AJ Phillips

I had no idea that the mockery of science - the Creation Museum was situated over an ancient coral reef. Although when one considers the massive changes to the planet over the millenniums, no matter where a building is situated it will be over ancient strata.

DSM

If it is not the denial of evidence and rational thinking in order to treat the bible as literal, then what is the goal of creationists?

Severin,
What is the goal of creationists? I thought I just answered that question. Do you want to read it again?

Creationists are not in denial of anything. What would be the point? The evidence is out there for anyone to see.

If some evidence seems contrary to our view, then so be it. All views have problems. That’s normal in science. Evolutionists have problems with their theories. Millions of dollars of tax payers’ money goes to trying to iron out these problems.

As I just said, creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists (in regard to which position better aligns with the empirical evidence). That is why the leading creationist scientists in Australia have stated that they are not afraid to publically debate the issues with evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins when he comes to Melbourne this month, and in fact invited such a challenge.

Dan,

Thanks for your response. It was a classic example of the insinuation and sleight-of-hand that was mentioned in another thread.

Obviously, when I said that Creationists want to be taken seriously, I meant their ideas first and foremost. Your response was to make it appear as though I meant them personally - as if they were seeking acceptance as a person regardless of their ideas...

<<If [creationists] were looking to find favour amongst the scientific institutions, then they would be keen to fall in line with the popular theories of the day.>>

Very slick!

<<Evolutionary materialism dominates thinking in regards to origins...>>

Ahh, yes, but it’s important to remember that it doesn’t “dominate thinking” in the intelligentsia Freud/Marx sense as it is not a social science.

Of course, you didn’t directly say this... no. You insinuated it so that if I mentioned Marx, Freud or social sciences, you could then come back as say you never mentioned them - forcing me to take some of the responsibility.

Again, very slick!

<<Creationists aim to present an alternative view of God as creator. This includes the real history of the world as recounted in Genesis.>>

You mean the book of the Bible with the talking, legged snaked? I’m presuming it had legs, otherwise “Ye shall crawl on your belly for the rest of your days” wouldn’t be much of a punishment now, would it?

So long as Creationists want to blame death and disease and everything bad in nature on the fact that some fruit was eaten in a magical garden 6000 years ago, they will have to be content with being resigned to the loony bin I’m afraid, Dan.

<<Creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists.>>

Unfortunately, they don’t withstand the challenges. This is evident in your reluctance and/or inability to back your claims when I request more information, and that your contributions to discussions on this topic rely on trickery.

Trickery that would could possibly give a naïve audience the false impression that the debate hadn’t yet been settled...

Continued...

...Continued

<<That is why the leading creationist scientists in Australia have stated that they are not afraid to publically debate the issues...>>

After all, when they have no evidence, illusions are all they can rely on.

<<In regards to being taken seriously by the scientific community, I would estimate that creationists already are.>>

This is another example of the sleight-of-hand.

I meant “want to be taken seriously” as in having their ideas respected. You knew this but you changed the context of the word “seriously”.

If you want a productive discussion, then you need to stop broadening and narrowing definitions to suit your own means and misrepresent others.

You know very well that Creationists are taken seriously only in the sense that they are a danger to science and reason.

They insidiously attempt to infiltrate school science rooms with deceit and trickery rather than going through to proper channels of research and peer review.

<<Creationists are not in denial of anything.>>

I refer to no. 6 under “General” at http://creation.com/what-we-believe.

<<What would be the point?>>

Maintaining a religious belief they’re emotionally dependant on.

<<The evidence is out there for anyone to see.>>

And yet you still can’t point me to one little bit of it that proves, or even supports Creationism.

<<If some evidence seems contrary to our view, then so be it. All views have problems. Evolutionists have problems with their theories.>>

Since the alleged problem of evolution apparently only being a theory of history didn’t withstand my criticism, can you think of another?

Surely you can, considering you make these alleged problems sound so detrimental.

<<Millions of dollars of tax payers’ money goes to trying to iron out these problems.>>

Can you give an example? If not, could you please retract the statement?

<<...creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists (in regard to which position better aligns with the empirical evidence).>>

So how does this empirical evidence suggest design or a creator without resorting to the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy or the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy?

Thanks.

DSM,

You say "Evolutionists have problems with their theories"

No they don't. Creationists have problems with the theory, but cannot define why.

Creationists cannot convince any court or scientific institution that their views hold any merit at all.

Dawkins does not hold creationists in any high regard and lumps them with the flat earthers, alien abducties etc. The issue has been resolved, and the world has moved on.

>> Creationists are not in denial of anything.

hilarious. they're even in denial of their denial.