How best to argue against creationists

[RedOne77]

Jolly, my boy. Why the anger?

Now, I'm not here to defend anyone, but look at it from a creationist perspective. As far as they know (saving dishonesty) their position is a very valid one, and when they come here to debate/talk/etc. all too often they get ridiculed for having a belief that is most sacred to them - I know. I spent months here debating for creation, and honestly half of the time people responded not so much against my arguments/points, but just to bash and ridicule the position I held.

Despite what y'all (evos) believe or tell yourself, after spending over 2 years on multiple forums debating this issue, it is by far the evolutionists that are the bullies in this debate.

I do somewhat understand the issue Jolly has with Auto telling him to take certain things up in another new thread. Just on my own observations Auto has a very peculiar rule system for when things should be moved to other threads and when to voice those opinions. Not assuming who is right or wrong, it is just very strange when Auto decides that a topic needs to be moved to a new thread - sometimes she responds to off-topic points, sometimes she just avoids all discussion and demands a new thread be made. There really is no pattern that I can see if one only assumes that it is done because an issue is off-topic. Just my observation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Give me ONE example for now of them LYING? This better be good.

Uhhh...I have given you three so far....

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?

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?

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.

 

[painted wolf]

RedOne... in general I agree. I don't personally like bully tactics (though I admit I have used them as I loose patience) and I often argue against their use.

While evos may be online bullies... in real world situations it's often the creos who turn to bullying. Both through the law (though they inevitably get shut down) and through other, less savory expressions.

Not to excuse the poor behavior of people on line, mind you... just pointing out both sides are at fault.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Now, I'm not here to defend anyone, but look at it from a creationist perspective. As far as they know (saving dishonesty) their position is a very valid one, and when they come here to debate/talk/etc. all too often they get ridiculed for having a belief that is most sacred to them - I know. I spent months here debating for creation, and honestly half of the time people responded not so much against my arguments/points, but just to bash and ridicule the position I held.

Despite what y'all (evos) believe or tell yourself, after spending over 2 years on multiple forums debating this issue, it is by far the evolutionists that are the bullies in this debate.

I do somewhat understand the issue Jolly has with Auto telling him to take certain things up in another new thread. Just on my own observations Auto has a very peculiar rule system for when things should be moved to other threads and when to voice those opinions. Not assuming who is right or wrong, it is just very strange when Auto decides that a topic needs to be moved to a new thread - sometimes she responds to off-topic points, sometimes she just avoids all discussion and demands a new thread be made. There really is no pattern that I can see if one only assumes that it is done because an issue is off-topic. Just my observation.

I think what happens for us, Red, is that we have to go through the same basic misunderstandings over and over, not just with new posters, but with THE SAME POSTER. We get frustrated, and respond in various ways. For me, I often ask people to start a new thread as a mechanism to clarify what we are talking about and what we are not.

This fits under the OP here. For example, when a YEC starts acting as if all biologists are atheists, or arguing that God is an alternative theory, I try to clarify that is not in dispute by asking them to take it to another thread.

When you patiently explain a simple concept to someone, such as that the Theory of Evolution is NOT the theory that there is no God, and in the next post they try to argue that ToE is not correct because God created all things, how can you respond? What is there to do but ask whether they don't believe you, or are stupid or dishonest?

As you may know, with Danmac I have resorted to repeating the same simple concepts in huge colored fonts:

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
Maybe someone can explain to me what the problem is. At times it seems as if YEC damages people's brains.

I guess the way I feel is that if YECs would understand what the actual issues are, and focus on that, they would be forced to realize, at a minimum, certain errors in what they have been told by professional creationist liars.

For another example, YECs will rail on for pages about how speciation doesn't occur. If you force them to set out what their hypothesis really is, often it includes rapid, dramatic speciation--the exact thing they've been denying for five pages. They turn on a dime and start arguing in favor of the thing they've been denying. Then they forget and start spewing the same tired rhetoric about it being impossible.

Anyway, in terms of strategy, I try hard to get YECs to clarify just what their position is. Their refusal inability to do so (at that point they start hiding behind "I don't know, ask the creation scientists," is just one more of the frustrating things about debating with them.

After a few years of this, many science proponents start resorting to ridicule and name-calling. IMO much of it is deserved. I try to avoid it, because it's not usually a good tactic, but it is understandable to me.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

For myself, when a creationist posts in a thread about evolution, I wait to see what their approach is. If they are looking to learn, I stay back and let people like PW and Auto take the lead.

On the other hand, when I see the creationist present an argument, see the rebuttal, and continue to present the refuted argument, I don't take long to go into my "sarcasm" mode.

When the creationist goes the extra mile, and decides to use the thread as a platform from which to proselytize, I then go into full attack mode. I view someone preaching to me as an attack on my views - consequently, I do not hesitate to offer an attack in return.

