How best to argue against creationists

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Yes indeed. they are quite honest in their intent. Putting it right their for anyone to read.
But if I am honest in declaring my intent to disprove a specific area of science. And if I declare that I will accept only evidence that backs my position, and in doing so, disregard ,misrepresent, and spin all the empirical evidence that is counter to my declared position. I am being intellectually dishonest and promoting willful ignorance.

Making my intent a dishonest venture.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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

Okay, Peacewise. Let's go with your statement above. You and I are going to enter into a discussion about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Even though I was raised in a Southern Baptist family and attended Vacation Bible School every summer, I'll concede the point that you are probably more knowledgeable in the contents of the Bible.

Before we start our discussion, I lay out the disclaimer that, as an agnostic, I will not reject any and all scripture, regardless of the version of the Bible you use - unless the particular scripture that is cited supports my contention that the Bible is totally self contradictory. Also, if you offer examples of scriptures that confirm other scriptures, I will ignore them without even considering them.

At no time in our discussion do I ever go against the conditions I listed.

Based on your opening statement, I am being honest about the fact that the Bible is self contradictory.

Tell me, honestly - does that make sense to you?

 

[oldfuture]

Let us discuss/debate the methods for dealing with creationists. I argue that the worst thing a person can do is to argue the facts with a creationist. So long as they have their faith nothing you show them about the fossil record, dating methods, etc, will change their position. Instead, the only sensible thing to do is avoid specif questions about the science and the facts and instead turn the debate around, get to the root of the problem, which is fundamentalism. The debate must be focused on the question of why? Why is it so important that evolution be wrong? Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis so important? When they claim that no one has ever witnessed macro evolution, ignore it and return with the question why is that such a threat to your faith? Fundamentalism is the enemy in this debate and not ignorance of science.

 

[oldfuture]

I think the best way is to say your point and not to wait for a positive response...we are not here to force people to believe or disbelieve ....we are here to say our points...uncurtain the doubts,recorrect the wrong conceptions...and the results are not up to us...in case u believe u know that all results are controlled by god...But your part is done...which is great and makes believers content.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The focus regarding creationists should be on mitigation - argument/debate is pointless and wasteful.

 

[Peacewise]

Okay, Peacewise. Let's go with your statement above. You and I are going to enter into a discussion about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Even though I was raised in a Southern Baptist family and attended Vacation Bible School every summer, I'll concede the point that you are probably more knowledgeable in the contents of the Bible.

Before we start our discussion, I lay out the disclaimer that, as an agnostic, I will not reject any and all scripture, regardless of the version of the Bible you use - unless the particular scripture that is cited supports my contention that the Bible is totally self contradictory. Also, if you offer examples of scriptures that confirm other scriptures, I will ignore them without even considering them.

At no time in our discussion do I ever go against the conditions I listed.

Based on your opening statement, I am being honest about the fact that the Bible is self contradictory.

Tell me, honestly - does that make sense to you?

Seems to me that in the above hypothetical you are not being honest about a fact that the bible is self contradictory. However it remains that you are honest for you state what you are going to do and then you consistently do that.

Does it make sense, yikes I spent 15 minutes on it and still ain't confident that I understand your meaning. Can you remove the double negatives, the probability and the exclusions please, tightening your syntax up for this poor wee late night brain of mine.

 

[painted wolf]

The focus regarding creationists should be on mitigation - argument/debate is pointless and wasteful.

Not only that, but over agrissive attack can cause them to hunker down and feed into the desire to declair faith in the face of "persecution". It can feed into the creationist propaganda machine... as well as having people with good intentions giving false scientific "facts" and muddying the waters further.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Seems to me that in the above hypothetical you are not being honest about a fact that the bible is self contradictory. However it remains that you are honest for you state what you are going to do and then you consistently do that.

Does it make sense, yikes I spent 15 minutes on it and still ain't confident that I understand your meaning. Can you remove the double negatives, the probability and the exclusions please, tightening your syntax up for this poor wee late night brain of mine.

LOL - I included a "not" in my original post, leading to a very confusing hypothetical. I have removed that "not", and added a couple of parentheticals to help clear it up.

I apologize for the confusion. Here is the hypothetical, with the changes:
Okay, Peacewise. Let's go with your statement above. You and I are going to enter into a discussion about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Even though I was raised in a Southern Baptist family and attended Vacation Bible School every summer, I'll concede the point that you are probably more knowledgeable in the contents of the Bible.

