Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

Let me first clear a few things up. When I say "creationist" I'm referring to creation science in general, that includes intelligent design, which is creationism. Tho they "IDer's" have been better at hiding their religious motives and are better at writing pseudo-scientific bull than creationists. They are not married to young-earth creationism, even though they are more than happy to cater to that crowd, their theology appears to be little more than "God of the Gaps."

Most all creationist claims have been soundly refuted decades ago, but then new generations of creationists come up, the veritable "suckers born every minute", they are only taught those old, bogus, soundly refuted claims, but never the refutations. Then they go out in the real world convinced that they have the absolute latest scientific findings and instead they are devastatingly informed that their claim is completely and utterly bogus.

But there are a few hard core believers that tow the line no matter what the truth is, the truth will always take a back seat to their beliefs.Their agenda is not scientific, but rather political and social as the Wedge Document clearly shows. We are talking about people with deeply held beliefs and theologies that have strong emotional and psychological ties to their religion.

The scientist / informed lay person debates within constraints that Creationists do not bother themselves with, i.e. sticking to the facts.
Here is breakdown on what to look for and what to expect when debating creationist.

1) scientists limit themselves to what is known, and they (generally) clearly state what is their opinion and speculation when they stray from what is known.

Creationists allow themselves wild speculation, baseless assertions, lies, deceit, and a belief in magic to defend their dogmas.

2) scientists discard obsolete data when new data supplants it with better evidence and explanatory power.

Creationists discard every piece of data that does not mesh with their pre-conceived dogmas.

3) scientists acknowledge the fact that many questions remain unknown, and indeed may be unknowable.

Creationists manufacture ANY possible "answer" they can imagine that supports their dogmas.

4) scientists expect their listeners to think and hear critically, and to know enough about the subject to arrive at the reasoned, valid conclusions.

Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid properly set up debates in front of real scientists.

5) scientists debate because they find the subject to be fascinating and they want to educate the audience of not only science, but also the threat to education Creationism poses.

Creationists "debate" because they believe it is "saving souls" from their Hell. They therefore believe they have a far bigger stake in "winning" than the scientist.

6) scientists do not expect Creationist debate opponents to lie (unless the scientist is well-read on Creationist tactics.)

Creationists expect scientists to tell the truth, thus the Creationist will not be surprised by anything the scientist brings up. I dare say that if scientists started to be as dishonest as Creationists, these "debates" would be "won" by the scientists: however, the scientific community would scream bloody murder (unlike the Creationist community, whom remain silent over their Creationist "debaters" lies).

7) scientists do not have the time to "debate" the Creationists.

Creationists have lots and lots of time, since they do no work, perform no research, and are supported by their cults. They gleefully announce that the reason scientists do not "debate" them is because the scientists are afraid of them.

8) scientists must limit themselves to a very shallow overview of evolution and Evolutionary Theory, out of time restraints and complexity of the subject.

Creationists need only make assertions that their audience will buy because they sound nice and gives the audience a warm, fuzzy feeling. For every assertion by the Creationists that the scientist demonstrates false, the Creationist utters many dozens of more falsehoods. There is no way the scientist has time to correct them all.

I think nearly all of the big-name Creationists who debate are aware of the fact that most of their claims are false. I think, with good reason, that Creationists believe their lies are for "the greater glory of god," and are thus justified --- they believe they are "saving sinners" (i.e. non-Fundamentalist Christians). The "debates" that Creationists set up and run are not conducive to debate. When a scientists or informed lay individual is allowed to address every point the Creationists bring up (which is possible in written debates and in properly controlled debates, but never in the "debates" Creationists sponsor), the Creationists nearly always lose. The solution is to set up a proper debate, where the Creationist cannot do The Gish Gallop. Such a debate would follow the general structure of:

Source

Creation attempts to twist the truth to serve their own ends, have achieved nothing more than to put another black mark on the history of religion. Creationism is actively turning potential converts away by associating religion with their literal interpretations of ancient mythology. The deception inherent in creationism is causing formerly devout members to desert the flock. Creationism has done, and is doing, far more damage to religion than any atheist movement ever could.

