Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

[gamespotter10]

I found this astonishing post in a thread in the Creationist Only thread of ChristianForums:

http://christianforums.com/f425

The Post:

I won't name the person who said this out of respect for their privacy but isn't this rather odd? If Creationists are so strong in their convictions why must they rope themselves off in a place where they will not be criticized or debated? Why do they need more patting of themselves on the back instead of careful scrutiny of their own ideas?

We've known for some time that Creationist groups like the Discovery Institute, AIG, and ICR have branched off into their own groups where debate is not welcome and conclusions are considered before any evidence - but why must this be the case if Creationists are so convinced of the truth? Plus, how many creationist only forums and discussion groups are there that are readily banning anyone who accepts Evolution - yet no Evolution discussion group or website that I know of readily bans Creationists (on the contrary they actually let them speak and engage in open debate).

And, aren't these the same groups that are demanding critical consideration of the theory of Evolution? Isn't it rather odd how critical thinking should be held towards Evolution but it is not held towards Creationism and Intelligent Design?

I'll leave you guys to discuss this further, but I found this post and thought I'd remark on it. Why must Evolution be censored while Creationism isn't allowed to be criticized?

I've never found a creationist on the internet who wanted to debate. The creationists have been driven out of the research labs, the schools, and now the internet.

 

[RichardT]

Oh, Richard, do you mean like when you posted a bunch of supposed peer-reviewed papers in this forum but didn't read them? Then someone else pointed out that they actually destroy your claim rather than support them?

Of course I didn't read them, I don't have access to them. I quoted them because they are there, and they are written by Creationists, they are published in secular peer review, and they deal specifically with YEC mechanisms. The abstract that FB quoted in no way destroys my claim.

 

[AtheistPerson]

No, goddidit......the end.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well probably the best way I could put forth a challenge, is to use the actual wording of Genesis 1, and make a challenge for improvement.

Something like this:

• I build a car that is "very good." What would you do to make it perfect?

But then you open yourself up to the stupid answers, like:

• I'd put a bar in it.
• I'd put a billion dollars in the glove compartment.

And you'd have to waste a lot of time waiting for an honest answer to come along.

And that's not even counting the questions that I'd probably get, like:

• Is it my color?
• Does it have racing stripes?
• Does it go 0 - 60 in 2 seconds?

That sort of junk.

ignore for a moment subjective flavor.

Do you think a car designed to run an drive could crash if it was considered perfect?

all cars no matter how "new" will run down and break. So the question that could arise from your definition of perfect, Could the fall have happened in its own time without mankind doing anything but using gods perfect creation the way it was intended? Could god have improved on this creation so this would not happen? could an omnipotent god prevented the fall? if yes, why didn't he? Everything he created was perfect in my humble opinion. he created the land, the sun, the planets, the apples and the physical principles of the universe. So how did the fall occur under a completely controlled environment? many of the things you personally attribute to the fall would effect the "car" in due time anyway because the creator in your example only created the car, and erosion or other principles of the natural world that are already in effect in regards to your car example.

Your challenge as written works if god is not omnipotent and only created the car.

your argument only addresses the car but nothing else. so to clarify, did the creator of the car also create the driver any possible driving location or environment? Does the creature have the ability to know everything? and if so why did the creator of the car not foresee and stop this accident by making a car thats perfect? was it not within his power?

the challenge removes one of the most controversial topics in regards to whos fault the fall is. Free will.

The way I see it, ether god was not all knowing and all powerful or was not all loving. Ether my free will directly interferes with the power of god, and thus is a false god, OR I have no free will and thus the fall is gods fault anyway, so why blame myself.

 

[Galle]

I've never found a creationist on the internet who wanted to debate. The creationists have been driven out of the research labs, the schools, and now the internet.

I must humbly disagree: creationists have driven themselves out of the research labs, the schools, and discussion forums. Any time they want to debate using actual arguments instead of fallacies, they can. Any time they want to learn what evolution really entails instead of the dishonest dogs-giving-birth-to-cats strawman, they can. Any time they want to construct and promote a self-consistent theory of intelligent design/creationism instead of trying to tear down evolution, they can.

In the age of the internet, information is everywhere, free for the taking. It's never been so easy to ask questions or get reliable answers. Yet creationists would rather lock themselves in their own little corner, outlaw all criticism, and reinforce each other's unsupported beliefs. And when those beliefs get them laughed at ("Public floggings hurt, even when administered by satirical sacred noodles."[1]), they have no one to blame but themselves.

[1] - http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/22/na-polk-needled-noodled-in-evolution-flap/

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't know how many times we've covered this, Frumious, but let's do it yet again for the benefit of the newbies:



The passage in Job is poetry --- not Genesis.

[bible]Job 38:6-7[/bible]

So it's poetry. It still doesn't identify the Sons of God as angels. It merely says the sons of God shouted while the morning stars sang.

I don't --- for five good reasons that another poster gave:

1. The literary framework of the structure of the book of Genesis indicates that the book as a whole is intended to be understood as history. Note the recurrence of the phrase "these are the generations."
2. The New Testament writers, as well as the Old Testament writers, clearly understand Genesis (including chapters 1 and 2) as true history.

OK. So where in the new Testament does it say the earth was created only 6000 years ago?

1. The later chapters of Genesis are clearly intended to be taken as historical - and no distinct boundary line exists before which the author obviously means earlier chapters to be considered as non-historical. A tight genealogical continuity is given from Adam through his sons and the succeeding generations right up to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. No point can be specified where "myth" ends and "history" begins.

That is true unless myth ends and history begins with Abraham.

