How best to argue against creationists

[The_Evelyonian]

Yeah, as ToE proponents frequently do when presented with evidence, they change the focus, move the goal posts, use the rope a dope, or simply deny any evidence was presented, instead of responding to the evidence presented.

Nice Ad Hominem

WHY? Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ToE.

And here's the kicker. Even if you were right (which you're not but let's suppose for a moment that you are), even if evolution were conclusively disproven creationism would not become the scientific standard by default. You would still have to produce positive evidence for creationism in order for the scientific community to take it seriously.

Science is not an either/or field. "If theory A is wrong then theory B must be right" doesn't apply. Creationists are wasting their time trying to disprove evolution. Instead you might focus your efforts on finding positive evidence for creationism.

Speaking of evidence for creationism, you've claimed repeatedly that the evidence for creationism is overwhelming. Are you any closer to posting said evidence or are you simply going to continue making an unfounded assertion?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You are changing the subject. And I am not ignoring the fact that God 'would have to be infinitely more complex..' etc.

So you're taking the less complex thing and saying "designed" and the more complex thing and saying "not designed". Do you not see the problem there? I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't use complexity as evidence for design as long as you postulate a complex god.

But to answer your question, the Bible answers at Revelations 4:11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”
As the grand Creator, Jehovah As the King of eternity (1 Timothy 1:17), Jehovah has always existed
"Before the mountains themselves were born,Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land,Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. (Psalm 90:2) Our finite minds cannot grasp fully the infinite. Space, time, numbers are things that seem to have no beginning nor end. So it is with the one true God.

Argument via scripture

1) [irrelevant passage from the OT]
2) [irrelevant passage from the NT]
3) Therefore, God exists.

Care to try again?

 

[painted wolf]

Another question: Where did the rock and 'natural forces' come from?

So you are saying that God didn't hand sculpt those rock formations? Or that he did through natural processes?


Unlike houses, living things have sex, reproduce and produce a new generation that is unique.
Each house needs to be constructed by builders... but each cell builds itself.
Unless you are suggesting that supernatural forces build each cell by hand? If you are then you have to explain why we can watch and manipulate this process.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

Evelyonian

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.

Well since I was not a part of those discussions, it’s good to “intelligently” do it again.

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.

Your missing the point, AIG does not use the bible for it’s evidence. Why don’t you realize that? And it also uses tons of technical language (which I already said earlier I don’t understand a lot of it). So there evidence is independent of the bible, as I already said. Now you did mention that some people have used this evidence without the bible, very good, but then you said it is refuted. Ok, fine, but here is what I have issue with, SHOW ME the refutation. I’m not interested in just hearing “oh, that is refuted”. I don’t care if you say it has been refuted, actually refute it, show me it. Answer all my questions. I’m sure if I told you “evolution has been refuted long ago” and left you hanging, that would probably irritate you right? Of course it would, so do you not think it will do the same for me? Come on now.

Okay, but understand that there are some arguments that simply aren't worth addressing.

Yes, they are ALL worth addressing and here is why: the other person who takes a different position then you do, they are making arguments that they SERIOUSLY believe in, and those arguments are what make them SERIOUSLY CONTINUE to believe in their own position. So if you want to help uproot them from their position, counter their arguments. They are worth addressing. Some folk may say well some arguments are too foolish to even consider, if we considered them, we would be giving it the same respect as a GOOD alternative theory, which we do not want to give it the same respect. Ok, but here is the way I look at that, if it’s SO foolish, it should take an EASY few minutes of your time to crumble the argument to peaces and make it LOOK more foolish then what it really is. Remember, the young earth creationists they don’t think it looks foolish. SHOW them what YOU SEE.

In other words, HELP THEM. Consider what they say worth addressing, HELP THEM. Don’t just be interested in your own ego.

 

[Walkntune]

So you are saying that God didn't hand sculpt those rock formations? Or that he did through natural processes?


