Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

[FishFace]

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.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? What I'm looking for is simply one of two answers:

• Yes;
• No.

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).

Hopefully you see why it's the "challenge" that's dishonest, not the answer. Of course, it's a pipe dream, but it's there.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

Unwilling to accept your interpretation and unwilling to learn are very different things.
The verse in question says

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So it mentions stars singing and it mentions the sons of God shouting. It is your intepretation that claims that this means the sons of God were angels. Even if we accept that they are still the creations of God and part of the original creation and if their mating with women lead to great evil then they become one of the things (but not the only thing) that shows that the original creation not perfect or even "very good" but corrupt at its core. How else could it become such a mess in such a short time?

I hate to say this, but you take burying one's head in the sand to extremes.

Another irony meter explodes!

You show no desire to learn anything whatsoever - even the very basics; and that's a shame.

What basics? Your basic claims here are fundamentally flawed so there is nothing to "learn".

 

[Skavau]

If I build the perfect car and give it to you; and you wreck it; is it my fault?

This is the original analogy on AV's 'My Perfect Car' thread. The purpose of this analogy upon posting was not expressed and the actual analogy in itself was vague and subjective to interpretation. There are many faults with it in itself. Let us look at some of these.

The definition of perfect is not expressed. AV, for whatever reason has chosen not to define how he considers perfect in this analogy. Let us look at some dictionary definitions of perfection:

1.conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman. 2.excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.

The first definition of perfection here implies an ideal maximum. The ideal maximum for a car could be a car that is essentially faultless. It could not be improved upon further because that would negate all presumption of perfection. In reality, a 'faultless' car is likely not possible but this analogy is hypothetical and a perfect or faultless car is presumed to exist so therefore if the car could in some way be lead to failure or fail, it would in fact not be perfect and therefore the car could not crash. That is my definition here.

The second definition reinforces the first definition. The first definition implies an ideal maximum and the second definition mentions that to be perfect is to be beyond complete practical improvement. My Lucozade bottle is perfect because it meets the criteria in ingredients and quantity of ingredients for Lucozade. It cannot at all be improved upon without redefining Lucozade.

The conclusion here is inconclusive. We have two definitions for perfection that assert an ideal maximum (which could actually be considered subjective) and beyond practical improvement.

So presuming that the analogy is in fact flawed and the car is actually not perfect - but still gets crashed, it is the individual who wrecks it at fault. Now, what precisely is this supposed to show? This shows only that an individual wrecking a car is at fault for doing it. We can remove the 'perfect' presumption because it is contradictory.

Let us look at some of his responses to his 'Car' challenge.

Asserting these definitions of perfection onto the analogy negates the analogy. If the car is the ideal maximum or is beyond practical improvement, it could not be wrecked. What makes you think you were behind the wheel when you wrecked it? Please do not add to the anaology --- you'll only convolute it. It's just a simple "yes" or "no" answer. I can't dumb the question down any more than it is.

The answer to this question is not a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer because the question makes an assumption that a perfect car can be destroyed. There are issues with the analogy. Pretending that it is just a simple response that is required is essentially ignoring criticism.

Are you equating perfection with omnipotence? Jesus was perfect, yet He was "wrecked." But let's not get sidetracked, shall we? I don't want anyone to wreck this thread.

This was a response to an assertion by a user saying that a perfect car could not be wrecked, which is indeed very valid. How is such an assertion on perfection mixing itself up with the definition of omniscience? Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely. It has nothing to do with this analogy. Perfection, and I accept this definition is the highest standard of something. The highest standard of a computer is one that does not crash, can do what is expected of a computer without failure. Even if you reject that a perfect car could not get wrecked, it does not equate to a mixing up of omniscience and perfection.

Omniscience is to know everything. How is saying an imperfect car cannot be wrecked mixing Omniscience up with perfection?

Thank you, Deadbolt. Do you see now why I call these "challenges?" The challenge is not trying to figure out the answer - (the answers are no-brainers) - the challenge is getting an honest answer.

And yet AV rejects honesty. He rejects criticism of his analogy, he rejects queries over his meanings and demands a 'yes' or 'no' response. After analysing various responses from AV, finally and somewhat arbitrarily he declares:

I shall now commit this thread to my archives, to be retrieved whenever someone blames God for creating an imperfect universe (Genesis 1).

We now have the purpose. The purpose of this analogy was to defend the assertion that God created an imperfect universe. The actual analogy can be simplified to:

Is a designer at fault is someone wrecks his creation?

