How best to argue against creationists

[Jollybear]

Voice_of_Reason

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?

I don’t assume they are honest nor dishonest, you assume they are dishonest. I just happen to give them the benefit of the doubt, just like I will atheists. But I do realize they COULD be dishonest, but so far, I have not seen you PROVE they are knowingly INTENTIONAL liars.

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

Yea, well I disagree. You think I am dishonest, that to me is clearly assumption. I don’t have all the data on AIG, or I have not looked at all the data for them, but as for me I have all the data, and you have made assumption on me.

You need to just quite that. Is building trust and respect an important thing to you?

What i am saying is, what should be important to you is NOT there motives or there character, but ONLY the merit of what they say. ONLY that. And that goes the same for anyone you debate with or talk to on here or in person.

Because you see, that builds healthy relationships, wheather those relationships are close or at a distance, either way, it builds healthy ones. And on top of it, it builds YOUR COURAGE.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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.

I doubt that "the other guy" was bothered by your post. The insults were unimaginative, droll, and sophomoric. The rest of the response was dull, and lacking in anything of value. No surprise, really - just heartbreakingly sad and stunningly predictable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For God's sake, I'm getting so tired of this now...

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.

More "No I'm not, you are". Is that all you really have? Could you at least try to make a case?

Again, I see no reason to explain this to you again. Everybody else on this forum with any grasp of the English language can see it for themselves.

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?

You implied that I had not read them. Obviously.

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.

But when they turn out to be DISHONEST, then I'm free to claim that they are dishonest.

Again, why do you keep ignoring this?

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

Because you make assumptions about me while slapping me on the wrist for making anything resembling an assumption about AiG - in spite of the fact that my opinion about the AiG is informed, and your opinion about me is not.

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.

How do you not get this already?

IF AiG ARE HONEST, THEN PRESENT HONEST SCIENCE DONE BY THEM! That is not an assumption, that is a request. Your inability and unwillingness to meet that request reflects pretty badly on the AiG and your understanding of them.

I'm still waiting. When are you going to present some honest AiG science?

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.

Yes, it is. Again:

"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." (1:1)

"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." (4:6)

They clearly state that pursuit of science is of SECONDARY importance to the proclamation of their belief (for a supposedly scientific organization, this alone is damning), and then go on to say that ANY EVIDENCE in ANY FIELD which contradicts the Bible CANNOT BE VALID, and that all evidence of that type should be considered solely the result of human falibility.

Twist it all you want, those words are clear as day.

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

How? How is it prejudiced to distrust a supposedly scientific organization that openly state that science is of secondary importance to their beliefs and that if their beliefs are contradicted by facts they should ignore them.

You seriously need to take those rose-tinted spectacles off.

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.

Yeah, you're right, calling someone "dumb" or "sick" because of their opinion of something is SO much better than calling an organization "dishonest" after three years of research into them.

Your double-standard is, again, noted.

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.

Then present those views.

I have already read their views and arguments and assessed them, and repeated I discovered that they were dishonest. Therefore, I judge AiG as a dishonest organization, and not thing you've said to me is going to change that unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

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

Why not get back to me? How hard would it be for you to just post some links?

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.

I see nothing ignoble about focusing on the motives and characters of a dishonest organization.

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.

I do have proof.

I have told you this repeatedly, and asked you if you would like to see it. Do you want to or not?

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.

Do you want me to?

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

Whereas if I demonstrate that they are actually dishonest...?

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

It's not the best, but it's the clearest.

Here, AiG author Jan Peczkis, under his pen name John Woodmorappe, quotes himself as a source in one of this articles. A clear case of a academic dishonesty:

Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Dishonesty of John Woodmorappe

That's just one example. Would you like more?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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.

You give yourself far too much credit. Trust me when I tell you - no one in this thread fears you, or your ability to debate a point. Pity, yes. Fear, no.

I know by common sense and by how to read ...

