Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I have always been led to believe that when it comes to creationism there was nothing to discuss, creationism is a belief that Genesis 1 is the literal truth, how can a belief be discussed? any discussion would just go around in circles.
Any discussions can only be had between two people who believe the same thing, anyone else just would not understand the belief.
Well, there are some that claim that creationism is scientific (i.e. ICR, AiG, etc) who attempt to use science to prove it. Those types of things usually got discussed here in the past.
The last poster who would get into the sciences was Mark Kennedy, but he seemed to bow out from such discussions as of late for various reasons (being deployed a big one, I imagine).
As for other creationsits, maybe they've just given up after having their arguments refuted?
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Well, there are some that claim that creationism is scientific (i.e. ICR, AiG, etc) who attempt to use science to prove it. Those types of things usually got discussed here in the past.
Science deals in facts, if religions could call on facts they would not be called faiths, ID and the creation museum are just ways of making money.
I find it ironic this thread was closed because it was an "apologetics thread".
Someone (preferably the OP) should contact that moderator and explain that because creationism's primary (*cough* only *cough*) support is the bible, discussing the bible is relevant to C+E. Since one of the arguments we hear in favor of creation so often is "Gods Word vs Man's Word", I think discussing who wrote the bible would be directly relevenat.
__________________ On "illegal" immigration: "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." -The Statue of Liberty
On the alleged connection between Hitler and Atheism:
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." -Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter X
Danth's Law: "If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly."
Well that's more or less irrelevant to what I was trying to raise. It seems the lack of GA has resulted in a vacuum which the C/E forum (and maybe some of the other forums) has turned into.
I've noticed a lot of creationists don't really bother to discuss things related to C/E, instead skipping right to the apologetics. AV1611VET is a prime example of this.
I think the main reason for this is creationism is a form of apologetics. It ether attacks science or makes excuses but never provides any facts or evidence for its case.
Pete, I wonder if part of the issue is that the majority of creationist talking points have little to no science content whatsoever.
We have a few creationists who like to season their statements with a dash of metaphysics and pseudoscience, but it seems the most common objections use apologetics to defend a bowdlerized interpretation of the Bible. I think these objections, even if they could be considered off-topic, should still be addressed alongside the science. Even if that does make for an annoying game of wack-a-mole.
__________________ "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy."
-- Billy Currington
Last edited by TheManeki; 5th November 2009 at 08:29 AM.
Pete, I wonder if part of the issue is that the majority of creationist talking points have little to no science content whatsoever.
We have a few creationists who like to season their statements with a dash of metaphysics and pseudoscience, but it seems the most common objections use apologetics to defend a bowdlerized interpretation of the Bible.
The solution to that issue is to ignore their nonsense and demand they get back to the science. If all they have is PRATTs so be it. More productive dialogue will come from PRATT refutation than 10 or 15 people responding to the village idiots off topic antics.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
The solution to that issue is to ignore their nonsense and demand they get back to the science. If all they have is PRATTs so be it. More productive dialogue will come from PRATT refutation than 10 or 15 people responding to the village idiots off topic antics.
That seems a little counterproductive. Creationist apologists tend to distrust any science that runs afoul of their beliefs, so it seems unlikely that they would bother to learn it on their own. However, if they stick around as they apologize for their beliefs, they might actually learn something.
Additionally, they might get the wrong idea that nobody wants to debate them because their arguments are irrefutable, as opposed to off-topic. Now if we could get some heavy moderation in here to remove off-topic posts, then it would make it very clear what is and what is not appropriate. But what are the chances that would happen?
__________________ "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy."
-- Billy Currington
Linear Mode