quote:I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

Here is a page by a former creationist, one D. Jon Scott, and his page, Genesis Panthesis. He was another inspired young creationist ready and charged up with all of creation science's bogus claims and ready to defeat that "evil evolution". But what happened? Well, here are his own words:

quote:I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed. Here is a page by a former creationist, one D. Jon Scott, and his page, Genesis Panthesis. He was another inspired young creationist ready and charged up with all of creation science's bogus claims and ready to defeat that "evil evolution". But what happened? Well, here are his own words: quote:Talk.Science was my own creation, and was graciously hosted by MyTownNet.Com (the company has since been bought out and no longer exists) at the URL [www.talkscience.mytownnet.com...]. It received a healthy portion of both creationist and evolutionist readers, who avidly submitted feedback which I was happy to respond to on the web. For a very long time I was content to explain away the mounds of evidence supporting evolutionary biology as well as mainstream geology and cosmology. Particularly the fossil record - which I feel I can safely say that I was much more well-versed in than the majority of prominent creationists (Gish et. al.), was rather easy for me to dispute in my deluded creationist mind. After a while, I became very aware of the dishonest tactics used by creationists such as Gish and Morris, and developed a growing contempt for the majority of my fellow creationists/Christians. Though I was determined to help give creationism scientific respectability and aid in restoring the good name of the Christian religion. I kept updating the archive and working on it straight through 1998, the year in which Caudipteryx zouii and Protarchaeopteryx robusta - two creatures which scientists described as obviously non-avian dinosaurs (which means they weren't birds), but which had feathers! I simply emphasized their avian qualities and either explained away or dismissed as unimportant their reptilian characteristics, and went on happily spreading the myth of creationism. Yes - I had the evidence, the information, and the knowledge of how evolutionary biology works - yet I did not have the intellectual integrity to admit to the truthfulness of evolutionary theory and kept denying that this incredibly intricate law and set of 'trends' in nature could possibly have any validity. Then, in september of 1999, the bomb dropped. I picked up my issue of the National Geographic and saw what else on a page advertising an upcoming issue; but Sinornithosaurus millenii! It had long steak-knife-shaped teeth like a T. rex, a long, muscular tail, hyper-extendable "switchblade" claws on the hind legs like Velociraptor mongoliensis, a narrow snout that looked almost like a bill, a bird-like pubic structure, and worst of all - feathers! I simply stared at the page for a few moments, muttered "oh #!" to myself a few times, and got up to check the N.G.News web site. This wasn't just some artistic depiction of what a reptile/bird might look like - and it was no hoax. It was a small dromaeosaurid ("raptor") with killing claws, razor-sharp teeth, and a pair of wing-like arms complete with plumage. My heart sank, and my gut churned. This was it - the one proof of evolution I had always asked for but never thought would come to light. In my mind, I was betting that even if evolution were true, the chances of finding such a beautiful example of transition would be slim enough to be dismissed as impossible. And yet here it was - proof. I stepped outside to compose myself, and stood there looking at the world around me. Weeks later, I began making plans to dismantle to the Talk.Science Archive, all the while researching the Christian religion. I soon came to the conclusion that since much of the first ten or twelve chapters of genesis had been plagiarized from Chaldean fairy tales and mythos, the truthfulness of the Bible must be strictly spiritual rather than spiritual and historical. It wasn't very long before I began to realize that since the 'historical' sections of the Bible, particularly those stolen from Chaldean mythos, were intended to influence spiritual truth - that the early Israelites must have simply been making up their own "spiritual truths", trying to make the fairy tales of their Hebrew (Chaldean) ancestors match up. I was faced with the realization that the Bible could not even be taken as spiritually true...it was/is