Must creationists be cowards?

[Darth Wong]

We have a lot of fun accusing creationists of being cowards. The infamous "Dr Dino" aka Kent Hovind refuses to engage in written debates. He will engage only in verbal debates, where stylish sound-bites carry more weight than dry logic and facts, and where he can stock the audience with supporters. Similarly, this "creationistalltheway" coward comes here from CreationWeb and complains that we're being unfair to them for claiming that they're too cowardly to engage in fair debate, but when we offer to give him a fair debate here (I even offered to create a special forum for the purpose), he declines and runs away.

But could it be that most creationists recognize, deep down, that they will lose in any reasoned argument? Could it be that the realize that a well-prepared opponent will crunch them every time, hence the importance of playing games and tricks?

It has been pointed out many times that many long-discredited creationist arguments (eg- the "Sun is shrinking too fast" argument) remain in widespread use because unlike scientists, creationists are totally unconcerned with improving their theories; they see it as a propaganda war, and if it sounds convincing, they'll keep using it even after its factual inaccuracies are pointed out.

Could it be that they recognize this on some level, hence their attempts to deny the importance of rational debate and in some cases, reason itself? Could it be that their cowardice is really just smart tactics, and that they realize they're full of shit but they want to win anyway?

Dostoyevsky once wrote about the Catholic Church knowingly selling a lie in order to accomplish what they felt to be the altruistic task of saving peoples' souls. Could it be that creationists are doing the same thing?

[Icehawk]

I think many of them know deep down they will lose in a real debate. But they just can't seem to bring themselves to admit the truth openly because they have been so indoctrinated into believing what they do.

Due to their indoctrination. They continue to make up fallacious excuses and sophistry to continue believing what they do.

[Raptor 597]

Mike, I'm inclined too agree fully. Though as probably have the most Fundide experience here IRL, and being one myself. However, the willingness too debate a normal person, you can manipulate is their. However, even a teacher or anyone large amounts of logic you'd avoid. I admit was going too attack my 7th grade science teacher in debate, but I felt incilned for some strange reason not too. and again this year my physics/chemistry teacher said earlier in the year he believe in the Big Bang & evolution, but God did it, a less vehement form of Intelligent Design. All the preps could do was mumble and grumble. One slightly said "that ain't true those bones are too old." The only thing he did was smirk, for he could tell their who he know personally they were being stupid. It's all most a subconscious urge too stay away from people with knowledge on the issue. Like I always say smart Fundies & Creatonists, as in usually IQs around maybe 120 and up will shut up and wait until the right time, or pick better prey. Fundies can only attack the weak.

Though my greatest too them ever will be the last day before I'll move out too college or a job; I'll tell my parents I'm atheist. And that'll be the greatest ever because they lived with a normal person for those years, and it'll stop or make them rethink the racism.

[bozman]

I believe that you have essentially hit the nail on the head, but I think that this subject is a bit more complicated. I believe that these creationists may realize (way down in the depths of their psyche, of course) that their whole religion may be a bunch of garbage. When morons like Kent Hovind debate real scientists, they are undoubtedly doing it to prove something to themselves as well. These people need constant reassurance.

I believe Freud said something to the effect of, "religious behavior can only be understood in terms of neurosis." If "Dr." Dino is not the poster boy for neurotic obsessions, then I don't know who is.

[The Dark]

I believe Freud said something to the effect of, "religious behavior can only be understood in terms of neurosis."

WA-A-A-A-A-Y OT here, but mentioning Freud and neurosis in the same sentence is a guaranteed laugh. The man was, by historic accounts, addicted to both opium and cocaine, and I don't even what to think about what part of his psychoanalysis pseudosciencebabble he feel under.

And I just realized my laundry is still in the washer one floor down, and it's 1:43 am...Je suis bete.

[Durandal]

Of course they know they'll lose.

Creationists specialize in selling bullshit ideas with lots of flash and style. You have to at least have some modicum of intelligence to sell people on ideas and distract them from the pervasive stench of bullshit.

That's why they won't engage any credible scientist in a debate. They know that the guy has spent years studying science and that he knows his shit. They look at that challenge and say, "He's spent years studying this stuff in-depth. He probably knows something I don't." They won't admit that, of course, but deep down, they know it. So, they wisely try to either dress up the debate environment to suite their style-over-substance abuse or accuse the challenger of being unfair in his terms.

[Mr. B]

I think that deep down all creationists who refuse to debate know they will lose and maybe this is a good thing.

[bozman]

Well, even if you don't agree with Freud’s work, I think that his point about religious behavior is valid here.

I don't think that these creationists recognize scientists as being experts in their respective fields at all. These morons, I think, truly believe that they know MORE than actual scientists do. They stand on a pedastool of hubris.

[Stormbringer]

They won't come and defend there position, they no they can't rationally and reasonably. They've seen and know what happens when they try to engage people like us.

It's deliberate, willful, ignorance. They can ignore the evidence as long they carefully hide from the truth.

[haas mark]

They won't come and defend there position, they no they can't rationally and reasonably. They've seen and know what happens when they try to engage people like us.

