How best to argue against creationists

[The_Evelyonian]

So are you telling me that someone who does not believe in the bible CANNOT question or WON’T question the theory of evolution and cosmic evolution?

Try to understand JB that most of the evolution skeptics we've run into before, when asked why they don't accept the ToE, throw up a lot of baloney but eventually it all boils down to "cause teh bible sez..."

 

[RedOne77]

errr, Roman Catholic, eastern orthodox and aren't fundamentalists imo.

They can be, I've met a few Catholic creationists, although they usually aren't. As a general rule any sect can have a fundamentalist population, just that some (like southern baptist) have a really high percentage of fundamentalists while others, (like RC) tend to have a low percentage.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Anyone who doesn't believe in the ToE must be a liar, a knave, and a dolt.

I think you might have gone too far with the "knave", but the "liar and a dolt" parts are spot on.

As a rule, the knaves I've met aren't nearly as amoral and scurrilous as the average creationist.

 

[Runlikethewind]

When I started this thread I had hoped to take an active participation in the discussion. However I got busy and was not able to get online for any length of time. Now 122 posts later I find myself a bit overwhelmed. I plan on going through the thread tonight if I can. I just thought I should say that. Didn't want anyone to think I'm the kind of guy to start a brawl and then run off and let others fight it for me.

 

[Autodidact]

A flycatcher becomes a ... flycatcher and you assert a new species is born.

It is a new species of flycatcher. There are hundreds of species of flycatchers right now. This is a new one. It meets the scientific definition of a separate species.

A finch becomes a slightly larger finch or has a different beak, and lo and behold, we have a new species.

Yes, if it meets the scientific definition of species.

The goal posts haven't moved.

Yes, they have. You asked for a new species. Tumbleweed gave you a few. Then you decided that wasn't good enough, you wanted something different, a "kind," whatever that may be.

The assertions you made are unfounded and untrue. It is the ToE proponents who ignore the evidence and continue to propogate the myth that fish turn into birds and reptiles into mammals.

No scientist has ever asserted anything of the kind.

I speak to those searching for the truth to examine the evidence, and do not blindly accept the nonsensical 'science' ToE proponents try to bully us with.

Great, let's go to the "evidence for evolution" thread and discuss the evidence. My experience is that evidence is like a magic spray that repels YECs.

Again, what is a "kind?"

Are you saying that a "kind" is the same thing as a species?

Again, rusra, under your hypothesis, new species evolve constantly and rapidly, so you're arguing against your own position.

I think rusra, that you are one of the people who would benefit from learning what ToE does and doesn't say. That way you can argue against an actual theory, instead of one that only exists inside your own head.

 

[Autodidact]

Ah, the evolutionist's refrain.. If you can't attack the truth, attack the truth sayer.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the ToE must be a liar, a knave, and a dolt. If you can't baffle them with lies, bully them with insults. Well played, sir.

So basically you have no idea who the person is that you're quoting?

Hey, you're the one arguing from authority here. Apparently you have none.

IIRC, John Moore was a teaching assistant at Michigan State University who once co-taught a single course in evolution, presenting the creationist view, and has inflated that into calling himself a "Professor of Natural Science," which he has never been.

 

[painted wolf]

Sadly I've come to accept that there are some people who can't simply have faith... they need creationism to have faith and they will do anything they can to preserve it.

I try not to argue but I am always happy to present the scientific evidence and explain the theory... but I have started to draw the line and cut my losses when the dishonest tactics start coming out.

I really am sick of dishonesty on the part of Creationism... that is why I stopped being a creationist. If something requires lies to support it, then it isn't worth having faith in.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Hey there. I don't think a Christian has to believe that every word in the bible is litteral. Genesis was written so long ago by people that didn't even know what a germ was let alone genetics. Man is made from the elements of the earth so this is correct. How could God tell his people they came from monkeys. The information recorded is only a guidline outlining that God is the giver of life. Scientific info on Mitochondrial Eve and Adam in Wikepedia cite genetics point to a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. Bible chronology places first man at around 4000 BC, 6000 years old. Then came the flood leaving another set of common ancestors through Noah, around 5000 year ago. Does it really matter how God made the first man and breathed the breath of life into him? Scientists are getting closer and closer to the truth, despite their non acceptance of a God.