Unlike houses, living things have sex, reproduce and produce a new generation that is unique.
Each house needs to be constructed by builders... but each cell builds itself.
Unless you are suggesting that supernatural forces build each cell by hand? If you are then you have to explain why we can watch and manipulate this process.

wa:do

I would argue since we are created in the image of the creator we have the ability to manipulate creation and be creators ourself.

 

[painted wolf]

If you will tell me whether evolution is completely deterministic or not I will retract my statement about ToE jumping to conclusions on causation.

I would like to try to answer this if I can.... but what do you mean about deterministic?

I am a self thinker and not educated in science but it is not hard to see where the theories line up with reality if you are open and honest.

It's easier to understand with some science background... but if you are honest about looking into it, then yes I agree you can see how it lines up with reality as it seen around us.

Since I already assume the theory is going to change I am not foolish enough to stand on it as it is on sinking sand.

The theory isn't going to change all that much... bits and pieces at the edges may change... but the core of the theory has been rock solid for over 150 years.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your missing the point, AIG does not use the bible for it’s evidence.

Every bit of evidence FOR creationism used by AiG is backed up by Biblical interpretation.
Answers in Genesis Mission Statement

Goal

To support the church in fulfilling its commission
Vision

Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.
Mission

• We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
• We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
• We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

Answers in Genesis Mission Statement - Answers in Genesis

Why don’t you realize that? And it also uses tons of technical language (which I already said earlier I don’t understand a lot of it). So there evidence is independent of the bible, as I already said.

This is just simply priceless.

1. AiG uses "tons' of technical language, (which is hard to understand)
2. Therefore the evidence is independent of the Bible.

 

[painted wolf]

Your missing the point, AIG does not use the bible for it’s evidence. Why don’t you realize that?

Because they explicitly say otherwise several times...
Answers in Genesis Mission Statement - Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ - Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis seeks to give glory and honor to God as Creator, and to affirm the truth of the biblical record of the real origin and history of the world and mankind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe.

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.

The main page is also devoted to sermons and bible readings...

I am going to assume that you simply missed these central document of AIG.... and the fact that almost all of their 'scientific' writings have bible verses scattered through them...

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I would argue since we are created in the image of the creator we have the ability to manipulate creation and be creators ourself.

Does that make Beavers, birds, termites and so on all made in creators image?

wa:do

 

[Walkntune]

Does that make Beavers, birds, termites and so on all made in creators image?

wa:do

Lets just say his finger prints are on them.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Now you did mention that some people have used this evidence without the bible, very good, but then you said it is refuted. Ok, fine, but here is what I have issue with, SHOW ME the refutation. I’m not interested in just hearing “oh, that is refuted”. I don’t care if you say it has been refuted, actually refute it, show me it. Answer all my questions. I’m sure if I told you “evolution has been refuted long ago” and left you hanging, that would probably irritate you right? Of course it would, so do you not think it will do the same for me? Come on now.

Here's some for you to start with

An Index to Creationist Claims

Yes, they are ALL worth addressing and here is why: the other person who takes a different position then you do, they are making arguments that they SERIOUSLY believe in, and those arguments are what make them SERIOUSLY CONTINUE to believe in their own position. So if you want to help uproot them from their position, counter their arguments.

I never said the arguments weren't worth countering. I simply said that some weren't worth debating. There's a difference. As I said before,

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.

They are worth addressing. Some folk may say well some arguments are too foolish to even consider, if we considered them, we would be giving it the same respect as a GOOD alternative theory, which we do not want to give it the same respect. Ok, but here is the way I look at that, if it’s SO foolish, it should take an EASY few minutes of your time to crumble the argument to peaces and make it LOOK more foolish then what it really is. Remember, the young earth creationists they don’t think it looks foolish. SHOW them what YOU SEE.

In other words, HELP THEM. Consider what they say worth addressing, HELP THEM.

And we try to do that very thing. However, there are a number of problems we run into when we try.

Repetition - Even after an argument has been demolished in every way in which an argument can be demolished, they still hold the argument up and demand it be answered.

Invisible Giants -Arguments that make absolutely no logical sense and yet are held up as being perfectly reasonable.

