Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

[Galle]

Actually, we want a forum void of evolutionists because we don't want to see idiotic remarks that are so pervasive on this forum by some evolutionists

Idiotic remarks? Are you referring to the dishonest terms used (e.g., Darwinism, evolutionism)? Or perhaps you speak of the constant misuse of terminology (e.g., "evolution is just a theory", "macroevolution has never been observed)? Or maybe the deliberate obfuscation we see (e.g., "no one has ever seen a new kind evolve...why no, I won't define kind")? No wait, I've got it! You're talking about the litany of PRATTs we encounter. Yes, there certainly are a lot of idiotic remarks here.

not all, when discussing evolutionism and creationism between ourselves. Usually when there is a minority group, you let them have their own space.

Even in the fortress forum, creationists can't discuss things. At best you have an echo chamber where creationists repeat the same old claims that are debunked here. If creationists had any desire to understand or discuss, they'd retreat to their "own space" and ask how they could make their arguments better and would critically examine each other's claims. Instead, you just get a lot of dishonest whining about how mean the evolutionists are for bringing up uncomfortable facts that disprove the latest AiG screed.

 

[corvus_corax]

Actually, we want a forum void of evolutionists

Who's this mythological "we" you speak of?
From what Ive seen there are plenty of Christians on the Origins Theology forum who fully accept Evolutionary theory.
troodon, Dannager, lucaspa, Glen Morton, etc?
All Christians by the way.

Or is it that you just want the Creationism forum (the subforum of Origins theology) cut off from "evolutionists" (christian and non-christian alike)?

And if so, why? If you get that wish, all you're going to get on that subforum is a bunch of backpatting no matter what you present (as long as it isn't evolutionary theory)
In other words, geocentrism, embedded age, diamond core planets, light travelling instantly across the entire universe, the rejection of twin nested hierarchies based on nothing more than "nuh-uh, Goddidit!", the rejection of the evolutionary prediction of human chromoson 2, and waters from earth shooting through space to Mars would all be acceptable. Heck we've seen the blatant backpatting here on C&E, even amongst those Creationists who dont necessarily agree on their own personal doctrine (and THAT is what Creationism boils down to - PERSONAL interpretation and doctrine)

Is this what you really want? Do you seek, within your own subforum, people who state "keep the debate out" (i.e. "no conflicting opinions regarding my personal version of the Creation account of the Bible"), and "I would rather see this forum exclude evolutionists" (which, you might note, pointedly and purposefully excludes many Christians on this board), and "most of the proevolutionists are scientifically uneducated" (I'd like to see confirmation of this BTW).
Of course your Creationists allies (or at least one of them) admits to the following= "I tend to stay with peer reviewed publications"

Is this really what you want to purposefully surround yourself with? Those who avoid peer reviewed articles, those who claim a diamond core to the earth, those who twist the meanings of words (or just create them whole cloth...embedded age comes to mind)?

Do you really want that much back-patting? Do you (or any other Creationist) NEED it so badly that you are willing to reject your brothers and sisters in Christ in a specific forum just because they accept evolutionary theory?



You should be better than all that

 

[plindboe]

Sounds fair enough to me that they want that forum for themselves. Creationists are a minority after all. If the forum is opened too everyone it will simply turn into a "Creation & Evolution 2" forum in no time, with 95% of the members being evolutionists.

Peter

 

[FishFace]

But not this one --- I'll make a monkey out of any evolutionist.

--- (did I say that right?)

Nope. I'm sure someone's already said that the only person you make a monkey out of is yourself.
So I'll repeat them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Idiotic remarks? Are you referring to the dishonest terms used (e.g., Darwinism, evolutionism)? Or perhaps you speak of the constant misuse of terminology (e.g., "evolution is just a theory", "macroevolution has never been observed)? Or maybe the deliberate obfuscation we see (e.g., "no one has ever seen a new kind evolve...why no, I won't define kind")?