I don't mind a person citing biblical passages in a discussion of Christianity, or using the Q'uran to talk about issues in Islam. I very rarely (if ever) enter into those discussions, out of respect for that particular religion. On the other hand, when someone tries to quote a holy text to make a point in a debate about science, they have to know that the nonbelievers in the group don't acknowledge the premise from which they start.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne... in general I agree. I don't personally like bully tactics (though I admit I have used them as I loose patience) and I often argue against their use.

While evos may be online bullies... in real world situations it's often the creos who turn to bullying. Both through the law (though they inevitably get shut down) and through other, less savory expressions.

Not to excuse the poor behavior of people on line, mind you... just pointing out both sides are at fault.

wa:do

I agree, I use 'bullying' tactics as well against creationists when I get frustrated, although I try not to. But far too often I think evos are just bashing down creationists and it is damaging to the evo side. I'm not to worried about old time creationists (they just can't be helped, unfortunately) but to newcomers who aren't as familiar to the debate as a whole.

Autodidact
I think what happens for us, Red, is that we have to go through the same basic misunderstandings over and over, not just with new posters, but with THE SAME POSTER. We get frustrated, and respond in various ways. For me, I often ask people to start a new thread as a mechanism to clarify what we are talking about and what we are not.

I understand, the first forum I was on (beliefnet) one guy kept on asking 'how do mutations add up at the right time in the right place to form X'. After several people linking and willing to discuss scholarly articles of just that, you can't help but to resort to non-kosher tactics and redicule when he refuses to even read the paper that explains how 'mutations add up'.

This fits under the OP here. For example, when a YEC starts acting as if all biologists are atheists, or arguing that God is an alternative theory, I try to clarify that is not in dispute by asking them to take it to another thread.

From what I understand, most creos understand that you don't have to be an atheist to accept(believe) evolution, but that it is a trend that evos are atheist, and it is hard to blaim them, epecially as a fellow Christian, when they witness creationists loose their faith because of evolution.

Maybe someone can explain to me what the problem is. At times it seems as if YEC damages people's brains.

I think that is part of it. Even when talking to non-creationist conservative Christians they are very reluctant to accept any science that contradicts with their version of the Bible. To them it is unthinkable that the Bible is wrong (even if they get it unconsiously), so there is a hard push to disolve any fact/idea that goes against their version, which is God created eveything in 6 days no more than 10K years ago.

For another example, YECs will rail on for pages about how speciation doesn't occur. If you force them to set out what their hypothesis really is, often it includes rapid, dramatic speciation--the exact thing they've been denying for five pages. They turn on a dime and start arguing in favor of the thing they've been denying. Then they forget and start spewing the same tired rhetoric about it being impossible.

Anyway, in terms of strategy, I try hard to get YECs to clarify just what their position is. Their refusal inability to do so (at that point they start hiding behind "I don't know, ask the creation scientists," is just one more of the frustrating things about debating with them.

After a few years of this, many science proponents start resorting to ridicule and name-calling. IMO much of it is deserved. I try to avoid it, because it's not usually a good tactic, but it is understandable to me.

I understand. I think much of the problem is that creationism is all over the place. I've met people who say that no speciation or micro-evolution exists to people who accept speciation up to the family level. Sometimes ridicule is deserved, but I rarely condone it, even when I do it myself.

The Voice of Reason

For myself, when a creationist posts in a thread about evolution, I wait to see what their approach is. If they are looking to learn, I stay back and let people like PW and Auto take the lead.

On the other hand, when I see the creationist present an argument, see the rebuttal, and continue to present the refuted argument, I don't take long to go into my "sarcasm" mode.

When the creationist goes the extra mile, and decides to use the thread as a platform from which to proselytize, I then go into full attack mode. I view someone preaching to me as an attack on my views - consequently, I do not hesitate to offer an attack in return.

I don't mind a person citing biblical passages in a discussion of Christianity, or using the Q'uran to talk about issues in Islam. I very rarely (if ever) enter into those discussions, out of respect for that particular religion. On the other hand, when someone tries to quote a holy text to make a point in a debate about science, they have to know that the nonbelievers in the group don't acknowledge the premise from which they start.

I think a lot of the problem is people not understanding the difference between science and non-science. Not to point out Jollybear in particular, but many don't understand the limits of science and want all (natural and supernatural) incorporated into the methodology of science. And many don't understand the Bible as a piece of literature from that time period and region with its own unique style so think it should be read literally.

Personally I would like to see less riducule from the evo side, but I know it is hard, I've been there, yet at the sime time I think it would go a long way in discussion with the newbe creationists who aren't competely tainted by the professional YEC world view.

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

Great. Why don't you toddle over to the evidence thread and we'll discuss it.

That is just what I want to do.

As I said before, if they're wrong, and it's pointed out to them that they're wrong, and they persist in repeating it, what do you call that?

It don’t perse mean they are lying, it could mean they disagree with what is pointed out and they probably have a reason for their disagreement and it’s not just a biblical reason either.

You can’t assume on the character.