nothing more than a book of myths and fables from a time and place in which people had no scientific knowledge, and made up these stories to explain what was going on around them (though the people making up these fables probably thought that they were coming to revelations given by their God[s]). Then that day in 1999 came back to me. I remembered standing outside on my porch, looking at the natural world of which I had always known myself to be an integral part - albeit created as such. On that day, however, I began to look at the world in a new light. I looked at the trees, thinking about how they worked. Photosynthesis, receiving energy from the sun, these creatures had limbs which branched out in every direction, tipped with leaves made green with chlorophyl, drawing energy from the sunlight which they captured. As they fed on the radiant light, blocking the light from the ground below, I began to think of how they might exist without God. A tiny bacterium absorbs energy from both heat and chemicals. Plants are exposed to heat, feed on chemicals, and have chemicals that allow them to feed on heat more efficiently - on a much larger scale than primitive bacterial cell strands. I thought, perhaps, that since some algae is bacterial and other is plant-life, that some bacteria might have used chlorophyl to extract nutrients from the sun. Also, perhaps from this algae, primitive coats of slime would evolve and dwell on rocks near river beds. In a few million years, you'd have moss growing on moist soil. Millions of years could come and go, and plants which harness the power of the sun and extract more nutrients from the matter around them (whether it be water or dirt) would spread more abundantly and prosper over their contemporaries. I looked at the trees again. They were large, tightly-packed groups of cells, which over millions of years grew larger and larger, growing green leaves which act as solar panels. They were cell-colonies trying to survive in an environment where new oportunities are as ample as the number of possible combinations of DNA. So here they were, beautiful, and majestic, and sitting there because of the opportunistic nature of living cells - not because God put them there. They were green because they had Chlorophyl to absorb sunlight - not because God thought that humans would think it an attractive color. I looked down at my own hands, studying my finger prints. I pondered the reason God might have given them to me. I recalled to myself that only primates have finger prints, and that they used the blunt part of their fingers - rather than claws, to grip limbs and branches. They have traction-treds on their fingers and toes. This is probably why all primates also have flat nails. But then why do humans have finger prints? For indentification? We've only had finger print identification for the past hundred years or so. Even if the world were only six thousand years old, that's less than a thirtieth of a percent of the time since humans were first created. Why give us this feature, why design such intricate patterns, if God knew it would be an absurdly short amount of time between the first use of finger print identification and the creation of DNA fingerprinting, which is much more accurate? And what how would this be any different from believing that the bridge of the nose were created for sunglasses, or the opposable thumb designed so that our hand could fit into gloves? The only way these hands of mine made sense, with the gripping fingers, the traction-tredded finger tips, the flat nails, was if my distant ancestors - and the ancestors of all humans - were creatures who used their front limbs for climbing. And why such low body hair? Wouldn't it be more effecient to not have body hair at all? We use resources to grow this hair which appearently serves no purpose. If we evolved from hairy creatures, it would make sense that we evolved to use our resources more effeciently and wasted less of our reserves on this useless feature. That way, the hair wouldn't have to be completely absent, since the industrial age - when we could produce many of our own resources from previousely unavailable sources - occured at a time which vary well might have been before we had the chance to evolve a completely bald body. Of course it must have been a bit more complex than that, but I had a feeling I was pretty much on-track with this line of reasoning. I looked down at my hands again, and studied them for a few moments longer... "This is it..." I spoke to myself softly, "Welcome to the real world."