1. Within the disputed first eleven chapters of Genesis, mention is made of 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, and some 20 identifiable cultural items (e.g. gold, onyx, brass, iron, mortar, musical instruments, and cities). In the first two chapters, such "real world" categories are found notably in Genesis 2:8-14. Such specificity is not expected in a "myth."

I thought only Genesis 1 counted with you. BTW how is it that these geographical places still exist if there was global flood that most flood geologists claim changed all the world's geology.

1. There is no substantial literary indication in Genesis 1 -2 that these early chapters are intended to be taken as allegory, legend, parable, poetry, or any other sort of "non-historical material." Despite the exalted tone of this section, the genre is plainly narrative prose, not poetry, as indicated by a lack of parallelism.

If you mean that the two stories lack parallelism because the are not consistent with one another I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you read many of the actual comments people made about your challenge? Were you unable to understand the words?

Because most people were bringing up valid points against your challenge and most were not frivolities as you portray here.

Care to answer it yourself, Thaumaturgy; or do you have a "valid point" against it? It's a very simple question: You wrecked it, whose fault is it? Or should I word it: You wrecked it, are you willing to take responsibility for it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never found a creationist on the internet who wanted to debate. The creationists have been driven out of the research labs, the schools, and now the internet.

Keep looking.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then I contend that God's perfect Creation can be (and was) wrecked as well; through no fault of His own.

This would only make sense if something that God did not create as part of his perfect creation wrecked it. So what did God not create that wrecked his perfect creation? If it was something that God created as part of his supposedly perfect creation that wrecked his supposedly perfect creation and forced God to repent of creating it God blundered. End of story.

Either God was not the creator of everything or God blundered. Your incomplete and very imperfect analogy about an easily wrecked "perfect" car can't help you here. It is merely an attempt to distract attention from the fact that according to your interpretation of scripture either God is an incompent creator or something outside God's creation had the power to mess up his creation and force him to repent of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

ignore for a moment subjective flavor.

I think I'll just ignore this post. What I'm looking for is simply one of two answers:

• my fault
• your fault

Nothing else you guys say actually obligates me to even want to respond.

As I said before, now you know why I call these super-simple scenarios "challenges." The challenge is to get an answer (let alone an honest one).

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think I'll just ignore this post. What I'm looking for is simply one of two answers:

• my fault
• your fault

Nothing else you guys say actually obligates me to even want to respond.

As I said before, now you know why I call these super-simple scenarios "challenges." The challenge is to get an answer (let alone an honest one).

It is honest to point out that this so called challenge is imperfect, incomplete and irrelevant to the question at hand. It is not intellectually honest to claim that it is at all relevant to how an omnipotent, omniscient creator could be forced to repent of his own creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it's poetry. It still doesn't identify the Sons of God as angels. It merely says the sons of God shouted while the morning stars sang.

Good enough, Frumious. I'm going to consider you too unwilling to learn; and I'm not going to spend much more time with you at all. I hate to say this, but you take burying one's head in the sand to extremes. You show no desire to learn anything whatsoever - even the very basics; and that's a shame.

 

[TheOutsider]

Why do you guys let AV derail every single thread with his silly little "challenges"?

 

[MoonLancer]

I think I'll just ignore this post. What I'm looking for is simply one of two answers:

• my fault
• your fault

Nothing else you guys say actually obligates me to even want to respond.

As I said before, now you know why I call these super-simple scenarios "challenges." The challenge is to get an answer (let alone an honest one).

You ask a dishonest question, and your surprised at the type of responses you get? I paint my words with value and color, not just simply black and white. Your challenges are not complex enough to answer the questions they poise.

and creationists wonder why people laugh at them...

Oh and outsider, your right. AV please don't bring up your challenges in other threads. I ask you kindly this time, next time i will notify the spam police. I don't like doing that, but if you cant stay on topic and stay honest, i don't know what else to do.

"keep it in your sig (pants) man, no one wants to see it hanging out like that... and the masturbation part... thats a little over the top. "

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh and outsider, your right. AV please don't bring up your challenges in other threads. I ask you kindly this time, next time i will notify the spam police. I don't like doing that, but if you cant stay on topic and stay honest, i don't know what else to do.

I'll bring up my challenges as I see fit, thank you. That's why I archived them. If one of them fits the topic, I'll most certainly inject it into the conversation.

​

 

[Valkhorn]

I'll bring up my challenges as I see fit, thank you. That's why I archived them. If one of them fits the topic, I'll most certainly inject it into the conversation.

I do think it's off-topic though. As this is my thread, can we please get back on topic?

 

[AV1611VET]

I do think it's off-topic though. As this is my thread, can we please get back on topic?

From Post 43, where it was first mentioned. Please check it out and let me know how this was inappropriate. And if you thought it was off-topic, why did you let it go so long?

Not in Genesis 1, though. This occurred after the Fall - not before it. Just like if I was to build you the perfect car, and you wreck it, it's not my fault.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do think it's off-topic though. As this is my thread, can we please get back on topic?

Just fyi --- here's a reminder of your title: Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

 

[MoonLancer]

Just fyi --- here's a reminder of your title: Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

your right, the title should be changed to this

Are Creationists Afraid of HONEST Debate?

invariably, as you have personally shown that the answer is yes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm going to consider you too unwilling to learn; and I'm not going to spend much more time with you at all. I hate to say this, but you take burying one's head in the sand to extremes. You show no desire to learn anything whatsoever - even the very basics; and that's a shame.

AV, you might do well to learn something from the Bible:

[BIBLE]Matthew 7:3[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

Go ahead and tell us how this doesn't apply to you. Then re-read your post above in reference to Frumy. Then re-read the words of YOUR lord and savior.

Then go to your lord and savior in prayer and ask him to explain it to you.

Repeat as necessary.