Why do we bother?

I could probably guess people's responses to these queries but, I am going to ask them anyway.I do not want to name any specific names but would prefer to concentrate on a certain 'type' of forum poster.The questions are:1.Why do these people only visit creationist and Bible inerrantist websites, and never do any balanced research?2. Why do these people not research their arguments before they post, as the vast majority of these argments have been proven untrue many times?3. Why do these people post lengthy 'cut n paste' passages and then ignore the responses to them?4. Why don't these people appreciate that some of our replies can take an hour or two (sometimes more) to compose, and they do not have the good manners to reply, despite claiming to be morally superior?5. Why do these people not realise that they are not thinking for themselves when they post things such as 'the Bible has no contradictions in it'?6. Why do these people not see the contradictions within their own posts?7. Why do these people think that because a famous scientist believes in God then there must be a God, yet ignore the fact that other famous scientists do not believe in God?8. Why do these people fail to acknowledge that AiG, ICR, 'Dr' Dino, CARM, and the likes, are not the sole source of earthly knowledge.9. Why do these people start off with a conclusion before they look at the evidence?10. Finally, why do we bother responding to these people?I am particularly interested in answers to #10 because some people here have totally annihilated creationist and inerrantist's arguments yet keep the thread going even when the point has been made!As I said I dont want to name names, but there is one particular 'scientist' who regularly gets beaten to a pulp yet merrily posts away as if none of his 'arguments' have been refuted.Anyway. I look forward to your replies, if you do not have much time to spare then a response to Q.10 would be appreciated.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

1) Because the balance of evidence is contrary to what they believe2) They are not looking for truth, but for justification-- excuses for irrational belief.3) Because it would require thinking, and thinking about the issues in light of #1 would wreck #2.4) Don't know really... panic, perhaps? Fear, maybe? Perhaps, just an inabilty to respond rationally-- the source of the panic and fear, I'll wager.5) Consider the damage done to a brain that must 1) deny 99.9% of the knowledge we have about the world, 2) believe contrary to that information 3) create true gems of convolution to justify that belief and 4) constantly battle with panic and fear and constantly battle with the part of their own rational portions. Sad, really....6) Same as above.7) I want to be spiteful and say that it is an inability to grasp basic logic, but it probably has more to do with #2.8) See #2.9) They were brainwashed as kids, or they cracked under the presure of being alive and needed a crutch.10) I still post to new members, but I am less inclined to post to people who prove themselves unwilling to debate and learn -- like booboocruise, who has not responded to -- just guessing-- about a dozen of my posts. The problem is, if we stop debating, they win-- or will claim to have won-- by default and the lies will spread and the damage will increase exponentially. I'm thinking, obviously, more in terms of general society than simply in terms of this forum.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

1. I would say that the simple answer is that for most of the "internet" creationists you're likely to encounter on BBs, for instance, the idea that they should has never crossed their minds. They've been told, most likely, that evolution is bad, or atheistic, or whatever. They've been referred to various sites, or typed in "creation" on Google (13,600,000+ websites - of which the first 5 pages are all creationist organizations or sites, starting with ICR), or whatever. Then, armed with validation and high-falutin' sounding posts that they have been assured are "completely unanswerable" by the poor, deluded atheist scientists, they set forth to slay the dragon. It never crosses their minds that the sources they use might have only part at best of the answer. That's why we see so damn many repetitions of the exact same arguments over and over and over.2. They don't realize, IMO, in most cases that these ARE long- and oft-refuted. They think they're going to kill evolution all on their own because AiG, ICR, Dr. Dino have shown the way. After all, the creationist websites assure their readers over and over that THEY are correct. Besides, everyone knows atheists and scientists are stooopid, since they "believe" in evolution and obviously deny God.3. In general, because once they get out of the framework, or find something that isn't covered in the simplified, words-of-one-syllable article they copied from, they're totally out of their depth. The best ones simply shift the argument around until they find something that their opponent doesn't know the answer to and thus proclaim "victory". It's easier to post a one-line pseudochallenge than it is to do the work necessary to make up their own minds. Why do you think the vast majority of posts are of the "evolution can't explain X" type?4. I don't think it ever crosses their mind. After all, it only took a second to copy and paste their argument, right?5. Bible = infallible word of God. There are no contradictions, and only evil atheist spawn-of-satan say otherwise. Simple.6. For them, it's a question of "authority". AiG is an authority because it proclaims itself a Christian ministry. The bible is an authority. They are trained from birth practically never to question authority - especially in religious matters or matters that touch on religion. Since the authority (whether biblical or creationist), states there are no contradictions: there are no contradictions. Again, simple.7. I think it goes back to the authority thing. How many times have you heard someone proclaim, "Newton was a creationist", or something along those lines as though that proved anything? If the authority doesn't believe in a deity, then they've been told that this person is not a "true" authority - they're evil atheist hell-bent devilspawn.8. They DO acknowledge it. The bible is the sole source of earthly knowledge. AiG, ICR, etc are believed because they proclaim this as well.9. Because they aren't scientists.10. Because I've learned more during those four hours of research per one-line pseudochallenge than I did in any of my science classes. An entirely selfish reason. Arguing with creationists is a real education. It has also helped immensely in enabling me to simplify complex concepts to where they are comprehensible to a lay audience - and my two young daughters are the beneficiaries. After arguing with creationists, I can now more easily explain evolution in simpler terms to my kids.

