How best to argue against creationists

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Do you know how science works at all on any level?

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?

As I have clearly demonstrated above, it is you twisting the statement's meaning. A no, I won't take anything AiG have to say on the matter as fact. Call that close-mindedness if you want, but when your organization openly asks it's adherents to deny any and all evidence that contradicts their beliefs, you lose your claim to being honest.

Your wrong.

No I'm not. It says so right there in 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"

You even said so yourself, that they would not accept "evidence", only "proof". Now you're contradicting 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.

Yes I do. Again, re-read the statement of faith. Doesn't exactly seem like the rules designed to generate honest and fair discussion now, does it?

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.

For God's sake man, are you actually going to present some evidence or not?

If you're going to do it, do it and stop with this soapbox nonsense. If you're not going to do it, stop wasting my time.

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.

The best way for you to do that would be for you to present some honest science to me. So, why don't you do that?

Do you not realize that the more I ask and the more you refuse the more it looks like you're just avoiding doing so? And that avoiding doing so can only have one possible explanation: because you know I'm right and you cannot present anything. I'm not telling that I'm jumping to that conclusion, I'm just telling you that by stalling, ranting and moralizing like you are rather than presenting science like I've requested, you're making yourself and AiG look more dishonest.

So, either present something or stop wasting my time.

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.

Again, more double standards from you, saying "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!" and "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" in the same paragraph doesn't exactly make you look like the fairest or least hypocritical person on this forum. At this point, you're doing nothing but harming your own cause.

If you want me to debate the merits of the AiG's arguments PRESENT THEM. Do not rant at me about "avoiding their arguments" when you have utterly failed to present them.

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?

THEN PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE.

How long are you going to continue wasting time?

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!

Are you serious?

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

No, I didn't.

 

[tumbleweed41]

From Answers in Genesis.

Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”

According to Dr Schweitzer, who actually made the discovery, in a NOVA interview...

Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it looks like a duck…." But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells. However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates (fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells "spit out" the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a disease). So, because dinosaurs' closest relatives are crocodiles and birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been nucleated.


Also, despite what AiG claims, the fossils are not "soft tissue", they are fossils (mineralized, no organic tissue left) of soft tissue. Just as a fossilized branch does not contain wood, only minerals.


Is AiG deliberately misleading it's readers? Or are they simply, and innocently, mistaken?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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

No. They are not "right". You have now been shown (repeatedly) that they are lying, and that they are NOT using science. Earlier in this thread, you put up a post in which you claimed that you wanted to find the truth, to examine your position. The truth is, you were lying when you posted that.

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 are not doing science. You now know that, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact. Again, you are lying (to both yourself and us).

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?

Either you are the most gullible human that ever lived, or you are intentionally ignoring obvious lies for the sake of defending your religious beliefs. I believe it is the latter. I think you are intentionally lying again.

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, if I claim that I believe in the Bible (even though I patently don't), that would mean that nothing I said after that would be a lie? Even you can see the stupidity of that position.

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

Then I can only assume that you are.

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.

On the off chance that you truly are this slow on the uptake, I'll walk you through it. She is telling you that not all people that understand and embrace evolution are atheists. At the same time, not all atheists embrace evolution.

You are continuously interchanging the two terms, as if they apply to one group of people. Try to keep up.

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.

Well that's very sweet of you, but in the real world, we try to use words and terms as they are already defined. Simply using your own definition of words leads to a total breakdown of our language. If you don't know what a word means, they have these books out now, called a "dictionary". You can even Google up a word online, and go to the Merriam Webster Online dictionary. Give it a whirl.

Your assuming AIG is being fake.

No. For the fortieth time, you have been shown that AIG is being false, and that they openly admit to their bias in considering data and facts. I submit that it is you, now, who is being fake.

 

[Autodidact]

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

You would do a lot better if you listened to what people are trying to tell you. Science is not about proof. Science is about evidence. Scientific knowledge is never absolute; it is provisional, based on the evidence.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am NOT intellectually dishonest, and I am NOT WILLFULLY ignorant, and I am NOT stupid either. Now if you want to say I am IGNORANT, go right ahead, that does not bother me because I don’t consider that a COP out from you, but if you call me WILLFULLY ignorant, I consider that a cop out and cowering on your part. However even that, I don’t consider myself ignorant, but yes I do consider that I need to read MORE, which I plan on doing, thus I am not willfully ignorant.

