Dark Jedi

It is a lot of work for nothing, usually.
You spen hours researching a rebuttal, point out the flaws in whatever cut&paste they presented, and provide a bibliography and links to sources.
They simply reply "no".
You reiterate the points, you simplify the terms, present irrefutable logic.
They simply reply "no".
You ask them for evidence to support their side. Any workable theory of creation rather than an attack on evolution.
They simply reply "no".
Me <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
them
Me <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
them
Me
Me

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Dark Jedi ]</p>

Kosh

I can certainly relate. I'm surprised that I've
lasted this long, and I don't even put that much
research into my retorts (I think of them more
as "drive by postings") compared to the excellent
evo experts on this board.

Not only for the reasons you listed, but becuase
every week it's like starting over from square
one. It's always the same arguments over and over
again. I think I understand the frustration that
long time teachers must go through.

Of course, that's their agenda, right? Hoping to
just wear us out because it's much easier to
convince the casual, uninformed layperson with
incorrect soundbites than to actually study and
understand the issue. It's not unlike the war
on terrorism...

Mageth

Don't ever feel like your work goes to waste. Remember there's a gallery of lurkers and regulars reading your input. I personally read, and learn, a lot from the posts from "our side" in E/C.

Reverend Mykeru

I had replied in the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000364&p=2" target="_blank">Why creationists deny the reality of transitional forms </a> that Creationists are arguing in "bad faith". What I mean by that is they come into discussions, engage in debates, write books and present themselves in public as being "scientific", or at least "reasonable", but that is simply a thin veneer to give themselves credibility.

On transitional fossils, I said:
Yeah, it's frustrating because they are so dishonest, but once you recognize that Creationism is simply a branch office of Apologetics, their behavior makes sense. They are not engaging in debate to discover the truth. They already know what the truth is: Judeo-Christian dogma. Their entire purpose is to defend it, come what may, even if they have to abandon the "science" Creationists play at or the "reason" that is supposedly the core of Apologetics. We have all see apologists begin by professing to be reasonable, only to have that stripped away to the point where they invoke faith or some version of the pragmatic fallacy (i.e, "Christianity works for me because before I became a Christian I was a sterno drinking beagle sodomite on crack")when cornered.

OK, so they are basically dishonest. They are playing a con game. They are either preaching to the choir or trying to bamboozle the most unknowledgeable in the crowd with their shotgun style of lies, delusion, mis-quotes, strawmen, old sources and general codswallop.

Now what?

First, you are never going to "win" in the sense of convincing an individual Creationist or Apologist. Even if you shoot down their reason, send their evidence spiraling into the ground and do everything short of having a burning bush pop up with a booming voice that says "You know, you are really full of crap", they are still going to deploy the golden parachute of "faith".

Why bother? It's a bit of a poser. On the one hand even arguing with them, engaging in debates and reading their Dick and Jane texts lends them a certain legitimacy that they really don't deserve. One the other hand, since one of their main functions is promoting Creationism/Apologetics, spin doctoring for the faith and, failing everything, legislating their beliefs, you don't want to let them go unchallenged.

The main reason for arguing with them at all is the fact that they are dishonest. Not only about their aims and goals, but about the very things you believe in and have evidence for. Since Creationists/Apologists (Crapologists?) don't have a theory or a consistent worldview, one of their main techniques is bifurcation: Try to prove themselves right by proving science and reason wrong. They will do this by any means, including the aforementioned lies, distortions, strawmen and even character assassination. If you let them go unchallenged there is a real possibility, considering their skills at promotion, that the average person in the street, and the people that make important decisions about textbooks, laws, school curicula and the like will begin mouthing "Evolution is just a theory. There are no transitional fossils. Darwin recanted on his deathbed. Microevolution happens, but macroevolution doesn't. There are only kinds. Evolution is impoosible according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics...etc, etc, etc".

When you realize that the point is not to convince individual Crapologists it makes the frustration of dealing with them more tolerable. I agree with Mageth, you do it for the lurkers, the average guy. You do it because you can't have their voice as the only one being heard. You may not be able to cure a Crapologist, but you can prevent them from being infectious.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Reverend Mykeru ]</p>

Coragyps

Wow, Rev! Welcome, and please stick around! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Kosh

You're right of course. In the end, what it comes
down to is that they're after my kids! And I will
not let that happen...

Mageth

Reverend Mykeru:

Eloquently said! Sure hope you stick around - you'll be a real asset to the SecWeb.

DougI

The only honest creationist is one who openly admits he will never accept any scientific fact that contradicts his religious dogma.

Quetzal

Rev: Welcome to II. Most excellent post.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Principia

I agree that dishonesty is the worst aspect of debating people like Creationists. On the other hand, it is hard to tell when they are being disingenuous, because I think that most of them believe that admitting to the 'truth' is tantamount to betraying God or some other tremendous crisis.

I can never tell when the debate begins to be a struggle between egos and stops being about statements of facts. So long as *anything* that sounds contradictory to the truth is said, people like Creatonists will say it just to prolong the argument. Most of the time, I find myself pointing out just obvious mistakes that are many steps away from the main argument. I have not learned how to stop these debates by saying, "Look, this has gone far enough, because you are clearly showing your desperation," without sounding offensive or admitting defeat.

SC