Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Aron-Ra]

Happy birthday Aron-RA.

Yay! I'm 22 ...again.

 

[JohnR7]

And the bible isn't scientific because it tells you to wash your clothes, John.

The Bible tells me to wash my garment in the Blood of Jesus. Is that what your talking about?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yay! I'm 22 ...again.

44 - 22 = 22 mathematically correct I would say.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I’ve gotten every excuse from “I don’t have time” (even though they are here every day) to prophesizing about how their opponent will conduct themselves (even though they have never tried). Since every reason they give, from A to Z is obviously false then what could the real reason be? The only difference is that they are going to be held accountable for backing up their claims and can’t run away. Is that enough to being the entire creationist argument to it’s knees?

You act like you expected anythign different.

"The fundamentalists, by knowing the answers before they start [examining evolution], and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science -- or of any honest intellectual inquiry." --Stephen J Gould

 

[ReverendDG]

We are debating here. And the responses from evolutionists here are not honest. They contradict themselves at every turnm like saying that humans came from non-human apes, then they say they came from human apes. And since they aren't capable of seeing their own contradictions, then they aren't capable of honest debate. So they can thank monkeys for their lives and see where that gets them for eternity. I'm afraid that's the only way they're going to learn the truth.

sorry but all i can see from this is you are not debating honestly, you don't even bother to present the information correctly, as someone said, we come from non-human apes, which evolved into humans, who are still apes, your decendents are decended from apes, you

now if you could learn that modern monkeys are not what we decended from nor are born from now, it would be a step up

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Carico, I've been meaning to say this for some time: for someone who makes tons of assertions which always get disagreed with by EVERYBODY, even lots of Christians in the GA forum, you sure are free with those and and symbols.

 

[USincognito]

So i hope you see why those YECists who post here can not in good conscience accept any variation on their crusade to bring truth and enlightenment to those held in darkness and falsity, those who disagree with them and their God. They must be single minded and preach the Gospel of YECism as loudly and as persistently as they can, debates will just get in the way of this fundamental and important task. Just like the facts themselves do, thus requiring the exercise of a greater amount of blind faith to counteract them.

I agree with the entirety of your post, but only wanted to directly respond to this part. One thing I've noticed is that the Creationists (at least in their own minds) are never never ever wrong and the more times you show them the error in their thinking the more intransigent they get. In their minds, they know the truth, thus arguments, from the most effemeral to the most substantive, when shown to be factually incorrect, are held on even more tenaciously because they believe it to be true.

What we end up with is an intransigent Creationist who will argue a point ad nauseum and eventually make a lot of others get tired or put him/her on ignore.

 

[Norseman]

I think it is unfair of you to impose your standards of scientific truthfulness on the YEC community. It is a religious community, those YECists here are not interested in science or in the facts about the universe, nor are they interested in learning how to discover and understand these things. They are here primarily to preach and do apologetics for their religious beliefs.

If they want to proselytize, and they want anyone to take them seriously, then they need to be up to scientific standards when they say the theory of evolution is false.

 

[tocis]

Is that enough to being the entire creationist argument to it’s knees?

It certainly seems so.

 

[tocis]

I think it is unfair of you to impose your standards of scientific truthfulness on the YEC community. It is a religious community, those YECists here are not interested in science or in the facts about the universe, nor are they interested in learning how to discover and understand these things.

Of course, the very moment they claim to have scientific proof for their claims, they enter the court of science, whether they like it or not.

If creationists would just say "I believe in creation on religious grounds, period" there wouldn't be (much of?) a discussion. But as at least some of them are Niflhel-bent on selling their claims as scientific... they better understand at least the basics of science before they start talking (or typing, in places like this one).

 

[sonfleur]

It is a religious community, those YECists here are not interested in science or in the facts about the universe, nor are they interested in learning how to discover and understand these things. They are here primarily to preach and do apologetics for their religious beliefs. Any reference to science is just that a passing reference done in order to placate those here to talk about the relationship of science to religious belief.

YEC are interested in facts. Yes, our religion is a religion primarily of faith. Yes, the Bible is the ultimate authority in our lives. But fact supports what God has revealed, because He has revealed Himself in creation. ("For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." Romans 1:20 NKJV)

We ought to be ready to give an answer that is true. ("But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear..." 1 Peter 3:15) Though, we must use discretion as to when to stop if debating isn't going anywhere profitable.

To answer to question of this topic, I think that, sadly, YECist are not ready to give good debate because they are not "always ready to give a defense." We are ill informed. However, we ought to be ready. I do not wish to say I know everything, because I surely don't, but I am fully convinced of YEC from the Bible and nature, and I am willing to give an open and honest debate.

 

[Beastt]

Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

The same reason Frosty the snowman won't join you in the sauna?