Here is the difference on how I am focused RIGHT NOW on characters and how others on here are focused on characters. I am focused on characters in a DIFFERENT WAY than how others on here are focused on them. I don’t ASSUME the WORST, while many on here ARE and DO assume the worst. See the difference? Now those who always assume the worst, THOSE I assume the WORST of. THERE IS the difference. So I am NOT doing the SAME thing they are doing. I am not a hypocrite.

I could have sworn you said you were going to present evidence.

You must of misunderstood what I wanted to do, I simply in this discussion wanted to say WHY it’s wrong to focus on characters and motives. And YES LOGICALLY I have to FOCUS on the subject of characters in order to help others or persuade others to get there focus off it. DUH.

You're the one who seems obsessed with their motivations. I've told you several times I neither know nor care. What matters is, they are not a reliable source.

I am obsessed with others getting their FOCUS OFFFFFFFFF motivations. I am NOT obsessed with motives, I am obsessed with others getting their focus off that junk.

Now when you say not a “reliable” source, do you mean they are a dishonest source?

Try to focus on the content without insulting the poster--before someone alerts the mods.

Did you not read what I said? I did focus and address the content of The_Voice_Of_Reason’s message, and then called it crazy because it clearly is.

Well I don't think going on and on about someone's motive and character is the best way to get the focus away from motive and character, but that's just me.

Your misunderstanding something VITAL in this whole conversation here. To get someone’s focus which is BENT on focusing on characters, you HAVE to focus and talk about the subject of characters with them and you have to show them why and persuade them with reasons why they need to get there focus off that. That means you have to talk about it.

I showed you myself. Do I need to repeat it? Other posters have shown you repeated instances of them making false claims, having the falsehood pointed out to them, and them persisting in those false claims. What do you call that?

If they persist in it without accounting for the argument given them, THAT is dishonest, if they account for it and then continue, THEN they are honest.

And that is how I do things. I am a believer in accounting for everything. But of course, that takes time. LOTS of it.

Well, I'm starting to have my doubts. When people post stuff, and then you claim no such thing was posted, and we can see right in the thread it was, it will cause us to doubt your credibility.

I did not say I did not post that I am willing to find the truth whatever it may be. I did not deny I posted something like that. And I am not lying about or changing my mind about what I posted. I want the truth whatever it may be, that is the truth, I mean, that is the truth. So, I don’t get what your getting at? How does that ruin my credibility?

Or when I explained to you that creationist vs. atheist is not an accurate categorization, and you persist in using that. Why do you do that? Dishonest? Stubborn? Incapable of learning? What? You tell me.

I persist in using it because you misunderstand why I was using it. Perhaps then it is you that is incapable of learning?

Let me explain again. Some atheist are dishonest, some are honest, some creationists are honest, some are dishonest. What is important is the merit of what they say.

I have shown you definitively that what they are doing is not science, by the definition of science. I explained it to you in terms a freshman could understand, using their own words to prove it. So have other people. Do you not understand us, or what is the problem here?

The problem is you have not shown it, that’s the problem. All you have shown is what they believe, congratulations, I already knew that.

What is obvious is that they make false statements and persist in repeating them after it's shown they're false.

First off, you assume it’s shown that there statements are shown to be false, perhaps not to them it is though. That is why they persist.

Are you serious? Are you seriously trying to assert that people who believe the Bible lie less than people who don't? Wow. O.K. provide a source for that claim, because I'm not buying it. My experience has been exactly the opposite.

Apparently you did not understand me. People who TRULY believe in the bible, WILL NOT LIE. Why? Because to believe it, means you will follow it.

 

[Jollybear]

So Christians don't sin?

btw, where is that commandment not to lie?

Christians sin, they don’t practice sin, also some may not practice a particular sin AT ALL, but just struggle with one particular kind of sin.

Here are the scriptures in the bible that say do not lie.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:11-13&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10:19&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:16&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2019:18-19&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+29:21&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15:19&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+23:7&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19:36&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Chronicles+29:17&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+5:1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+29:23&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+3:9&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John+1:6&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-10&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21:8&version=NIV

There, that is a good few right their to look at. There is even more in the bible that mention lies, but I don’t want to give you all of them, if you want to see them all, just do a word search on biblegateway.com which is where I got these at.

But, these pretty much show emphatically that the bible HATES dishonesty and lies. So in short, those who TRULY believe and STUDY the bible and practice following it, THEY WILL NOT LIE IF that command is in there heart.

You see, it’s not just genesis chapter 1 and 2 that is in our heart, that is just one small section of the bible out of all of it, but it is an important section, it’s a foundational one. The creation is a foundation for all the rest that goes on.

No, I think you're sincere, but it's hard to see how. People have shown you actual falsehoods from their site. I have to think you're biased in their favor, because their religion is similar to yours.

Yes, I am sincere, YES I have a bias, NO I am not dishonest because I have a bias. A bias IS NOT dishonesty, it’s holding to a belief, YES I have a worldview, JOIN the club, everyone does. Everyone has a bias, but some are dishonest with it, some are not, I AM NOT.

