How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2014, 08:55 PM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(26-01-2014 07:32 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  That's nice, except for one small problem. They don't believe in science.

That seems fair. I don't believe in their silly-assed "god."

[Image: Atheismreality_zps62a2c96a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 04:28 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(26-01-2014 08:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  If you have better ideas or scrutiny against what I said please tell me. Thanks for readingThumbsup
You can find plenty of that below. Drinking Beverage

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Its not a good idea to debate these people in the first place, but when it comes up in a conversation or because someone wants to butt into the conversation your having, then you're going to have to be prepared.
*It's
*you're

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The first type is rare, but they are the ones that really want to understand what evolution is and want to know what people actually says about it.
*say

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  All you can do with these creationist is show them evidence objectively.
*creationists
*showing

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The other type are the conspiracy-believing, gay-hating, science-hating, and lying creationist.
*is

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  These will be most likely to butt into your conversation when they here about evolution.
*hear

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Instead, I'm going to get into these guys into more detail because they're many things that you must do to at least get these guys off your back and very rarely make them realize the folly of creationist.
*there are
*creationism

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The first step is not to debate Evolution with these people.
*evolution

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  They don't want to learn about it evolution at all.
Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Also, when they talk about the big bang, tell them that has nothing to do with evolution either and that too is not the topic.
*Big Bang
*that that (x2)

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  What is the more important topic?
Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The second step is to go for the flood and other bible scientific inaccuracies.
*biblical

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  A creationist true foundation isn't the fall, it's the flood.
*creationist's

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The flood is the only way that creationist can come up with excuses to ignore scientific evidence.
*a

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Without it, there little myth gets curbed stomped by the foot of reality.
*their
*and

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Sorry for the violent expression, but reality is that brutal to myths like the bible anyway.
*Bible

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  They might yell "conspiracy", but then you must show them the next step.
Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  This step you must show them the flaw in there logic.
*At this
*their

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  For example, when they talk about the Smithsonian hiding giant fossils, replace "giant" with "transitional fossil" and "Smithsonian" with "Answers in Genesis".
Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The last step is to show them that they aren't like you when if comes to evidence.
*it

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  For example, when the say "same evidence, different conclusions", tell them the folly of said thinking.
*they

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  If they knew about the traits that a transitional fossil shows, then they would (hopefully) realize that they don't look at the same evidence, the ignore evidence so they can live in their delusion.
*they

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  When creationist like this appear and force you into this, I hope my steps can help.
*creationists

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Again, it's better to not debate them at all.
When you do debate them, pressure what they believe instead of showing them science they'll never except.
Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Use the science they do except (population bottlenecks for one) and show that the science they do excepts contradict a literal bible.
*accept (x2)
*contradicts
*Bible

Fixed.

(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  If you have better ideas or scrutiny against what I said, please tell me. Thanks for reading. Thumbsup
Fixed.

Just another morning in Germany. [Image: vG3fPew.gif]

[Image: Y5tGBer.jpg]
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/maso...73/eb9.jpg

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 04:40 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(27-01-2014 04:28 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You can find plenty of that below. Drinking Beverage

*It's
*you're

Fixed.

*say

Fixed.

*creationists
*showing

*is

Fixed.

*hear

*there are
*creationism

Fixed.

*evolution

Fixed.

*Big Bang
*that that (x2)

Fixed.

Fixed.

*biblical

*creationist's

*a

*their
*and

Fixed.

*Bible

Fixed.

Fixed.

*At this
*their

Fixed.

*it

*they

Fixed.

*they

*creationists

Fixed.

*accept (x2)
*contradicts
*Bible

Fixed.

Fixed.

Just another morning in Germany. [Image: vG3fPew.gif]

[Image: Y5tGBer.jpg]
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/maso...73/eb9.jpg

For future reference, typing [img]*insertimageURLhere*[/img] will be helpful.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 08:58 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(26-01-2014 08:21 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yabut, the flood isn't creationism.

"Creationism" is a messy term because there is a spectrum of creationists from young Earth to Old Earth to Intelligent Design to Theistic Evolution. Each of these requires completely different approach.

Eg no point arguing evolution with a Theistic evolutionist, they will agree with most of what science has to say on the topic. You can still add some spice to the debate about "when exactly does the soul or Divine image occur" ? Did Neolithic people have souls ? What about Palaeolithic or Cro-Magnon ? Neanderthals burying their dead ? Abstract cave paintings from Neolithic and pretty much identical DNA to modern man ?

Intelligent design is a whole unique area - can focus on the supremely botched up, cruelly barbaric designs of God.

So I think your focus is Young Earth creationism which MUST include the biblical Noach flood.

I disagree with your 'must'. There are so many shades of Biblical belief levels, that a creationist who thinks that the flood story, the Job story, the Jonah story, other stories, are not literal is likely.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(27-01-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  I disagree with your 'must'. There are so many shades of Biblical belief levels, that a creationist who thinks that the flood story, the Job story, the Jonah story, other stories, are not literal is likely.
I think he was referring to the OP with that last statement, Chas. Consider

i.e. Since the OP asserts that the true foundation of creationism is the flood myth, he is focusing on a type of creationism that considers the literal truth of the flood story to be essential.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
I generally ask them with only one really small window, who shoveled the shit out it during the time they were arkbound or did God constipate the animals for the duration. They usually leave on their own after that.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phil Hill's post
27-01-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(27-01-2014 09:26 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  I disagree with your 'must'. There are so many shades of Biblical belief levels, that a creationist who thinks that the flood story, the Job story, the Jonah story, other stories, are not literal is likely.
I think he was referring to the OP with that last statement, Chas. Consider

i.e. Since the OP asserts that the true foundation of creationism is the flood myth, he is focusing on a type of creationism that considers the literal truth of the flood story to be essential.

