My Website Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

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

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/index.php
http://www.cis.org.uk/about-cis/

No pseudo science there.

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

Even the Templeton Foundation withdrew funding from the Discovery Institute, so I think that is all that needs to be said about so called "creation science."

 

[AV1611VET]

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
About CiS | Christians in Science

No pseudo science there.

Okay ... point taken ... sorry.

I edited the OP.

 

[BrainofJT]

I really like GodandScience(dot)org. They aren't young-earth creationist but they believe God has had a hand in the formation of the universe from the point of his creation.

I don't think there is such thing as a young-Earth creationist website that does not have significant flaws in logic and scientific data.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really like GodandScience(dot)org. They aren't young-earth creationist but they believe God has had a hand in the formation of the universe from the point of his creation.

I don't think there is such thing as a young-Earth creationist website that does not have significant flaws in logic and scientific data.

I should think it obvious that this challenge is more for atheists than Christians.

If only Christians speak up here, I'm going to assume these "seasoned debaters" can't come up with one because they never had one.

They spent all their time trash-talking creation websites due to prejudice.

 

[lesliedellow]

They spent all their time trash-talking creation websites due to prejudice.

Anybody who trash talks creationism is more than justified in doing so. All you will find on those sites is pseudo science, misrepresentation of TEC and fallacious attempts to rubbish the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anybody who trash talks creationism is more than justified in doing so. All you will find on those sites is pseudo science, misrepresentation of TEC and fallacious attempts to rubbish the same.

Then give me an acceptable website that will meet this challenge.

 

[Lost Angel]

Bible sites. Quote scripture in context. Creationism is not science, so putting it up against science its going to fail. Your faith isn't built upon science anyway, so your conclusion trumps any facts, evidence, or research.

 

[quatona]

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

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

Of course - this is a Physical&Life Sciences Forum, after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course - this is a Physical&Life Sciences Forum, after all.

I agree with you -- this belongs in C&E.

I used the word "Christians" in my OP, and should have used "creationists".

My bad.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then give me an acceptable website that will meet this challenge.

I am not interested in reading obscurantism, obfuscation and pseudo science.

 

[Strathos]

Is it prejudice to point out the blatant lies YEC websites peddle?

Even you yourself disagree with a lot of stuff claimed by the likes of AIG.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it prejudice to point out the blatant lies YEC websites peddle?

Even you yourself disagree with a lot of stuff claimed by the likes of AIG.

Anyone can shoot the messenger, or even the message, but it's a different story to have to offer an alternative; isn't it?

Anyone can sound like an "expert" -- just ad hominem someone's ministry, including the people they employ.

Fine.

Let's create a void that YECs shouldn't use:

1. No more using AiG.
2. No more using DI.
3. No more using ICR.

Now let's see how "expert" you really are?

Fill the void with a win-win solution.

 

[Strathos]

The best and most honest YEC argument is actually probably the one you use - admit there is no physical/empirical evidence for YEC or a literal Genesis, and that the earth and universe appear to be very old and have an extensive prehistory when subjected to any type of physical examination, but claim all of that is false anyway.

I've already gone over why I don't subscribe to that many times.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

As there is no scientific merit in creationism there is no such websites when discussing science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Not a single one is an appropriate source.

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

Science. Which is found in scientific sources.

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

I'm sure that those who are informed on this subject, realise that not a single creationist website is an appropriate source for anything related to science. Except perhaps if you are looking for an example of bad science or pseudo-science.

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

This.

 

[Seipai]

Then give me an acceptable website that will meet this challenge.

That problem may be insurmountable. There are no acceptable YEC websites that I know of. All of them have very very bad science.

I know you have been teased about the Flat Earth Society, but finding a valid YEC site would be about as hard as finding a valid FES site. I don't think you will be able to find one.

And if you are the one arguing for some sort of Young Earth then isn't it up to you to find a valid site that supports your viewpoint?

 

[Seipai]

Anyone can shoot the messenger, or even the message, but it's a different story to have to offer an alternative; isn't it?

Anyone can sound like an "expert" -- just ad hominem someone's ministry, including the people they employ.

Fine.

Let's create a void that YECs shouldn't use:

1. No more using AiG.
2. No more using DI.
3. No more using ICR.

Now let's see how "expert" you really are?

Fill the void with a win-win solution.

Here is a win-win solution:

Quit being a YEC. Accept the Bible for what it is, not what you want it to be. You will fail every time you try to change the true nature of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

That problem may be insurmountable. There are no acceptable YEC websites that I know of. All of them have very very bad science.

I know you have been teased about the Flat Earth Society, but finding a valid YEC site would be about as hard as finding a valid FES site. I don't think you will be able to find one.

And if you are the one arguing for some sort of Young Earth then isn't it up to you to find a valid site that supports your viewpoint?

Here's the thing, Seipai.

When someone quotes from AiG, they get a reply about how bad AiG is.

When someone quotes from ICR, they get a reply about how bad ICR is.

When someone quotes from DI, they get a reply about how bad DI is.

And on and on.

Rather than play the guess-what-number-I'm-thinking-of game, just tell us what site you do accept.

If you don't accept any site at all, why then do you proceed to tell us about how bad these sites are on an individual basis?

In other words, instead of venting & ridiculing a particular site -- (which is what I think their goal is in the first place) -- why not just come out and say something like:

"I'm sorry. I won't accept creationist sites as a valid argument."

Take Joe, for instance.

Joe quotes from AiG to someone, and the next 15 or 20 posts talks about how bad AiG is.

So then Joe quotes from ICR, and the next 15 or 20 posts talks about how bad ICR is.

So Joe quotes from DI, and the next 15 or 20 posts talks about how bad DI is.

Get the picture?

Just tell us up front, and that would save 50-70 posts.

Or would you rather, as I suspect, vent & ridicule each individual post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Quit being a YEC.

I'm not a YEC.

And YEC is not the point of this thread.