Before we start our discussion, I lay out the disclaimer that, as an agnostic, I will reject any and all scripture, regardless of the version of the Bible you use - unless the particular scripture that is cited supports my contention that the Bible is totally self contradictory. Also, if you offer examples of scriptures that confirm other scriptures (in other words, citing a verse from Matthew to support a verse from John), I will ignore them without even considering them.

At no time in our discussion of the Bible do I ever go against the conditions I listed above.

Based on your opening statement, I am being honest about the fact that the Bible is self contradictory.

Tell me, honestly - does that make sense to you?

 

[sniper762]

CONTRADICTIONS, YES
C:\Users\hp\Desktop\BIBLE\BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered.mht

 

[Danmac]

Let us discuss/debate the methods for dealing with creationists. I argue that the worst thing a person can do is to argue the facts with a creationist. So long as they have their faith nothing you show them about the fossil record, dating methods, etc, will change their position. Instead, the only sensible thing to do is avoid specif questions about the science and the facts and instead turn the debate around, get to the root of the problem, which is fundamentalism. The debate must be focused on the question of why? Why is it so important that evolution be wrong? Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis so important? When they claim that no one has ever witnessed macro evolution, ignore it and return with the question why is that such a threat to your faith? Fundamentalism is the enemy in this debate and not ignorance of science.

On a side note I just want to say how annoyed I am with the fact that the term creation (creationist, creationism etc) has come to be connected the way it has with the most fundamentalist interpretations of the doctrine. In the broadest sense, I consider myself a creationist because "I believe in one God, the Father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen". But if I were to label myself as such, people would instantly think I reject evolution and believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old. Annoying, they must be stopped, we must restore creationism to its rightful place of honor!

A Roman Catholic evolutionist. Now that's funny.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A Roman Catholic evolutionist. Now that's funny.

The Roman Catholic Church, by papal decree, accepts the theory of evolution as a scientific fact.

 

[painted wolf]

A Roman Catholic evolutionist. Now that's funny.

Not really, the Catholic church is just one of several denominations that has no problem with Evolution.

Roman Catholics
Anglican
United Methodists
Eastern Orthodox
Episcopal
Lutheran
LDS
Presbyterians

and so on... In fact the Clergy Letter Project now has over 12,000 signatures and it is still growing strong.
The Clergy Letter Project

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

A Roman Catholic evolutionist. Now that's funny.

Why? I fail to see the humor. Now would you like to respond to the many outstanding questions posed to you in this thread?

 

[Danmac]

The Roman Catholic Church, by papal decree, accepts the theory of evolution as a scientific fact.

I am not disagreeing with you here. I was commenting on the fact that they supposedly accept the doctrines of the Bible as truth, but still embrace macroevolution. If macroevolution is true then the Adam and Eve story is fiction. You cannot logically accept both doctrines.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am not disagreeing with you here. I was commenting on the fact that they supposedly accept the doctrines of the Bible as truth, but still embrace macroevolution. If macroevolution is true then the Adam and Eve story is fiction. You cannot logically accept both doctrines.

If one logically looks at the Biblical creation story as metaphor (as many Jews and Christians do), then it is easy to reconcile the overwhelming evidence supporting Evolution with religious faith.

 

[Danmac]

If one logically looks at the Biblical creation story as metaphor (as many Jews and Christians do), then it is easy to reconcile the overwhelming evidence supporting Evolution with religious faith.

If it were a metaphor Luke would not have traced Jesus lineage back to Adam.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Careful with Luke's genealogy work there, he forgot that in 1 Chronicles 28, the line to the Messiah was to go through Solomon.
Why does the genealogy have Joseph as a descendant of Nathan, when Nathan was never in the messianic line?
Why does Matthew claim that Joseph is a direct descendant of Solomon rather than Nathan, as does Luke?


But that is for another thread....

 

[fantome profane]

blah blah blah blah

1 Timothy 1 3-5

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.

 

[rusra02]

I am not disagreeing with you here. I was commenting on the fact that they supposedly accept the doctrines of the Bible as truth, but still embrace macroevolution. If macroevolution is true then the Adam and Eve story is fiction. You cannot logically accept both doctrines.

Quite true. Most of the well-known 'Christian' religions pay lip service to the Bible but neither believe it nor practice what it says.

 

[painted wolf]

Like eating shrimp.... abomination!
Or not believing in unicorns.

wa:do