I would say, then, that I disagree with the OP. I think he's talking about Biblical literalists, not creationists. He appears to be conflating the two.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  How to debate a creationist. Its not a good idea to debate these people in the first place but when it comes up in a conversation or because someone wants to butt into the conversation your having then you're going to have to be prepared. There are two types of creationist. The first type is rare but they are the ones that really want to understand what evolution is and want to know what people actually says about it. These guys also may end up becoming a scientific mind once they understand how it works. All you can do with these creationist is show them evidence objectively. The other type are the conspiracy believing, gay hating, science hating, and lying creationist. These will be most likely to butt into your conversation when they here about evolution. Instead I'm going to get into these guys into more detail because they're many things that you must do to at least get these guys off your back and very rarely make them realize the folly of creationist.

It's actually a little more complicated than this. There is also sort of a middle group that simply don't know what they're talking about and argue out of ignorance. The group you're complaining about is the one that will jump through all sorts of hoops to make the evidence match their story.

Also, luckily, I don't think the first group you mentioned is as rare as you're saying. I know several Christians that are totally cool with evolution and the big bang.


(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The first step is not to debate Evolution with these people. They don't want to learn about it evolution at all. They want to twist your words and push their faults onto you. Debating evolution with a creationist is a bad idea. If it does come up tell them that's not part of the topic. Also when they talk about the big bang tell them that has nothing to do with evolution either and that too is not the topic. What is the more important topic. The flood myth.

I largely agree here (assuming we're talking about the dogmatic creationists). Evolution is one of those things they're comfortable debating, and they'll often change the topic to this. In terms of religion and politics, I similarly often see people try to change the topic of debates to abortion. They feel it's an easy win.


(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The second step is to go for the flood and other bible scientific inaccuracies. A creationist true foundation isn't the fall, it's the flood. The flood is the only way that creationist can come up with excuses to ignore scientific evidence. Without it there little myth gets curbed stomped by the foot of reality. Sorry for the violent expression but reality is that brutal to myths like the bible anyway. To show the folly of the flood show evidence. For example population bottlenecks. A population bottleneck is what happens when a population becomes low enough that the genetic diversity ends up lowering.(1) When you bring this up show them how it's impossible to get every animal ever alive to diversify with only seven of every clean kind and bird and two of every other kind of animal in 6000 years, when a population bottleneck of that caliber would ruin it. That's just one example. But a creationist might say that they have the science and that we look at it from and evolution based view.

Here's where this falls apart. You would be surprised at the lengths people are willing to go to in order to believe their weird stories. I spent pages going back and forth with a guy about the flood over at RationalResponseSquad a while ago. He would alternate between God being all powerful and capable of anything, to God suddenly having the same limitations as human police officers, judges, and parents when deciding why the children had to die. He'd deny that he was contradicting himself when he would switch like that. He'd insist that God has no moral imperative to not kill us (and our children) and that souls are better off in heaven anyway, so why's it bad for him to kill kids? And that's not even getting into the wacky science he was discussing with the other posters! It's exceptionally creepy, and science and evidence play no part in these discussions.

Similarly, I've seen theists on other boards that don't believe in gravity. I was floored by this until I realized it was integral to them believing in geocentrism. Yes. Geocentrism: that cosmology that was debunked five centuries ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
(27-01-2014 09:43 AM)Phil Hill Wrote:  I generally ask them with only one really small window, who shoveled the shit out it during the time they were arkbound or did God constipate the animals for the duration. They usually leave on their own after that.

Stupid question, Noach was a recycling eco-friendly hippy guru and used all the holy shit as fertilizer to grow food for all the animals including eucalyptus trees for the Koala.

consider:
[Image: WVCkL.png]

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
27-01-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: How I Suggest You Debate Creationist
It's actually a little more complicated than this. There is also sort of a middle group that simply don't know what they're talking about and argue out of ignorance. The group you're complaining about is the one that will jump through all sorts of hoops to make the evidence match their story.

Also, luckily, I don't think the first group you mentioned is as rare as you're saying. I know several Christians that are totally cool with evolution and the big bang.

I never thought of the middle ground. I put those people with the rare types because they also might tend to realize that science is true. I also should have clarified i meant creationist who don't accept science like evolution.



Here's where this falls apart. You would be surprised at the lengths people are willing to go to in order to believe their weird stories. I spent pages going back and forth with a guy about the flood over at RationalResponseSquad a while ago. He would alternate between God being all powerful and capable of anything, to God suddenly having the same limitations as human police officers, judges, and parents when deciding why the children had to die. He'd deny that he was contradicting himself when he would switch like that. He'd insist that God has no moral imperative to not kill us (and our children) and that souls are better off in heaven anyway, so why's it bad for him to kill kids? And that's not even getting into the wacky science he was discussing with the other posters! It's exceptionally creepy, and science and evidence play no part in these discussions.

Similarly, I've seen theists on other boards that don't believe in gravity. I was floored by this until I realized it was integral to them believing in geocentrism. Yes. Geocentrism: that cosmology that was debunked five centuries ago.
[/quote]

You are right for the most part. However Creationist know on some level that using magic would ruin them. For example if they said magic to help with the whole flood myth then you can ask "why would god use a flood instead of just magically poofing everything away?" Also if you see a creationist use the bait and switch on what god can and can't do ask what is limiting him. Also i know how you feel my dad is a geocentrist and also that nephilimfree guy. Its funny of how creationist try to ignore the fact there bible is geocentric. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...eocentrism Look they even try to use apologetics to avoid the issue.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: