Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Debating with creationists is like trying to discuss Shakespeare with an orangutan. It's best to just enjoy their hilarious antics, and don't be surprised when they start throwing their feces around.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How best to argue against creationists
- Thread starter Runlikethewind
- Start date
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I agree with the OP. The best way is to combat fundamentalism. At this rate though, we won't have to combat it, the government will be forced to handle it because it is constantly rising higher and higher in levels of extremism and insanity.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Not that I know of, because a fundamentalist is one who claims they follow the so-called "fundamentals" of Christianity, and they claim that one of these fundamentals is believing that the Bible is the final authority in all matters, and is the infalliable, inerrant word of God. God said it I believe it, that settles it...
But the fundamentals of Christianity can be understood non-literally, and no, believing the Bible literally word for word isn't one of them. (You can do that and not be a Christian at all.)Not that I know of, because a fundamentalist is one who claims they follow the so-called "fundamentals" of Christianity, and they claim that one of these fundamentals is believing that the Bible is the final authority in all matters, and is the infalliable, inerrant word of God. God said it I believe it, that settles it...
I do agree that literalism is the problem, but it's not inherent of fundamentalism.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, I've been going at it hammer and tongs for about 8 years with little success, so I don't know if you want to follow my advice, but...
I try to first focus on the discussion on ToE, and clarify what it is and what it isn't. That usually takes ten pages or so. In the case of particularly hard-headed YECs, you may never get this far. For example, after explaining that ToE is NOT the theory that there is no God, that is another idea called atheism, you may find yourself repeating this on page 7, again on page 12, and again on page 54.
Unfortunately, you often have to cover some science basics, such as methodological naturalism, evidence, consilience, etc. That can take quite a few pages.
One thing that often helps is to actually explain what ToE says. Most YECs are arguing against a non-existent theory and have no idea what ToE actually says. Slogging through that takes ten pages or so, and again, after you're done it's sometimes as though none of it happened, and you find yourself on page 30 or so once again explaining that ToE does not assert that God did not create all things.
So I guess the main qualities you need are patience and persistence.
At this point in history, most YECs are now admitting that speciation happens. Actually they're hyper-Darwinists, maintaining that millions of species have evolved from just a few in the last few thousand years, which is just silly. The response to this is math; it's mathematically impossible. For this reason YECs will usually dodge the simple questions that would enable math to be done, refusing to define their key term ("kind") while blithely continuing to use it as though it had meaning. If you do get to the point where you're pointing out that we have not observed 450,000 species of beetles evolving from a single beetle kind in the last few thousand years, they will usually leave the thread, only to pop back up like a whack-a-mole elsewhere bleating the same crap you started with.
Why I persist is beginning to mystify me.
I try to first focus on the discussion on ToE, and clarify what it is and what it isn't. That usually takes ten pages or so. In the case of particularly hard-headed YECs, you may never get this far. For example, after explaining that ToE is NOT the theory that there is no God, that is another idea called atheism, you may find yourself repeating this on page 7, again on page 12, and again on page 54.
Unfortunately, you often have to cover some science basics, such as methodological naturalism, evidence, consilience, etc. That can take quite a few pages.
One thing that often helps is to actually explain what ToE says. Most YECs are arguing against a non-existent theory and have no idea what ToE actually says. Slogging through that takes ten pages or so, and again, after you're done it's sometimes as though none of it happened, and you find yourself on page 30 or so once again explaining that ToE does not assert that God did not create all things.
So I guess the main qualities you need are patience and persistence.
At this point in history, most YECs are now admitting that speciation happens. Actually they're hyper-Darwinists, maintaining that millions of species have evolved from just a few in the last few thousand years, which is just silly. The response to this is math; it's mathematically impossible. For this reason YECs will usually dodge the simple questions that would enable math to be done, refusing to define their key term ("kind") while blithely continuing to use it as though it had meaning. If you do get to the point where you're pointing out that we have not observed 450,000 species of beetles evolving from a single beetle kind in the last few thousand years, they will usually leave the thread, only to pop back up like a whack-a-mole elsewhere bleating the same crap you started with.
Why I persist is beginning to mystify me.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I would like to add here I also agree with the OP on another point. I could be called a creationist, because I believe an act of creation took place, but not as the Egyptian myths put forth. I believe evolution can be how the gods create in an ongoing way. Creation is an ongoing process. The term "Creationist" has really been bastardized because of young earthers and Bible literalists.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, in that case you believe impossible, contradictory things. Would you like to review the mathematical impossiblity of this in a separate thread?
