How best to argue against creationists

[The Voice of Reason]

You really struggle to understand the written word, don't you, Jolly.

You might want to check on the statute of limitations in North Carolina. It may not be too late to sue the school system that was supposed to teach you how to read - if it's still in business.

PS - I know that "Unimaginative", "Droll", and "Sophomoric" are very intimidating words to look at, but like all other words, they can be found in a standard dictionary. The next time you feel the need to respond to a post, if you come across a poly-syllabic word, take the time to look it up. It will save you some embarrassment (that means "you won't make yourself look as bad").

 

[fantome profane]

You really struggle to understand the written word, don't you, Jolly.

You might want to check on the statute of limitations in North Carolina. It may not be too late to sue the school system that was supposed to teach you how to read - if it's still in business.

PS - I know that "Unimaginative", "Droll", and "Sophomoric" are very intimidating words to look at, but like all other words, they can be found in a standard dictionary. The next time you feel the need to respond to a post, if you come across a poly-syllabic word, take the time to look it up. It will save you some embarrassment (that means "you won't make yourself look as bad").

I love polysyllabic words like “Droll”.

 

[Willamena]

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

You could choose to not debate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I love polysyllabic words like “Droll”.

LOL - you caught me. I wanted to include it, since he completely missed its meaning as well.

Hey - on the other hand, here in the south, even "Droll" is two syllables.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You could choose to not debate.

In defense of Tumbleweed, this really isn't much of a debate.

It's more like a remedial sixth grade science class - and the student has to keep wiping the drool off of his chin.

Side note to Jolly - "remedial" classes are designed for the slower students, to try to help them catch up with others in a given subject.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

From your first link...

• everything we do is motivated by this need to present the gospel.
• “Going up against scientific method” would indeed be odd. However, we do not do so. Scientific methodology involves challenging existing paradigms, and testing data. Such scientific method is conducted in the present. As soon as you make a statement about what happened in the far past, bearing in mind that you weren’t there, you step outside scientific methodology.

For a site full of so called "scientists", the first statement show a restrictive attitude towards evidence counter to Biblical literalism, and the second statement is so patently false as to be laughable in a true scientific discussion.

The scientific method has nothing to do with past or present.
Remember..

1. Observation.
2. Question.
3. Hypothesis
4. Prediction
5. Testing
6. Data
7. Conclusion
8. Presentation
9. Repeatability
10. Confirmation

For a site supposedly presenting science, a willful misrepresentation of the scientific method is indeed dishonest.

Now, for your second link...

Interesting. An article on how to biblically use challenge riposte, or insulting satire, in arguing with non-Creationists. Particularly "repeat offenders", or anyone who constantly challenges your beliefs.

Nope, this is not an article about presenting facts. Or finding the truth. This is an article about how ridicule and satire can be used to argue with the facts and truth.

At least this one is pretty honest about their debate methods.
"Of course, we are not “science based”—we are Bible-based"

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Au contraire. That would be so refreshing. I do find it interesting that you constantly jump to conclusions about other people, after ranting against doing that for pages.

 

[Autodidact]

I have a few questions for you now.
1: is John woodmorappe an Illinois high school science teacher?

John Woodmorappe is the pen name of Jan Pezkis. I don't know what he does for a living.

2: is Jan Peckis his real other name?

His name is Jan Pezkis. His pen name is John Woodmorappe.

3: did he misquote himself?

Not that I know of.

4: why is quoting yourself a dishonest act?

Wow, it's weird that I have to explain this to you. If you write something, and then quote it without letting other people know you wrote it, it gives the false impression that someone other than you is supporting your position. Duh.

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?

NO, I can only guess. It looks like he was trying to falsely bolster his position, but for all I know he could be an android programmed to forget his own identity. I don't know and I don't care. What I know is, he is not a reliable source, as he knowingly or unwittingly deceives other people.

 

[Autodidact]

Audodidact

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?

Written down. thank you. You have now admitted what you have been denying for at least 5 pages, which is that AIG lies. Can we move on now?

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.

Yes, they really do. Really and truly. As if it never happened. Continuing to use the misquotes and quote mines for years. Naturally, this angers the people being misquoted, who then inform the rest of us that they are liars. Now that we have definitively established that AIG are liars, can we move on?

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

Pick one and move on. This is a stupid blind alley and waste of time.

btw, my time spent researching creationist websites leads me to conclude that AIG is the most honest of the lot. If you want to shoot fish in a barrel, pick another one, any one, and I'll find you the lies on the first page.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

In that case we know for certain that they are lying, because we know what the scientific method is, and I have shown that they are not doing that. Do you need me to explain it again in simpler terms?

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.

Yes, I am calling them liars. Big, fat, liars. Let them sue me if they like.

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

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.

1. Show me a post where I said I distrust all creationists.
2. It seems to be that if there were good arguments for creationism, leading creationist groups like AIG would not resort to lying to defend it.
3. My experience with professional creationists such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, to cite two of the most prominent, is that they lie.
4. I can think of at least one honest YEC, but am having trouble remembering his name. Someone help me--a geologist who admits that the evidence supports an old earth, but believes his religious faith is more important, so gave up his scientific career. What's his name, people?

I think honesty leads you in the path of Glenn Morton. Check him out, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

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.

Yup. Have yet to find one who is. What does that tell you?

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.

I didn't say that everyone is a liar, I said that everyone lies, yes, including me and including you. Do you deny it? I am one of the most honest people I know, and I occasionally lie.

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

Me neither.

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.

I didn't. You might want to actually read my posts before you accelerate into your stubborn rebuttal mode.

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.

Here's my point: Christians, on average, are as honest as non-Christians. Fact.

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.

So apparently there are no TRUE BLUE Christians.

You are making an assertion of fact, which is that Christians are more honest than non-Christians. I deny it.

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

Simple enough?

Let me know if you ever meet one.

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.

Jolly, you have shown yourself in this thread to be, at a minimum, no more honest than the average person.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I don’t get it.

O.K., this is the only thing in your post that matters, so I will explain it to you again.

In science, you make a hypothesis. Then you look at the evidence to see whether OR NOT it supports the hypothesis. If it doesn't, you change or discard the hypothesis. That's science.

AIG starts with a hypothesis, and tells you in advance that they will not change it, no matter what the evidence shows. Therefore they are not doing science.

Here's another way to say it:

AIG has said they will only include or count evidence that supports their position. Then they declare that the evidence supports their position. Well of course, if you only include evidence that supports your position, you're going to conclude that the evidence supports your position. But that's not really accurate (or honest) is it, to say that (all the) evidence supports your position, when you've decided in advance only to include evidence that supports your position?

Let's say my hypothesis is that the Great Turtle rose out of the ocean with North America on her back. Then I declare that by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts this account. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

I'm going to conclude that this happened, am I not? I've fixed the game. Using this "method," which is the exact opposite of science, I have made it impossible to find the truth. All I can do is confirm my hypothesis.

This is not science. It is the opposite of science, which is just an elaborate method to eliminate inaccuracy. Whether it comes from dishonesty or error, the scientific method has been shown to be the best way to find and reduce inaccuracy.

And I submit that is why AIG wants you to think they're using it, and says they are using it. But they're not. And that is dishonest. Or deluded--I don't know and I don't care.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Fine, go talk to yourself, you have bored me out having the energy to continue. I'm not a psychologist and I neither know nor care whether they're pathological liars, suffering under a delusion, or androids who have been programmed to spout creationist dogma. All that matters is that you cannot rely on what they say.

 

[Autodidact]

Jolly: From your link:

everything we do is motivated by this need to present the gospel.

Is "presenting the gospel" science?

As soon as you make a statement about what happened in the far past, bearing in mind that you weren’t there, you step outside scientific methodology.

This is a false statement. They either don't know what science is, don't care, or are liars. Again, I don't care which.

the difference between operational science and origins science.

There is no such distinction. Ask any scientist. They're just making stuff up. Scientific method = scientific method, regardless of what it's about.

you were not there to see it happen, nor have you observed it happening in the laboratory.

Here they are saying that if you don't see it happen or observe it happening in the lab, you cannot use science to find out what happened. They are denying the very possibility of doing science. Still think they're doing science? Still think they're honest?

I am obsessed with the truth.

Odd statement for someone who has made several false statements in this article.

 

[Willamena]

AIG has said they will only include or count evidence that supports their position. Then they declare that the evidence supports their position. Well of course, if you only include evidence that supports your position, you're going to conclude that the evidence supports your position. But that's not really accurate (or honest) is it, to say that (all the) evidence supports your position, when you've decided in advance only to include evidence that supports your position?

There's evidence that supports their position?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's evidence that supports their position?

Evidence can be very loosely defined. A little something I've learned from RF.

 

[Jollybear]

I have read everyone’s new responses to me. There is some points you all made that I think are pathetic and some points I just disagree with. I am tempted to respond to them, and I CAN respond to them, but I am not going to. I read them all, now I am going to give you all the last word, because I am moving on from this debate and I am going to get back to redOne77.

I know there is more to cover with this issue, but to me it’s not worth it. For me, finding out what is RIGHT and WRONG is more important then finding out who is HONEST and who is a LIAR. Although they are important, but not nearly as important as finding what is right.

That is my take on it, and based on my priority, I am moving on. If some other young earth creationist wishes to take over, by all means, take the torch for I am going over to a different battle field in this thread right here

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/95456-creationists-heres-your-chance-71.html

And mind you, if you do join in that discussion, I will not respond, and it’s not because you have gotten on my nerves in this thread, but it’s simply because I want to focus on talking to ONE person and that also will preserve my time.

Also one more thing, immortalFlame, as I said, you MAY speak up and tell me WHEN you think I am being dishonest with RedOne77. I do want you to do that, IF you think at anytime I am being dishonest.

I surely won’t be, but of course you may not think that, so please do speak up if you think I am being dishonest.

 

[Dunemeister]

This is not science. It is the opposite of science, which is just an elaborate method to eliminate inaccuracy

Good point. Science isn't so much probative (getting at the truth) but purgative (eliminating error). Of course, as you eliminate error, you get a more positive view about what the truth is.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ah Creationist Tactics #'s 9 and 11

9) WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

11) WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And mind you, if you do join in that discussion, I will not respond, and it’s not because you have gotten on my nerves in this thread, but it’s simply because I want to focus on talking to ONE person and that also will preserve my time.

Also one more thing, immortalFlame, as I said, you MAY speak up and tell me WHEN you think I am being dishonest with RedOne77. I do want you to do that, IF you think at anytime I am being dishonest.

Translation, I am only going to disuses this with a theistic evolutionist, all you others will be ignored.
(But ImmortalFlame has Jolly's 'permission' to speak up on certain occasions.)
:ignore:

 

[Peacewise]

If the aig state their intention and their system and they act and live by that system, they are being honest.

Are they dishonest in their honesty? Is an oxymoron that whilst probably being accurate simply reinforces that truth is relative and often unrelated to logic.

I leave the answer for those more experienced in the organisation, but I had a read over their statement of faith and they are quite honest about how they will act and it seems to me that they act in accord with their statement of faith.