Argument from absurdity

1) Argle gargle gewgle goop.
2) Point 1 has never been refuted.
3) Therefore, God exists.

Obviously this is an extreme example but there are many arguments that we encounter that make no more sense than the above.

Changing the subject - When the argument starts going badly, they will try and shift the focus of the debate.

"There's no evidence to support evolution."
"[lists transitional specimens, explains DNA evidence, atavisms, ERVs, etc.]"
"Yeah, well, you only believe in evolution because you're an atheist!"

Major misunderstandings - Usually when we try to debate creationists they will throw up an argument that stems from a misunderstanding of the ToE. Even after we try to explain their mistake, they will usually continue to hold onto and use the same flawed idea.

"There are no transitional fossils"
"[lists lineage of hominid fossils and other transitionals]"
"They don't count. Show me one crocoduck or frog-monkey and I'll believe in evolution."
"There's no such thing as a crocoduck or frog-monkey. That's a complete misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil is. In fact, if something like a crocoduck or frog-monkey were ever found, it would disprove evolution."
"So you admit it! There are no transitional fossils!"

Threats - Though rare, threats of eternal damnation do make their way into the debate. This is a a variation of "changing the subject"

"Well, I'm glad you believe in evolution. I hope that it brings you comfort while you're burning in hell."



When you first start debating, it's easy enough to overlook these things. However, after a while, it starts to get irritating. We never stop trying to explain things to creationists but we do begin to take a rather dim view of things when we see the same arguments and the same tactics used over and over again.

 

[Jollybear]

I’m going to try to make this a short one, because I really want to hold onto the meaningful discussion with redOne77. And answering to this nonsense is just getting to me.

I am just going to mention the facts.

Fact one is this: answers in genesis ADMITS they believe in the bible and the biblical story of creation.
Fact two, answers in genesis DOES NOT use the bible as there EVIDENCE for a YOUNG earth. They use argument, reason and data for their evidence. Now if you want to say they are misunderstanding the data, go ahead, but the fact is, they don’t use the bible as there evidence. Please, get that strait.

Also, if I continue to push an argument, it’s because you or someone else has NOT fully demolished it.

Also if you think my arguments make no logical sense, then show me how they don’t have any logical sense, if you don’t show it, you’re NOT helping. Ok? That is the facts.

Also you can say all day long “argle gargle, blab la whatever” all you want too, that is not our arguments. You may think our arguments make no sense, but to us they do, so don’t just dismiss them as being foolish, SHOW us how they are. BE HELPFUL.

Also I do not change the subject.

Also if I have a misunderstanding I will seek to ask further questions.

Also when I say if your wrong and I am right about damnation in hell, that is a honest question I have, how would you deal with that? Do you not realize your gambling. That is a valid point. It’s not evidence for a young earth, I realize that, but it’s a honest question that I have.
I hope this clears up some stuff.

 

[Tristesse]

I’m going to try to make this a short one, because I really want to hold onto the meaningful discussion with redOne77. And answering to this nonsense is just getting to me.

I am just going to mention the facts.

Fact one is this: answers in genesis ADMITS they believe in the bible and the biblical story of creation.
Fact two, answers in genesis DOES NOT use the bible as there EVIDENCE for a YOUNG earth. They use argument, reason and data for their evidence. Now if you want to say they are misunderstanding the data, go ahead, but the fact is, they don’t use the bible as there evidence. Please, get that strait.

Also, if I continue to push an argument, it’s because you or someone else has NOT fully demolished it.

Also if you think my arguments make no logical sense, then show me how they don’t have any logical sense, if you don’t show it, you’re NOT helping. Ok? That is the facts.

Also you can say all day long “argle gargle, blab la whatever” all you want too, that is not our arguments. You may think our arguments make no sense, but to us they do, so don’t just dismiss them as being foolish, SHOW us how they are. BE HELPFUL.

Also I do not change the subject.

Also if I have a misunderstanding I will seek to ask further questions.

Also when I say if your wrong and I am right about damnation in hell, that is a honest question I have, how would you deal with that? Do you not realize your gambling. That is a valid point. It’s not evidence for a young earth, I realize that, but it’s a honest question that I have.
I hope this clears up some stuff.

Your fact two struck me as a little odd. Because, usually when you evaluate evidence you don't start with a conclusion and see how much stuff you can find that confirms the conclusion you'd like to reach.

And your last point about the watered down version of pascal's wager, well, pascal's wager fails from start to finish, when you begin to realize that there is more the one religion, and they can't all be right. Even within christianity you have 1000's denominations. I mean, the catholics think the protestants are going to hell etc... But imagine that when you die and you're confronted with someone else's version of god, say vishnu or krishna. Or the pantheon of greek or egyptian gods. And they say, why on earth did you believe in that jesus character? You are now in the same position that I am with respect to the "afterlife." But suppose you are confronted with a god, and this god cherishes reasoning and intellectual honesty, and jesus and all the other gods throughout history have all been tests to see if our reasoning ability would ever figure it out. So, you can make up anything you like, but unless there is evidence to back up your claim, it's an empty statement. And pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments to ever be presented.

 

[Jollybear]

Tristesse

Your fact two struck me as a little odd. Because, usually when you evaluate evidence you don't start with a conclusion and see how much stuff you can find that confirms the conclusion you'd like to reach.

Your wrong, some people start with a conclusion and see if there is evidence for it. Others start with data and see what it points to, and then come to a conclusion. Actually, I have been reading in a NONE creationist biology text book online and it says that the scientific method is to START with a hypothesis and then to TEST that hypothesis. So, YOUR WRONG!

And your last point about the watered down version of pascal's wager, well, pascal's wager fails from start to finish, when you begin to realize that there is more the one religion, and they can't all be right. Even within christianity you have 1000's denominations. I mean, the catholics think the protestants are going to hell etc... But imagine that when you die and you're confronted with someone else's version of god, say vishnu or krishna. Or the pantheon of greek or egyptian gods. And they say, why on earth did you believe in that jesus character? You are now in the same position that I am with respect to the "afterlife." But suppose you are confronted with a god, and this god cherishes reasoning and intellectual honesty, and jesus and all the other gods throughout history have all been tests to see if our reasoning ability would ever figure it out. So, you can make up anything you like, but unless there is evidence to back up your claim, it's an empty statement. And pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments to ever be presented.

Yes, I understand what your saying here. Everything would be a gamble. But the PURPOSE of my question, is to find out who is humble enough to realize the gamble and to see how serious they take that. That is why I ask the question.

Do you understand? In this light pascal’s wager is NOT a failer.

 

[Tristesse]

Tristesse



Your wrong, some people start with a conclusion and see if there is evidence for it. Others start with data and see what it points to, and then come to a conclusion. Actually, I have been reading in a NONE creationist biology text book online and it says that the scientific method is to START with a hypothesis and then to TEST that hypothesis. So, YOUR WRONG!




Yes, I understand what your saying here. Everything would be a gamble. But the PURPOSE of my question, is to find out who is humble enough to realize the gamble and to see how serious they take that. That is why I ask the question.

Do you understand? In this light pascal’s wager is NOT a failer.

Yes, you start with a hypothesis. The hypothesis is not the conclusion! Thats why hypotheses get refined or altered throughout the investigation. And they get tossed out if they are shown to be false. Thats not true however, of creationism. In creationism, you have a book written by bronze age men who were trying to understand the world they found themselves in. And from there, the creationist tries to find things to confirm his or her beliefs on this issue, irrespective of the actual evidence. They toss out evidence that doesn't mesh with their world view and accept evidence that confirms it. And this is not the way proper science is done. So, I'M RIGHT!

