"My website challenge" continuation

[[serious]]

OP from previous thread read as follows:

In eight years here, I hear the same thing over and over:

"Don't quote Answers in Genesis to me."

"Don't quote the Discovery Institute to me."

"Don't quote the Institute for Creation Research to me."

Here is my challenge:

Name one creationist website that you would (or do) recommend.

In other words, instead of telling us what you won't accept, tell us what you will accept.

I'm sure if you're a seasoned debater, you can come up with at least one website.

If not, perhaps what you're really saying is:

"Don't quote any creationist website to me."

Again:

Name one creationist website that you would (or do) recommend.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7815601/

 

[[serious]]

In a debate, responsibility for locating a source for your claim is your own job. Asking the other side to pre clear a source of links is an unreasonable request. A more reasonable request would be to describe what a suitable source would look like.

For example, when sourcing a new scientific claim (something not yet widely accepted), I would look for a peer reviewed journal with a substantial impact factor.

 

[selfinflikted]

Because science and Creationism are at odds, both in terms of explanations of the universe's genesis and in methodology, there can be no acceptable creationist website to refute a scientific argument. Creationism isn't science, and science isn't theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because science and Creationism are at odds, both in terms of explanations of the universe's genesis and in methodology, there can be no acceptable creationist website to refute a scientific argument. Creationism isn't science, and science isn't theology.

Can one quote from your blacklist an argument that supports the Trinity?

If so, your post can take a hike.

I don't mind people telling me AiG, DI, and ICR use bad science; but when one of those sites posts a defense of our faith (Trinity, Rapture, Jesus walking on water, etc.), and someone comes back with the attitude:

"Can anything good come from these sites?"

Then I have to challenge you to give me a site you will accept.

 

[selfinflikted]

Can one quote from your blacklist an argument that supports the Trinity?

If so, your post can take a hike.

I don't mind people telling me AiG, DI, and ICR use bad science; but when one of those sites posts a defense of our faith (Trinity, Rapture, Jesus walking on water, etc.), and someone comes back with the attitude:

"Can anything good come from these sites?"

Then I have to challenge you to give me a site you will accept.

"Can anything good come from these sites?" isn't the same as "Which creationist website will you accept."

 

[lesliedellow]

Mr A is a Marxist.

Mr B is a Capitalist.

Mr A wants to know which Marxist website Mr B would accept as giving a completely true and objective account of Capitalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mr A is a Marxist.

Mr B is a Capitalist.

Mr A wants to know which Marxist website Mr B would accept as giving a completely true and objective account of Capitalism.

Mr. A says Marxist.com says money is good.

Mr. B counters with, "Marxist.com is a Marxist website."

Mr. A says Marxist.com says the sky is blue.

Mr. B counters with, "Marxist.com is a Marxist website."

Mr. A asks Mr. B what website he will accept then.

Mr. B starts Gish-galloping, ridiculing, changing the subject, and giving long, vague answers.

 

[selfinflikted]

Again, AV, why should a creationist website be an acceptable source to refute science?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mr. A says Marxist.com says money is good.

Mr. B counters with, "Marxist.com is a Marxist website."

Mr. A says Marxist.com says the sky is blue.

Mr. B counters with, "Marxist.com is a Marxist website."

Mr. A asks Mr. B what website he will accept then.

Mr. B starts Gish-galloping, ridiculing, changing the subject, and giving long, vague answers.

Your analogy is invalid.

There is no reason at all to restrict yourself to marxist.com to make claims about the color of the sky or the value of money.

If you wish to make claims about science, then use scientific sources.

You don't refer to a book about building cars when making a point about cancer either, right?

Why would you refer to a religious website when making a point about biology or similar? Especially if the religious website has a mission statement that pretty much declares it their sacred duty to reject biology in favor for their own faith-based beliefs.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, AV, why should a creationist website be an acceptable source to refute science?

It shouldn't -- and even AV believes it shouldn't.

But that doesn't stop him for demanding that other people do his work for him.

 

[selfinflikted]

It shouldn't -- and even AV believes it shouldn't.

But that doesn't stop him for demanding that other people do his work for him.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It shouldn't -- and even AV believes it shouldn't.

But that doesn't stop him for demanding that other people do his work for him.

I have noticed that, AV once asked me to show evidence of the travels of the Israelites in Exodus, such as preserved human remains, etc., as if it would be in my interest to find evidence supporting his position -_-

 

[[serious]]

Again, AV, why should a creationist website be an acceptable source to refute science?

More importantly, why should a participant in a debate be forced to support they other side's argument? AV, would it be reasonable for some to demand a source that you will accept as proof that God doesn't exist? How about that NIV is the one true version of the bible?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can one quote from your blacklist an argument that supports the Trinity?

If so, your post can take a hike.

I don't mind people telling me AiG, DI, and ICR use bad science; but when one of those sites posts a defense of our faith (Trinity, Rapture, Jesus walking on water, etc.), and someone comes back with the attitude:

"Can anything good come from these sites?"

Then I have to challenge you to give me a site you will accept.

Christian sites are valid sites for christian theology. I will let christians decide which are the best.

However, creationist sites make claims about science, and even worse about science they didn't do. Therefore, the correct thing to do is read the papers written by the actual scientists in journals that have peer review. For the biological sciences, this should be your website Home - PubMed - NCBI . I have also found Google Scholar quite handy.