Jump to content

Evolutionists Always Lose To Creationists In Debates


Justin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw this in an article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and i recently read what an idiot wrote on Science Blog and he basically said the same thing. Where the hell do they get this shit? Also, they say evolutionists now duck debates with them. Are these idiots on crack? Every debate i have seen on youtube and read about online, the creationist got owned.

 

Here is a link to the ICR article, which just briefly mentions it. The article itself is about Evolution as an atheistic religion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...view&ID=455

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many scientists avoid going into debates with Creationists of the reason that they don't want to give them any credibility at all. Basically the same reason why few astrophysicists or theoretical physicists go into a debate with UFO abductees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these idiots on crack? Every debate i have seen on youtube and read about online, the creationist got owned.

 

They are morontheists. They lie whenever their lips (or fingertips, on the web) are moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had a Ph.D in biology (or whatever) what benefit do you get from wasting your time debating from creationist? It's the whole thing about wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it (or however it goes). If you "win" what have you "won?" No one in your community cares and the believers aren't convinced to your side. If you "lose" then you look bad in the eyes of your peers and the believers are emboldened. Really it's a lose-lose situation most of the time.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had a Ph.D in biology (or whatever) what benefit do you get from wasting your time debating from creationist? It's the whole thing about wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it (or however it goes). If you "win" what have you "won?" No one in your community cares and the believers aren't convinced to your side. If you "lose" then you look bad in the eyes of your peers and the believers are emboldened. Really it's a lose-lose situation most of the time.

 

mwc

 

Yeah, thats was what i thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on who is doing the debating. A skilled debater who is pro evolution can smoke a creationist if the debate is not held at the local church. The court is a place for debate and creationism has lost at every turn when confronted with intelligent design. So, churches are absolutely lying through their teeth when they claim evolutionists lose in debates. Evolutionists seem to be winning hands down where it counts before peers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason why creationists tend to win debates, is because they use the machine-gun method. It's easy to ask questions, and it's easy to make questions scientists don't have answers for, and when a biologist, or a physicist is going to try to answer, they need long time to explain it. It takes 10 seconds to ask a difficult question, but sometimes it takes an hour, or hours, or even a several year education, to understand the depths of the answer. No one can explain the C-vitamin deficiency in humans and chimps and why that is an excellent proof of evolution in 10 minutes. It takes time to grasp it. So the advantage is always on the side of the "questioner." And since creationists doesn't have to provide evidence for their side, but just a blank-slate answer, "goddidit," they even have advantage when they are in turn to answer the hard questions.

 

Creationist - the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex, prove it is not!

 

Evolutionist - well, first we have to look at...

 

Creationist - You see, you can't answer it! I can answer it: Goddidit.

 

And unfortunately people prefer in general the easy answers. Goddidit is easier to remember than words like locus, genotype, phenotype, ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason why creationists tend to win debates, is because they use the machine-gun method. It's easy to ask questions, and it's easy to make questions scientists don't have answers for, and when a biologist, or a physicist is going to try to answer, they need long time to explain it. It takes 10 seconds to ask a difficult question, but sometimes it takes an hour, or hours, or even a several year education, to understand the depths of the answer. No one can explain the C-vitamin deficiency in humans and chimps and why that is an excellent proof of evolution in 10 minutes. It takes time to grasp it. So the advantage is always on the side of the "questioner." And since creationists doesn't have to provide evidence for their side, but just a blank-slate answer, "goddidit," they even have advantage when they are in turn to answer the hard questions.

 

Creationist - the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex, prove it is not!

 

Evolutionist - well, first we have to look at...

 

Creationist - You see, you can't answer it! I can answer it: Goddidit.

 

And unfortunately people prefer in general the easy answers. Goddidit is easier to remember than words like locus, genotype, phenotype, ...

 

Which is why it's much better to look at the Bible itself and querry it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason why creationists tend to win debates, is because they use the machine-gun method. It's easy to ask questions, and it's easy to make questions scientists don't have answers for, and when a biologist, or a physicist is going to try to answer, they need long time to explain it. It takes 10 seconds to ask a difficult question, but sometimes it takes an hour, or hours, or even a several year education, to understand the depths of the answer. No one can explain the C-vitamin deficiency in humans and chimps and why that is an excellent proof of evolution in 10 minutes. It takes time to grasp it. So the advantage is always on the side of the "questioner." And since creationists doesn't have to provide evidence for their side, but just a blank-slate answer, "goddidit," they even have advantage when they are in turn to answer the hard questions.

 

Creationist - the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex, prove it is not!

 

Evolutionist - well, first we have to look at...

 

Creationist - You see, you can't answer it! I can answer it: Goddidit.

 

And unfortunately people prefer in general the easy answers. Goddidit is easier to remember than words like locus, genotype, phenotype, ...

I think this is a good point and another reason I think xtians have deluded themselves into thinking they've "won" the debate is because xtians can't grasp the concept of saying "I don't know." I've noticed at my church that whenever the xtians catch a scientist that admits they don't know the answer to something, then by default that means they're wrong and the xtians won, even if everything else they've said is right. Xtians act like if you're going to prove something, you have to understand everything about how it works before it gets accepted as fact, even if there's overwhelming evidence for it otherwise. Like awhile back, at church during Sunday school, we were watching the Planet Earth documentary and the teacher was trying to disprove evolution. His whole argument was that since the scientists themselves admitted they don't know everything about evolution, then that means evolution is wrong and Goddidit is the answer for anything they're too lazy to try and understand. When a xtian says "Goddidit" as their answer, that's really is a secret code for "I'm too ignorant to understand how this works, so I'll just give up and say Goddidit." A good tip to remember when debating with a creationist is to hold off saying you don't know the answer for as long as you can to make your point because the moment you admit you don't know everything, they'll take that as "proof" you've lost the debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use evolution for work. If it wouldn't work, I wouldn't have a job. It's like saying that electricity does not exist. For me as electrical engineer that's utterly insane. The same counts for my current work as an evolutionary roboticist. This type of robots (see this wmv movie) can not be (pre)designed anymore, they have to evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just this morning read about evolving robots. They show adaptive behavior and learning, based on environmental changes. It didn't say, but I suspect it's made by standard genetic algorithms, i.e. evolving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. If you make an evolving Robot, does that make you their God?