Or perhaps Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. Or a place where one can post without getting his life threatened.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Actually, we want a forum void of evolutionists because we don't want to see idiotic remarks that are so pervasive on this forum by some evolutionists, not all, when discussing evolutionism and creationism between ourselves. Usually when there is a minority group, you let them have their own space. I think the OP is ridiculous, I like to debate, but it gets really tiring when there are always certain individuals that make all evolutionists and all atheists more specifically look bad. It would be great if we could have our own closed forum to discuss things between ourselves because we get tired of those certain evolutionists who make you all look bad and get us on our nerves.

Also, having our own forum doesn't mean that I'm going to stop posting here. In fact I've been quite active with this other online Creationist only group for the past 3 years.

And when other Creationists disagree with your geocentric views will you seek a geocentricism only subforum?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Or perhaps Posts 327, 328, and 329 here.

If you take offense to these posts, I recommend filing a complaint to whoever wrote the Bible. All Nathan Poe and Frumious Bandersnatch did was summing up Genesis.

Or a place where one can post without getting his life threatened.

So far, the only one who has advocated torturing evolutionists is you.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And when other Creationists disagree with your geocentric views will you seek a geocentricism only subforum?

There would be need of several subforums actually - one for people who think that creation science has practical applications, like LittleNipper, one for those who think that this is not the case, like AV1611VET, one forum for YECs, one for OECs, one for Gap creationists and a very special, personal, encrypted forum for AV1611VET - again -, his pastor and the other guy who believes in embedded age.

 

[AV1611VET]

All Nathan Poe and Frumious Bandersnatch did was summing up Genesis.

Some CliffsNotes.

So far, the only one who has advocated torturing evolutionists is you.

If you only knew.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Some CliffsNotes.

Perhaps. They were factually right, though.

If you only knew.

Direct me to where your life and limb were threatened and I'll report him or her personally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Direct me to where your life and limb were threatened and I'll report him or her personally.

Don't worry about it.

 

[FishFace]

Actually, we want a forum void of evolutionists because we don't want to see idiotic remarks that are so pervasive on this forum by some evolutionists, not all, when discussing evolutionism and creationism between ourselves. Usually when there is a minority group, you let them have their own space. I think the OP is ridiculous, I like to debate, but it gets really tiring when there are always certain individuals that make all evolutionists and all atheists more specifically look bad. It would be great if we could have our own closed forum to discuss things between ourselves because we get tired of those certain evolutionists who make you all look bad and get us on our nerves.

Personally I would like place where you have to be more civil to be allowed to debate. The problem is that some people and some arguments (helloooooo apple challenge) become so tiresome that they hardly deserve civility. For it to work and not just to annoy everyone you'd have to have quite a complicated rule system I think.

 

[flatworm]

This aspect of creationism seems to be just a manifestation of the general fundamentalist need to isolate.

It's not enough to slander atheists from the pulpit- you also have to make sure your children don't run into the real atheists with happy families who lead moral lives. It isn't enough to claim homosexuals have an agenda to recruit heterosexual children and destroy families- you must also avoid contact with them lest you discover that isn't true. It isn't enough to decry artists like Marilyn Manson- you must avoid letting your children see all the people who listen to them and live full and happy lives.

Likewise, spouting all their PRATTs against evolution is useless if they don't take the care to exclude the evidence and scientific arguments that show them for the bollocks they are.

It's the Big Lie approach. Saturate someone with so many falsehoods that it would be psychologically traumatic to fully enter the real world.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Don't worry about it.

As you wish. Personally, I have all but forgotten your little physical punishment intermezzo, but since you brought up the issue, I wanted to clarify it.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

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 guess it would help if there was something to criticize in the first place, on the creationist side. I posted this elsewhere, but I think it applies here, too.

I think there’s one important thing many creationists don’t take into account. If every single scientific thought ever validated in support of evolution were found to be utterly wrong tomorrow, creationism would be no more right than it is today. If creationists hope to establish their ideas as a true, respectable scientific representation of reality, they must provide evidence for their claims. They fail to do this when they solely focus on discrediting evolution and other ideas they disagree with, rather than explaining why their concepts and their ideas of the progression of life are correct, according the evidence provided for us by nature. If they cannot do this, it isn’t science. It’s theology with complicated sounding words.