 

[Walkntune]

There is so much arguing against creationism but you give it such a limited view.
I believe evolution is a deterministic process from a deterministic energy which is the cause of creation.The downfall I see with science is that it sees the effects of creation with a fairly good certainty and then assumes the cause. You assume that everyone believes God is a being out in space instead of the source that holds all things together.The very energy of all creation that is able to flow through man and be in his heart where he has the ability to line himself up with intuitively with all of creation instead of becoming more and more resistant to this energy which is the cause of corrosion and death.I just take it a step above Einstein as I see humans have the ability to be personal and have conscious I believe the energy that created us deterministically can also have these features.
I agree with Newhope that science is getting close but they are recently realising how deterministic evolution is.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes WalkNTune, both Run and I pointed out how the term "Creationism" has been bastardized because of Bible literalists. I'm a Creationist that accepts evolution.

 

[DeitySlayer]

How could God tell his people they came from monkeys.

Coming from monkeys is better than coming from dust.

 

[Walkntune]

Also since we are created in the image of God, we create ourselves.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that we use medical science to keep up with new coming diseases,
Our very ability to be resistant to the forces of nature is the cause of nature being a resistance back!
We race against our own resistance.

 

[tumbleweed41]

How could God tell his people they came from monkeys.

He couldn't. That would be lie. We descended from apelike ancestors. As did modern day monkeys.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey there. I don't think a Christian has to believe that every word in the bible is litteral. Genesis was written so long ago by people that didn't even know what a germ was let alone genetics. Man is made from the elements of the earth so this is correct. How could God tell his people they came from monkeys. The information recorded is only a guidline outlining that God is the giver of life. Scientific info on Mitochondrial Eve and Adam in Wikepedia cite genetics point to a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. Bible chronology places first man at around 4000 BC, 6000 years old. Then came the flood leaving another set of common ancestors through Noah, around 5000 year ago.

No, not around 5000, around 200,000.

Does it really matter how God made the first man and breathed the breath of life into him? Scientists are getting closer and closer to the truth, despite their non acceptance of a God.

Except, of course, for all those scientists who do accept God.

 

[darkendless]

Hey there. I don't think a Christian has to believe that every word in the bible is litteral. Genesis was written so long ago by people that didn't even know what a germ was let alone genetics. Man is made from the elements of the earth so this is correct. How could God tell his people they came from monkeys. The information recorded is only a guidline outlining that God is the giver of life. Scientific info on Mitochondrial Eve and Adam in Wikepedia cite genetics point to a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. Bible chronology places first man at around 4000 BC, 6000 years old. Then came the flood leaving another set of common ancestors through Noah, around 5000 year ago. Does it really matter how God made the first man and breathed the breath of life into him? Scientists are getting closer and closer to the truth, despite their non acceptance of a God.

I'll be nice considering us Maroons just smashed you blues (sorry couldn't help myself).

Please tell me where the water would come from to cause a flood of global proportions?

Also, where would that water go?

Given that it is sea water spreading everywhere, how did noah survive on land around dead vegetation?

How did the water dissipate in 40 days?

What geological indications point to a flood, say in Australia about 5000 years ago?

 

[Jollybear]

Evelyonian

Try to understand JB that most of the evolution skeptics we've run into before, when asked why they don't accept the ToE, throw up a lot of baloney but eventually it all boils down to "cause teh bible sez..."

Ok, I can try to understand that, but why can’t you and others try to understand that I along with probably many other young earth creationists are NOT dishonest, nor willfully ignorant. YES, some are, sad, but I am not. I mean some evolutionists and atheists are dishonest and willfully ignorant, but some are not. Why not believe me and then we can get along? And not to mention, then we can PROGRESS in the debate and discussion.