You posted this on page 4 of this thread. Since then, you have demonstrated (repeatedly) that you are both willfully ignorant (by continually ignoring posts that cause you heartburn). If you don't like being called out for your intellectual dishonesty, then stop doing it.

Also, why don’t you believe me? How do you KNOW I am lying?

The post above this one goes through it quite nicely. You do lie, you have lied, and I'm fairly certain that you will continue lying.

Yea, and why don’t you believe me? Do you also think every other young earth creationist or none believer in evolution is also not sincere?

You traded your credibility when you chose to repeat the lies from AIG, even after you have been shown that they are using pseudo-science to make their points.

If you want credibility, then earn it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

From Answers in Genesis...

No observed mutation can do anything like produce the special equipment in a snake, even if you started with a ‘soundly functional lizard’. Snakes have not evolved either slowly or rapidly from any other creatures we call reptiles. Not only is there no trace of transitional forms in the fossil record, but no one has ever seen a mutated lizard or snake which would give a clue as to how it could have evolved to become so legless, and yet so perfectly adapted to being a snake. In fact, snakes look so deliberately designed that scientists who say otherwise, haven’t really got a leg to stand on!
Hmm, Snake Fossils?
Millions of Years Ago, Snakes Were Hip | LiveScience
Ancient Lizard Missing Front Limbs | LiveScience
A 95-million-year-old fossil snake from the Middle East documents the most extreme hindlimb development of any known member of that group, as it preserves the tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges. It is more complete than Pachyrhachis, a second fossil snake with hindlimbs that was recently portrayed to be basal to all other snakes. Phylogenetic analysis of the relationships of the new taxon, as well as reanalysis of Pachyrhachis, shows both to be related to macrostomatans, a group that includes relatively advanced snakes such as pythons, boas, and colubroids to the exclusion of more primitive snakes such as blindsnakes and pipesnakes.
A Fossil Snake with Limbs -- Tchernov et al. 287 (5460): 2010 -- Science

Not to mention Legless Lizards, (And Here), Limbless Skinks and more fossils of snakes with hips and limb remnants.

Now, I guess one could say that AiG was simply mistaken, and did not do their research before making their obviously false statement. Have they retracted it yet? No?
I guess that just leaves blatant dishonesty.

 

[Jollybear]

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.

Yea, my case is that you have no case they are lying. Your calling them liars, you have to prove that or be quite. And I don’t assume you have no past involvement with them. Did I say “you don’t have any past involvement with AIG” did I say that? Huh, did I? no I didn’t. So YOU assumed (you assume a lot don’t you?) that I assumed that you had no involvement with AIG. Why don’t you just QUIT the assumptions all together and get off it?

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.

So hypocrisy is saying someone is being dishonest? Is that what hypocrisy is? First off, you don’t know what hypocrisy is apparently. And second of all, I am not hypocritical. Also I have not made an unfounded assumption about your character, your character is the type that makes too many assumptions about other people’s character or organizations character’s. I have lots of proof of you doing that in your posts, so I have not made any UNFOUNDED assumptions on you at all.

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.

Have you read every single article on AIG? If not, your assuming again they have not presented them.

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

No, wrong, people can be deemed a liar. But you have not proven AIG as being a liar. Here is how you can catch someone being a liar. If you ask them all kinds of questions and let them counter all kinds of your arguments and evidence and then at the end of it all, they fail to answer something or correct something and start going after your character, THEN they are liars TO THEMSELVES.

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.

No, creationists organizations’ make effort to respond to what scientists tell them. That’s their job to make that effort.

Also irreducible complexity exists, get use to it.

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.

Right, I can’t report you for that, but I could if you ASSUME dishonesty without proving it. You can say my point is wrong, but if you say it’s dishonest, that is a personal attack. But regardless, I have no intention on reporting you either way. But, I’m sure you won’t trust that, since you don’t trust young earth creationists as honest anyway.

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.

I disagree, you misunderstood there statement. And I already corrected you on it, so I am not going to do it again, you are going to believe what you want regardless of what I say. So, I’m done with this point.