You should stop right there. Judging by your complete lack of understanding of the written word on AIG, and your grammar and typing skills in this thread, your common sense and ability to read are suspect, at best. In all honesty, they are much weaker than you think. Truth be told, they are much weaker than I thought possible.

... 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.

... and this would be excellent evidence that your "common sense" and reading skills are something you shouldn't be bragging about. We'll call this "Exhibit A".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You read every single article that exists on AIG?

I'm just curious - have YOU read every single article that exists on AIG?

If not, how do you justify making the assumption that they are telling the truth at all times?

 

[Autodidact]

Audodidact
That is just what I want to do.

Who's stopping you?

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.

Well, when someone says something that is demonstrably false, and they are informed that it is false by the person who knows, such as the person they are misquoting, and they fail to retract, I'd define that as a lie.

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?

You seem to be assuming the worst about everyone here.

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.

Well, as I say, you are spending tens of pages defending AIG's character and motives, all the while accusing other people of being obsessed with the subject. Meanwhile, tumbleweed, me and others try to get you to engage with the truth or falsity of AIG's statements, which you continue to ignore and even deny.

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.

No, you could have said, "Their character isn't the issue, the issue is whether their statements are accurate," and the proceeded to discuss what matters, the accuracy of their statements. Instead, you have focused like a laser on the one thing you want us to shut up about, their character and motives. I'm sick of the subject, and keep trying to get you to drop it and focus instead on what they're saying.

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.

You have a bizarre way of showing your interest. The best way to get the focus offffffff their motivation is to stop talking about it. duh.

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

No, I mean you can't rely on their statements, as they are often false.

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.

Yes, I have read you calling other posters in this thread various insulting names. Either stop or be disciplined by the mods.

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.

No, you don't. Only if you are BENT on persuading us something about their character, which is not going to work. As VOR as aptly said, we have all been reading them for years, and we know them for what they are. You're not going to persuade us they're honest, so for heaven's sake can we please drop the subject? It's so boring.

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.

Great. Well, they don't, they just ignore the corrections, so you have now agreed THAT THEN they are dishonest. Can we drop it now? Thanks.

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?

You keep denying that people have posted examples of AIG's lies, which we have, repeatedly. Would you like some more? You've ignored all the ones posted so far.

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.

Here's a thought! Let's say we talk about the merit of what AIG says!

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.

No. You do not understand the import. Their statement of faith violates the standards of the scientific method. Their statement of faith proves that without doubt, they are not doing science. You can't announce that you are not going to pay attention to any evidence that would falsify your hypothesis, which is what their SoF says, and do science. By pretending to do science, they are lying. And you are one of the poor sods they conned.

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.

Maybe. I DON'T CARE. What difference does it make? Here's what matters: they're wrong.

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.

Oh, I see. What you're saying is that no one TRULY believes in the Bible? Because I'm sure you'll agree, everyone lies, including people who claim to believe in the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Wow, subtle distinction--sinning versus practicing sin. Must mean something to you. Anyway, you evaded my question. Do Christians lie?

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.

Do any such people exist?

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”.

Tell it to AIG. Maybe they'll stop.

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

Hey, I'm trying to warn you. Keep it up, I'll stop talking to you and report you. No kidding.

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.

Because you brought them up.

But if you're interested in the merit, why not respond to the many examples of their dishonesty and innacuracy already given in this thread?

I thought you said to focus on the message? Now you’re not focusing on the message, just the insult.

Whatever. Stop. Get it?

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.”

Well, some of us think the truth is important, and some don't, apparently. I do, so I call someone out if I catch them in a lie.

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.

And yet you do anything but.

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.

I don't care who you're insulting. What I care about is that you stop.

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

So would you call yourself a good Christian, Jolly?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Make assumptions about other people much?

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.

O.K. so to recap, when you tell other people to stop doing what you yourself are doing, it's not hypocrisy. Got you.

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.

Of course it's not evidence. (*heriocally resists impulse to hypocritically insult Jolly*) It's their mission statement. DUH! It tells you exactly how they treat evidence. In an anti-scientific way. Therefore they are not doing science. Get it?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

They say they will refuse to look at, will ignore, will disregard any apparent fact that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.

