Avoiding Questions from Evolutionists

Cute idea, Assyrian, but I can't help but wonder whether this thread will produce any fruit.

Saying "we all have the same evidence, it's just a matter of different interpretations, so we're right and you're not but hey let's kumbaya".

Funny how creationists only say that after they have been trounced on evidence, never before.

Throwing things.

Accusing the other of not believing in God/Jesus/the Bible.

A while ago that Archaeologist fellow kept saying that I must not believe since it wasn't his way of looking at it. Montalban has done it (perhaps rhetorically, hard to tell over a medium like the internet) in the other thread, over in Philosophy and ethics I've been accused of having another God and altering scripture, and so on and so on. After all, if we aren't real believers, than none of our points will matter, right?

Metherion

Assyrian said:

What other strategies do Creationists use to avoid questions?

Click to expand...

Creationists tend to use all the same strategies that evolutionists use to avoid questions.

Jazer said:

Creationists tend to use all the same strategies that evolutionists use to avoid questions.

Click to expand...

That's odd - I find it rare for creationists to actually be right in whatever they're talking about.

Assyrian said:

What are the Creationist strategies to avoid dealing with difficult issues questions? For example avoiding all discussion of Heliocentrism and the church changing its interpretation of scripture because of science, by claiming it is "of no spiritual significance".



Of course you have to ignore the fact that so many TEs accept a literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin raising the question 'what spiritual significance?' You also have to ignore the deep spiritual implications feared by people at the time, where heliocentrism challenged the trustworthiness of scripture itself and if you could not rely on the plain meaning of the Joshua's long day, how could you trust it when it speak of the Virgin Birth? Then there is the problem that is you see some spiritual significance in a misinterpretation of a passage of scripture, then your spiritual significance is a mistaken too. But since the 'spiritual significance' claim means you do not have to deal with problem like that, these problems can be avoided too.

Over in Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists Mallon suggested 'Avoiding Questions from Evolutionists' might have been a better title for the thread. So I am nicking the title. Thanks Mallon

What other strategies do Creationists use to avoid questions?

Click to expand...

Creationist or evolutionist, or any human being, to avoid a question due to the lack of answer is NOT GOOD. I deeply believe, if creationist has no answer to a question, evolutionist will not have one either. I don't think I know an exception yet.

For example, the Joshua's long day, I do not know how to explain it literally. But I don't think either that we should avoid the question by saying it is metaphoric.

For example, the Joshua's long day, I do not know how to explain it literally.

Click to expand...

Here's my answer.

Joshua was a BMF:


I hope you get the reference.

He was a BMF on such a high level that even God had to listen to him and stop the moon and the sun.

That is how you explain the story literally.

"Say hello to my little friend!" And Joshua points up at the sun.

You're thinking like a Western person in 2011 AD.

Think like an Israelite in ???? BCE, because that's the point of view from which the story of the sun standing still is told. That is to say, they didn't know the earth rotated around the sun. They just know that the sun was out much longer than it should have been.

Assyrian said:

TEs don't actually say it is metaphoric either I think we both share he same ignorance of how God actually performed the miracle, but TEs have no problem with literal description of the miracle. We quite relish it in fact, because it describes a geocentric cosmos with the length of day dependent on the movement of the sun, and states that it was the sun that stopped moving to accomplish the miracle. Which is problematic for creationist who know it is actually the earth rotating not the sun going round the earth that gives us our day. TEs are quite happy with the interpretation the church came up with after Copernicus, based on Calvin and Augustine's idea of accommodation, that God was speaking to people in terms of their understanding of the cosmos, but that is a lot more problematic for literalists.

Click to expand...

A continuous three 24-hrs daylight is a problem to any human, modern or ancient. There is no such ancient cosmic understanding anywhere. That is why this recording should be considered literally. No sensible people will describe historical event that way.

We do not have the answer, that does not mean the question is wrong.

We do not have answer does not mean we do not have idea. For example, it could be caused by a nearby supernova on their night-side of the earth.

Assyrian said:

What are the Creationist strategies to avoid dealing with difficult issues questions? For example avoiding all discussion of Heliocentrism and the church changing its interpretation of scripture because of science, by claiming it is "of no spiritual significance".

Click to expand...

There was never any real Biblical basis for Heliocentrism. The Bible was never written based on astronomical observations. I remember someone had the challenge in a formal debate invitation thread stating that creationism is the new heliocentrism which I would have happily accepted but he lacked the convictions of his beliefs.

Heliocentrism reflected the view of most astronomers right up until the invention of the telescope. The problems Galileo ran into had to do with Aristotelian mechanics not Biblical theism. Theistic Evolutionists know this and I find it revealing that they do nothing but drag these discussions to this level.

Of course you have to ignore the fact that so many TEs accept a literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin raising the question 'what spiritual significance?'

Click to expand...

Nonsense! It's called equivocation and to make that giant leap of logic without a single evolutionist calling you on it speaks volumes for the fallacious nature of evolutionist debate.