For me, I don’t care WHAT the debate is about, or how FOOLISH the OTHER persons position is, all of us must and should use proper debate skill. Otherwise, we are just being idiots.

Also when you say they throw up allot of baloney, I know your also referring to my arguments that I have made as well. Ok then, if there all baloney, it should be very easy to answer ALL questions and all arguments. That’s what it’s all about for me. You may say it’s not worth it, but that’s NOT what debate skill is all about.

Also there is many young earth creation websites, like answers in genesis and others who take a great effort in carefully formulating evidence that is independent of the bible for a young earth along with critical analysis of the arguments of a old earth. These websites don’t just say “cause teh bible sez”.

And I don’t just believe it cause the bible says, although that is a PART of why I believe it, the other part is because I question the alternative view, it’s not proven. So even if I did not believe in the bible, I would still question the alternative view.

Hear me out on this, lets say I KNEW a certain atheist was being dishonest and willfully ignorant, would I address them based on that? No, I would address them based on the merit of what they say in their arguments. That is what we should all do. Get off this crap about they are dishonest, they are willfully ignorant. That is SO annoying and TO ME I find it a cowering level to go on.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Also when you say they throw up allot of baloney, I know your also referring to my arguments that I have made as well. Ok then, if there all baloney, it should be very easy to answer ALL questions and all arguments. That’s what it’s all about for me. You may say it’s not worth it, but that’s NOT what debate skill is all about.

I wasn't referring to you or your arguments. I was simply referring to the bad arguments we see from YEC's in general.

"There's no evidence for evolution."

"There are no transitional fossils"

"Monkeys don't give birth to humans."

"An animal can't just decide to change itself."

"Evolution is a religion"

"You need faith to believe in evolution."

"You weren't there to see evolution happen."

"Evolution can't create new things if it's not intelligent."

"Science is out to get god."

"If you study a well-made banana....."

We've spent time debating these things intelligently and politely only to have the same bad arguments used again and again as though they were something new.

Also there is many young earth creation websites, like answers in genesis and others who take a great effort in carefully formulating evidence that is independent of the bible for a young earth along with critical analysis of the arguments of a old earth. These websites don’t just say “cause teh bible sez”.

That's all AiG says. Their entire site is based on a biblically founded argument. In fact, I've yet to find one YEC site that doesn't base its debate off of scripture.

As for the non-biblical arguments some of them occasionally use, they've been refuted time and again. Yet people continue to use them as though they were unanswerable, crushing blows to science. It gets irritating after a while.

Hear me out on this, lets say I KNEW a certain atheist was being dishonest and willfully ignorant, would I address them based on that? No, I would address them based on the merit of what they say in their arguments. That is what we should all do. Get off this crap about they are dishonest, they are willfully ignorant. That is SO annoying and TO ME I find it a cowering level to go on.

Okay, but understand that there are some arguments that simply aren't worth addressing. If I came to you and said, "I don't accept the bible because there are no leprechauns in my garden." would you honestly try to debate that as a logical point or would you simply dismiss it as asinine and treat it as such?
Really, some arguments just aren't worth the trouble. They don't make a point stronger, they simply serve to show off the ignorance of the person making them. You can explain to them why their argument is bad, but to raise an argument to the level of intelligent debate the argument must first have some merit. Many arguments that we see just don't have it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I for one find arguing against 'creationists' to be not only pointless but actually counter-productive, in that the act of engaging nonsense provides it a sense of legitimacy I do not feel it is due. Nonsense is simply not deserving of any sort of formulated response save mockery.

 

[rusra02]

If people keep on ignoring evidence and keep on making ridiculous statements, they need to be ridiculed. It might shock them out of their delusion. There's a thread where you can present your evidence for creation. Nobody has been able to do that yet. Why don't you try? Good, next week when I get the exact ages of the Archaean rocks I'm working on, I will think about the fact that these rocks might be bullying me into accepting that they are more than 10000 years old.