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.

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.

Why don't you let us worry about our virtue, while you focus on yours?

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.

When they refuse to correct their mistakes?

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

God this is tedious. Read the thread, Jolly, there are at least 7 in it already. Tell you what. You pick an AIG article, and we'll show you the inacuracies in it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

• JOLLY "Show me where AiG is dishonest!!"
• HONESTPOSTER "OK Jolly, here are examples A,B,C and D"
• JOLLY "Ha!! Just because they are wrong does not mean they are dishonest!!!"
• HONESTPOSTER "But, the correct info is freely available. Why does AiG keep promoting bad science?"
• JOLLY" You can't prove they lied!! You are a liar!!! Christians don't lie!!!

Now, in the spirit of the OP, how is one to debate this sort of irrationality?

 

[Autodidact]

And:
Jolly: It doesn't matter whether they are liars or not, what matters is whether they are right.
HP: Well, here are several example where they are wrong.
Jolly: Stop talking about whether they are liars. It is wrong to assume they're lying. Why are you obsessed with showing that they are liars? You can't know that!
HP *sigh*

 

[Autodidact]

New AIG thread here.

btw, I think this thread has provided a good example of how one of the main traits you need to argue with YECs is patience. Also persistence.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

New AIG thread here.

btw, I think this thread has provided a good example of how one of the main traits you need to argue with YECs is patience. Also persistence.

Might I also recommend a strong tranquilizer, for our members that begin to get headaches from banging their head on the wall?

 

[Jollybear]

Voice_Of_Reason

I doubt that "the other guy" was bothered by your post.

I was not trying to BOTHER the other guy (you) I was simply telling the TRUTH to him. Telling the truth has not the motive in trying to BOTHER or get on the nerves of the other person.

The insults were unimaginative, droll,

Glad you found some humor in it. But at the same time, you need to question your suspicions of others.

and sophomoric.

Sorry, there is nothing phony about anything I have said to you or anyone else. You have decided to assume that and have distrust in you. Your distrust does not dictate whether or not I am trustworthy.

The rest of the response was dull, and lacking in anything of value. No surprise, really - just heartbreakingly sad and stunningly predictable.

This new response from you is also predictable.

Your just not going to learn trust. Again, is building relationships important to you? Respect as well? Trust?

You give yourself far too much credit. Trust me when I tell you - no one in this thread fears you, or your ability to debate a point. Pity, yes. Fear, no.

I did not say you fear me, I said you fear the possibility that some creationists could be honest, smart and informed. THAT is what you fear, and you fear that because if that is true, then they COULD be RIGHT in there position. You’re scared to death of that and it oozes out of your attitude like rotten garbage. I can smell it all over you.

You should stop right there. Judging by your complete lack of understanding of the written word on AIG,

Wrong, your twisting their word.

and your grammar and typing skills in this thread,

My grammar and typing skills? What is wrong with my grammar and typing skills? And what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Your switching away from the issue at hand. Cowards usually do that.

your common sense and ability to read are suspect,

Nothing wrong with my common sense, but there is something wrong with yours. But this is a waste of time saying this to each other.

Also if there is something wrong with my reading ability, why is it that I am able to read your words “ability to read are suspect” and I can understand what it means, you mean to say my ability to interpret a sentence or a message is dull. If I have reading challenges why am I able to read and interpret your words correctly? That’s strange, but then again, YOUR strange.

at best. In all honesty, they are much weaker than you think. Truth be told, they are much weaker than I thought possible.

If I were you I would phrase that like this “at best, they are much weaker that you think. They are much weaker than I thought possible.” Get the word “honest” and “truth” out of your sentence; you only do violence to those words when you use them for yourself.

I'm just curious - have YOU read every single article that exists on AIG?

If not, how do you justify making the assumption that they are telling the truth at all times?

