Monday, May 20, 2013

Creationist Logic

Here's been my experience debating with a creationist recently:

Creationist: Evolution is a lie! There are no transitional fossils!

Evolutionist: Here is a list of transitional fossils. Try your best to refute everyone of them.

Creationist: I can't because I'm not a biologist and I don't know anything about biology!

The End


  1. Michael,

    Here is my latest response to you in case you didn't see it:


    You are not listening to what I am saying to you! Regarding the question of transitional fossils:

    Since I am not a biologist, I have to rely on the analysis of others, many of whom take issue with this type of evidence for several reasons:

    1. Fossils that are claimed as transitional might just represent a different species entirely and not common descent. They might even represent freaks and not transitional forms.

    2. The one "find" is often overwhelmed by huge fossil gaps on either side of it. This can be especially telling in the light of the thousands of finds that argue in favor of stasis.

    In any event, in order to argue one way or another, I'd have to research the particular "find" that you hold up as a transitional form and then quote you from the findings of others. However, you will refuse to accept this type of evidence. Darned if I do and darned if I don't.

    Besides, I don't think I have the interest or time to do this kind of research. However, you would be mistaken to take such a hesitation as indicative of any fault within the ID position - but just a reflection of my own priorities.

    1. You can still make a case using research without quote mining. I do it all the time, so can you. It's called research.

      1. "Might" is telling. You don't seem so confident now that I have confronted you with evidence. If evolution is true, you'd expect to see these transitional forms, now you're saying they don't count. Disingenuous.

      2. So if there's a gap and a transitional fossil is found in the middle, now there's two gaps on either side of it. And if we find two more transitional fossils, you'll just say that there are now 4 gaps. We've all heard these tactics before Daniel. You're not doing anything new. Disingenuous again.

      Why don't you just admit that you cannot refute the simple evidence I've presented to you, that took me 20 seconds with a google search to find? Or, "Mann" up and have a real debate with me. If you have time to quote mine, you have time to do real scholarly research.

      You say evolution doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you! I've given you evidence.

    2. Daniel Mann: However, you would be mistaken to take such a hesitation as indicative of any fault within the ID position - but just a reflection of my own priorities.
      The problems with the ID position are abundant and fairly obvious. Your ignorance of ID and it's implications, creationism and it's implication, and evolutionary theory and it's implications, and your adherence to some mish-mash of the first two only shows your own ideological biases.

  2. Daniel, since you admit that you are in no way able to evaluate the claims, on what grounds do you reject the consensus of biologists concerning transitional forms?

    On what grounds do you side with the extreme fringe?

    1. Daniel is hopeless Rian, there is no way you are going to plant some rationality in his brain. He is on par with Ray Comfort and Ken Ham. Just be happy that it's a good thing people like him are shrinking in numbers.

    2. I'm attempting to provoke him into actual discussion. When things get a little uncomfortable for his faith and beleifs, he has the habit of running away - either pleading ignorance as he does here (his ignorance doesn't stop him from arrogantly making pronouncements), accusing the other party(s) of rudeness (though he doesn't have problems being similarly rude) or something of the sort.

      His faith and beliefs seem to be fragile little things that need to be protected, rather than robust claims that can be vigorously defended.

    3. You're right, when you corner Daniel he will feign ignorance or run away. He wants to make a lot of waves by asserting that his god is real and that everything that contradicts it is false, but under pressure he can't defend his claims.

      Here are some of our lengthy debates if you're interested:

      Debating materialism and free will:

      Debating secularism:

    4. I was following those posts - I also post as "Havok" :-)



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...