- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 62
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
I’ve been participating in online discussions of this topic since the late 1990s. At first, I thought that since there were some creationists with advanced degrees and positions of administrative responsibility, that there must be some valid reason to believe as they do. So I started asking what it was. I asked that of every creationist and every theist I ran across over the next few years. …But answer came there none.
I wasn’t that way, nor could I be. I gave good, solid reasons behind each of my beliefs. But in these discussions, I quickly discovered that a lot of the things I once believed were based on long-disproved pseudo-science “documentaries”, tabloid tripe, highly-questionable personal testimony, and of course out-and-out lies from just about everyone promoting a religious idea. Oh well. Whatcha gonna do, right? As they say, I would rather know an ugly truth than be deceived by a beautiful fallacy. Ignorance is not bliss, but knowledge really is power, and only accurate information can have practical application. So I should doubt everything I believe, and test everything I think I know, right?
Much to my surprise, that it not the attitude of creationists, or of theists in general, and I don’t understand that. I would hear someone spouting something absurd, and would politely point out their error, and show the guy how to know for sure that he really was wrong. But later I would find the same guy spouting the same lie for another audience in another forum as if he had never read anything I said. I saw that happen a lot.
I can solidly and conclusively prove that biological evolution really is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species. I can also prove that it is the only logical conclusion, and that it is the only concept of origins with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine. If I could get anyone to discuss this with me like any normal person would, it would be very easy to do. In fact, I am betting that anyone who takes me up on that would publicly declare that they had changed their mind, and would be some form of ‘evolutionist’ from that point on.
But every time I’ve pointed out the error in someone’s nonsense, that point would be snipped from their next reply. Every time I asked them an important question, it would be ignored. Whoever it was would change the subject, cast insults defensively, or resort to threats upon the very first attempt to get them to reason rationally. They never considered anything I ever said, either in writing or in person. In fact, many times when I get to the most relevant points in a face-to-face discussion, I’ve actually seen their eyes glaze over so that they look like department store mannequins, smiling politely, but thoughtlessly, as if they will not allow themselves to hear me. I could tell them anything. But it wouldn’t matter because they’ve been conditioned to execrate everything I say, and I can see in their faces that they are silently reciting mantras to keep their minds distracted.
Its no wonder that none of them know anything about the subjects they’re trying to refute, or that none of them understand any of the logical flaws in anything they claim. Of course that means that I couldn’t even predict what sort of nonsense they’ve been conditioned to believe, and that makes it a lot harder to explain anything to them. Since they won’t listen to anything I tell them, I have resolved that the only way to get through to them was to ask them to produce their own explanations for various quandaries. But since they ignore all my questions too, then the only way to get them to answer me would be to declare a formal debate, and stipulate that if either side deliberately ignores the other’s repeated queries, charges or evidence, they would lose, and their defeat would be a matter of public record. But of course that just meant my every challenge was avoided. No one seems to really have the faith they claim they do.
I don’t understand why else they would cower away, because I made it so easy for them! I put a time limit on responses, because some of my opponents would take six weeks to respond to anything, or they would just disappear, or change their post-name, pretending to be someone else, and hoping I wouldn’t notice. But I also set a limit on the duration of the discussion, because if I can’t solidly prove my point in just 12 mutual exchanges (24 total posts) or less, then I never can, and may as well concede defeat. So if my opponent could actually answer questions, (as I must) and properly address every point of evidence (as I must also) and concede points they can no longer defend, (as I am honor-bound to do as well) then the only way for them to lose the debate is to voluntarily declare me the winner. How easy is that? Why do they all still find this challenge so intimidating?
I have made this challenge to more than 100 people over the last couple of years. Most have just ignored my challenge, like JohnR7 keeps doing. But a few have formally refused even though they had previously charged that they would debate "any evolutionist any time, anywhere". Among those who made that challenge but still refused to debate me are Young-Earth Creationists; Christian talk-radio host, Russ Miller, microbiologist, Dr. Luke Randall Ph.D., and of course, the notorious Mr. Kent “Dr.Dino” Hovind who refuses to debate anyone in writing because he can't afford a public record of his losses.
In fact, in all that time, only three anti-evolutionists have ever accepted. All of them made their opening comments and asked their initial questions: Then I answered, addressed each of their points in an appropriate manner, and asked just a couple of my own opening questions. That is where every debate so far has ended. Without exception, they have all fled after the first round, *without* answering a single question, and *without* even attempting to deal with any point I made.
I can’t understand that behavior. Not only is it deliberately dishonest, but evidently insane as well. So my question to all you creationists is this: How could I present my challenge in any way that any of you would actually accept it? I want to have an honest, one-on-one discussion (to conclusion) in order to prove my point once and for all, or fail in the attempt. Why will none of you accept such a simple, reasonable request? What changes would you demand I make to my challenge (and why) before you would dare take me on? What terms would any of you actually accept?