I don’t make the assumption they are telling the truth at all times. And I don’t make the assumption they are dishonest either. They could be lying, but why not give them the benefit of the doubt, UNTIL I see they are lying, THEN I will say they are lying.

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

More "No I'm not, you are". Is that all you really have? Could you at least try to make a case?

I explained the statement already, you are the one twisting it.

Again, I see no reason to explain this to you again. Everybody else on this forum with any grasp of the English language can see it for themselves.

Yea, ok, assume to know the thoughts of everyone on the forum. Go right ahead, I’m not going there with you though.

You implied that I had not read them. Obviously.

I did not imply or mean you did not read anything on AIG website. Although I did have doubt you read literally every single article that exists on their. But, I could be wrong.

But when they turn out to be DISHONEST, then I'm free to claim that they are dishonest.

Again, why do you keep ignoring this?

Ok, if their dishonest, that does not make every other creationist dishonest and untrustworthy. Even if someone turns out to be wrong, that still does not make them perse dishonest. I don’t know why you don’t see this. And not just see it, but the danger of it too and the fear behind it as well. Also there statement of faith does not imply they are dishonest.

Because you make assumptions about me while slapping me on the wrist for making anything resembling an assumption about AiG - in spite of the fact that my opinion about the AiG is informed, and your opinion about me is not.

I am not making an assumption of you, I KNOW your making assumptions on AIG and I KNOW you distrust all creationists, I KNOW this, you have revealed it to me. What I am doing is JUDGING this as bad for reasons.

How do you not get this already?

IF AiG ARE HONEST, THEN PRESENT HONEST SCIENCE DONE BY THEM! That is not an assumption, that is a request. Your inability and unwillingness to meet that request reflects pretty badly on the AiG and your understanding of them.

I'm still waiting. When are you going to present some honest AiG science?

You see, you did not address my actual message to you. I asked you, why do you assume the worst? Why do you assume they are presenting dishonest science, why not assume rather they are presenting WRONG science? But you see, you assume the worst of someone’s character, that’s not good.

Yes, it is. Again:

"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." (1:1)

Ok, yea, and? That’s like home depot saying the costumers come first and associates are second. Ok, but that does not mean they IGNOR associates and do not treat them well. Just because something is second does not mean it’s neglected. Come on man, your picking at bones here. There is no meat to pick. They even said “the scientific aspects of creation ARE important” but apparently you don’t BELIEVE them when they say they ARE important. Your calling them liars when they say it’s important to them. You think it’s not important to them when in fact they said it is.

"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."

(4:6)

They clearly state that pursuit of science is of SECONDARY importance to the proclamation of their belief (for a supposedly scientific organization, this alone is damning), and then go on to say that ANY EVIDENCE in ANY FIELD which contradicts the Bible CANNOT BE VALID, and that all evidence of that type should be considered solely the result of human falibility.

Twist it all you want, those words are clear as day.

You see what you want to see. I bet you that if we contacted AIG, they would disagree with you. But yes, the quote is clear as day, it’s clear as day it’s not saying what your saying.

How? How is it prejudiced to distrust a supposedly scientific organization that openly state that science is of secondary importance to their beliefs and that if their beliefs are contradicted by facts they should ignore them.

You seriously need to take those rose-tinted spectacles off.

Oh man: secondary importance does not mean it’s not important. And it does not mean they will be dishonest.

You need to get SOME rose-tinted glasses ON.

Yeah, you're right, calling someone "dumb" or "sick" because of their opinion of something is SO much better than calling an organization "dishonest" after three years of research into them.

Your double-standard is, again, noted.

You’re the one with the double standard. You don’t want me to call you dishonest yet you call all creationists dishonest by distrusting them all. And all I am doing is saying I distrust that kind of attitude that is overly distrusting of an organization or all people who happen to believe the same views that organization holds too. You don’t know if all young earth creationists are dishonest. You seriously need to examine your own heart and stop distrusting others. Point the finger at yourself man. You’re a hypocrite calling me a hypocrite, that makes you ten times more hypocrite.