And as for those other DISHONEST Christians out there or creationists out there, here is the message you should give them along with those scriptures I provided you, this is the message they need to know “GOD DOES NOT WANT YOU TO LIE FOR HIM, HE DOES NOT NEED YOUR LIES TO DEFEND HIM”.

Again, please focus on the message, not the poster.

I did focus on what he said and what he said had to do with HIM. I did address what he said as well.

So your point was just totally irrelevant then?

No, it was relevant. The relevance was if there are some atheists and evolutionists that are dishonest, why attack the creationists for dishonesty? Everyone has to be addressed by the merit of what they say.

Please try to focus on the substance. It's getting hard to ignore your constant insults.

I thought you said to focus on the message? Now you’re not focusing on the message, just the insult. And you did not address the message which was “Also if some atheists question evolution, what does that tell you? Their motives are certainly not to defend the bible! That just goes to show you your wasting your time calling people dishonest or focusing on their motives.”

Why did you bring up atheists? They're irrelevant to our discussion. Some Chinese people are dishonest, and so are some bassoonists.

Yea and that is why I brought them up to show that many different kinds of people are dishonest, and many different kinds are honest. But the important thing is to address the merit of what they say.

If you cannot refrain from spewing insults, I will not continue to converse with you, and I will report you to the mods.

I did not insult you, I insulted the other guy. I was giving him a taste of his own medicine, perhaps to show him that what he does to me is not very helpful and is unfruitful, just like it was unfruitful that I did it to him.

And on top of it, by him doing it FIRST, that REALLY does make him sick.

 

[Jollybear]

For someone who wants to steer the discussion away from character and motive, Jolly Bear spends an awful lot of time attacking other people's characters and motives. What do you call that, Jolly?

I seen someone who wanted to talk about characters and so I talked with him about it, but in the context of trying to get him AWAY from it, not to CONTINUE it.

Also the WAY I am attacking the character is A LOT different then how others on here are doing it. They attack it without proof and they attack it because of a certain position, I attack it not for ANY of those reasons, I attack it because it demonstrates FEAR, and THAT fear is what I attack.

So my approach is different than theirs, which makes me NOT telling them to stop doing something that I myself am doing. It’s different.

Knock knock. Jolly. We've taken individual AIG claims, shown you that they're wrong (which is all that really matters) and further shown you the claim being corrected and AIG nonetheless persisting in making it. For some reason that doesn't interest you.

No one is twisting their mission statement but you. They make it crystal clear that they will not accept any evidence, no matter how apparently valid, if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Then they go on to say they're doing science. Their mission statement makes it clear they could not possibly be doing science.

So your position is that they're wrong over and over, and don't correct their errors, but they're not deliberately lying, there's some other explanation, such as that they're all incredibly stupid, they're skilled at deluding themselves, they're completely nuts, or they're just really ignorant. O.K. I'm fine with any of those. You agree that they're an utterly unreliable source who should not be cited, and I'm sure we'll be happy to agree that we can not know whether or not it's because they're deliberately lying. At least, I will. Deal?

I don’t know if that is a deal because I don’t KNOW if there actually unreliable, I still have lots of questions. I do know one thing though, I am not twisting their mission statement. I know by common sense and by how to read, there mission statement is NOT intended to be there evidence. And in there mission statement they are not saying the bible is there evidence and they are not saying they will refuse looking at facts.

 

[Jollybear]

Voice_Of_Reason

Jolly, my boy. Why the anger?

Voice, my boy, why the accusations that I am dishonest?

Wouldn't it be better to just admit that you are wrong about AIG and evolution, that the clowns at Answers in Genesis are incapable of telling the truth, that you don't understand what science is or how it works, and that you simply have no intention of objectively listening to anything that does not reinforce your religious belief in creationism.

No it would not be better for me to admit this, because if I admitted this, I would THEN START TO BE DISHONEST because I would be lying to myself if I admitted this. I have lots more questions.

Inner peace is much easier to come by, when you shine the light of the truth in your life.

I agree, I would hope you agree with your own statement though.

No need to thank me - I do what I can when someone like you so clearly needs help.

No need to thank you? Lol maybe I should throw you a party along with the thanks huh?

Your accusations have surely been so helpful, NOT.

 

[Autodidact]

RedOne:

Get back to me after a few years of trying to reason with YECs and let me know if you've resorted to mockery and derision

 

[Kilgore Trout]

RedOne:

Get back to me after a few years of trying to reason with YECs and let me know if you've resorted to mockery and derision

Or have become psychotic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No I wasn’t. address what I said

Yes you were. See the part I've underlined:

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?”

Also, this whole tirade was rendered entirely contradictory when in the very same post you make the following statements:

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

This is you implying I've never read the statement of faith, which I have. Then in the very next post:

"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."

