Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[EastCoastRemnant]

The don't want or seek resolution through discussion, they want to have a continual Debate, without ever resolving anything.

It's a "theory"... all they have is their debating points.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Here is a perfect example of the sort of nonsense that riles "evolutionists". Nobody is "brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory", and you know it. If you can't be honest in your arguments expect to be attacked for your dishonesty.

Actually, indoctrinated is a better term. There were two young girls in our building that used to come over visit my wife and I and were curious about our faith (their parents never taught them about God)... one day they came from school and burst through the door saying that they just found out that we came from apes. We tried to explain to them that there is no actual physical evidence for that and there answer was, "why would our teachers lie to us".

We are taught to believe those in authority to us... teachers being a great example. Just like when elementary kids are shown sex ed. material and taught that feelings for and experimenting with the same sex is "normal". What do you think the child is going to believe?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We tried to explain to them that there is no actual physical evidence for that and there answer was, "why would our teachers lie to us".

And there's another example. No matter how often the evidence is presented the creationist responds with the mantra "there is no actual evidence for evolution".

Just like when elementary kids are shown sex ed. material and taught that feelings for and experimenting with the same sex is "normal".

That's irrelevant to any discussion about creation vs evolution. Another great creationist tactic.

Did the OP put you up to providing examples of the truly awful arguments used or is it just that creationists can't help themselves?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect that science acts as an authority and, even if our understanding of how evolution works is limited, we still accept it. We usually aren't scientists or biology graduates with a detailed knowledge to build on but accept what has been repeated to us by adults, school, the media, etc. To really engage with creationism means having to get past the trained reaction of thinking it is "absurd" or "nonsensical" based on the assumption it is impossible and couldn't ever happen that way. For example, it is hard to keep a straight face when confronted with the banana as an example of intelligent design even if your willing to concede he may have a point.

.

Did you pick the banana video as a joke? Or are you not aware that it's something of a laughing matter amongst those who believe in evolution?

 

[JIMINZ]

It's a "theory"... all they have is their debating points.

While your here, what happened on the 11 of June?

 

[Ophiolite]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

Kevin, there is some validity in your concern, but - on the other hand -
1. I have frequently posted direct refutation of content only to have a swift move of goalposts, a Gish Gallop, or a repetition of previously refuted points. After a while such tactics leave one little option but to attack the methodology and question the intent of the poster.
2. You cannot really attack content when the content is aganda driven rhetoric, or an exercise in blind parroting of assertions that professional Creationists won't even touch with a barge-pole.

The source of the difficulty, in my view, is that Creationists have arrived at their position on evolution as a matter of faith. This faith is intimately tied to a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and a literal interpretation of its writing. I can fully respect such a position (though I personally feel it leads to a flawed conclusion, but that's incidental).

Unfortunately, a proportion of Creationists, for whatever reason, feel they must bolster this faith based position by seeking confirmation of their views in science. This seems to me wholly unnecessary, but is still not a problem. When it becomes a problem is when they feel compelled to have science agree with their faith based position. This requires them to be selective in what evidence they consider and to misinterpret or misunderstand much of it. While claiming to use science to support their Creationist views they are corrupting the scientific method and making a mockery of objective analysis.

I suspect most atheists and agnostics and Christians would have no problem at all with Creationists holding firmly to their views, based upon faith. Where most atheists and agnostics and many Christians have a problem is when they abuse science (the methods and the findings) in that attempt to provide objective support for their faith based conclusions.

That is sad on two counts. Firstly, I dislike to see a tool as useful as science abused in such an egregious way. Secondly, I regret that at least a proportion of Creationists are so unsure of their faith that they feel such a powerful need to dissemble in order to get independent corroboration of their beliefs.

You have made some interesting points in your OP. I would be interested in your thoughts on my response.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

And there's another example. No matter how often the evidence is presented the creationist responds with the mantra "there is no actual evidence for evolution".

I said physical evidence, as in show me evidence that an ape became a man. You can't.... you can theorize til the cows come home but it doesn't make it so.

 

[Ophiolite]

The don't want or seek resolution through discussion, they want to have a continual Debate, without ever resolving anything.