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.

Their you go AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. Your not like wind up toy, just going at it again. Assuming again. You assume this is there motive, to just get there religion in school. And you assume on top of that assumption that they think it’s religion in disguise as science. Leave the assumptions alone.

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

Oh, so you can report me for saying I think you’re not too bright, but I can’t report you if you say I am dishonest about something I say? Don’t you realize they are BOTH personal attacks? What kind of double standard do you not see in what you just said here? Again, that tells me your not too bright because you don’t see the double standard there. Anyway, I have no interest in reporting, I am just making a point. Calling someone not bright or calling someone dishonest is BOTH a personal attack.

How is you saying someone is dishonest NOT a personal attack? Because if you can demonstrate they are being dishonest, then it’s not a personal attack because you have evidence for it? Ok, well if I have evidence you’re not too bright, then it’s not a personal attack to conclude you’re not too bright.

Their yea go. You assume facts and truth are not important to AIG, and the very fact that they devout there whole time to studying and researching shows they DO take truth and facts as being important. So that is evidence you’re not too bright in your assumption.

 

[Jollybear]

Then present some of their supposed facts.

I will on ONE condition, stop assuming stuff, like willful ignorance, dishonesty and stupidness on organizations’ or individual people. Just quit that and I will get to the “supposed facts”. I already told you why I was discussing this with you, it was not to present any facts of the issues, it was to persuade you to quite focusing on motives and characters.

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?

I’m not saying every creationist is honest, but also not every atheist is honest either. What I am saying is, stop focusing on that and just focus on the arguments they have. That is what matters. Its funny that you said above that I should get off the moralizing and get to the issues, yet that is what I have been trying to get you to do all this time, get off the motives and character, stop focusing on that.

Plus if AIG has a statement where they clearly demonstrate honesty, why not give them the benefit of the doubt, and all the more since you don’t have proof of them lying. If you have proof they are wrong, that is not perse proof they are lying.

I would ask you to not get so emotionally invested.

Let me tell you something about me, when it comes to question/answer, argument/counter argument or debate of the actual issues (not characters and motives) I am NOT EMOTIONALLY INVESTED. I am intellectually invested ALL the way, but I am not emotionally invested. But when it comes to people focusing on motives and characters instead of the actual issues, I am emotionally invested AGAINST people doing that. And that is why you’re seeing me get emotionally charged with 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.

No, it’s not me lying to myself at all. I have ALREADY TOLD YOU why I am discussing this with you, it’s not to debate YET the actual evidence or what the truth is, it’s to get you off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Do I have to repeat that? I am not REFUSING, I am WAITING to see if you will get off this stupid trip your on.

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.

No, I am not against you correcting there arguments, what I am against is you making statements about their integrity BEFORE correcting their arguments. Get off the trip, you’re doing things BACKWARDS.

Also I am not misreading anything they said, you are.

 

[Autodidact]

Also irreducible complexity exists, get use to it.

To the extent that there is such a thing, it has no relevance or application to the evolution of organisms.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Also irreducible complexity exists, get use to it.

You don't by any chance mean the same irreducible complexity that Michael Behe, its founder, refused to defend under oath, and which was soundly declared as religiously based ideology by the Supreme Court? Nah, you must mean another one, paragon of truth, virtue and accuracy that you are.

 

[Autodidact]

I will on ONE condition, stop assuming stuff, like willful ignorance, dishonesty and stupidness on organizations’ or individual people. Just quit that and I will get to the “supposed facts”. I already told you why I was discussing this with you, it was not to present any facts of the issues, it was to persuade you to quite focusing on motives and characters.

Any time now. *drums fingers on desk*

I’m not saying every creationist is honest, but also not every atheist is honest either. What I am saying is, stop focusing on that and just focus on the arguments they have. That is what matters. Its funny that you said above that I should get off the moralizing and get to the issues, yet that is what I have been trying to get you to do all this time, get off the motives and character, stop focusing on that.

There you go again. This is the sort of thing that makes us wonder whether YECs are dishonest or really dense. It's not "creationist and atheist." (Just got done telling you this twice.) That is confusing and misleading. It's "YEC and science proponent." If you show yourself able to accept correction, it would help foster your own credibility.