Again, you assert that I am prejudging them. I am not. I have dealt with them in the past and I know them to be dishonest, that is how I came to the conclusion. If you contest that, then by all means present some of their honest science. I'd love to see it.

I am not ACCUSING you of making unfair assumptions about peoples character, I KNOW you are making unfair assumptions. The fact that they are ASSUMPTIONS, is ENOUGH in itself to tell you that you should stop doing it. The only thing I am accusing you of is that YOU DOING THIS IS a BAD THING. Forget motives and characters, focusing on that is BAD UNLESS you have proof they are a bad character, which you don’t have that proof. So I consider THAT a bad character on YOUR part to do that, so I point it out and tell you to stop, so your character may become GOOD.

And now you're assuming I have no proof of them being dishonest, which is a pretty rash assumption on your part since the AiG statement of faith is a glaring contradiction to any notion of honesty they might possess.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that my opinion of the AiG is not prejudice - it is something I have concluded after dealing with them FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS in the evolution/creationism debate.

And no, until you give me any reason to think of them as anything other than a dishonest organization, I will continue to assert that they are. Because they are. I fail to see why my judgement of them as dishonest is any different to your judgement of me being unfair and making assumptions. I'm not. I've come to an educated conclusion.

I am not being hypocritical here because I am not DOING THE SAME THING THAT YOU DO. I do not FOCUS on motives and characters UNLESS the other person is focused on it, then I put my focus on trying to get them to STOP focusing on it, because by them focusing on it, THAT to ME is a BAD character. You see? I don’t do the SAME thing that you are doing. If I did, and then told you to stop it, THEN I would be a hypocrite, which I am NOT because I am not doing the SAME thing you do. Get it strait.

I've told you this about a hundred times already.

If you want us to move away from their motives, THEN PRESENT SCIENCE. You and me have been back and forth about this issue of their integrity about a hundred times, and do you know why that is? Because you refuse to move the subject forward like I am trying to get you to do. You're just throwing a tantrum because I happen to be coming at this issue from a perspective you don't like, but that perspective DOES NOT colour my interpretation of any facts that they might present. Fact is, they never present any, and you have yet to present any.

If you want to change my mind about them, which seems to be what you're upset about, then present to me the case for their honesty and present to me some of their honest science. Do not simply kick and scream about how "unfair" I'm being. As I've said, I've dealt with AiG for the last three years and know that they have been dishonest in the past and are continuing to be dishonest in the present. If you think they are not, then it is up to you to DEMONSTRATE THAT.

Understand?

No, your misunderstanding, I’m sure you probably will NOT ignore their arguments, but what you need to stop focusing on is motives and characters, you got things backwards. Address arguments FIRST, FORGET motives and characters, only address those if you have PROOF. Which you don’t have proof there lying. Not even good evidence really. You MAY have evidence they are wrong, but that’s about the extent of it.

Like I said, I've dealt with them back and forth FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. I've gathered enough information on them and their "science" to happily conclude that they are dishonest.

If you don't like that, it's up to you to demonstrate how and where my conclusion is wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, YOUR misunderstanding. This is NOT hypocrisy on my part, I did not say you are IGNORING AIG arguments, I am saying you should STOP FOCUSING on motives and characters if you don’t have definitive proof they are lying, which you clearly don’t have this proof Nor evidence they are lying. You can say you have evidence they are wrong, but you don’t have evidence they are lying.

Yes, I do have clear examples of them lying. Would you like to see them?

No, you STILL apparently don’t understand what hypocrisy is. This is not a UNFOUNDED assumption on my part. Hypocrisy on my part would be to do the same thing you yourself are doing. I am not doing the same thing I am asking you to quite doing. All I am doing is asking you to quite focusing on motives and characters. I don’t FOCUS on motives and characters, YOU do, I am asking you to stop that, I think it’s a WRONG approach. You see? I don’t do the SAME thing I am asking you to stop. I am not a hypocrite. Get it strait.

You clearly do focus on motives and character since, rather than moving the debate forward, you're repeatedly called me "dumb", "sick" and tried to tell me I am wrong without so much as presenting a case.

Yes, I know what hypocrisy is, and yes, you are a hypocrite.

But at the same time I do realize motives and characters exist and that some can be good and some bad. What I consider a bad character to be when it comes to debating is when they focus on motives and characters, THAT is a bad character when it comes to debate. This is not hypocrisy on my part, this is a balanced perspective of reality.

Not when the person you're debating with has an informed opinion and good reason to hold their particular position. I have good reason why I do not trust them based on motives and character: Because their motives are based on forcing religion into schools and their character is such that they openly tell their adherents to ignore any scientific evidence that does not fit with their conclusion and lie about the basic fundamentals of science.

If you want to move the debate on, get off your soapbox and present examples of their academic honesty. Until then, you're just wasting my time.

That’s not what I asked you, I asked you did you read all of them? VERY specific question with a VERY specific purpose behind it.

And the answer is yes.