It's deliberate, willful, ignorance. They can ignore the evidence as long they carefully hide from the truth.

Can and will.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

They can't defend Creation Theory, and they refuse to debate. Yet, they still try to force it on others. They don't give any evidence, yet they still think it's legitimate. Whever someone is beating them in debate, they cover their ears, and run away screaming, yet they still think that they're winning. With people like that, Creationism will never die out.

I think they like it in their own little world, and they don't want to leave.

[Exonerate]

I think it'll eventually die out... Look at how many Creationists are already changing their "theories" so that they agree with science. The ReBorn Earth theory so that it explains why the Earth is so old... Eventually, they'll probably keep twisting it until creationism and evolution is indistinguishable.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

They know they'll lose in a real debate. That's why they never publish a actual theory. It would be torn to pieces easily. So they lie, twist and slander,

[neoolong]

They know they'll lose in a real debate. That's why they never publish a actual theory. It would be torn to pieces easily. So they lie, twist and slander,

They can't publish a theory because that requires the use of science. The very thing that disproves Creationism.

[Darth Wong]

I think it'll eventually die out... Look at how many Creationists are already changing their "theories" so that they agree with science. The ReBorn Earth theory so that it explains why the Earth is so old... Eventually, they'll probably keep twisting it until creationism and evolution is indistinguishable.

My favourite is the Institute for Creation Research at icr.org. They say that "macroevolution" is impossible, ie- evolutionary speciation cannot occur. But they also recognize that Noah could not have possibly carried millions of species on the Ark, so they "theorize" that evolutionary speciation WAS briefly possible after the Ark reached land. I'm not kidding.

[Durandal]

There was one guy who said, "Sure, micro-evolution is possible, but no one has ever observed macro-evolution." Only the most die-hard creationist would deny that we've actually seen organisms undergo small, adaptive changes to better suite their environment, but this effectively destroys their entire position.

Macro-evolution is just the result of a large number of micro-evolutionary changes. The only difference is in scale, because the two are driven by the same mechanisms.

[data_link]

My favourite is the Institute for Creation Research at icr.org. They say that "macroevolution" is impossible, ie- evolutionary speciation cannot occur. But they also recognize that Noah could not have possibly carried millions of species on the Ark, so they "theorize" that evolutionary speciation WAS briefly possible after the Ark reached land. I'm not kidding.

If I didn't see it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it possible to be this stupid and live. Seriously, a lobotomy would improve these guys' intelligence.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This is why we should take it upon us as our duty to eradicate creationism from the entire universe! Lata and GG!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Oh look! I'm so glad my opinion of these bastards matters so much to them! http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.ph ... dd7a59af10
Weed it and REAP!!!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

How can you agree with micro-evolution but say macro-evolution is impossible. The latter is simply large amounts of the former.

[haas mark]

Oh look! I'm so glad my opinion of these bastards matters so much to them! http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.ph ... dd7a59af10
Weed it and REAP!!!

And that thread got locked by the way. Not to mention that they are putting me up as an example. Can anyone please let them know that by theiur own rules, I am supposed to be warned before beiong banned? It doesn't matter what SN I use, the sam erules apply to every different login.

[neoolong]

Have you read my posts? They deleted them and made the account inactive? The admins don't follow the rules that they whine that we don't follow. And they think that we'll actually take them seriously.

[Enlightenment]

There is this phrase I came across some years back that perfectly captures (what passes for) the creationist mentality:

"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it:" Creationist Concrete.

These dipshits follow only the 'word of gaawd.' Neither logic, science or reality will ever sway them to admit that the word of god (i.e. the Bible) might be wrong. Debate is pointless except for the benefit of the audience--including any fence-sitting quasi-creationists--as very few dedicated creationists will ever change their minds.

[Coyote]

they're setting up a debate board and discussing the possibility of choosing champions. Who are we to choose?

Bollinger says he came here and checked out our "creationweb" threads and had the nerve to call us bigoted and narrow-minded. To what extent can we trust this hoser not to shut down the board the minute something is said that he doesn't like?

Verilon, Weemadando, you guys were among the most active over there from the beginning of the invasion, and my arena of argument is 'deep but narrow', I'd honestly classify myself. Maybe one of you guys would like to go after them? Naturally the rest of us will be bringing in support from all over and stockpiling it here in an "armory" thread for you to take over there if you need it...

Go, faithful gladiator!

[Darth Wong]

Bollinger says he came here and checked out our "creationweb" threads and had the nerve to call us bigoted and narrow-minded.

Of course. We are "bigoted" for saying bad things about stupid people, and we are "narrow-minded" for insisting upon the use of logic and objective evidence.

To what extent can we trust this hoser not to shut down the board the minute something is said that he doesn't like?

Zero. We should mirror the entire debate here, and we should demand that he promise not to abuse his powers so that we can crow victory if and when he breaks that promise.

PS. Mind you, the debate will be over as soon as their champion insists that the Bible can be considered evidence, and we point out that this is completely false, since the Bible is nothing but hearsay. He will interpret this as a "bigoted" attack upon their beliefs and shut down the debate.