One of the reasons for the continual debate is represented by this imaginary, simplified, thread extract:

Creationist: Evolutionists say that A is true. It obviously isn't so evolution is wrong.
Evolutionist: Actually evolution does not say A is true. Do you have anything else?
Creationist: Evolutionists say B happened. That's silly, so obviously evolution is wrong.
Evolutionist: You are using an Argument from Incredulity. That's a logical fallacy. Do you have anything else.?
Creationist:Evolutionists say that A is true. It obviously isn't so evolution is wrong.
Evolutionist: I thought we had already dealt with this. Evolution does not make that claim.
Creationist: But you do claim B and C.
Evolutionist: I've already pointed out that B is an Argument from Incredulity and therefore illogical. As for C here is some material you could study that explains the evidence.
Creationist: I don't have time to study a bunch of atheist propoganda filled with assumptions and lies.
Evolutionist: If you don't study it how will you know if it contains lies or not?
Creationist: It's always the same. You avoid addressing the real problems evolution has. When are you going to provide a proper answer to A, B and C?
Evolutionist: I'm not sure you are being intellectually honest here.
Creationist:Now you are just trying to avoid addressing my questions by an ad hominem attack.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

While your here, what happened on the 11 of June?

You missed the summit?

 

[Ophiolite]

I said physical evidence, as in show me evidence that an ape became a man. You can't.... you can theorize til the cows come home but it doesn't make it so.

You don't consider bones to be physical?
You don't consider the environments the bones are found in to be physical?
You don't consider DNA to be physical?
You don't consider the behavioural patterns of apes and men to be physical? I mean if a bonobo punched you on the nose because you took its bannana I would think that would be pretty physical.

So, none of these things are physical evidence? What an odd way of viewing the world.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end?

Because creationists insist in bringing in their bibles, as if bronze age verses are relevant to that discussion. Or they argue out of sheer ignorance on the subject.

That is off course dealt with rather quickly by "evolutionists". And those responses are what you call "doing battle with the theist".

But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

With emphasis on the word ALL.
In other words, when discussing matters of biology, bibles or similar should not be mentioned.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The don't want or seek resolution through discussion, they want to have a continual Debate, without ever resolving anything.

The problem with that, is that there really is no actual debate anymore. The matter has been resolved more then a century ago.

Anti evolution people today argue from their religious beliefs rather exclusively.
There are no scientific arguments against evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mainly it’s because creationists have their own pseudoscience version of evolution that mainstream scientists DO NOT use. As long as creationists misuse scientific terminology you’re going to get an annoyed response from someone who understands mainstream science. Calling any science or history ,atheistic is a dead giveaway that the person using that term doesn’t understand either science or history

...or atheism, for that matter.

 

[Tanj]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand.

Because the fight is over, we won. The only place creationism lives now is the occasional anonymous internet forum like this one, and failed business ventures. Thus it is the people putting the failed ideas forward that are more interesting than the failed ideas themselves.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Shoving the truth down peoples throat, isn't an approach I'd recommend.
There is a certain limit people can take, and you'll be more effective if you give them a little bit that they can swallow today, and a little bit more, instead of overwhelming them with things, that it would get to a point where they cannot tolerate it. People are socially conditioned and brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory, and you are breaking down their beliefs, their paradigms; it is very hard for a person to experience because their perceptions of reality and their life is structured upon their belief system.

So when you start to debunk and destabilize this foundation when it comes to their beliefs, you're going to put them in a very vulnerable psychological position. So just keep that all in mind when you sharing truth with people.

:]

We should talk - What evidence do you have FOR creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

 

[AV1611VET]

We should talk - What evidence do you have FOR creation?

No physical evidence.

 

[VirOptimus]

I said physical evidence, as in show me evidence that an ape became a man. You can't.... you can theorize til the cows come home but it doesn't make it so.

Humans are apes by definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are apes by definition.

Fish too … right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's a "theory"... all they have is their debating points.

Another prime example of how creationists trying to talk about science, can't be taken seriously by those who actually have a basic understanding of science and its terminology.

The "it's just a theory" argument is such a PRATT that an entire web-page was put online just to make clear how silly that argument is.

www.notjustatheory.com

That site is, together with the FAQs on talk-origins, is probably one of the most linked sites on this forum in these discussions.

Another thing that is very frustrating to us, is that even after that site has been linked to dozens, hundreds, of times, the very people to whom it was address, still continue to spread the same falsehood.

Yes, the dishonesty gets on our nerves. And rightfully so, I might add.
There comes a point where it can no longer be tolerated after a while.