Pascal's wager is a failure under any light. Unless you have EVIDENCE, the keyword here is EVIDENCE, that what you say will actually happen when you die, then your claim has no more validity then my claim that people with blond hair will be tortured for eternity just because of the happenstance that they were born with blond hair. We're looking for evidence, not appeals to emotion.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you have an emotional investment in ANY conclusion, it becomes quite easy to find tons of (what will qualify, to you at least as) evidence to support that conclusion. Once there is emotional investment it becomes the norm to defend ones mental territory even if you intellectually know it to be false. This is why arguing against conclusions formulated on emotional basis, such is the case with god belief or any of the sillyness that flows from it, is generally a huge waste of time (aside from any possible entertainment value).

 

[painted wolf]

Fact one is this: answers in genesis ADMITS they believe in the bible and the biblical story of creation.
Fact two, answers in genesis DOES NOT use the bible as there EVIDENCE for a YOUNG earth. They use argument, reason and data for their evidence. Now if you want to say they are misunderstanding the data, go ahead, but the fact is, they don’t use the bible as there evidence. Please, get that strait.

Jolly... what part of "anything that goes against a literal interpretation of the bible is false" do you not understand is the same as using the bible as evidence?
Either way the assumption is a priori that the Bible is literal and correct no matter what anything else says... so why even bother looking for evidence in the first place?

At least they are totally upfront and honest about this... Scripture is ultimately all that matters.

wa:do

ps... they often quote directly or link to directly the scriptures in their writings... From Adam and Eve to Noah and Exodus and even Revelations... they do not let scripture out of the picture. At least in this they are honest about their motives and methods.

 

[Tristesse]

[/SIZE][/FONT] Jolly... what part of "anything that goes against a literal interpretation of the bible is false" do you not understand is the same as using the bible as evidence?
Either way the assumption is a priori that the Bible is literal and correct no matter what anything else says... so why even bother looking for evidence in the first place?

At least they are totally upfront and honest about this... Scripture is ultimately all that matters.

wa:do

Yeah. Agreed! And Why look for evidence in the first place, when evidence isn't really an issue to begin with. If you're going to believe it because you're going to believe it, that's fine, but don't start touting evidence as your reason for believing it.

 

[Jollybear]

Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this. You’re not getting it.

The hypothesis is the same as the conclusion, whether you want to call it assumption, hypothesis, conclusion or explanation of the facts or whatever. The conclusion or hypothesis is TESTED.

Answers in genesis is honest about their belief in the bible, YES! But the bible is not there evidence. They are honest about their motivations, YES, but their motives are not the evidence! How many times do I have to say this. They say anything that goes against the bible is false because they will investigate further, they are intellectually honest.

Also they don’t cherry pick evidence, they look for evidence to support there view, YES, but any evidence that does not support it, they will either explain it, or say they do not YET know and will seek further investigation.

Actually evolutionists do the same thing, if something goes against their theory, they will either explain it or call it an anomaly. So quit the double standard here. Also if they are making predictions and then looking to see if those predictions are right, that just means they are LOOKING for evidence to support their hypothesis, so evolutionists do the same thing as creationists. Get off the trip.

Also if I say that my belief in hell and Christianity is right and all others are wrong, and that means you would be in trouble if I am right, so what would you do if you found out after you die if I was right? That is a valid good question, what is wrong with that question? The same could be asked by a person who believes in the greek gods, if there gods are true and I find out later that they were, then I would be in trouble, what would I do? Again, it is a valid question. The question is posed to a person in order to find out if they take the issue LIGHTLY or SERIOUSLY. And to see how HUMBLE they are or not.

IT’s not a failer.

Also NOT everyone who believes in a God believes it out of emotionalism. Also SOME who are atheists believe it out of emotionalism. So, get off this.

PS where is that quote at in AIG ""anything that goes against a literal interpretation of the bible is false" i want to look at the context, thanks.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

PS where is that quote at in AIG "anything that goes against a literal interpretation of the bible is false" i want to look at the context, thanks.

painted wolf posted it earlier. Apparently, you must have missed it.

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.

Source: The AIG Statement of faith - Answers in Genesis

It's Section 4: General - Point 6.

Actually, I suggest reading the entire "Statement of Faith" and then coming back here and telling us all again exactly how "their evidence is independent of scripture."