected the ones that work. Mutations are darts, and selection pulls out all the ones that don't fit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You misunderstand him, probably because you do not understand the theory he is explaining. The cumulative filter part is selection--the opposite of chance.

It's not that complicated. Mutations are chance, and then natural selection, which is the opposite of chance, keeps the one that works.

Say you're trying to make a portrait of Elvis on a barn door. You throw darts at the door randomly. All the ones that fit into the portrait you keep, all the ones that don't you pull out. At the end you get a portrait that looks as if someone made it with darts. Actually they selected the ones that work. Mutations are darts, and selection pulls out all the ones that don't fit.

Frubals for that great explanation!!

 

[Jollybear]

Once again, you're assuming that "order" is a definable trait. Just because we can predict it, does not mean that it suddenly possesses the innate quality of "order".

If we can predict it and understand it, why does it not have order?

It's the other way around: We see it as being ordered because we see a pattern in it.

Ok….then….so patterns EXIST….RIGHT….?

Order is something we enforce on the world in order to understand it, it is not an inherent quality on the things we observe.

Of course it’s a quality on things we observe. We see patterns and order all over the place. We don’t enforce order on the world, it’s their whether we believe it or not.

Your assertion that randomness is simply order that we "do not understand yet" is no different to the assertion that order is randomness "that we're just trying to make sense of".

Ummm….ok….and your point is?

If you're going by this definition, you asking us to "prove randomness exists" makes no sense, since anything we cannot predict or defies predictions by definition is "random" - and these events are known to occur.

Yea, there are a lot of things known to occur that people don’t understand, but that does not PROVE randomness or chance exists.

Do you understand?

No

No, I'm not. I'm saying that randomness and order do not exist as inherent traits in the world around us any more than "art" or "beauty" do. They're things we see in the world in order to enhance our understanding of them, and therefore we cannot prove that they "exist" any more than you could prove that "beauty" exists as an innate facet of the material world.

I don’t care right now about beauty or art, mentioning those will just serve to confuse me about what you’re saying. Forget beauty and art. Are you saying that patterns cannot be proven to exist? Or let me ask it another way, or this is a related question, are you saying that for some things there is no CAUSE or reason behind it?

I will thank you not to construct strawmen of my arguments.

I made no straw man argument.

Once again, that has nothing to do with recognizing order as an innate facet of that object - it is not. It is something we use to understand the differences between certain systems and objects - it is not a tangible thing that can be "tested" for or "proven to exist".

When I speak of order, I mean causes and understanding of how something works and patterns.

No, what it's saying that nothing can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record, and makes no reference to evidence whatsoever.

They make no reference to evidence because it’s a statement of faith page! Come on man, your more intelligent than that, please tell me you are?

It is flat-out telling people to deny or dismiss the existence of any evidence that may contradict the Bible in any capacity, regardless of validity.

Ok, we are going to have to disagree here, because that is not what they are saying. I think you misunderstood them. Actually, how about this, we contact AIG and ask them exactly what they themselves meant? That should clear it all up, should it not? Want to do it?

Do you seriously not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that approach?

If that is what they meant, what you are saying they meant, then yes that would be fundamentally wrong, yes, absolutely. But that is not what they are saying. Your twisting there words. And THAT is dishonest, to distort the words of another.

Considering you were lecturing me earlier on open-mindedness, you must be able to see this.

If your right, then YES they would be closed minded. And that is not good.

 

[Jollybear]

Considering that there is no such thing as "proof" in science, only "evidence", that means that nothing is capable of changing their minds.

There is lots of proof, we exist, that is proof. The world is real, that is proof.

Once again, you're bending over backwards to twist what they are saying. It is extremely clear what they are saying, and it clearly isn't open-minded.

No, lets get this strait, it’s YOU that is twisting what they’re saying. How about this, we ask AIG what they themselves meant by the statement. That will clear it all up. If I am wrong, I will apologize, if you’re wrong, will you humbly apologize?

... Yet they refuse to accept any evidence that is contrary to their preconceived notions.

What, exactly, is your definition of "open minded"?

Your wrong.

I've already asked you about three times to present to me their evidence or findings so that I can demonstrate to you exactly why they are dishonest or wrong. Instead of getting on your soapbox, why not do what I asked so you can see for yourself?