 

[Chalnoth]

YEC are interested in facts. Yes, our religion is a religion primarily of faith. Yes, the Bible is the ultimate authority in our lives. But fact supports what God has revealed, because He has revealed Himself in creation. ("For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." Romans 1:20 NKJV)

Yes, you would expect that, if the Bible's creation account were literal. The evidence says otherwise, at basically every level. There is no geological evidence of a flood, all humans being born from two parents is unfeasible, the human genome is too diverse to explain a birth from two parents, the Earth is dated to be much older than any YEC timescale and has a clear and measurable history much older than any YEC timescale, there is strong evidence of common ancestry of all life forms instead of special creation, including a common ancestor of modern humans and modern chimpanzees about 5-8 million years ago.

 

[sonfleur]

I'll just answer you briefly for now, but if you care to elaborate on your thoughts in the future than I may be able to provide better answers...

There is no geological evidence of a flood,

Fossils are created by catastrophes such as floods, not by a gradual process. Dead things begin to decay very quickly on land or in water so would have decayed before it became a fossil if an evolution time-scale is applied.

all humans being born from two parents is unfeasible, the human genome is too diverse to explain a birth from two parents,

Recent research by a Yale mathematician, Joseph T. Chang, presented models showing that the most recent person who was a direct ancestor of all humans currently alive may have lived just a few thousand years ago.

the Earth is dated to be much older than any YEC timescale and has a clear and measurable history much older than any YEC timescale.

Dating the earth by counting layers of sediment as a year is not accurate. Mt. St. Helens laid down 25 ft of fine layers in one afternoon

If you think there is too much coal on the Earth for the Earth to be young, that is wrong, too, because it assumes that the climate before and after the flood were the same. Also, the flood would have created much more coal than a swamp would because it buried vegetation very quickly.

Looking at the Bible, we can see that the account in Genesis one must be taken literally because if evolution is true than there would have been millions of years of death before the fall. Death didn't enter the world until the fall, which happened after everything, including humans, was created.

 

[TheInstant]

Fossils are created by catastrophes such as floods, not by a gradual process. Dead things begin to decay very quickly on land or in water so would have decayed before it became a fossil if an evolution time-scale is applied.

Uniformitarianism does not imply that there are never any catastrophic events. No one is denying that floods have occured, and that flooding is responsible for a lot of fossilization.

This doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence of a single, global flood.

Recent research by a Yale mathematician, Joseph T. Chang, presented models showing that the most recent person who was a direct ancestor of all humans currently alive may have lived just a few thousand years ago.

And this person was part of a population of humans.

Dating the earth by counting layers of sediment as a year is not accurate. Mt. St. Helens laid down 25 ft of fine layers in one afternoon

1) That is not the only method used to date the age of the earth.

2) The layers laid down by Mt. St. Helens were mostly ash. No geologist would think that it formed slowly. Again, uniformitariansm does not imply that catastrophic events have never occured.

If you think there is too much coal on the Earth for the Earth to be young, that is wrong, too, because it assumes that the climate before and after the flood were the same. Also, the flood would have created much more coal than a swamp would because it buried vegetation very quickly.

In order to entertain the idea that coal was created by a global flood, I would have to have evidence that such an event occured. We already have an explanation for coal formation that doesn't involve an event that never happened.

Looking at the Bible, we can see that the account in Genesis one must be taken literally because if evolution is true than there would have been millions of years of death before the fall. Death didn't enter the world until the fall, which happened after everything, including humans, was created.

I'm probably not the person you want to discuss theological implications of evolution with, but there are Christians on the board who accept evolution who I'm sure will be happy to talk about it with you.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Recent research by a Yale mathematician, Joseph T. Chang, presented models showing that the most recent person who was a direct ancestor of all humans currently alive may have lived just a few thousand years ago.


his homepage is at:
http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers.html

bulletin on research is at:
http://www.yale.edu/opa/v33.n6/story13.html

there is a blog about it at:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/4218

 

[Jase]

Looking at the Bible, we can see that the account in Genesis one must be taken literally because if evolution is true than there would have been millions of years of death before the fall. Death didn't enter the world until the fall, which happened after everything, including humans, was created.

I'll just respond to this part for the moment. The Bible seems to disagree with the notion of there being no death prior to the fall. First of all, plants were given to man and all the animals to eat, which means at the very least, plants died and decayed.

Also, Adam and Eve got banned from the garden after the fall so as not to eat from the tree of life and live forever. How could they have been immortal ( i.e. unable to die) if the tree of life is what gave them immortality and they hadn't yet eaten from it? The idea that Adam and Eve were immortal before the fall is Biblically unsupported.

 

[sonfleur]

Uniformitarianism does not imply that there are never any catastrophic events. No one is denying that floods have occurred, and that flooding is responsible for a lot of fossilization.

This doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence of a single, global flood.

There is evidence in human testimony as well as the earth. Most cultures in the world have stories of a flood. These stories have striking similarities with the account in Genesis (a warning is given by God (or gods), the person that is warned is told to build a vessel for his family and living creatures, the whole earth is destroyed by water, and then those in the vessel repopulate the earth after the flood ends). We weren't there but we have evidence from people who were there as well as God's own testimony.

