Is this an accurate description of debating with a Creationist?

Question

It's like play chess with a pigeon. He scatters the pieces, fouls the board, flies away and tells the rest of the flock he won!

Answer 1

Yes except this wording is better:

“Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, then fly home to their flock to declare victory.”

Answer 2

The truth is the creationist have a hard time getting a debate with evolutionists. The evolutionists simply will not debate them. They use excuses like " it's beneath us to stoop so low as to debate these country preachers", but that's not the real reason. After all, the creationists all have their PH'D's in all the different scientific disciplines and many of them have worked in the scientific industry for many years. The real reason is that the evolutionists have lost virtually every debate they've ever had with the creationists so they don't want to lose anymore. The creationists went out of their way, stopping short of doing cartwheels and back flips, to get debates with Stephan J. Gould and Carl Sagan but they never were able to get a debate with them. At least Gould came out and said he agreed with the creationist that there were no transitional forms. That's why him and Niles Eldridge came out with an alternate theory called 'punctuated equilibrium' that didn't require transitional forms, a theory that Richard Goldschmidt(also an evolutionists) called the 'hopeful monster theory'. But Sagan, who used to bag on creationists every week on his TV show, didn't have the guts to confront creationists face to face in a debate. But I guess that's understandable why they don't want to debate. If my argument was that the unbelieveable complexity of the human brain(not to mention the rest of the body) is nothing more than re-arranged pond scum from the original prebiotic soup re-arranged over billions of years into 100 trillion connections in the brain by luck…..just random chance, I wouldn't be that confident either.
If I was arguing that dumb mud somehow bootstrapped itself into intelligence over billions of years simply by random chance luck, I wouldn't want to debate either. If I were arguing that man is just a lump of slime that somehow evolved into rationality I'd run and hide as far away as I could from any kind of a debate. I guess that's why Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France said "evolution is a fairy tale for adults".

Answer 3

Some Creationists are complete raving idiots. That's what they get for claiming special revelation and trying to mix it with science.

Having said that, I've found the same behavior among the disicples of evolution. They will take what they think are valid religious claims and disprove them. That's what they get for trying to make a special claim of objectivity by making up theological ideas out of thin air.

Legitimate science has never attempted to prove the Bible wrong, they mostly don't care. Common religionists don't really care about science and rarely enter the halls. They practice morality, not experiments.

Answer 4

Definitely yes. But you have to feel for the evolutionists. Their entire theory rests on a foundation that has no proof and all logic is against (abiogenesis), and some of them spend their time trying to convince people that they are not saying anything about religion, while others do everything in their power to convert Christians and other theists to their cause and, lacking that, trying to rub what little evidence they have in the Christians' noses while prohibiting schoolteachers from discussing any of the problems with evolution. It seems to me a little like running around tidying up the deck while the boat goes under because of the huge hole in the bottom.

By the way, all of you who are lecturing us on what abiogenesis is and how it doesn't disprove evolution, please think for a second. The point is that if abiogenesis is false, it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST about the rest of the theory of evolution. The entire anti-God gig is blown. You know that. It's not about science - it's about being anti-Christian. The very atheists' answers on this and many other questions here on Y!A show that

Still looking for the four legit fish

Answer 5

Fair enough but Creationists could say much the same thing about evolutionists. When asked how the first self-replicating DNA molecule could have been formed without a helping hand your typical evolutionist cries foul and starts chanting a mantra something like "Evolution is a fact fact fact and everybody knows it because they said so on TV".

Answer 6

Thats accurate.

Reminds me of when Newman and Kramer were playing RISK!

Answer 7

That sounds accurate to me.
Of course, you might add that he begins by telling you that all 'flocks' agree with him...

Answer 8

Totally inaccurate.

Answer 9

*yawn* Is this the best you can do?

Or do you get pleasure from trying to hurt people? Sad.

Answer 10

No but it is an accurate description of your mind when it can't accept the Truth of God.