So you can show me they are dishonest OR……wrong? Which one are you going to SHOW ME, they are dishonest OR WRONG? I’m telling you that you cannot show me they are dishonest, that is not something you will know or prove. You may show they are wrong, but that’s it. You don’t know they are dishonest.

The fact that you even SAID in your own words “so I can show you they are dishonest OR wrong” and had the word “OR” in there, shows that you even ADMIT not KNOWING for sure if they are either mistaken (wrong) or dishonest. Then when you give this hint that you don’t know they are dishonest, you go against it and say YOU DO KNOW they are dishonest. Listen man, THAT IS DISHONEST! What you’re doing! Don’t you get it? Are you that full of pride? As I said already, this is a SICKNESS on your part. And usually how it goes is if someone gets angry at this sickness (like what I am doing) the person who is sick will just take more offense and their pride will build (but I have chosen to keep arguing with you and showing your sick anyway because I want find out why you are not honest with yourself in admitting you don’t know. But I don’t think you’re going to tell me. I think you’re just going to keep being an idiot about this. And my curiosity is going to drive me insane about it to the point I will just have to eventually give you the last word and move on.

Also the reason why I have not yet given you any of there findings is because that is not what I am trying to do in this conversation I am having with you. The purpose of me talking to you right now is to try to persuade you to get away from attacking the character and motives of an organization or a individual person and address ONLY the merit of what they say, PERIOD. Yes, we can get into the merit of what they say, but that is not the purpose of me talking to you right now, the purpose is so you can stop attacking the character and motives. WHO cares about the character and you don’t even know there lying anyway.

I've asked you to present evidence from the beginning, it's you who keeps accusing me of being unfair or having no basis for my opinions. I can clearly demonstrate why I am correct if you just present some of their supposed studies or findings.

I am not saying you have no basis for your opinions or views, that is not what I am saying, I’m sure you probably do have basis, but at the moment, that is not what I care about in this discussion with you, what I care about most at this moment is that you stop attacking the character and motives of the other position, it’s a waste of time and it HELPS NO ONE! If you can demonstrate that you are correct, GREAT! That is wonderful, why don’t you STICK to FOCUSING ON THAT instead of attacking the character and motives of the other position? Huh? Why don’t you do that? You think you have a superior character or what? You think your better? You find some sick security in walking in this moral superiority attitude? Huh? That is SICK man, and I hate that. Get rid of it. Just stop it. Seriously. You know what the “medication” is for that kind of sickness? The medication is called “just stop it”. Just drink a good dose of “just stop it” and you’ll be cured.

If you want to see their motives, just look again at the AiG statement of faith. Stop seeing it with your rose-tinted glasses and actually read the thing. Their motives are clearly on display, and those motives are clearly not for the good of science.

Heh, there you go again! If I want to see their motives? Oh my gosh man, are you for real? I know what their motives are and I know what they believe, but none of that is there evidence and they themselves realize that. How about we contact them so they can clarify for us both what they mean, how about it huh?

The motives are not for the good of science? Come on man, get off the motives. Motives are not going to dampen science! Motives are not necessarily going to make someone choose to be dishonest! GET WITH IT MAN!

And I actually did read it, you misunderstood one part of it.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Quoted directly from AiG:

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

Here, AiG has essentially dismissed anything that contradicts the Bible without further examination. Need I say more?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If we can predict it and understand it, why does it not have order?

Because order is not a definable or inherent trait in something - it's something we see in it. You cannot "test for order".

Ok….then….so patterns EXIST….RIGHT….?

Correct.

Of course it’s a quality on things we observe. We see patterns and order all over the place. We don’t enforce order on the world, it’s their whether we believe it or not.

How are you still not getting this?

Order is a means by which we see the world - we perceive things as being ordered because that is simply how our brains make sense of them, but there is no distinct quality known as "order" that exists physically, or is there any way to "test" for order or "prove" that it exists. Therefore, it is meaningless to ask people to "prove that randomness exists" since both randomness and order are not material things which can be detected or tested for, but means by which we understand the world to work.

Ummm….ok….and your point is?

That your assertion that we have to "prove randomness exists" is fallacious.