IT’s YOU that is blind. And if you respond to this in disagreement, I think I am going to have to just give you the last word, because I really want to be done with this.

 

[Jollybear]

Then present those views.

I have already read their views and arguments and assessed them, and repeated I discovered that they were dishonest. Therefore, I judge AiG as a dishonest organization, and not thing you've said to me is going to change that unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Ok, I don’t care about AIG now, why do you distrust all young earth creationists?

Why not get back to me? How hard would it be for you to just post some links?

Ok, I will get back to you, after redOne77

I see nothing ignoble about focusing on the motives and characters of a dishonest organization.

I do, unless there is proof that is. If there is not, then just stay focused on error they have.

It’s also ignoble to think all young earth creationists are dishonest.

It's not the best, but it's the clearest.

Here, AiG author Jan Peczkis, under his pen name John Woodmorappe, quotes himself as a source in one of this articles. A clear case of a academic dishonesty:

Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Dishonesty of John Woodmorappe

I have a few questions for you now.
1: is John woodmorappe an Illinois high school science teacher?
2: is Jan Peckis his real other name?
3: did he misquote himself?
4: why is quoting yourself a dishonest act?
5: Do you know the INTENT behind WHY he quoted himself? Do you know that this intent was to be knowingly DECEPTIVE? If so, HOW do you know?

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

Well, when someone says something that is demonstrably false, and they are informed that it is false by the person who knows, such as the person they are misquoting, and they fail to retract, I'd define that as a lie.

I would have to agree with you there. But at the same time, is the people they are quoting, is there quotes WRITTEN DOWN or are they quoting them by memory from what they audibly said?

You seem to be assuming the worst about everyone here.

You’re not getting me. Personally I am not assuming the worst of you. So far, I do not consider YOU to be dishonest. But I DO consider Voice_Of_Reason and ImmortalFlame to be dishonest. The reason why is because they assume the worst about creationists, when they don’t KNOW they are not trustworthy. And because they don’t know and yet assume the worst on their characters, that makes THEM willfully ignorant, or dishonest, or stupid. Now if you decided to be like them toward all creationists, I would then think the same of you. I don’t think the worst of someone UNLESS they think the worst of people. They play this moral superiority game with themselves. I don’t think those people are REAL, I think there phony type of people and I can’t stand them.

Well, as I say, you are spending tens of pages defending AIG's character and motives, all the while accusing other people of being obsessed with the subject. Meanwhile, tumbleweed, me and others try to get you to engage with the truth or falsity of AIG's statements, which you continue to ignore and even deny.

Look, I don’t care at the moment about AIG, I do care when someone says all creationists are not trustworthy. That is a problem. There are more then ONE writer one AIG. SOME may be dishonest, SOME may not be. You can’t assume everyone is dishonest just because they are a creationist. That’s not logical. I’m sorry, these guys on here don’t OWN “logic”.

No, you could have said, "Their character isn't the issue, the issue is whether their statements are accurate," and the proceeded to discuss what matters, the accuracy of their statements. Instead, you have focused like a laser on the one thing you want us to shut up about, their character and motives. I'm sick of the subject, and keep trying to get you to drop it and focus instead on what they're saying.

Let me tell you HOW this started, this whole conversation. I seen immortalFlame say something to the nature that he does not trust any young earth creationists and that they are typically dishonest. As soon as I seen that, I was infuriated. Let me put it another way, lets say I was ON YOUR SIDE of the fence here and I was an atheist, and I believed in the theory of evolution, and I agreed fully with mainstream orthodox science as it is today. Lets say that was ALL so in my case, and someone comes along who happened to be a young earth creationist which I happen in this scenario to disagree with there position. If I heard them say “all atheists, and all evolutionists are not trustworthy and are typically dishonest” I would look at that with eyes of FURY, and BOUNCE all over that guy. That is just how I am, I don’t like it when people do that and are ignorant of other people, I absolutely hate it with a rage. Lets even forget the issue of young earth vs old earth or whatever, and we were to talk about Christianity vs Islam, if I seen a Muslim say all Christians were dishonest, I would bounce all over that guy, likewise if I being a Christian and seen a Christian say all muslims are dishonest, I would bounce on my own fellow Christian comrade. You see, I absolutely HATE it when people are ignorant of others. I have a strong distaste for it. And I already said OVER and OVER to immortalFlame that my purpose in talking to him was NOT to get to any claims from AIG, but was ONLY to bounce on his accusations of creationists.

