Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

[RichardT]

diotic 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.

Actually, I was sort of referring to your kind of posts.

 

[RichardT]

Oh don't you dare. If any group here should be demanding their own private hideaway to escape "idiotic" remarks, it should be the evolutionists. We get far more ignorance and outright lunacy from the other side than you do, but we don't care.

Because you make up 95% of the forum.

 

[Valkhorn]

Actually, I was sort of referring to your kind of posts.

Even though her post was 100% correct? Did you want her to sugar coat it?

 

[RichardT]

Even though her post was 100% correct? Did you want her to sugar coat it?

She comited the hasty generalization fallacy, as is common around here. It would probably be healthy for me to refrain from posting here for a while, but I never actually leave.

 

[MoonLancer]

Thank you! Now was that so hard?

(Man --- it's like pulling teeth around here!)

just one problem. This only shows that a generic car without defect is prone to crashing in a world were mistakes happen.

This hardly shows that god is not at fault for the fall. He still must be held accountable for his actions.

god caused the fall and you blame yourself. Wonderful isn't it?

I think your challenge failed because you are changing the definition of perfect to "mint" and "new". perfect can mean mint and new at times, but You know that the perfection that the bible uses to describe the garden of eden isn't "new".

Stop being dishonest with your use of words AV. Its unbecoming and sets a bad example for people interested in facts and truth.

 

[FishFace]

The problem is that "without defect" is not the same as "perfect." A car without defect is just an ordinary car that is shiny and new. A perfect car would presumably not rust away to nothing if just left alone - because being "without defect" is not the same as perfection.

 

[Valkhorn]

She comited the hasty generalization fallacy, as is common around here. It would probably be healthy for me to refrain from posting here for a while, but I never actually leave.

But what she said was 100% correct. Could you point to anything that she said that was incorrect?

 

[Galle]

Actually, I was sort of referring to your kind of posts.

I see you were unable to substantively respond. You might find that unfortunate, but it's hardly my fault. Furthermore, I find it rather ironic that you should accuse me of 'idiocy' when I supported my point and you have nothing but empty accusations.

Oh, and you may want to look up "hasty generalization fallacy". Or perhaps we could add another entry to my list?

In any case, Dannager has an excellent point (to which you are apparently unable to respond, RichardT). Evolutionists put up with a thousand times as much idiocy, a thousand times as much willful ignorance, a thousand times as much dishonesty, and a thousand times as much rudeness from creationists as the other way around. If creationists really cared at all about rudeness, they'd go after the prime offenders, their fellow creationists. But of course they don't. Furthermore, the remarks that they denounce as "rude" are usually entirely accurate and within reason, just critical of the creationist position.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I take it you're not going to take my Perfect Car Challenge?

Why do I have to take your challenge? I was merely responding to your attaching caveats to the word "Perfect".

The other poster is correct in that a perfect car cannot be wrecked since cars are designed, in part, to be wreck-resistant. ERGO, since perfection leaves no option for part, but is perfection in all aspects of the item under investigation, you must acquiesce that a perfect car cannot be wrecked.

Unless you wish to redefine "car" as well as "perfect".

 

[RichardT]

In any case, Dannager has an excellent point (to which you are apparently unable to respond, RichardT). Evolutionists put up with a thousand times as much idiocy, a thousand times as much willful ignorance, a thousand times as much dishonesty, and a thousand times as much rudeness from creationists as the other way around. If creationists really cared at all about rudeness, they'd go after the prime offenders, their fellow creationists.

If a fellow Creationist makes a mistake, I would love to correct him, but not so much in this sort of forum, because he is already degraded and insulted for it by some evolutionists, I'd like to correct him in love, not hate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do I have to take your challenge? I was merely responding to your attaching caveats to the word "Perfect".

The other poster is correct in that a perfect car cannot be wrecked since cars are designed, in part, to be wreck-resistant. ERGO, since perfection leaves no option for part, but is perfection in all aspects of the item under investigation, you must acquiesce that a perfect car cannot be wrecked.

Unless you wish to redefine "car" as well as "perfect".

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).

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

NOW you're getting somewhere! That's a better question. Indeed if you gave me a car and I wrecked it you would not be responsible.

Of course that has no bearing whatsoever on the God discussion, but then you couldn't have been expected to see that many moves ahead.

 

[Galle]

If a fellow Creationist makes a mistake, I would love to correct him, but not so much in this sort of forum, because he is already degraded and insulted for it by some evolutionists, I'd like to correct him in love, not hate.

Gosh, you seem to have chopped off some of that paragraph. Let me repeat that critical sentence:

Furthermore, the remarks that they denounce as "rude" are usually entirely accurate and within reason, just critical of the creationist position.

In other words, you complain about the degradation and insults that creationists supposedly suffer, but what you're really complaining about is that evolutionists have the awful temerity to disagree with creationists and criticize their position and disprove their arguments. If you were being truthful here, you would have "corrected" AV1611VET in this very thread. Or you would have "corrected" any of the posters in the Creationist Forum. Heck, if nothing else, you would at least have had the integrity to discuss the corrections instead of spinning them as being nothing more than "hate" and "insults". Yet somehow, none of these things have happened.

I hope you realize that you and your behavior have severely limited what conclusions we can draw about you and the veracity of your claims.

Another "mystery" is how you somehow managed to miss the rest of my post. Once more, I'll repeat myself.

I find it rather ironic that you should accuse me of 'idiocy' when I supported my point and you have nothing but empty accusations.

So did you find a flaw in my original response to you? Or do you accept that the vast majority of the idiocy (your term, not mine) is from the creationists? How appropriate do you believe it was to make the accusations you did in light of this? Why did you not directly respond--why the baseless insults?

 

[TheBear]

10 minutes and no reply? And who's afraid to debate???

I was in the shower, AV1611VET. Some of us have things to do.

Thanks --- that's a little more info than I cared to know.

Even funnier - your obsessive remark about 10 minutes passing and no reply. (Come on, people! I'm in a hurry! Stay on the computer and in this thread! Feeeeeed meeeeee!!)

 

[Valkhorn]

In other words, you complain about the degradation and insults that creationists supposedly suffer, but what you're really complaining about is that evolutionists have the awful temerity to disagree with creationists and criticize their position and disprove their arguments. If you were being truthful here, you would have "corrected" AV1611VET in this very thread. Or you would have "corrected" any of the posters in the Creationist Forum. Heck, if nothing else, you would at least have had the integrity to discuss the corrections instead of spinning them as being nothing more than "hate" and "insults". Yet somehow, none of these things have happened.

Quoted for truth.

[Although if I agree with you in another forum which I mentioned in the OP I would and have been censored. Funny that.]

 

[Valkhorn]

Even funnier - your obsessive remark about 10 minutes passing and no reply. (Come on, people! I'm in a hurry! Stay on the computer and in this thread! Feeeeeed meeeeee!!)

Feed me Seymore! Feed me all night looong!

 

[Valkhorn]

hasty generalization fallacy

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?

Or do you mean like when Creationists post yet another PRATT?

 

[MoonLancer]

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).

so you would rather completely throw out the word "perfect" then properly define it? hmmm i wonder why that is? You know that if you used the same type of "perfect" for your car challenge that you do for gods creation, that you wouldn't even be able to answer your own challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

so you would rather completely throw out the word "perfect" then properly define it? hmmm i wonder why that is? You know that if you used the same type of "perfect" for your car challenge that you do for gods creation, that you wouldn't even be able to answer your own challenge.

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.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

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.