Plus if AIG has a statement where they clearly demonstrate honesty, why not give them the benefit of the doubt, and all the more since you don’t have proof of them lying. If you have proof they are wrong, that is not perse proof they are lying.



Let me tell you something about me, when it comes to question/answer, argument/counter argument or debate of the actual issues (not characters and motives) I am NOT EMOTIONALLY INVESTED. I am intellectually invested ALL the way, but I am not emotionally invested. But when it comes to people focusing on motives and characters instead of the actual issues, I am emotionally invested AGAINST people doing that. And that is why you’re seeing me get emotionally charged with you.



No, it’s not me lying to myself at all. I have ALREADY TOLD YOU why I am discussing this with you, it’s not to debate YET the actual evidence or what the truth is, it’s to get you off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Do I have to repeat that? I am not REFUSING, I am WAITING to see if you will get off this stupid trip your on.



No, I am not against you correcting there arguments, what I am against is you making statements about their integrity BEFORE correcting their arguments. Get off the trip, you’re doing things BACKWARDS.

Also I am not misreading anything they said, you are.

Again, who cares? It's not interesting. At this point you have been shown at least a half-dozen instances of them being plain old wrong. They get corrected, and they stay wrong. Dishonesty? Self-delusion? Idiocy? Not my problem. What I know is, they have no credibility. If you want to have credibility, you should not cite them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yea, my case is that you have no case they are lying. Your calling them liars, you have to prove that or be quite. And I don’t assume you have no past involvement with them. Did I say “you don’t have any past involvement with AIG” did I say that? Huh, did I? no I didn’t. So YOU assumed (you assume a lot don’t you?) that I assumed that you had no involvement with AIG. Why don’t you just QUIT the assumptions all together and get off it?

Now you're just clutching at straws.

So hypocrisy is saying someone is being dishonest? Is that what hypocrisy is? First off, you don’t know what hypocrisy is apparently. And second of all, I am not hypocritical. Also I have not made an unfounded assumption about your character, your character is the type that makes too many assumptions about other people’s character or organizations character’s. I have lots of proof of you doing that in your posts, so I have not made any UNFOUNDED assumptions on you at all.

No, I called you hypocritical on the grounds that you continue to accuse me of making unfair assumptions about people's character, while you do the same to me. You also continually accuse me of ignoring the merit of AiG's arguments, while continually refusing to present those arguments. These are hypocrisies on your part.

And yes, you have made several unfounded assumptions about me. One of them in this very paragraph: "you don’t know what hypocrisy is apparently". Others include calling me "sick" and "dumb".

Yet again, you're a hypocrite.

Have you read every single article on AIG? If not, your assuming again they have not presented them.

I've read dozens of AiG articles. I think that's pretty obvious by the fact that I have repeatedly told you I have dealt with them in the past. If you feel that there are any articles I may have not read yet, then please present them.

No, wrong, people can be deemed a liar. But you have not proven AIG as being a liar. Here is how you can catch someone being a liar. If you ask them all kinds of questions and let them counter all kinds of your arguments and evidence and then at the end of it all, they fail to answer something or correct something and start going after your character, THEN they are liars TO THEMSELVES.

Which is why I have asked you to present articles from AiG to see if I can demonstrate them lying.

Why are you avoiding this?

No, creationists organizations’ make effort to respond to what scientists tell them. That’s their job to make that effort.

Could you give me some examples, then, of creationists responses to scientific refutations of, say, irreducible complexity?

Also irreducible complexity exists, get use to it.

The Lippard Blog: Michael Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Exaptation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[youtube]0hW7ddJOWko[/youtube]
YouTube - Ken Miller on Bacterial Flagellum

See? You're displaying the exact same attitude as the creationists. Irreducible complexity has not only been disproven entirely, but thrown out by the very person who founded the concept AND thrown out of court years ago. And yet you still believe it exists. You're not keeping up with science, and you're not even trying.

Right, I can’t report you for that, but I could if you ASSUME dishonesty without proving it. You can say my point is wrong, but if you say it’s dishonest, that is a personal attack. But regardless, I have no intention on reporting you either way. But, I’m sure you won’t trust that, since you don’t trust young earth creationists as honest anyway.