You have a bizarre way of showing your interest. The best way to get the focus offffffff their motivation is to stop talking about it. duh.

Your just not getting it, I don’t know why either. Let me see if I can try to explain it better.

I have to focus on characters and motives in the sense of talking about that subject in order to get him to get his focus off of characters and motives. I am not focused on characters and motives in the same sense that he is. Do you understand? I don’t know how to clarify it any more than this. There is a difference to what he is doing and what I am doing. If I stop talking about characters and motives, he will STILL believe all creationists are not trustworthy. He should not think this way, it’s a wrong mentality to have toward others who hold a creationist position. It’s wrong to have that suspicious eye on people. So I have to FOCUS on this subject in order to get at the root of why he is doing that.

Does that make sense? It does to me anyway.

No, I mean you can't rely on their statements, as they are often false.

Ok

Yes, I have read you calling other posters in this thread various insulting names. Either stop or be disciplined by the mods.

Your ignoring the other part of what I said to that poster. I did not just call him crazy, I addressed what he actually said too.

Also it seems like your pretty selective in who you want to be disciplined by the mods. Fact is, if I am to be disaplined, then The_Voice_of_Reason and ImmortalFlame should be too for personal attacks on my character. You should not be disciplined though because technically, you did not give ANY insults. I insulted them by calling them dishonest, and stupid, and they insulted me by calling me dishonest, and voice of reason added stupid to me as well. So, anyway, no need to be selective here. And of course ImmortalFlame is going to say that calling me dishonest is NOT a personal attack, but calling someone stupid IS. Give me a break.

No, you don't. Only if you are BENT on persuading us something about their character, which is not going to work. As VOR as aptly said, we have all been reading them for years, and we know them for what they are. You're not going to persuade us they're honest, so for heaven's sake can we please drop the subject? It's so boring.

It absolutely is boring, you got that part right. But it’s important to GET out of the WAY before moving on. You don’t have to believe AIG is honest, just realize not ALL creationists are dishonest, realize that, truly realize that. Or, you may realize that, but the other few posters don’t.

Great. Well, they don't, they just ignore the corrections, so you have now agreed THAT THEN they are dishonest. Can we drop it now? Thanks.

Do they really ignore the corrections? They make no effort to account? Well if that is so, ok, they are dishonest, but I am skeptical about that. But I don’t wish to debate it, the whole point I am trying to push is, not all creationists are dishonest.

You keep denying that people have posted examples of AIG's lies, which we have, repeatedly. Would you like some more? You've ignored all the ones posted so far.

I just want one example, that’s why. Plus, I responded to one of the examples ImmortalFlame gave.

 

[Jollybear]

Here's a thought! Let's say we talk about the merit of what AIG says!

No, I would rather not, for that is not the point of why I am talking about this whole thing. The point is, not all creationists are dishonest. That is what I am trying to PUSH right now, not whether creationists are RIGHT.

But here is a article where a person writes to AIG accusing them of the very things you all are. And the AIG responds. The persons words are shown, and then AIG words shown in response to it. In the article, AIG CLEARLY states they do NOT go against the scientific method.

Now, we know what they MEAN. You cannot MISINTERPRET there words, but you MAY DISBELIEVE there words, but it’s not good to misinterpret them. But if you disbelieve them, then your calling them liars, I don’t think you can do that. In these two articles, I think they bring up some good responses.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/01/05/feedback-focus-morality
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/04/feedback-repeat-offender

No. You do not understand the import. Their statement of faith violates the standards of the scientific method. Their statement of faith proves that without doubt, they are not doing science. You can't announce that you are not going to pay attention to any evidence that would falsify your hypothesis, which is what their SoF says, and do science. By pretending to do science, they are lying. And you are one of the poor sods they conned.