Creationism constantly denies the real world. It has to, since the real world offers it absolutely no support. Doesn't that tell you something?

Wow, I take it you dont like creationism.

Why not let people be happy with their beliefs? We are all different, do you not realize that yet? Why not accept and tolerate our differences? It is what makes the human race fascinating. Im sure creationism has faults as Im sure science does too.

chill and be at peace with others regardless of their beliefs. It's all cool.



You are making an issue out of something that makes no difference to us as we live our lives here on earth.
What matters is that we are here now, alive on this planet, sharing our existence together. Why make this an issue? We should believe what ever sits right in our hearts and respect others that do so too.

reply to post by flyingfish

If dishonest creationists get your goat, stop listening to them. Find honest ones. Seems simple, really.
One group of people i recommend is the Edinburgh Creation Group
From their site---

Edinburgh Creation Group is an active forum where scientifically minded people meet to discuss evidence supporting the biblical account of creation.

In the end, the choice is yours, and yours alone. You either believe, or not.

Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't evolution address origins of species? It has nothing to do with the origins of life. That's a totally different topic. Now abiogenesis vs. creationism would make more sense.

There are plenty of creationists who believe evolution is the process god used to create life.

Sadly this is just a rant, nothing new or relevant has been discussed

I choose creation as I still havnt seen a transitional fossil or evolution in a process.

Sorry I dont accept your views but, why rant at others views.

reply to post by flyingfish


Other than bashing creationists, I don't see any valuable information in your post.

In the meanwhile, science has learned that both humans and animals are made up of living organisms found in soil life, reinforcing what the Bible has always said about the origins of man.

Genesis 2:7

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

reply to post by greavsie1971


This is simply another anti-Christianity thread thinly disguised with a caveat at the beginning. The OP makes this plain with remarks like "Creationists "debate" because they believe it is "saving souls" from their Hell." and then using quotes from someone that was raised in an evangelical church, that later left it as evidence of some kind of fallacy on the part of creationists.

While the OP opines profusely about creationists ignoring facts and peddling snake oil, like stating that creationists (read: Christians) discard any findings that do not fit with preconceived dogmas, He/She flatly ignores the fact that scientists do the same thing, especially evolutionary scientists; they enter into experimentation and research with the preconceived notion that there can not be a creator and therefore disregard any findings that leave that option as a possibility. (That behavior, by the way, is also a dogma.)

I wasn't going to comment on this thread for those very reasons, knowing full-well that a firestorm of flaming would most likely ensue as a result, however my disgust with the blatant attacks against people of faith compelled me to do so.

I will not be back to this thread, as I've seen it's likes a hundred times over here on ATS and do not wish to engage on this topic, as I have an outlook that is similar to your own (greavsie), live and let live.

To the OP, if you wish to have free and open discourse about a topic like this, try opening it without obvious attacks against the very people that would be needed for that discourse to occur.

I'm out, have fun with the sloppy mess of a thread that this is bound to become.

reply to post by greavsie1971


I don't like to be lied to.
Creationist can be happy with their beliefs, the problem is when they lie about scientific findings to do so.
And it is an issue when the people your lying to are other peoples impressionable children.

reply to post by occrest


I don't have a problem with things that can backed up objectively.

reply to post by Klassified


I'm afraid you've missed the point.

borntowatch
Sadly this is just a rant, nothing new or relevant has been discussed

I choose creation as I still havnt seen a transitional fossil or evolution in a process.

Sorry I dont accept your views but, why rant at others views.

Sadly your wrong, in fact you come in here and prove my point by posting typical creo nonsense.
Look up "transitional fossils" stick to objective verifiable evidence and stay away from creationist propaganda.

reply to post by flyingfish


thats a sweet post FF

*grin*

- you just defended extensively the Scientific Belief against another Belief.

reply to post by Lone12


Science is not a belief system.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

I will not be back to this thread

Just as well, you seem to have no idea what I'm talking about anyway.

reply to post by flyingfish


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the LATEST thinking in science is the holographic universe principle and the digital universe principle. These two views, along with collapsing wave function, show that we are created. Just as the Bible states, we are INSIDE an image. If you take the 'truth' of the matter to heart, the only rational conclusion is the one that makes sense. Design is at the heart of our amazing universe.



The fact is, you are not left with any science that backs evolution as a cause. It is clearly a result of THE cause. This is now evident. As I will predict from your reply, you will attack me rather than speaking to the truth of these two videos. Give it your best shot, but you cannot deny what these Nobel Laureates are saying.



Here is where evolution hits its wall of error. Collapsing wave function demands an observer to make the choice to rise to new life.



As the two videos above point out, we can no longer see the universe as mechanical or analog, which is what evolution demands. We must see it as digital and living. Spirit is the third aspect of light. These videos give you enough solid evidence to show that the Bible has had it correct the entire time.

We are in an image:

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

This image is produced from the quantum, which is not seen:

Hebrews 11

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

You might have missed what the first verse, above, states. Faith is the heart of collapsing wave function.

