How best to argue against creationists

[Danmac]

You didnt bring forth any evidence that i was not open or that i was dogmatic.

You did.

But you admitted that you yourself are dogmatic.

Aren't we all. I'm just honest about it.

Well this statement contradicts a former statement that you made. In one of your previous posts you stated:

There is a difference between something that IS true and something that has proven itself true "too" often for someone to doubt any of it.

There are future prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. I cannot make a judgment call on what has yet to happen. By the Bibles track record I trust that they will all be fulfilled. How is that contradicting myself.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

You did.

Please point me to it. I didn't find that yet.

Aren't we all. I'm just honest about it.

I wouldn't consider myself dogmatic. Quite the opposite. I was dogmatic a long time ago.

There are future prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. I cannot make a judgment call on what has yet to happen. By the Bibles track record I trust that they will all be fulfilled. How is that contradicting myself.

You can't proclaim something as absolutely true if there are predictions in it that haven't yet been fullfilled. You could only state honestly that "so far" it has been correct in any statement until now.
I would doubt that when it comes to the bible, but thats another thing.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So since you were ill prepared to defend your beliefs against much better prepared atheists, you cried uncle. I'm sorry for you ill preparedness. I will not go silently in the night.

Read my post again. First, it has nothing to do with atheism. Second, I was, and you are, being lied to by those whose dogmatic beliefs encourage such deception.

Speaking of deception, did you see what a little informed research did to your so called claims?

If you read the entire article you will see how the subject in question is the determination of what constitutes pre-biotic life. All the findings fit well within evolutionary boundaries.

1. Douglas Axe is a Chemical Engineer, not a Molecular Biologist. (He received his degree in Chemical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1990) To classify him as a Molecular Biologist is to be dishonest. And for him to present himself as a qualified expert on biological questions such as proteins and amino acids is not only misleading, but discredits the entire Institute.
2. The Biologic Institute was founded by, and is funded by, the Creation Institute. The Biologic Institute has expressed it's purpose is to "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design".

The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the Biologic Institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.

If you are willing to put aside reason and factual research in favor of dogmatic belief in whatever you are fed by deceptive organizations such as the Biologic Institute, the Discovery Institute, AiG, and others...you will forever be trapped in willful ignorance.

 

[Autodidact]

I will not be changing my position any time soon.

I'm not suggesting you do so. My only suggestion is that you start being honest about what that position is. If you can.

 

[Autodidact]

I used to be an unbeliever. Does that count?

Pardon me if I regard your claim with skepticism, based on your ongoing disregard for the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

Aren't we all. I'm just honest about it.

No, we are not. You are. Being open to the evidence, and basing your opinions on the evidence, while being willing to change them in the light of new evidence, is the opposite of dogmatism.

 

[painted wolf]

What the heck. Telling the truth every once in a while won't hurt much.

Now to work on making it a regular habit.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Now to work on making it a regular habit.

wa:do

Oh snap!

 

[Autodidact]

What we've determined about Danmac's position:
It's not based on the evidence.
He will maintain it despite the evidence.
It is not subject to change, regardless of the evidence.
He has not reviewed the evidence.
He does not want to learn about the evidence.
He will continue to maintain that the evidence does not exist.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[tumbleweed41]

What we've determined about Danmac's position:
It's not based on the evidence.
He will maintain it despite the evidence.
It is not subject to change, regardless of the evidence.
He has not reviewed the evidence.
He does not want to learn about the evidence.
He will continue to maintain that the evidence does not exist.

Does that about sum it up?

Hey, but at least he's honest about it:sarcastic

 

[McBell]

Hey, but at least he's honest about it:sarcastic

An honest liar?
Interesting.

 

[Autodidact]

An honest liar?
Interesting.

Is he from Crete?

 

[tumbleweed41]

An honest liar?
Interesting.

Ever notice how 'honest liar" sounds like "honest lawyer"
(Just kidding Auto!!!)

 

[newhope101]

How best to argue against creationists? Here's a tip.

1. Don't make out there is no controversy or conflicting data. Look up "Survival of the fakest" "DecentfromDarwin.org"...and there's heaps more. There are plenty of credible evolutionary supportive scientists that have concerns. They believe it will be sorted one day but attest at the moment there is much controvery. Do evolutionists feel too threatened to acknowledge it? If you only accept the research that supports evolution your scientific stance is no better than a creationist. Denying the controversy and conflicting data does not mean it's not out there...it just makes you guys and gals look silly.

 

[tumbleweed41]

How best to argue against creationists? Here's a tip.

1. Don't make out there is no controversy or conflicting data. Look up "Survival of the fakest" "DecentfromDarwin.org"...and there's heaps more. There are plenty of credible evolutionary supportive scientists that have concerns. They believe it will be sorted one day but attest at the moment there is much controvery. If you only accept the research that supports evolution your scientific stance is no better than a creationist. Denying the controversy and conflicting data does not mean it's not out there...it just makes you guys and gals look silly.

Actually, I accept that which is supported by the overwhelming empirical evidence. It just so happens that that is the scientific Fact of Evolution, backed by the Theory of Evolution.

(BTW, your link should read Dissentfromdarwin.org.)

Let's take a look at it....

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advert:
Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of ...."Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself."


Seems to me the website DissentfromDarwin, which is owned and maintained by the Discovery Institute, is once again using dishonest tactics rather than presenting actual facts.
​

 

[McBell]

How best to argue against creationists? Here's a tip.

1. Don't make out there is no controversy or conflicting data. Look up "Survival of the fakest" "DecentfromDarwin.org"...and there's heaps more. There are plenty of credible evolutionary supportive scientists that have concerns. They believe it will be sorted one day but attest at the moment there is much controvery. Do evolutionists feel too threatened to acknowledge it? If you only accept the research that supports evolution your scientific stance is no better than a creationist. Denying the controversy and conflicting data does not mean it's not out there...it just makes you guys and gals look silly.

Now if only a creationist could present some actual contradicting data instead of lying about it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Project Steve

 

[Autodidact]

How best to argue against creationists? Here's a tip.

1. Don't make out there is no controversy or conflicting data. Look up "Survival of the fakest" "DecentfromDarwin.org"...and there's heaps more. There are plenty of credible evolutionary supportive scientists that have concerns. They believe it will be sorted one day but attest at the moment there is much controvery. Do evolutionists feel too threatened to acknowledge it? If you only accept the research that supports evolution your scientific stance is no better than a creationist. Denying the controversy and conflicting data does not mean it's not out there...it just makes you guys and gals look silly.

So basically you want us to lie?

There is tons of controversy within the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as there is in all of science. There is no scientific controversy about whether ToE is correct. To say there is would be inaccurate. There is no research that does not support it. That's why it has been adopted as the foundation of modern Biology.

 

[McBell]

So basically you want us to lie?

There is tons of controversy within the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as there is in all of science. There is no scientific controversy about whether ToE is correct. To say there is would be inaccurate. There is no research that does not support it. That's why it has been adopted as the foundation of modern Biology.

Seems to me the biggest controversy surrounding the Theory of Evolution is how to debate creationists....

 

[idea]

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!

The best way to argue with them is to show them that the Bible does not teach creationism...

God is not the Creator, claims academic

The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years

God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph


or, you could read my article: Did God create out of nothing?
Did God create out of nothing - by Jamie Turner - Helium