I’m yawning with boredom with this. I am just repeating my rebuts to this in different phrases. Why do I keep responding? I should just let you all have the last word and get back to redOne77. The reason I keep responding is because I don’t understand how in the world you can distrust all creationists and actually feel good in your conscience for it. And I really badly want to understand it and that is why I keep responding. I really do believe and think it’s sick. I really do with all my heart believe that. You all may think I am deluded for thinking that, well, think that all you want, I really believe it’s sick.

Maybe. I DON'T CARE. What difference does it make? Here's what matters: they're wrong.

If there honest, and IF there informed, and IF there not stupid, then they COULD be right. I am here to find that out, but I am going to get back to redone77 with regards to the area of biology.

Oh, I see. What you're saying is that no one TRULY believes in the Bible? Because I'm sure you'll agree, everyone lies, including people who claim to believe in the Bible.

Ah, hold on their just a minute, I just was willing to call you HONEST above, must I retract that because you said “everyone lies” and don’t you realize everyone means YOU. So are you confessing that you’re a liar? If so, I have to retract calling you honest. Speak for yourself, I am NOT a liar. And don’t speak for everyone else either, you don’t know if EVERYONE is a liar, or WHO is and WHO is not. Let’s get that very clear. Now if you want to say “everyone HAS LIED” that is different than saying “everyone IS a liar” meaning PRESENT in practice.

Yes I HAVE lied in my life at times, NO I am not a liar NOW in my life in practice.

But REGARDLESS of me, you can’t say “everyone IS a liar”. Now if you mean, if someone has lied, then that makes them a liar, YES, they are a liar if they have lied. But if you mean liar as in they are currently practicing it, or they currently STILL do it, you can’t make that call.

Wow, subtle distinction--sinning versus practicing sin. Must mean something to you. Anyway, you evaded my question. Do Christians lie?

Oh boy, yes it means something, everything I say has a meaning behind it, otherwise I would not say it. Also everything you say has a meaning behind it as well otherwise YOU would not say it. Committing a sin is different than PRACTICING the sin. For instance, let me give a simple illustration. Someone commits the act of adultery ONCE in their life and then they never do it again. Ok, they committed a SIN, but are they practicing that sin? The answer is no. You get the point? They do not CONTINUALLY commit that sin over and over.

Now to answer your question, do Christians lie? A TRUE BLUE Christian, WILL NOT PRACTICE LYING. I don’t care what any other “Christian” says otherwise, a TRUE BLUE Christian WILL NOT practice lying. Yes, they may commit a sin and lie and feel very guilty and convicted over it, and they will repent IF they are a TRUE BLUE. And ALL true blue Christians HAVE lied before they were Christians, and after they became Christians, SOME MAY commit the sin of lying perhaps a few times in the rest of there life being Christians, but then again, SOME OTHER true blue Christians may not EVER tell another lie in their life. I mean, you really can’t make the call in saying who is lying and who is not and how often they are.

Now let me answer that another way, a Christian who TRULY believes in telling the truth, WILL NOT LIE.

Simple enough?

Do any such people exist?

Does anybody exist who has never ever told a lie? No, accept one, God/Jesus. But besides them, there is no one who exists or existed who did NOT tell a lie. IS there anyone who exists or did exist who repented of lies and made practice of not lying, yea, probably many people. I being one of them, I would hope you would be one too even if you’re not a Christian.

Whatever. Stop. Get it?

Whatever is a weak response, and when you say “stop it” that shows a double standard, because you yourself told me that by me focusing on characters and motives in order to get immortalFlames focus OFF it, that does not get his focus off it, because my focus is on it by asking him to stop focusing on it. So now you promote this double standard and tell me to “stop”. But by telling me to “stop” that is you FOCUSING on the issue of characters, namely me focusing on one of the posters. Not only that, you misunderstood, I did not just focus on HIM, I addressed what he said.