Finally, we are produced with information:

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

When you take God out of the equation, you end up taking the strength out of any argument you can muster to rationalize our reality. In Hebrew, the word Father is Aleph (Strength) Bet (House). The strong house in physics is the strong nuclear force. It is both invariant and symmetric. The word Truth is Aleph (Strong) Mem (Water) Tav (Two Crossed Sticks). This is the word EMET, or TRUTH. Take Aleph (Strength) out of that word and get MET, which is death.

Father is AlephBet (Letters). Son is Bet (House) nun (Seed). The house of seed is the thing that rises to new life from baptism. Involution (Baptism) has the express purpose of Evolution (Rising). Letters and Words are formed in the water.

Truth is Aleph (Strength) Mem (Water) and Tav (Salvation). It can't get any clearer than this. It is both evident from nature, God's word and science itself.

greavsie1971
We should believe what ever sits right in our hearts and respect others that do so too.

There are no "multiple truths" that sit right for one and wrong for the other.

The "truth" is also not what sits "right in our hearts"..aka is simply based on emotions on subjective views. (IRONICALLY, that is often the case because we are humans. It's a BAD human trait.). This is why we have problems on this planet, such as racism, intolerance etc.etc.. which are all SUBJECTIVE "truths" because they "sit right" for an individual person.

Nazism, racism etc.. all "sit right" for someone...does not make it more true or more valid.

HOWEVER, you are right with your assumption that to a certain extent anyone should have the right to believe what they want and this belief should also be untouched. Nothing against it as long as I am not forced to "take on" someone else belief against my own. (This also happen frequently).

The problem with Creationism is that creationists for some decades very actively ATTEMPT to set their own belief system equal with science. It went so far that school books must have a disclaimer that evolution theory is only a "theory" and giving people the illusion that this religious faith is equal and can be simply swapped out in place of school science. I have a BIG problem with that. Church people can stay in their church and can believe what they want, but there are clearly attempts which go way beyond that. And I am a very, very strong supporter that science, politics and religion MUST be separate and not (as seen in the last years) trying to fuse those them together like in the effing MIDDLE AGES. Thank you - NO!

reply to post by flyingfish


dear flyingfish,

I propose that you will do a better job convincing people that God did not create the universe when you can scientifically prove that He did not.

Until then, creating a thread for the purpose of arguing this, again, only proves that you are not scientific enough to have realized that your effort is in utter vain.

Create a thread showing how you know something that no other scientist has been able to figure out : "How is it possible that something came from nothing?" For if it is possible to give an estimate to the age of the universe, then it follows that there must have been a beginning, and therefore, there must have been nothing before that beginning.

Answer that question scientifically and you will be having an honest debate. Until then, you're just a sower of strife.

reply to post by Klassified
There are also those creationist that do not agree with the proponents of evolutionist .. although Darwin sets in his theory about his hypothesis the modern day proponents have moved the goal posts and have put ambiguous language to back up what they say ...until its time to move the posts again ...Same as when I was a kid playing shinney and the loosing team would always make their net a bit tighter then our net ...hardly fair but its ok the truth rules and although time is needed to realize it it will come .....peace

reply to post by Klassified
There are also those creationist that do not agree with the proponents of evolutionist .. although Darwin sets in his theory about his hypothesis the modern day proponents have moved the goal posts and have put ambiguous language to back up what they say ...until its time to move the posts again ...Same as when I was a kid playing shinney and the loosing team would always make their net a bit tighter then our net ...hardly fair but its ok the truth rules and although time is needed to realize it it will come .....peace

TarzanBeta
reply to post by flyingfish

 

dear flyingfish,

I propose that you will do a better job convincing people that God did not create the universe when you can scientifically prove that He did not.

Until then, creating a thread for the purpose of arguing this, again, only proves that you are not scientific enough to have realized that your effort is in utter vain.

Create a thread showing how you know something that no other scientist has been able to figure out : "How is it possible that something came from nothing?" For if it is possible to give an estimate to the age of the universe, then it follows that there must have been a beginning, and therefore, there must have been nothing before that beginning.

Answer that question scientifically and you will be having an honest debate. Until then, you're just a sower of strife.

This thread is about Dishonest Creationist Tactics.
I'm not trying to disprove god.