And this person was part of a population of humans.

You said earlier: "all humans being born from two parents is unfeasible, the human genome is too diverse to explain a birth from two parents"
I believe you contradicted yourself.

Also, of any two people on the earth, DNA only differs 0.2%. Of that percentage, only 6% is due to racial differences, the remaining 94% is within race variations. So it is possible that we all could have had common parents (Adam and Eve). My earlier evidence also supports this.

Referring to layers in rock:

1) That is not the only method used to date the age of the earth.

Very true. I was not listing all of the dating methods, that was not my intention. I can deal with another dating method to further back-up God's account. Carbon-14 cannot indicate that the earth is millions of years old...
1. Different plants have different levels of C-14 when they die so, when dated, may appear older or younger than they really are.
2. The levels of C-14 in the earth's atmosphere--and, thus, in living things--have not always been the same. For example, in the 1950's C-14 increased due to Atomic bomb testing. Therefore, if something from the '50s was dated using the C-14 method than it would appear younger than it really is.

2) The layers laid down by Mt. St. Helens were mostly ash. No geologist would think that it formed slowly. Again, uniformitariansm does not imply that catastrophic events have never occurred.

The deposits of Mt. St. Helens were made from primary air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water.

In order to entertain the idea that coal was created by a global flood, I would have to have evidence that such an event occurred. We already have an explanation for coal formation that doesn't involve an event that never happened.

Which is?

The Bible seems to disagree with the notion of there being no death prior to the fall. First of all, plants were given to man and all the animals to eat, which means at the very least, plants died and decayed.

Adam and Eve and the animals could easily have had plenty to eat without any plant death. Grazing doesn't kill a grass plant. Picking apples doesn't kill the tree, nor does picking beans, peas, corn, etc...

Plants are not alive in the respect that they do not have a conscious self.

How can God call the pre-sin world "very good" if there was death before sin?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Most cultures in the world have stories of a flood. These stories have striking similarities with the account in Genesis


this appears to be a sampling artifact. First, lots of places did not have flood stories. If you map those who did, you will map riparian and sea side cultures. Cultures that grew up in places where it did not customarily flood do not have such stories.

the second issue is sampling. Those early stories were collected primarily by western missionaries who were looking for noahic flood examples. now that professional anthropologists go back and talk to the people they find that this stories are often not genuine but the result of probing questions, akin to false childhood memories of abuse brought on by subtle questioning.

But the big issue is that these stories are not at all common themed except for the presence of a lot of water. They differ immensely in meaning and the significance that those communities attach to them.

It would be far better to look at something that isn't common to all cultures and is in fact very rare to non existent like a 7 day week and try to find in those stories a common theme to trace back to Noah or the tower of babel or to Adam. AFAIK there is nothing to point to as a common human story or extremely old racial memory.

 

[Jase]

There is evidence in human testimony as well as the earth. Most cultures in the world have stories of a flood. These stories have striking similarities with the account in Genesis (a warning is given by God (or gods), the person that is warned is told to build a vessel for his family and living creatures, the whole earth is destroyed by water, and then those in the vessel repopulate the earth after the flood ends). We weren't there but we have evidence from people who were there as well as God's own testimony.

There is no evidence in human testimony of a global flood and there certainly isn't any physical evidence in the Earth. Basic geology shows why a global flood couldn't have happened, and this isn't even including the absurd physics breaking consequences. Do you know that if all the geological catastrophism that made the world look like it currently does happened during the global flood, it would vaporize all water on the planet including the atmosphere, and raise the Earth's temperature to around 1000 degrees?

As for human testimony, Ancient Egypt was building their great pyramids in the middle of the supposed Noahic deluge. Why didn't they notice? The reason so many cultures have flood stories is because most early civilization lived on rivers due to the fertile soil for agriculture. Flooding was very common. In fact, the flooding of the Nile was a requirement for Egypt's success.

Plus there are older flood stories than Genesis, for example the Gilgamesh. How do you know the authors of the Bible didn't copy the Gilgamesh?

The deposits of Mt. St. Helens were made from primary air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water.

As TheInstant said, the deposits were mostly ash. The initial eruption is a cloud of ash, pyroclastic clouds are fast moving clouds of hot ash and rock. Lahars are a mixture of ash, rock, mud, and debris that mix with water from melting ice.

Adam and Eve and the animals could easily have had plenty to eat without any plant death. Grazing doesn't kill a grass plant. Picking apples doesn't kill the tree, nor does picking beans, peas, corn, etc...

Plants are not alive in the respect that they do not have a conscious self.

How can God call the pre-sin world "very good" if there was death before sin?

What about cell death? Eating an apple kills cells. It may not kill the tree, but it is nonetheless death of cells.

And "very good" doesn't mean perfect, it means it suited God's purpose. You didn't answer my question about the tree of life. Why was there a tree of immorality, that God banned Adam and Eve from, if they were already immortal? It makes no sense for God to throw them out of the garden, "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever" if they couldn't die.