Well, some of us think the truth is important, and some don't, apparently. I do, so I call someone out if I catch them in a lie.

If they are clearly in a lie, then I call them on it, but if it’s not clear, leave it alone.

 

[Jollybear]

I don't care who you're insulting. What I care about is that you stop.

If someone wants to assume the worst of a particular group without knowing all in that group, they better get prepared for me to call them dishonest, to insult their character with the word “dishonest” and on top of it “coward”. That’s what I consider it to be. And this is a logical stance I have for this.

So would you call yourself a good Christian, Jolly?

I consider myself an averagely GENUINE Christian. There are some things I need to work on, but saying “And on top of it, by him doing it FIRST, that REALLY does make him sick.” Is not one of them.

O.K. so to recap, when you tell other people to stop doing what you yourself are doing, it's not hypocrisy. Got you.

Either you don’t want to understand what I am saying or you do, but just did not understand. Let me try again.

I am NOT doing the same thing some posters on here have done. If I am doing the same thing I am telling them to stop, then that just means you did the same hypocrisy when you told me to “stop”. NOW DO YOU GET IT?

Why did you tell me to “stop”? It’s because you thought it was WRONG of me to do that, that it is a character FLAW in me to do such a thing, so you say to me “stop”. That is basically what I am telling some posters on here to do, is “STOP” calling and implying all creationists are dishonest. That is NOT hypocrisy, wake up. And if it is, then that makes you a hypocrite ALONG WITH ME. Use some logic now.

Of course it's not evidence. (*heriocally resists impulse to hypocritically insult Jolly*) It's their mission statement. DUH! It tells you exactly how they treat evidence. In an anti-scientific way. Therefore they are not doing science. Get it?

No, I don’t get it.

Why don't you let us worry about our virtue, while you focus on yours?

Double standard you just promoted. Why don’t you and the posters let AIG and ALL young earth creationists worry about their virtue, while you focus on YOURS.

You see? You will get it eventually as I keep BORINGLY going through this.

When they refuse to correct their mistakes?

When they refuse to correct a mistake or ACCOUNT for a said correction, THEN they are either dishonest, or they have not gotten the time to account for it yet. It’s one or the other.

Jolly: It doesn't matter whether they are liars or not, what matters is whether they are right.
HP: Well, here are several example where they are wrong.
Jolly: Stop talking about whether they are liars. It is wrong to assume they're lying. Why are you obsessed with showing that they are liars? You can't know that!
HP *sigh*

Let me put it the right way now.

HJolly: it does matter whether they are honest or not, but not for the sake of debate, or finding out whether the quality of what they say is right or wrong in it’s conclusions.

Poster: here are several examples where they lied
HJolly: has questions and arguments for those examples and shows that someone can be wrong without being dishonest. Plus was not getting into whether they were wrong, but whether they were liars. There is a difference.
Poster: blah

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

JOLLY

"Show me where AiG is dishonest!!"
· HONESTPOSTER "OK Jolly, here are examples A,B,C and D"
· JOLLY "Ha!! Just because they are wrong does not mean they are dishonest!!!"
· HONESTPOSTER "But, the correct info is freely available. Why does AiG keep promoting bad science?"
· JOLLY" You can't prove they lied!! You are a liar!!! Christians don't lie!!!

Let me put it the RIGHT way now.

Honest Jolly: stop assuming every writer on AIG which are many, are all dishonest, and stop assuming all young earth creationists and intelligent designers are all dishonest, willfully ignorant, or stupid.
Posters: since young earth creationists are wrong, that means they are EITHER willfully ignorant, dishonest or stupid.
Honest Jolly: how do you know they are stupid, or willfully ignorant or dishonest?
Posters: we just do because they are wrong.
Honest Jolly: if there not dishonest, willfully ignorant or stupid, then that opens the possibility that they could be right.
Posters: you have no logic jolly