I wasn’t that way, nor could I be. I gave good, solid reasons behind each of my beliefs. But in these discussions, I quickly discovered that a lot of the things I once believed were based on long-disproved pseudo-science “documentaries”, tabloid tripe, highly-questionable personal testimony, and of course out-and-out lies from just about everyone promoting a religious idea. Oh well. Whatcha gonna do, right? As they say, I would rather know an ugly truth than be deceived by a beautiful fallacy. Ignorance is not bliss, but knowledge really is power, and only accurate information can have practical application. So I should doubt everything I believe, and test everything I think I know, right?
Much to my surprise, that it not the attitude of creationists, or of theists in general, and I don’t understand that. I would hear someone spouting something absurd, and would politely point out their error, and show the guy how to know for sure that he really was wrong. But later I would find the same guy spouting the same lie for another audience in another forum as if he had never read anything I said. I saw that happen a lot.
I can solidly and conclusively prove that biological evolution really is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species. I can also prove that it is the only logical conclusion, and that it is the only concept of origins with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine. If I could get anyone to discuss this with me like any normal person would, it would be very easy to do. In fact, I am betting that anyone who takes me up on that would publicly declare that they had changed their mind, and would be some form of ‘evolutionist’ from that point on.
But every time I’ve pointed out the error in someone’s nonsense, that point would be snipped from their next reply. Every time I asked them an important question, it would be ignored. Whoever it was would change the subject, cast insults defensively, or resort to threats upon the very first attempt to get them to reason rationally. They never considered anything I ever said, either in writing or in person. In fact, many times when I get to the most relevant points in a face-to-face discussion, I’ve actually seen their eyes glaze over so that they look like department store mannequins, smiling politely, but thoughtlessly, as if they will not allow themselves to hear me. I could tell them anything. But it wouldn’t matter because they’ve been conditioned to execrate everything I say, and I can see in their faces that they are silently reciting mantras to keep their minds distracted.
Its no wonder that none of them know anything about the subjects they’re trying to refute, or that none of them understand any of the logical flaws in anything they claim. Of course that means that I couldn’t even predict what sort of nonsense they’ve been conditioned to believe, and that makes it a lot harder to explain anything to them. Since they won’t listen to anything I tell them, I have resolved that the only way to get through to them was to ask them to produce their own explanations for various quandaries. But since they ignore all my questions too, then the only way to get them to answer me would be to declare a formal debate, and stipulate that if either side deliberately ignores the other’s repeated queries, charges or evidence, they would lose, and their defeat would be a matter of public record. But of course that just meant my every challenge was avoided. No one seems to really have the faith they claim they do.
I don’t understand why else they would cower away, because I made it so easy for them! I put a time limit on responses, because some of my opponents would take six weeks to respond to anything, or they would just disappear, or change their post-name, pretending to be someone else, and hoping I wouldn’t notice. But I also set a limit on the duration of the discussion, because if I can’t solidly prove my point in just 12 mutual exchanges (24 total posts) or less, then I never can, and may as well concede defeat. So if my opponent could actually answer questions, (as I must) and properly address every point of evidence (as I must also) and concede points they can no longer defend, (as I am honor-bound to do as well) then the only way for them to lose the debate is to voluntarily declare me the winner. How easy is that? Why do they all still find this challenge so intimidating?
I have made this challenge to more than 100 people over the last couple of years. Most have just ignored my challenge, like JohnR7 keeps doing. But a few have formally refused even though they had previously charged that they would debate "any evolutionist any time, anywhere". Among those who made that challenge but still refused to debate me are Young-Earth Creationists; Christian talk-radio host, Russ Miller, microbiologist, Dr. Luke Randall Ph.D., and of course, the notorious Mr. Kent “Dr.Dino” Hovind who refuses to debate anyone in writing because he can't afford a public record of his losses.
In fact, in all that time, only three anti-evolutionists have ever accepted. All of them made their opening comments and asked their initial questions: Then I answered, addressed each of their points in an appropriate manner, and asked just a couple of my own opening questions. That is where every debate so far has ended. Without exception, they have all fled after the first round, *without* answering a single question, and *without* even attempting to deal with any point I made.
I can’t understand that behavior. Not only is it deliberately dishonest, but evidently insane as well. So my question to all you creationists is this: How could I present my challenge in any way that any of you would actually accept it? I want to have an honest, one-on-one discussion (to conclusion) in order to prove my point once and for all, or fail in the attempt. Why will none of you accept such a simple, reasonable request? What changes would you demand I make to my challenge (and why) before you would dare take me on? What terms would any of you actually accept?