If I give you an article, I don’t’ wish to discuss it because I want to get done with this conversation so I can get back to redOne77.

I asked you to present an article so that I could discuss it with you. Stop squirming out of things.

Here is a simple short one just to PROVE to you that I am NOT resisting out of FEAR. http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Even_the_simplest_life_is_incredibly_complex

That's it? You present to me an article from "creation wiki"? I thought the whole point was for you to present me with an article from AiG that demonstrates clear academic honesty and real science?

Micheal behe did not throw out the concept of irreducibly complexity. He still believes in complexity to my knowledge. If you think otherwise, give me a source.

I just did.

Also I watched this video before and this guy did not disprove complexity.

Yes, he did. He demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum - an organism thought to be irreducibly complex - STILL FUNCTIONS WITHOUT MOST OF IT'S PARTS.

Seriously, if this is the degree to which you're willing to dismiss and deny any and all evidence put in front of you, I see no point in continuing to debate with you.

Also you assume I am not TRYING to keep up with science. Another baloney assumption of yours. You don’t know what I am TRYING or NOT trying to do. AT the MOMENT I am TRYING to do ONE thing, can only do ONE thing at a time, and at THIS moment I am TRYING to get you to STOP focusing on motives and characters. Right now I am NOT trying to focus on keeping up with science (although I am trying to do that as well, just not at the MOMENT) at the moment I am focused on YOU. Get it?

You said irreducible complexity exists, when it does not, and has been demonstrated BY SCIENTISTS to not exist.

Ergo, you weren't up to date with science, and your continued refusal to accept the fact that irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted in court shows that you're willing to remain not up to date.

By calling a claim that is GIVEN by a person dishonest, you by default call the claimer dishonest. DUH.

Afraid not. That's still not a personal attack, and certainly not the same as calling someone "dumb" or "sick".

By not trusting young earth creationists, your by default calling them all dishonest. That is PERSONAL now.

No, again. You're making a leap from a personal opinion to an insult. There's a pretty clear difference.

No, wrong, I did correct it, and I demonstrated how you twisted it. Your wrong in saying that I twisted it, it was you that did that.

I really don't feel the need to do this silly ping-pong game with you. Anybody can see who was twisting it and who wasn't. You were clearly the one twisting it to mean "Oh, but they could accept PROOF" when it says NOTHING of the sort.

They do present science.
[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

Such as...?

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne:

Get back to me after a few years of trying to reason with YECs and let me know if you've resorted to mockery and derision

I've been trying to reason with YECs for almost 5 years now; almost 3 years on forums like these. And yes, I've resorted to mockery, ridicule, and plain old WTF are you talking about statements. But I still think that evos are too forceful and too quick to mock creationists, such discussion rarely has any profit for either side. I've found that getting to the basics, like what does evolution mean(?), both micro and macro, and similar discussions have been the most profitable (long term). Even if they don't take your position at the end, I feel that they have a better understanding of what you are talking about, and it paves the way for later discussions like what does "kind" mean, what do you mean by a "new structure", or what do you mean by "speciation".

 

[Autodidact]

I've been trying to reason with YECs for almost 5 years now; almost 3 years on forums like these. And yes, I've resorted to mockery, ridicule, and plain old WTF are you talking about statements. But I still think that evos are too forceful and too quick to mock creationists, such discussion rarely has any profit for either side. I've found that getting to the basics, like what does evolution mean(?), both micro and macro, and similar discussions have been the most profitable (long term). Even if they don't take your position at the end, I feel that they have a better understanding of what you are talking about, and it paves the way for later discussions like what does "kind" mean, what do you mean by a "new structure", or what do you mean by "speciation".

I agree, and believe and hope that is pretty close to may approach.

However, often I have to beat them about the head and shoulders just to get them to even discuss those things, rather than, for example, whether God created all things.

Frankly, I'd be happy to help one of them do a better job arguing against ToE by advancing their understanding of what it actually is. This does not seem to interest them, oddly enough.

Seriously, I have had this exchange with more than one YEC:
YEC: There is no evidence for ToE.
me: Would you like to review the evidence for ToE?
YEC: No.
me: Well then please stop going around the internet making assertions about it, 'kay?

Two weeks later...
YEC: There is no evidence for ToE.
me::banghead3:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Apparently you did not understand me. People who TRULY believe in the bible, WILL NOT LIE. Why? Because to believe it, means you will follow it.

... and naturally, you ASSUME that the people at AIG TRULY believe in the bible and that they WILL NOT LIE. Now, why on earth would you make such an assumption, seeing as you've built your entire position in this thread by chastising everyone else for making assumptions?

On a side note, ninety percent of what you are claiming an assumption are not assumptions.

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

Also, this whole tirade was rendered entirely contradictory when in the very same post you make the following statements:

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

This is you implying I've never read the statement of faith, which I have. Then in the very next post:

"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."