Yea, there are a lot of things known to occur that people don’t understand, but that does not PROVE randomness or chance exists.

I never said it did and that was never my point.

Have you even been reading my posts?

I don’t care right now about beauty or art, mentioning those will just serve to confuse me about what you’re saying. Forget beauty and art. Are you saying that patterns cannot be proven to exist? Or let me ask it another way, or this is a related question, are you saying that for some things there is no CAUSE or reason behind it?

I have no idea, and I doubt you do too.

And no, I am not saying that patterns don't exist. I'm saying that neither "order" nor "randomness" are testable or inherent traits. I've said that about two-dozen times now.

I made no straw man argument.

Yes you did. You changed my argument about the nature of order into "By saying there is no randomness NOR order, your basically saying everything that exists, is STILL. Everything is NOT STILL."

Since I never said anything remotely similar to this, you constructed a straw man.

When I speak of order, I mean causes and understanding of how something works and patterns.

That's just an explanation. Surely you know that "order" has a far more precise definition than that, right?

They make no reference to evidence because it’s a statement of faith page! Come on man, your more intelligent than that, please tell me you are?

You're the one twisting their statement of faith to mean "no evidence that contradicts our evidence", when it clearly does not say that. And now you're telling me that it doesn't make any reference to evidence whatsoever.

Which is it?

Ok, we are going to have to disagree here, because that is not what they are saying. I think you misunderstood them. Actually, how about this, we contact AIG and ask them exactly what they themselves meant? That should clear it all up, should it not? Want to do it?

Again, the words are right there in front of you. This is not misinterpretation on my part. If you want to contact them, go ahead, but I doubt you'll get an honest answer. You can call that an assumption on my part, but you're clearly not qualified to judge who is honest and who isn't if you can't even recognize that the statement "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" is AiG telling people openly to dismiss any facts which contradict the Bible.

If you can't see this, then I have no idea what to say to you. You're just plain blind.

If that is what they meant, what you are saying they meant, then yes that would be fundamentally wrong, yes, absolutely. But that is not what they are saying. Your twisting there words. And THAT is dishonest, to distort the words of another.

If your right, then YES they would be closed minded. And that is not good.

No, I am not. Here it is 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. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information"

It's clear and obvious what is meant. On the other hand, you have repeatedly twisted their words to mean things they clearly don't. Here's what you said:

"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."
"Notice they say the word EVIDENCE and NOT proof. In other words if it was PROVEN your position, they would believe it."

This is a clear and blatant attempt to insert meanings into the statement that are not there, hence it is you twisting their words. And, again, since the term "proof" is never used in science, you're also basically telling me that they are being academically dishonest.

Again, your double-standard is clear.

 

[DeitySlayer]

"I am intellectually honest with myself and others." - Jollybear's 'about me' section -

No, you're not. You continually deny clear evidence provided to you and repeat discredit and patiently explained falsehoods. You must be speaking some Creationist dialect of English.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is lots of proof, we exist, that is proof. The world is real, that is proof.

Mathematics and most Physics deal with proof. (1=1 will always equal 2)
All other sciences rely on evidence. (Even though you can't logically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, the fact that it has risen every day of my life (empirical evidence) convinces me that it probably (predictability) will do what it has always done in the morning. (tested)

So you can show me they are dishonest OR……wrong?

This could take a while. but here we go....
On one of AiG's Student Worksheets, the claim is made that Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia stated "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird."

When queried about this supposed statement, Professor Feduccia replied, "Yes, of course this is preposterous. I was the person who coined the phrase in 1980 that, "Archaeopteryx is a Rosetta Stone of evolution!"

Archaeopteryx is clearly transitory between reptiles and birds; the question is: what group of reptiles. The current dogma is that birds are directly derived from theropod dinosaurs, but there are numerous serious problems with this proposal, namely,

-the time line is all wrong.
-requires a ground-up origin of flight.
-many characters don't match, especially the digits.
-requires that all sophisticated flight architecture be evolved in an
earth-bound, flightless dinosaur!!

At any rate count on the creationists to misquote people to foster their cause."

This is the first of many examples I can provide for you. Now, is AiG being dishonest and deliberately misquoting Professor Feduccia, or are they simply innocently mistaken in using this misquote?