You also have to ignore the deep spiritual implications feared by people at the time, where heliocentrism challenged the trustworthiness of scripture itself and if you could not rely on the plain meaning of the Joshua's long day, how could you trust it when it speak of the Virgin Birth? Then there is the problem that is you see some spiritual significance in a misinterpretation of a passage of scripture, then your spiritual significance is a mistaken too. But since the 'spiritual significance' claim means you do not have to deal with problem like that, these problems can be avoided too.

Click to expand...

The Virgin birth is a doctrine that has a solid Biblical foundation and remains a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Whether the sun revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun or everything in the universe revolves around a statue of Mike Ditka in leatards is irrelevant to Biblical theism and the Christian faith.

By now you know why original sin is important and the only reason you are not acknowledging it in this post is because you care more about preforming for other evolutionists.

What other strategies do Creationists use to avoid questions?

Click to expand...

Now he will light his ill fashioned effigy of creationists on fire, doing a strawman fire dance for the amusement of his evolutionist cohorts in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

Just hope you remembered to disable the sprinkler system.

Have a nice day
Mark

Ah, yes, accusing of us being nothing but performers, hoping for the adulation of our atheistic Darwinian masters in the hopes of delaying the inevitable siege on OUR faith (though it might as well be no faith at all). I'd forgotten that tactic.

Metherion

metherion said:

Ah, yes, accusing of us being nothing but performers, hoping for the adulation of our atheistic Darwinian masters in the hopes of delaying the inevitable siege on OUR faith (though it might as well be no faith at all).

Click to expand...

Oh ok, I guess I'm the only one on here not allowed to use satire. My point is that you guys perform for one another and never bother to correct obvious mistakes. Heliocentrism is not a hard question and it is certainly not teaming with the theological implications of the fall of man in the Genesis narrative. Nowhere is heliocentrism tied to essential doctrine and as many times as I have carefully explained this easily understood fact these arguments abound.

While you are complaining about my tactics consider this. Are you irritated with me because I don't have a point or because I do?

He is making a caricature of creationism instead of dealing with real issues. It's called a strawman argument and the fallacious nature of the arguments on here, like your ad hominem, have convinced me that evolutionists lack the courage of their convictions.

That's the reason for the satirical treatment of the OP. It's fallacious, the response is a reducto ad absurdum. It seemed appropriate since his premise is absurd and you might have realized that had you not been so eager to make a scathing indictment putting words in my mouth I never said nor intended.

I'd forgotten that tactic.

Metherion

Click to expand...

That's not a tactic, it's a rebuttal. I didn't call the tune I just danced to it. Sorry about your toes...

Have a nice day
Mark

No, I called it because it's not satire and has no point. You see, satire attempts to expose human follies, foibles, and vices through irony, sarcasm, or ridicule. But you see, for satire to be actually satirical and have a point, the actual follies, foibles, and vices have to actually exist. We WOULD actually have to be preforming just for each other, and for the overarching purpose of your definition of Darwinism, which you often define as (or as very similar to) metaphysical atheistic materialism. We WOULD actually be having to do this for no other point than for each other’s enjoyment. And seeing as how I have directly been called a minion and a zealot and pandering for masters in the past, by you, when I was doing neither, it is a tactic.

But none of us subscribe to atheistic materialism, else we wouldn’t be Christians. We are not doing this only for each other’s amusement, to pat each other on the backs and for praise from other people who meet your definition of Darwinist.

And the fact is, it is only FIVE HUNDRED YEARS LATER, after is has been shown without a doubt for several hundred years, that it can be claimed it had no spiritual significance. It had EXTREME spiritual significance at that time that was later realized not to be tied to the supposed 'science' of geocentrism'. It certainly had huge spiritual significance back then, that (with the passage of time and growth of understanding) grew to not rely on literal Scripture. The idea that man being the center of God’s creation and therefore needing to be the physical center as well, as seemed to be stated in Scripture WAS a huge deal. Now it no longer is.

Now compare that to the present. What is on the line? Not God’s omnipotence, as I know I, Mallon, Papias, and several others (over in the thread of misconceptions) agree that there is no reason God could NOT have done it in a literal 144 hours. Not the introduction of sin, because it’s been repeatedly pointed out that a literal Adam CAN be a part of TE with no problems.

From what I can tell, you are seeming to view it as a strawman because NOWADAYS geocentrism vs heliocentrism has no huge theological effects, but if your mind, EvC does. However, at the time it was being decided, fought over, etc, HvG DID have huge ramifications, akin to what EvC has now. And HvG WAS resolved after those issues were realized to not be incompatible, and since many of us CAN resolve EvC without theological issues being shattered, it stands to reason that it IS POSSIBLE TO do so. Which makes it a great parallel, because at the time, both are huge deals, both had spiritual issues, and both were able to be reconciled without compromising those issues by new understandings. And the fight is the same, just with a 500ish year shift. The fact that there WAS such a huzzah means it was a big deal, and just because we have the benefit of hindsight and realizing it COULD be resolved does not mean there was no problem.

Also, for it to be a rebuttal, you would have to actually go through any reasons/tactics brought up and show that/how they are in fact NOT ways to avoid questions.

Which for some reason reminds me of another thing I’ve seen used... ‘God says it, I believe it, case closed.’

Metherion