Again, you assert that I am prejudging them. I am not. I have dealt with them in the past and I know them to be dishonest, that is how I came to the conclusion. If you contest that, then by all means present some of their honest science. I'd love to see it.

What I said in my two sentences are not contradictory. You misunderstand. Just like you misunderstand what AIG is saying in their statement of faith. You’re not trying to understand, you’re trying to FIND dishonesty. And you WILL see what you WANT to see, sure.

Anyway, let me tell you why my two sentences are not contradictory. Me asking if you read every single article is not the same as me assuming you have not read their statement of faith. How is my two sentences contradictory? I seriously don’t see what you’re getting at?

Here is what my first sentence is getting at. I am asking if you read literally every single article that exists on the AIG website, and if you have not, then perhaps there is something on there you need to account for and look at. The second sentence I am simply saying I am not against you rebutting there arguments, I am against you claiming they are dishonest when you don’t know that. Just because someone TURNS OUT TO BE WRONG does not = them being dishonest BECAUSE they were wrong or are wrong.

Where did I contradict myself? Seriously, where? You lost me.

Also when you say present some of their HONEST science, again, your assuming they are presenting DISHONEST science, why do you assume the worst? Why not assume they are presenting WRONG science? Why do you assume they are being intentionally dishonest and deceptive? Why? You don’t know that? When you do that, that does not dampen there character, it dampens YOUR’S. Why does it dampen yours? Because you assume the worst of someone when you don’t know that. I know you claim you know it, but you don’t, you may know they are WRONG, but you don’t know if there dishonest, no, no you don’t. It’s a cop out to call someone dishonest, that dampens you, not them.

And now you're assuming I have no proof of them being dishonest, which is a pretty rash assumption on your part since the AiG statement of faith is a glaring contradiction to any notion of honesty they might possess.

Their statement of faith is not dishonesty, they are HONEST about their faith. And there statement of faith is not saying they REFUSE to look at facts and it’s not saying to RUN from facts.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that my opinion of the AiG is not prejudice - it is something I have concluded after dealing with them FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS in the evolution/creationism debate.

When it comes to that statement of faith they have, that is prejudice.

And no, until you give me any reason to think of them as anything other than a dishonest organization, I will continue to assert that they are. Because they are. I fail to see why my judgement of them as dishonest is any different to your judgement of me being unfair and making assumptions. I'm not. I've come to an educated conclusion.

My judgment on you is different than your judgment on them. Here is the difference, your judging their INTENT, I am judging YOUR JUDGING of their intent. That’s the difference.

I've told you this about a hundred times already.

If you want us to move away from their motives, THEN PRESENT SCIENCE.

No, I am not going to present some science, I told you why I was talking to you, it was to get you to focus OFF motives. That is not what is important, it’s the believes and views that are important, not motives in a debate.

But as for presenting some science, I am going to get back to redOne77 about that.

You and me have been back and forth about this issue of their integrity about a hundred times, and do you know why that is? Because you refuse to move the subject forward like I am trying to get you to do.

You don’t have to GET me to do it, I am already willing to do it, but I am going to do it with redOne77 because I want to get back to him with our discussion we were having. I only started to talk to you to get you to get off your NONE noble task of focusing on motives and characters.

You're just throwing a tantrum because I happen to be coming at this issue from a perspective you don't like, but that perspective DOES NOT colour my interpretation of any facts that they might present. Fact is, they never present any, and you have yet to present any.

The thing is though, it don’t matter if your perspective colours or does not colour your interpretation of what they may present, what matters is, your perspective is a NONE NOBLE task, it’s focused on the WRONG thing, and it’s BAD to accuse others of being dishonest if you don’t have proof.

If you want to change my mind about them, which seems to be what you're upset about, then present to me the case for their honesty and present to me some of their honest science. Do not simply kick and scream about how "unfair" I'm being. As I've said, I've dealt with AiG for the last three years and know that they have been dishonest in the past and are continuing to be dishonest in the present. If you think they are not, then it is up to you to DEMONSTRATE THAT.

Understand?

No, I don’t have to demonstrate that, because I am not saying they are honest, nor dishonest, if there dishonest, then I won’t like that, but if you claim they are dishonest, then you demonstrate that, so far you haven’t.

You may demonstrate they make mistakes, but that don’t equal dishonesty.

Yes, I do have clear examples of them lying. Would you like to see them?

Yes, give me JUST ONE CLEAR example. Not two, just one. Your best one.

 

[Jollybear]

You clearly do focus on motives and character since, rather than moving the debate forward, you're repeatedly called me "dumb", "sick" and tried to tell me I am wrong without so much as presenting a case.

Yes, to me anyone who focuses on motives and characters in a debate is sick and dum or dishonest. But, I am not focused on that, I am trying to get you to STOP focusing on that. But to do that, I have to focus on it while I am talking to you about it.

Yes, I know what hypocrisy is, and yes, you are a hypocrite.

Apparently you don’t know what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is when you tell someone else to NOT do something, and yet you do the EXACT SAME thing. But in my case, I am NOT doing the EXACT same thing you’re doing. Do you get that?

