9 replies to this topic

[Quaker Reason]

That Evolutionists don't like to debate in public too much? I was reading up a little bit on Richard Dawkins and apparently one reason he doesn't do this is because he doesn't want to waste time with Creationists. However from what I've seen in his debates, he doesn't want to debate because he realizes how silly he is.

[ikester7579]

Another reason is that most evolutionists consider themselves above creationist pond scum and therefore feel that they most lower themselves to that level to debate. And also for that same reason it's very embarrassing when pond scum out debates them.

The other reason is because they believe and promote humanism and hate it when creationists won't to their claimed supreme intellect.

[Athelas]

Yes, because youtube for instance isn't filled with video's of debates between evolutionists and creationists. You simply take Dawkins, who has been debating with creationists lately fyi, and make generalisations without anything to substantiate them.

Also what's up with the obsession with Dawkins? Why is he so special that he gets mentioned that often? He's an atheistic evolutionist who happened to write a few books. He also started a campaing about atheism. So <euphemism for foul language removed> what. He's not a good spokesman nor a good debater. I also doubt that his popularity will go on much longer.


**Warning, foul and profane language is not acceptable at this forum. Circumventing of said language is disallowed as well!** This will be your only warning...

[Ron]

Yes, because youtube for instance isn't filled with video's of debates between evolutionists and creationists. You simply take Dawkins, who has been debating with creationists lately fyi, and make generalisations without anything to substantiate them.

Also what's up with the obsession with Dawkins? Why is he so special that he gets mentioned that often? He's an atheistic evolutionist who happened to write a few books. He also started a campaing about atheism. So <euphemism for foul language removed> what. He's not a good spokesman nor a good debater. I also doubt that his popularity will go on much longer.

Because he has taken it upon himself to promote the "New Atheists" and attack Christianity in his books, speeches, appearances and debates. He is joined in this venture by Sam Smith, and Hitchens (amongst others). But, like Dawkins, none of the others are very good debaters either. All lack much discipline in the areas of logic, or the weaknesses of their arguments, and the abilities to deal with the logic and arguments of their opponents. Smith was probably the best they have to offer, but he failed miserably against both Greg Bahnsen and William Lane Craig (amongst others). Further, Dawkins has been ducking William Lane Craig for years, and fortunately for the atheists, Greg Bahnsen passed away a few years ago. Dr. Greg Bahnsen achieved great notoriety as the debater atheists most feared.

You may want to look up the New Atheists movement.

[Quaker Reason]

Another reason is that most evolutionists consider themselves above creationist pond scum and therefore feel that they most lower themselves to that level to debate. And also for that same reason it's very embarrassing when pond scum out debates them.

The other reason is because they believe and promote humanism and hate it when creationists won't to their claimed supreme intellect.

Well there's nothing wrong with Humanism. I mean even my teacher who's religious says there's nothing wrong with it.

[JayShel]

Well there's nothing wrong with Humanism. I mean even my teacher who's religious says there's nothing wrong with it.

That is quite an ambiguous statement. Without a doubt, good actions can come from humanists. The main issues arise on judgement day, when no amount of good works can justify their sins before God. Salvation comes from accepting Christ's sacrifice for your sins.

Also, they arbitrarily ascribe high value to human life. I believe this is God's law written on their heart, but they cannot logically defend why they ascribe value to human beings.

[Remnant of The Abyss]

That is quite an ambiguous statement. Without a doubt, good actions can come from humanists. The main issues arise on judgement day, when no amount of good works can justify their sins before God. Salvation comes from accepting Christ's sacrifice for your sins.

Also, they arbitrarily ascribe high value to human life. I believe this is God's law written on their heart, but they cannot logically defend why they ascribe value to human beings.

Now that you're a member of the Mod team, I can't "like" your posts any more. So I'll just be forced to quote them, then state LIKE!

[Portillo]

Evolutionists dont like debating creationists because they always lose. Henry Morris and Duane Gish had hundreds of debates at university campuses and won them all. Stephen Jay Gould and Isaac Asimov told evolutionists to stop debating.

[gilbo12345]

Evolutionists dont like debating creationists because they always lose. Henry Morris and Duane Gish had hundreds of debates at university campuses and won them all. Stephen Jay Gould and Isaac Asimov told evolutionists to stop debating.

I guess because its makes the propaganda machine's task harder... When people see evolutionists debate and lose, yet get told that everything is all "hunky dory", most I hope would start to think.... "Hmm something isn't right"

Its as they say, "actions speak louder than words", the action of losing a debate will ring louder than a teacher telling a child "evolution is a fact".

[Ron]

Another reason is that most evolutionists consider themselves above creationist pond scum and therefore feel that they most lower themselves to that level to debate. And also for that same reason it's very embarrassing when pond scum out debates them.

The other reason is because they believe and promote humanism and hate it when creationists won't to their claimed supreme intellect.

Well there's nothing wrong with Humanism. I mean even my teacher who's religious says there's nothing wrong with it.

So... Simply beacuse someone who claims ro be "religious" (or you claim as religious) states that there is nothing wrong with humanisim, it magically becomes okay? Personally, I would require an argument with far more merit and substanciation than that. It's akin to saying "Well there's nothing wrong with poking your eye with an ice pick. I mean even my teacher who's religious says there's nothing wrong with it." The arguement is baseless at best.