No, that is not a personal attack. I can call a claim dishonest, but that is not the same as calling a person dishonest.

And yes, you're right. I don't trust young earth creationists. With reason.

I disagree, you misunderstood there statement. And I already corrected you on it, so I am not going to do it again, you are going to believe what you want regardless of what I say. So, I’m done with this point.

No, you did not "correct" it. I clearly demonstrated how you twisted it.

Their you go AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. Your not like wind up toy, just going at it again. Assuming again. You assume this is there motive, to just get there religion in school. And you assume on top of that assumption that they think it’s religion in disguise as science. Leave the assumptions alone.

No, because those "assumptions" have a basis in fact. Case in point: their complete inability to present any valid science.

Want to contest that? THEN PRESENT SCIENCE.

Oh, so you can report me for saying I think you’re not too bright, but I can’t report you if you say I am dishonest about something I say? Don’t you realize they are BOTH personal attacks? What kind of double standard do you not see in what you just said here? Again, that tells me your not too bright because you don’t see the double standard there. Anyway, I have no interest in reporting, I am just making a point. Calling someone not bright or calling someone dishonest is BOTH a personal attack.

Calling someone "dumb" is not the same thing as calling someone's argument dishonest. One is a personal remark, the other is not.

Understood?

How is you saying someone is dishonest NOT a personal attack? Because if you can demonstrate they are being dishonest, then it’s not a personal attack because you have evidence for it? Ok, well if I have evidence you’re not too bright, then it’s not a personal attack to conclude you’re not too bright.

Except you called me "dumb". I like how you're now changing your own words.

That's almost... Dishonest.

Their yea go. You assume facts and truth are not important to AIG, and the very fact that they devout there whole time to studying and researching shows they DO take truth and facts as being important. So that is evidence you’re not too bright in your assumption.

The very fact that in their statement of faith they tell their adherents to dismiss facts that contradict their preconceived notions is pretty strong evidence that facts aren't what's important to them.

And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that just goes to show the lengths to which you're deluding yourself about them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will on ONE condition, stop assuming stuff, like willful ignorance, dishonesty and stupidness on organizations’ or individual people. Just quit that and I will get to the “supposed facts”. I already told you why I was discussing this with you, it was not to present any facts of the issues, it was to persuade you to quite focusing on motives and characters.

Firstly, I never once called anyone stupid or ignorant, I just questioned their motives.

Secondly, the best way to show someone that their assumptions about something is wrong is to demonstrate that they are wrong. In this case, by providing honest scientific inquiry. It is NOT to do as you have done: repeatedly get on your soapbox declaring that I was wrong without presenting any actual reason for me to change my mind.

And no, until you give me valid reason not to, I have no reason to assume that AiG are anything other than a dishonest organization based purely on forcing their beliefs into science. Again, their OWN statement of faith strongly supports me on this:

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Read them. Especially numbers 1:1, 2:1, 4:5 and 4:6.

I’m not saying every creationist is honest, but also not every atheist is honest either. What I am saying is, stop focusing on that and just focus on the arguments they have. That is what matters. Its funny that you said above that I should get off the moralizing and get to the issues, yet that is what I have been trying to get you to do all this time, get off the motives and character, stop focusing on that.

Firstly, what do atheists have to do with anything?

Secondly, how can I focus on their arguments if you refuse to present them?

Plus if AIG has a statement where they clearly demonstrate honesty, why not give them the benefit of the doubt, and all the more since you don’t have proof of them lying. If you have proof they are wrong, that is not perse proof they are lying.

I do have proof of them lying. I could show you examples if you'd like?

And no, one statement that suggests the minimal degree of academic honesty does not suddenly exempt them from the dozens of lies and misinformation they intentionally have spread in the past. You seriously need to re-evaluate your criteria for assessing honesty.

Let me tell you something about me, when it comes to question/answer, argument/counter argument or debate of the actual issues (not characters and motives) I am NOT EMOTIONALLY INVESTED. I am intellectually invested ALL the way, but I am not emotionally invested. But when it comes to people focusing on motives and characters instead of the actual issues, I am emotionally invested AGAINST people doing that. And that is why you’re seeing me get emotionally charged with you.

Then why you keep continually insulting me and questioning my character when I have not done the same to you?