Your saying answers in genesis is dishonest because of what they said here or there or how they phrased this or that or whatever. I do NOT do that. I do however say that a person is dishonest when they call someone else dishonest when they have no proof of that, and that is a dishonest opinion. And that you should STOP doing that so you may be honest. There is a CLEAR difference to what YOU do, and what I DO. I am not telling you to stop doing something and yet I do the exact same thing you do, for I do not DO what you actually do. The nature is different.

Not when the person you're debating with has an informed opinion and good reason to hold their particular position. I have good reason why I do not trust them based on motives and character: Because their motives are based on forcing religion into schools and their character is such that they openly tell their adherents to ignore any scientific evidence that does not fit with their conclusion and lie about the basic fundamentals of science.

Ok, if you have good reason to think they are dishonest, great, but I don’t think you do.

If you want to move the debate on, get off your soapbox and present examples of their academic honesty. Until then, you're just wasting my time.

Personally I don’t care if they are honest at this moment, so I am not going to try to defend them, all I know is, that I am honest. The thing is though, YOU claimed they are dishonest, so you give ONE example of that. Just one though, I don’t want to read two or more or a whole list, I just want one, your BEST one.

And the answer is yes.

You read every single article that exists on AIG?

I asked you to present an article so that I could discuss it with you. Stop squirming out of things.

I’m not squirming out of it, I already told you the plan, I get back to redOne77, and anything I ask or say to him, you point out if you think it’s dishonest ON MY PART.

That's it? You present to me an article from "creation wiki"? I thought the whole point was for you to present me with an article from AiG that demonstrates clear academic honesty and real science?

No I was not trying to defend them as being honest, you asked about complexity, I gave you an article defending complexity, not defending the integrity of AIG. You back up your claims that AIG are not honest. I’m not trying to defend them, I just think it’s wrong to accuse them unless you have proof.

I just did.

Micheal behe still believes in irreducible complexity. Give me the exact quote where he does not?

Yes, he did. He demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum - an organism thought to be irreducibly complex - STILL FUNCTIONS WITHOUT MOST OF IT'S PARTS.

A car can still function without most of it’s parts too. Take the hood off, take the windows out, take the bumper off, take the whatever else off, it will still function, it will still drive. But take out a VITAL part, like a weal or a section of the motor and it won’t work.

Just because certain parts can be taken out does not make it not complex at all now.

You said irreducible complexity exists, when it does not, and has been demonstrated BY SCIENTISTS to not exist.

Ergo, you weren't up to date with science, and your continued refusal to accept the fact that irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted in court shows that you're willing to remain not up to date.

I disagree, it’s not refuted. It’s attempted to, but it’s not.

Afraid not. That's still not a personal attack, and certainly not the same as calling someone "dumb" or "sick".

This is an example of one of your “dum” statements. To say that if you say to someone they are dishonest or their arguments are dishonest that this is not a personal attack, but calling someone dum or sick IS a personal attack, THAT in itself is dum. Either dum, WILLFULLY IGNORANT or dishonest, it’s one of them though. But either way, it’s WRONG. If you call someone dishonest, then it’s a personal attack on their CHARACTER. If I call someone dum, it’s a personal attack on their INTILLIGENCE. If we call someone willfully ignorant, it’s a personal attack on there WILL or character again. So, whether you use dishonest or dum or whatever, it’s all personal attacks. Your more smarter then you appear to be, I think you are, I think you know it’s all personal attacks. Come on now.

No, again. You're making a leap from a personal opinion to an insult. There's a pretty clear difference.

Don’t you realize that your “personal opinion” which is to distrust all young earth creationists, by default says they are all dishonest, and that means your personally attacking the character of every young earth creationist. That is what your opinion says. Whether you want to call that not an insult or not, I don’t’ care, it don’t matter to me if you call it an insult or not, either way, it’s a personal attack on the character of every young earth creationist. If you are consistent in what you admit, you will realize this. To not trust them all, is to say they are all dishonest, and that attacks their character.

That is what I think you need to stay away from.

I really don't feel the need to do this silly ping-pong game with you.

Me either.

 

[Jollybear]

Anybody can see who was twisting it and who wasn't.

Now you speak for everybody hey? And you also ASSUME (you love making assumptions) to know what everyone thinks and how everyone reads there statements of faith. I’m sure everyone who takes your position surely agrees with you, but I’m sure not everyone agrees with you on my side of the position. But then again, since I am not LIKE YOU, I won’t assume what others are thinking. You just make WAY too much assumptions. For someone who pounds at wanting facts, you sure make a lot of assumptions constantly.

You were clearly the one twisting it to mean "Oh, but they could accept PROOF" when it says NOTHING of the sort.

Your twisting it, your INSERTING that they would reject proof or SOLID evidence. I think we should contact AIG and ask them what they meant?

That should clear it up once and for all.