Unfortunately, for AV - the analogy is a hideous effort of defending God's credibility in the face of imperfection. The problem is as followed.

God is not a designer of a car (as per AV's understanding)
God is asserted to be the ultimate designer of the universe, he created everything, presumed everything and necessitated all potentialities, possibilities and probabilities into absolute necessities. God created the conditions for the future and ultimately knows the outcome of the future. Presuming that the 'car' in this analogy is supposed to represent 'Earth' or the 'creation' - and the designer 'God', the analogy then must by definition become more complicated to defend God. The designer must automatically inherit the attributes of God. The only way to defend God in an analogy is to presume his characteristics. Therefore the designer of the car would be omniscient and omnipotent. This would therefore mean that the designer would have known that the car would be wrecked by someone.

This does not conclude though that the designer in this car example is at fault. The designer in this example, although now blessed with the foresight of knowing everything did not will it to happen. The designer did not design the person who wrecked it, he only designed the car. Unfortunately, in God's care - the designer, the car and the person who wrecked it were all necessitated into absolutes. God has always known the ultimate fate of everything and therefore knows the ultimate fate of his creation. He willed his creation to be. So any imperfections in the universe are wholly the responsibility of God, for he created it all. He knew that some people would wreck his creation and he knew that it would consequently be rendered imperfect. He did nothing, did only some (or failed at resolving it. It is God's fault now.

The actual analogy to defend this is nothing short of a rushed (or quickly thought up) piece of nonsense with no bearing on what it is actually trying to justify. It is undefined, unreasonable, inapplicable and downright drivel. The Earth is not a car, it is not at all comparable to a car and a designer is not God, and it is not at all comparable to God. Irrespective, I have from this however seen AV attempting to defend his mediocrity:

I don't need to redefine anything. If "perfect" gives you so much trouble, then just exclude it from the challenge and say I made a car and gave it to you and you wrecked it. Just like my Apple Challenge, if an apple is giving you guys so much trouble [for pity's sake], then use something else. God said His creation was "very good," and that's good enough for me to deem it "perfect" - (or, better yet, pluperfect).

AV has given a definition for perfection that allows for fault and at the same negated his own challenge even further away from what he is actually trying to defend. The original question was: 'If I create a perfect car and someone wrecks it, is it my fault?'

Perfection is now expendable and irrelevant. He is now asking a question with an almost blatantly obvious answer which can be rephrased as: If you wreck a car, is it your fault? To which, barring severe design flaws or an act of nature, the answer is quite simply yes. If you break something, it is your fault. The question that can be posed now is what on earth does this have to do with God's creation? God is nothing like that and the creation is nothing like that.

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?

Now that your challenge is negated to meaningless (from your own words). The person who wrecked the car is at fault.

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.

The irony is delicious. This coming from a person who openly ignores criticism of his own analogies and only cares about those who adhere to what he concludes. Your own analogy is an act of generalisation in itself. I have a feeling that you categorise those who say 'yes' and 'no' to your Car Challenge as being in two categories:

1. Those who say 'yes', the designer is at fault believe that God is at fault for imperfection.

2. Those who say 'no', the person who wrecked it is at fault believe that God is not at fault for imperfection. Since I am of the opinion of 2, this is utterly false.

To conclude, the fact AV has not bothered to even attempt to clarify his position on perfection in his car analogy or accept any criticisms of his analogy means he is more interested in having his point reaffirmed than he is in actually coming to a sincere conclusion. This is dishonesty and pomposity because you do not get to choose your answers or responses to questions you pose. And here is my answer:

F

 

[AV1611VET]

To conclude, the fact AV has not bothered to even attempt to clarify his position on perfection in his car analogy or accept any criticisms of his analogy means he is more interested in having his point reaffirmed than he is in actually coming to a sincere conclusion. This is dishonesty and pomposity because you do not get to choose your answers or responses to questions you pose. And here is my answer:

F

Here's something you failed to address though: the keyword in my analogy is "perfect," and no one seems to know what "perfect" means. Thus, when I say God created the universe "perfect," one would not have a legitimate contention, if one didn't know what I meant by "perfect."

If someone says that God created the universe quadrametrically [made-up word], "No, He didn't," is not a valid first response, unless the responder knew He claimed He created the universe trimetrically [made-up word].

 

[Skavau]

Here's something you failed to address though: the keyword in my analogy is "perfect," and no one seems to know what "perfect" means.

I spent a lot of time in the entire response concerning your usage of perfect. You decided in one of your responses here that perfection is expendable. Here:

I don't need to redefine anything. If "perfect" gives you so much trouble, then just exclude it from the challenge and say I made a car and gave it to you and you wrecked it. Just like my Apple Challenge, if an apple is giving you guys so much trouble [for pity's sake], then use something else. God said His creation was "very good," and that's good enough for me to deem it "perfect" - (or, better yet, pluperfect).

Either you retract the above or retract your previous statement.

Thus, when I say God created the universe "perfect," one would not have a legitimate contention, if one didn't know what I meant by "perfect."

Are you saying that seeing as there is no objective understanding of the definition of 'perfect' amongst us we would have no grounds to disagree with your decision to label the creation from God perfect?

If someone says that God created the universe quadrametrically [made-up word], "No, He didn't," is not a valid first response, unless the responder knew He claimed He created the universe trimetrically [made-up word].

Eh? I got the first part, but the responder part confused me.

 

[BrainHertz]

Here's something you failed to address though: the keyword in my analogy is "perfect," and no one seems to know what "perfect" means. Thus, when I say God created the universe "perfect," one would not have a legitimate contention, if one didn't know what I meant by "perfect."

If someone says that God created the universe quadrametrically [made-up word], "No, He didn't," is not a valid first response, unless the responder knew He claimed He created the universe trimetrically [made-up word].

Which is exactly what has been discussed for however many pages, and yet whenever anybody asks for clarification you accuse them of dishonesty for not providing a yes-or-no answer to your vaguely worded que^H^H^Hchallenge.

 

[MoonLancer]

Here's something you failed to address though: the keyword in my analogy is "perfect," and no one seems to know what "perfect" means. Thus, when I say God created the universe "perfect," one would not have a legitimate contention, if one didn't know what I meant by "perfect."

If someone says that God created the universe quadrametrically [made-up word], "No, He didn't," is not a valid first response, unless the responder knew He claimed He created the universe trimetrically [made-up word].

If you would fully read peoples posts, you would know that this has already been addressed by me. Your equivocating the word "perfect". be more honest in the future. You dident addesses it, and instead asked for a yes no answer. The garden of Edan is not prefect in the sense that its new, while the car is.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

In a feeble attempt to bring this thread back on track, I thought I'd share yesterday's experience with you.

Someone started a thread called "I really don't like the fact that non-Creationists are allowed to post here" in the Creationist subforum some time ago. Unsurprisingly, most of the participants voiced their concerns about what they percieve as persecution of creationists by theistic evolutionists and atheists alike.

Reading the examples cited as proof of this behaviour, I noticed that

a) in some cases, the accusations were indeed justified, insofar as condescension and arrogance against creationists in general and YECs in particular are concerned, and

b) in other cases, however, entirely rational arguments of a purely scientific nature were seen as examples of widespread hostility against the creationists themseleves, for example "I have to suggest that it would surely be most sensible to believe scientific consensus. Millions of Christians believe evolution scientists, so there's no reason there for you notto" or "The only reason for a nested hierarchy - other than a deceitful God - is common descent".

Jase, to my knowledge an ex-YEC turned theistic evolutionist, then pointed out that criticizing someone's science is not equivalent to criticizing the person himself, and claimed that Answers in Genesis was not a reliable source - rightly so, I dare say. A participating YEC, however, took offense to this statement, calling it a "low blow" against an organisation he respected and had friends in.

Since I saw that several of the atheist regulars had already took part in this thread without being censored, I thought it to be safe to submit the following post:

Originally Posted by MrGoodBytes

Originally Posted by Project 86
Here is a prime example as to why I don't debate with evolutionists on here. A low blow to an organization who I respect and has employees who are relatives of close friends of mine. It are these type of comments that should never be allowed in here and has me wanting to now support the move to not allow any posts by evolutionists in the forum.

I'm sorry to bust in like that and I promise this is my first and last post in this forum, but I cannot let this stand unchallenged.

AiG is not a reliable source of scientific information. There, I said it. Here is the reason:

Originally Posted by Answers in Genesis: Statement of faith/General
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

This is not a statement a scientist would make - in fact, this is the antithesis of science. Have you ever seen something like this on a university's website? "No evidence can be valid if it contradicts our preestablished theories" I bet you have not.

Science must not and cannot be conducted this way - starting with a conclusion and look for observations that support it while discarding evidence (and that is precisely what AiG does) that doesn't fit the conclusion is the death of all progress.

The observation comes first, then you try to explain it, THEN you draw your conclusion. AiG knows that in their case, this is impossible. Nobody ever found evidence of any kind that would, taken on its own, point to what they believe, so they abandoned modeling their theories to fit the facts in favor of modeling the facts to fit their theories.

Thank you for your time. Good day to you all, and I'd be happy if we would see us in the Creation/Evolution subforum someday.


(We're not that bad, really. )

Call me biased, but it didn't appear especially confrontational to me. Little did I know, because lo and behold, it mysteriously vanished somewhere in the whispering circuits of CF's main server. I don't blame them, it's hard enough to keep track of those millions of posts.

Anyway, I was subsequently pointed out that rule #3 of the creationist forum actually explicitly forbids "criticisms of Creationism, creationists, or organizations of creationists" by noncreationists (one could even infer that this is equally valid for creationists).


So there. My opinion of the few creationists that daringly venture over here to debate has risen, given that they actually seem to be the cosmopolitan fringe of their movement.

 

[TheGnome]

Here's something you failed to address though: the keyword in my analogy is "perfect," and no one seems to know what "perfect" means. Thus, when I say God created the universe "perfect," one would not have a legitimate contention, if one didn't know what I meant by "perfect."

If someone says that God created the universe quadrametrically [made-up word], "No, He didn't," is not a valid first response, unless the responder knew He claimed He created the universe trimetrically [made-up word].

Somebody already posted the dictionary definition of the word: perfect. You disagree with the definition offered by a dictionary. Here's another from Merriam-Webster: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/perfect .

Because you're not working with a dictionary definition of perfect, it's hard to go by your analogy. It's very strange behavior that you get angry at others for using the definition of "perfect" as found in a dictionary and not the one you made up--yet refused to define for us.

If God created a perfect universe, then it cannot be broken. You could argue that God created an almost perfect universe, but he created conscious creatures who are imperfect enough to break the rules, and he created a tree with fruit that when eaten, causes the universe to become more and more imperfect with time.

To make this parallel with your car analogy, it's like if I made a car that looks really nice, does not rust, does not break down, and all of the things you'd expect a perfect car to be like. I, however, rig the car with two horns, a good horn and a bad horn. When you ever use the bad horn, it would cause the car to rust and break down with time. I also chose a driver who isn't known for listening to advice. The driver inevitably honks the bad horn, and this causes the car to rust and break down with age. Was the car really perfect? No, the car isn't perfect because I created a horn that would cripple the car when it was not necessary for it even to be there. I also chose a driver who doesn't listen to advice when I knew he was notorious for not doing so. I could blame the driver, but I rigged the car and I knew the driver would eventually screw up. I am at fault.

God rigged the universe with the tree of knowledge. God created a conscious entity knowing that this conscious entity would disobey him. God knew all of this before creating the universe. God purposely created an imperfect universe, and it's stated right there in Genesis. You're arguing against the Bible by claiming the universe to be perfect. The universe isn't perfect because God purposely designed it that way, if it was perfect, we wouldn't be having this conversation, it'd still just be Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

[Valkhorn]

Is it just me or is AV1611 trying to avoid honest debate - ergo the topic of the original post?

 

[TheGnome]

Is it just me or is AV1611 trying to avoid honest debate - ergo the topic of the original post?

Why are you surprised by this? I'm still not convinced that he isn't a troll.

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread

 

[TheOutsider]

Why are you surprised by this? I'm still not convinced that he isn't a troll.

I think that his beliefs are real. He just a bit of an AW who likes to threadjack.

 

[MoonLancer]

/thread

why are you afraid of honest debates? Just because you have a challenge doesn't make it a good challenge, as people have shown.

Anyway, I really do wish that more creationists would test their faith and join this forum, but they seem to be dropping like sheep.

 

[thaumaturgy]

/thread

AV, instead of your patented "/thread" line maybe you can use this icon next time:

 

[thaumaturgy]

 

[Melethiel]

Hi folks.

I was wondering why our little corner of the board was getting so much interest all of a sudden...can I ask you nice people to kindly read the rules of a forum before you post? Thanks muchly.

Melethiel
Administrator of the Theology forums

 

[Valkhorn]

Hi folks.

I was wondering why our little corner of the board was getting so much interest all of a sudden...can I ask you nice people to kindly read the rules of a forum before you post? Thanks muchly.

Melethiel
Administrator of the Theology forums

Ah but our rules are different (and thankfully so)

 

[Valkhorn]

Why are you surprised by this? I'm still not convinced that he isn't a troll.

I'm not surprised, merely pointing it out

 

[ReverendDG]

/thread

well it looks like we have an answer.. to the OP's question, yes creationists are afraid of debate.