The funny, and sad, side of this is that your children will more than likely understand your explanation better than many creationists.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I will re-iterate the learning experience from reading the rebuttals of those who are both more knowledgeble than I and to be thanked for their hard work.However, the other reason is to help the "fence sitters". I know a few people who have wondered what is wrong with "equal time" for the creation "science" view.Reading over some of this material and presenting it to my rather overly open minded friends has helped them jump off the fence pretty quickly. The best argument against that is the postings of the creationists themselves and the web sites they use. Laughter is the most common reaction. (My kids get a kick out of the silliness too).

1. Here and there I will research the opposited p.o.v., all though I don't get too involved in the origin of life topics, I am more interested in the bible inherency. It's not my job to defend that side of the debate, that's what you come here to do. 2. I don't go to many internet web sites as I spend my time reading my bible, John showed me as soon as I got here that I didn't know my bible well at all, so this is where I do my research. Pretty hard to discuss a book you don't know that well. Also from doing balanced research I have found that any information on either side already has a rebuttal from the opposition. So why bother using this information if it has a pre-formed response?3. Yeah I hate cut'n paste responses. As to not responding, there are a couple posters around here that I don't respond to because their tone sounds offensive to me(intended or not), and I am afraid I may respond in anger with a spiteful toungue. It is my nature to do so, though by God's grace, he has done a great work in that area of my life already! btw, who claimed to be morally superior?4. I do appreciate the responses I get, and the time it takes to compose them. Especially considering most of what I post is sudden thought, or speculation. If it seems to me a post was meant to instruct, or inform me of something I try to remember to at leat thank the person even if I do not have a response. John, Quetzal and Mr. P are awesome for this type of response, and I especially appreciate their replies.5. When the bible is examined as a literary text there are things that I cannot explain, at least not to the perfection you guys would expect, fair enough. Though I believe the bible to be the living word of God, emphasis on living. Having spiritual life, containing wisdom that is spiritually discerned. It is one of God's tools used to mold us into the image of his son. So it is difficult to discuss the bible as you see it as a literary document, and I see it as the living word of God. In essence we're measuring with a different ruler.6. lol, sorry, For me it's usually from posting in haste, the mind moves faster than the fingers, so only fragments of thought end up getting posted. This ends up in contradictions. Trying to learn to slow down in my excitement.7. I'm not sure, maybe in effort to show that belief in God is not as ridiculous as it gets painted out to be by some posters.8.dunno9.For me, if the source of the information is the living word of God, thats evidence enough for me. 10. You respond because it's a debate forum, and you come here to debate. That said I also get tired of seeing the same points come out of our camp, and the same rebutal out of yours, it is tiring. Maybe the best thing to do would be to direct us back to where this topic is/has already been discussed, and close the new topic (sorry to ask even more of you admin). Also we should be more careful to continue discussion in the proper thread instead of opening millions of new threads.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 04-25-2003]

Thanks for the kind words, funk.

quote:

---

That said I also get tired of seeing the same points come out of our camp, and the same rebutal out of yours, it is tiring.