The evidence for creation has been presented over and over, and the evolution proponents choose to ignore it:

1. Unlike Darwin, modern day evolutionists skip over the critical first step in the evolutionary process. i.e. how did life begin. The Bible gives the only plausible answer. Evolution cannot respond so they claim that is a question for another type of scientist.

2. ToE propronents ignore the simple fact that an intelligently designed object or thing requires an intelligent designer. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer for this simple truth. Even single celled organisms or a single cell are hopelessly complex, brilliantly designed structures that put the largest human achievements to pale in comparison. Saying they have no builder (saying they 'evolved') is more nonsensical than saying a subdivision of well-built homes mutated into existence.


3. Despite all the posturing of evolutionists, the fossil record does not support transitional forms that Darwin supposed would eventually be found. Fossils show complex lifeforms appearing suddenly, with no transitional links between different biological families, and no partial body features. As Heribert Nilsson, a swedish biologist wrote after 40 years of research, "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that..the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

4. Scientists cannot reproduce what ToE claim happened totally randomly, the genesis of life.

5. There is no evidence that one family of animals morphs into another, except in cartoons, although there is great variety in each family. People can be extremely short or extremely tall, and short parents can have tall offspring, but they're not producing a new species. The so-called speciation is nothing more than variety within a species. Biological families such as the horse family, cannot successfully mate with the cat family (or kind).

6. The known facts support what the Bible says. Intelligence requires a mind, and a mind requires a living entity. The intelligence manifest in natural things is attributed in the Bible to an intelligent person, Jehovah, the grand Creator.


BTW, I do not personally believe and more importantly the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 10,000 years old, a statement I have made repeatedly and the evolutionists apparently ignore.

 

[McBell]

1. Unlike Darwin, modern day evolutionists skip over the critical first step in the evolutionary process. i.e. how did life begin. The Bible gives the only plausible answer. Evolution cannot respond so they claim that is a question for another type of scientist.

This is not evidence for creation.

2. ToE propronents ignore the simple fact that an intelligently designed object or thing requires an intelligent designer. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer for this simple truth. Even single celled organisms or a single cell are hopelessly complex, brilliantly designed structures that put the largest human achievements to pale in comparison. Saying they have no builder (saying they 'evolved') is more nonsensical than saying a subdivision of well-built homes mutated into existence.

You have to show that a creator is REQUIRED.
Thus far you have not.

3. Despite all the posturing of evolutionists, the fossil record does not support transitional forms that Darwin supposed would eventually be found. Fossils show complex lifeforms appearing suddenly, with no transitional links between different biological families, and no partial body features. As Heribert Nilsson, a swedish biologist wrote after 40 years of research, "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that..the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

You can throw out all the fossils and it will still not hurt the ToE.
How is this evidence of creation?

4. Scientists cannot reproduce what ToE claim happened totally randomly, the genesis of life.

Neither can creationists.
So how is this evidence for creation?

5. There is no evidence that one family of animals morphs into another, except in cartoons, although there is great variety in each family. People can be extremely short or extremely tall, and short parents can have tall offspring, but they're not producing a new species. The so-called speciation is nothing more than variety within a species. Biological families such as the horse family, cannot successfully mate with the cat family (or kind).

This comment shows either your ignorqance of the ToE or it shows you are a bold faced liar.

Either way it is not evidence FOR Creation.

6. The known facts support what the Bible says. Intelligence requires a mind, and a mind requires a living entity. The intelligence manifest in natural things is attributed in the Bible to an intelligent person, Jehovah, the grand Creator.

This has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is about why there are so many different life species.
It matters not how said life started.

BTW, I do not personally believe and more importantly the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 10,000 years old, a statement I have made repeatedly and the evolutionists apparently ignore.

So every time it is mentioned it has to be directly to and or about you?
Are you really that egotistic?


You have not presented a single piece of evidence for creation.
You seem to think that discrediting evolution somehow proves creation.
This is simply not true.