They'll come up with their own. Humans can't be God, it must be something more transcendental, maybe The Word Wide Web (YHWWWHTTP), or Google?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest heinekenbottle
I saw this in an article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and i recently read what an idiot wrote on Science Blog and he basically said the same thing. Where the hell do they get this shit? Also, they say evolutionists now duck debates with them. Are these idiots on crack? Every debate i have seen on youtube and read about online, the creationist got owned.

 

Here is a link to the ICR article, which just briefly mentions it. The article itself is about Evolution as an atheistic religion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...view&ID=455

 

Evolutions lose debates for one simple reason: Logic does not work with Creationists.

 

I once argued with someone, ten times over explaining to him why evolution was not a religion.

 

He refused to even argue against it and just went on ranting. I lost my will to carry on and he won the argument through perseverance.

 

My point is, creationists will be willfully ignorant of any fact you give them. They'll run in a circle with their thumbs in their ears when you start applying silly things like "logic" and "evidence." They win arguments through willful ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationists make it up as they go along. They resort to idiocy: You can't disprove god so that proves that god exists. Their main argument is just plain lies, as we have seen from plumber, Morris.

 

I used to regularly prove Duane Gish wrong and in the end he had someone write to me claiming that he was dying, so I stopped writing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figured this was an appropriate place to put this link: How to respond to requests to debate creationists.

 

Many thanks for providing that link! He tore that guy up didn't he! I will save this for future reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
I saw this in an article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and i recently read what an idiot wrote on Science Blog and he basically said the same thing. Where the hell do they get this shit? Also, they say evolutionists now duck debates with them. Are these idiots on crack? Every debate i have seen on youtube and read about online, the creationist got owned.

 

Here is a link to the ICR article, which just briefly mentions it. The article itself is about Evolution as an atheistic religion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...view&ID=455

 

Evolutions lose debates for one simple reason: Logic does not work with Creationists.

 

I once argued with someone, ten times over explaining to him why evolution was not a religion.

 

He refused to even argue against it and just went on ranting. I lost my will to carry on and he won the argument through perseverance.

 

My point is, creationists will be willfully ignorant of any fact you give them. They'll run in a circle with their thumbs in their ears when you start applying silly things like "logic" and "evidence." They win arguments through willful ignorance.

 

 

Which is why they need to be shafted politically, because of that same quality of perseverance.

 

They use that same quality in politics and if they are put in a position where they cannot use that quality pragmatically then they will lose.

 

They must be kept out of positions of power in order for this country to stay in tact and out of theocracy.

 

At the end of the day, if their bullshit doesn't work then they just wear you out until you accept them as the winners. If this country was a true theocracy then these qualities would take on Sadistic mainfestations that were totally coercive and based in propaganda with only enough basis in reality to hook people in and force them to believe and act based on dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this in an article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and i recently read what an idiot wrote on Science Blog and he basically said the same thing. Where the hell do they get this shit? Also, they say evolutionists now duck debates with them. Are these idiots on crack? Every debate i have seen on youtube and read about online, the creationist got owned.

 

Here is a link to the ICR article, which just briefly mentions it. The article itself is about Evolution as an atheistic religion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...view&ID=455

 

They thrive on lies. What do you expect? Look at all they do with quote mining! They are, essentially, Liars for Christ™.

 

If you want to see a man who they actually admit kicks their ass, check out some videos from Ken Miller. I think, though, it's his open religiosity that dooms them from the start. They just can't handle the fact that a godbeliever could simultaneously be an evolutionist. It throws them off because they're only really prepared to do battle with the evil godless Atheists. lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They thrive on lies. What do you expect?

Why do creationists have to resort to dishonesty? Doesn't that make Baby Jesus cry? What kind of Christians are they?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do creationists have to resort to dishonesty? Doesn't that make Baby Jesus cry? What kind of Christians are they?!

Didn't you know? They have a License to Lie, from God himself. They can lie anytime they want, and just say, "oops, I'm sorry baby Jesus." And it's all good again. After all, it's more important to get a few more souls into heaven, even if they have to lie to get you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism is Bushit. Now that GW and his porn-again evangelists are gone, we're going to spend the next 4 to 8 years undoing creationist crap. What a F#%&ing waste of time.

 

My favorite podcasts from Nova have been dedicated (and made a point) of undoing that crap... and this is just the tip of the iceberg. They have a very long term agenda trying to educate the public on what science is all about... before the next wave of evangelists come back and try to demolish the foundations again.

 

... However, restoring proper funding to science is going to be real easy in a f#%&ing depression. <rant start>

 

We can all thank GW for opening the easy credit valve without oversight so that he could finance his f#%&ing Iraqi cruisade efforts. Although we're all suffering now from that idiotic episode, there's the consolation that the economy crashed before the pixy dust Palin/McCain ballet got a chance to send us back to the dark ages. I get acid reflux just thinking about how close that almost became a reality :repuke:

<rant end>

 

 

 

BTW... the nice thing about evolution is that it supports the potential for UFO's. The idea that other sentient civilizations evolved elsewhere and have mastered time and space dimensions (hehe .. I thought I'd sneak that in here) and sometimes come here to sneak a peek and tease us lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.