Imagine that the earth is generally accepted to be flat. You, though, have an idea that it is round. How do you go about convincing others that it is round? You offer evidence, something that can be studied by others. Perhaps you should tell them to consider the shadow cast during a lunar eclipse, or that ships appear to “sink” as they pass the horizon. You offer your case as a model of reality that fits well with the evidence nature provides you, rather than focusing on how everyone else's claims can't possibly be true.

But instead of doing this, you say “the earth cannot be flat. It just can’t, I don’t believe it. There isn’t enough evidence. It cannot be proven. It’s just a theory, anyway. Do you really want to believe you live on a flat earth?”

It’s quite possible there isn’t enough evidence. You could be completely right when you say that flat-earthers are wrong. But that is another issue entirely! Just because they may be wrong does not make you right. These (groundless) arguments could be just as easily coming from someone that claims the earth is square or diamond shaped instead of round.

What is it about nature that leads creationists to think as they do? And why haven’t they been able to sell their case to scientists, if nature reveals the true work their god has done in creating it?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Or perhaps Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. Or a place where one can post without getting his life threatened.

You did get your nonsense smacked down pretty bad didn't you. Is that why you asked the mods to close the thread.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I guess it would help if there was something to criticize in the first place, on the creationist side. I posted this elsewhere, but I think it applies here, too.

I think there’s one important thing many creationists don’t take into account. If every single scientific thought ever validated in support of evolution were found to be utterly wrong tomorrow, creationism would be no more right than it is today.

This points out the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy one of creationisms favorites. There are three logical errors I see over and over from creationists, especially young earth creationists, this one, the fallacy of hasty generalization, (some deposits formed quickly so all deposits could have been formed by a global flood) and the No True Scotsman fallacy (No true Christian can accept evolution). Perhaps the creationists want isolation to avoid having their logical fallacies pointed out.

The other thing I see over and over on this and other boards is that people on the evolution side will quickly criticize "evolutionists" who go out of bounds in attacking creationists and will point out any errors that other "evolutionists" make while creationists seldom critize other creationists no matter how outrageous their attacks or how far out or just plain fraudulant their claims are.

Perhaps this is another reason they desire isolation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This points out the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy one of creationisms favorites. There are three logical errors I see over and over from creationists, especially young earth creationists, this one, the fallacy of hasty generalization, (some deposits formed quickly so all deposits could have been formed by a global flood) and the No True Scotsman fallacy (No true Christian can accept evolution). Perhaps the creationists want isolation to avoid having their logical fallacies pointed out.

I think this is very likely true. The hardest thing for anyone to do is to own up to their own failures in logic and thought process. I'm always annoyed to have to face up to my own.

Creationists however, especially some on here, are kind of "blessed" in that they often are so ill-informed on basic logic and debate skills that they simply don't see that they are making a mistake and simply don't understand when someone attempts to correct them that they can and should learn from the experience.

Certainly this is true for their science debates. They are blessedly ill-informed on science so think that whatever they say that is even marginally "scientific sounding" means they have added to the scientific discussion. It is only upon actually learning the science that they can see how much more they need to learn. And learning science and logic is hard work. Very hard work. I struggle with it daily and I've been in this game since I started undergraduate 25 years ago.

Fundamentalism is for the weak. It effectively eliminates the need to think about what you believe or "understand". You are given one simple set of marching orders and you bear down and repeat as many times as necessary.

That is why I think Fundamentalism only thrives where thought is extinguished. But maybe the reality is that thought is extinguished by Fundamentalism.

 

[necroforest]

Or perhaps Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. Or a place where one can post without getting his life threatened.

I like #330 best.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like #330 best.

A lot of that (if not all of it) was answered in detail here in Post 281, which took me an hour to correlate; only to have the same questions reposted later (more than once). I have ignored him since. Frumious does the exact same thing. I'll answer his posts in great detail, only to have him come back with the exact same questions later. I have since stopped ignoring his "sons of God" question after I went into detail on Hebrew poetry, only to have him wave it away, then later start the same question over. In my opinion (and I could be wrong) Frumious (and I'm suspecting MrGoodBytes too) is more than one poster.