Sorry, but you must be some combination of these things to believe something that is physically and mathematically impossible.
Pardon me if I regard this claim with skepticism.
Oh, I understand you, I just don't believe you.
RedOne77
Active Member
Christianity doesn't need an "Adam" as literally described in Genesis, nor "original sin" as in Adam disobeyed God therefore we are all cursed.
All have sinned, therefore all are in need of a savior, regardless of what our ancestors did. In Ezekiel 18:4, it explicitly states that "The soul who sins is the one who will die." Anyone's salvation is not directly related to what their/our ancestors did. And of course Jesus taught Genesis, but Genesis was not originally meant to convey scientific truths, rather spiritual ones. I don't know about Runlikethewind, but my view of God is that the sacrifice of Jesus was more then just a sacrifice to atone sins.
Only if you take Genesis as literal history. And according to both Jewish and Christian scholars, using standard exegesis and hermeneutics (how the text should be interpreted), it is concluded that Genesis in no way talks about scientific/material facts.
That is why over 99% of biologists, whom ruffly half are Christian, accept the entire theory of evolution? If it really was out of touch on the scientific facts and/or incompatible with the Bible, don't you think that more then a select few, usually from fields that don't directly deal with the evidence, would have spoken up?
Then Archbishop James Usher would disagree with you. The Bible has lineages that tells us how long people lived and when they had children. Working backwards Usher determined that God started the creation in Genesis 1 on October 23, 4004 BC. That is literally only 6,013 years ago! Now either the Bible has some clearly non-literal passages, or the world is really only a few thousand years old. I'd personally would go for the former, but you don't have to. Many Christians go for the latter, and in fact most do, both Protestant and Catholic.
You state that "evolution is an observed fact, populations evolve and that is a fact."
The evidence is to the contrary. Species change and adapt, but a cow is always a cow, a dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, and yes, Darwin's finches are always finches. You cannot successfully breed between 'kinds'. Give one proven example of where one species evolved into another.
The fossil record shows sudden appearance of complete life in great variety
and no linking forms. Evolution predicts the contrary. The facts support creation.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So you are denying that new species come into existence?
If by sudden you mean, "millions of years."
Would you like me to start a thread to discuss the EVIDENCE. Because my experience is that YECs like yourself usually prefer to avoid it.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Drosophila paulistorum
Drosophila melanogaster
Rhagoletis pomonella
Nereis acuminata
Culex pipiens molestus
Etc, etc, etc.....
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
On which planet?
Since you obviously do not accept the teachings of Christ as factual and true, I wonder that you call yourself a Christian. But since there are several thousands of conflicting religions who wear the label Christian, I shouldn't wonder.
The Bible reveals why such teachings as evolution are popular. It says: There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) Although evolution is usually presented in scientific terms, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankinds selfish, independent spirit. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. However, they feel free to think of God as one who does not intervene in mans affairs, and who will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles peoples ears.
Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by their own desiresperhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. There is much evidence that a scientist or teacher who openly believes in creation is likely to be ridiculed, marginalized, and otherwise punished by the orthodox evolutionary priesthood. (See movie Expelled, for example).
Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by their own desiresperhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. There is much evidence that a scientist or teacher who openly believes in creation is likely to be ridiculed, marginalized, and otherwise punished by the orthodox evolutionary priesthood. (See movie Expelled, for example).
As to James Usher's chronology, I will allow the Bible to speak for itself. Obviously Mr. Usher was wrong, since the Bible says God created the earth at some point in the past called the Beginning, and Mr. Usher's chronology presupposes the days of Genesis were 24 hours long, an erroneous conclusion.
Earth
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Disgusting - now there's feces all over the glass. Hilarious.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Hopefully it is not too late for your to consider a night school course, or three.
I know what you mean. I always end up feeling dirty around this kind of thinking. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So would you like to start a thread to discuss those facts?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I would just like to thank Rusra for providing an excellent example of the Fundamentalist Creationists who remain willfully ignorant of reality and will promote any falsehood that supports their pseudoscientific dogma and revisionist history.
:clap
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...699-how-creationism-damages-christianity.html
:clap
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...699-how-creationism-damages-christianity.html
The examples you cite are merely variations within a Genesis 'kind' and do not produce new species (or kinds). If you examine the evidence, maize is still maize.
Variety within species is NOT evolution. If evolution were true, you would find millions of transitional forms between species. These missing links remain missing.