Again, you're being hypocritical.

No, it’s not me lying to myself at all. I have ALREADY TOLD YOU why I am discussing this with you, it’s not to debate YET the actual evidence or what the truth is, it’s to get you off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Do I have to repeat that? I am not REFUSING, I am WAITING to see if you will get off this stupid trip your on.

Present the evidence and stop wasting our time, or just leave the evidence and stop wasting our time. Which is it?

No, I am not against you correcting there arguments, what I am against is you making statements about their integrity BEFORE correcting their arguments. Get off the trip, you’re doing things BACKWARDS.

No, again, you're assuming I'd never dealt with them before reaching my conclusion. I have dealt with them, I know they are dishonest, I know they have lied, the statement of faith is basically a licence for it's members to lie or ignore the truth.

Also I am not misreading anything they said, you are.

You are the one who invented a series of things that you believed they MEANT to say in order to avoid addressing what they actually did say. I, on the other hand, repeatedly quote them. The meaning is extremely clear, as anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language can see. Just because you refuse to accept it - and have to twist everything in order to avoid doing so - does not change the fact of what they are advocating.

Come on, you're not illiterate. You know what they're saying as well as I do, and you know you're just denying it. Just admit it.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe we should have an AIG thread. Sounds fun to me.

O.K. I went to their site to see what they have up right now. I clicked on the first page to a story about volcanoes and found this:

The Mount St. Helens eruption produced an impressive 0.25 cubic miles (1 km3) of volcanic ash. But that is nothing compared to the eruption of Taupo (New Zealand) about 1,800 years ago, which produced 8 cubic miles (35 km3) of ash. Even this is dwarfed by an earlier Yellowstone eruption, soon after the Flood, which produced at least 480 cubic miles (2000 km3) of ash.

First they say the Taupo eruption was about 1800 years ago. How do they know this? By the same dating methods they reject throughout their site. Double-standard = dishonesty. When they agree with it, it works. When they don't, suddenly it doesn't. Again--opposite of science. Science looks only to the method, and accepts its results whether they agree with the hypothesis or not. If it does not, they reject the hypothesis, not the results. That's honesty. Next, they slip that "after the flood" in there as though it had as much factual support as the rest of it, making the mythical flood sound vaguely scientific. Of course there never was any such flood, at least not in Yellowstone, and the same methods that tell us about the volcano there also tell us that. Cherry picking is not honest.

Then they immediately descend into some nonsense about "during the flood, large cracks must have opened up..." Why? Why would a flood cause volcanoes? Does that typically happen now? Why must any of this have happened during the mythical flood? All they do is paste a thin scientific veneer over their mythological nonsense. The only way you could be fooled by this bologna would be if you wanted to.

Conventional geologists face a quandary. Today’s lava flows are small because the magma chambers below the volcanoes contain only small amounts of magma, and the continental plates are moving so slowly that they can’t facilitate the melting of much new magma.
In contrast, the basalts of the Deccan and Siberian Traps are massive. The eruptions must have been enormous, with huge volumes of lava constantly pouring out rapidly from many large fissure volcanoes. Only some unique catastrophe could have formed all this magma.

What? Conventional geologists? You mean actual geologists? As opposed to people who just make stuff up? We've had some volcanoes erupt, and it appears in the past there were even bigger ones, therefore there must have been a "unique catastrophe"--a worldwide flood? Does that make an iota of sense to you? Here's an idea, to find out about these huge volcanoes in the past, how about we do geology? There's a thought.

As I said, I neither know nor care whether they're pathological liars, totally deluded, nuts or incredibly stupid. What I know is that every article they post is rife with errors and nonsense, and I can't imagine how anyone could swallow such tripe unless they were one of those things, or unless they really wanted to be fooled.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Maybe we should have an AIG thread. Sounds fun to me.

That does sound like fun.

 

[Autodidact]

What say you, sports fans, a thread to discuss Answers in Genesis?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

What say you, sports fans, a thread to discuss Answers in Genesis?

I can haz AiG thread?

 

[Autodidact]

Go for it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Go for it.

Not exactly what I had in mind

 

[Autodidact]

Just got an odd image of the U.S. government bailing out Answers in Genesis.