---

Yes, it is tiring. Consider this. When a creationist brings up a point and someone refutes it, what happens? The same point is brought up all over again, as if the issue had never been addressed. Much of this is due to the people at IRC, AIG, and etc. who post material that, by this time, has been gutted a hundred times. Because these sites are outwardly religious, the faithful trust them and simply get lied to. Sorry about the language, but there really isn't any other term for publishing material which is as desperately wrong as what I have seen on those sites. Then these newly deceived people jump into the fray thinking they have some cutting edge knowledge. It is actually quite sad. But what about those who post the same points without addressing the rebuttals? I lot of words come to mind-- stubborn, dishonest, willfully ignorant, stupid even ... But to not respond would leave the wrong feeling right.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm just going to jump in here, but first I wanted to say that it sure is nice to have all my feelings validated. I knew I wasn't the only one thinking ALL the same things. Also, I don't think my opinions/viewpoinsts apply to all creationists.1. They don't feel they need to. Everything they need to know is fully explained in those websites, which are designed by *Godly* men and they would never lie, would they? Besides, they all have advanced degrees, so they must know what they are talking about.2. Same as above. No need to. And since they never read anything other than creationist websites, they wouldn't know that everything they post has already been refuted hundreds of times over. The one good thing creationists are good at is speaking to the public - the layperson. Scientists, on the other hand, are good at doing research, but no good at teaching it to the general population. That's why I think these types of forums are important... and productive... even if it doesn't seem like it at times.3. Because they don't have the knowledge base to understand what they are posting in the first place and a scientifically-detailed rebuttal is completely lost on them.4. This is one of my biggest pet peeves and one of the main reasons I have quit debating creationists in the past. They just copy and paste and I'm left doing all the research. A good rebuttal has to be scientifically sound, but not too technical otherwise you lose your audience. I think that's the main problem - again - they don't understand what you are saying. It's like talking to my half-deaf, stubborn-as-hell father. He'll shake his head like he's hearing me, but his reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. He HAS to change the subject, mainly because he has no idea what I'm saying, and also because he would have to admit he has a problem.5. I think some of them have never had to do that. They are taught to respect authority and to never question it.6. Because they just don't know enough about the subject matter.7. It helps their cause and they don't see anything wrong with looking at half the story. I mean, heck, it's right there in black and white, who cares what precedes or follows it.8. Because they are men of Christ. Those people do not lie, while everyone knows you can't trust an atheist.9. They don't understand that it's wrong. Again, it's a lack of training.10. Why do I respond...? I guess I'm always hoping they'll 'see the light.' lol I know it's not likely, but I can always dream. Really though, besides the educational experience that benefits me (I can't tell you how much I've learned from these types of debates - even in my own field!), I hope that someone listening will start to make sense out of it all. That they will start asking the right questions and come to their own conclusions.To me, I really don't understand why God has to have created everything. Why can't he/she have come along AFTER humans reached the level of understanding (with respect to the world around them) necessary for a faith in a god? I guess it all comes down to the Bible. If evolution is true, then the Bible is the errant work of man rather than the inerrant word of God. The entire Christian (or whatever) faith would then be in jeopardy - according to some.I don't think that could be further from the truth. I can't remember where I read it, but someone mentioned the fact that Galileo's discovery didn't destroy Christianity, as religious leaders had feared, and neither will evolution. Christianity's greatest foe are the creationists themselves.(BTW, I decided to write this without reading the previous replies. I wanted to see how my viewpoints compared with others, so I apologize in advance for reiterating the same rhetoric.)

One reason for continuing to respond is for people like me.I was a YEC who jumped into discussions on CompuServe only to find out that I couldn't back up anything I said (the facts CRI gave me turned out not to be facts). So then I waited to see if any more educated young earthers could back up what they said. After a guy claiming to be a CRI college graduate was easily slaughtered even by me with information I'd gotten on the CompuServe forum, it became obvious there was going to be no David to come along and slay the evolutionary Goliath.My friends, my wife, my kids, and my friends' kids would all probably never get around to reading a beginning biology textbook, but they don't mind hearing about internet debates and the issues brought up on those debates. You might be surprised how much the things you say to creationists get passed around verbally to people who will never have the time to get on an evolution debate board.If y'all quit answering the creationists, then their purposeful misinformation will sit unanswered in all the places they put them, and it won't be so easy for the next guy to test the evolution/creation waters and find the truth. 1996 debates are not going to turn up on search engines or be noticed by anyone, even by people like me who are looking. Stop answering, and your answers disappear into the billions of pages that Google is able to index.I hate that you (and sometimes I) have to take the time to answer the same ol' discredited assertions over and over, but I want to say thank you to those who do. I can find some of my own sources now, but I learned where to find them from internet debate boards.So, thank you, and don't give up. While that creationist debater might be proven to hate and attack what's true no matter what you say, there's sometimes a few and sometimes a lot of people besides him/her who are also hearing what's said.

Hi John, sorry I took so long to reply. This essentially sums up my own thoughts. I now realise that just because to me most of these arguments are ludicrous, there are some people who take them seriously and are convinced that they are accurate.However, I feel that if I dont reply then they will see it as a sign that there argument was effective and therefore true.One thing though, I mix with a lot of Christians here in Scotland and they really are not as big on the literal deal that the Americans seem to be.I dont think I have met a single one that thinks that the universe is 6000 years old, there obviously will be some but I haven't met any. It just isn't a big issue here.In fact, the last Christian I spoke to about a 6000 year old universe thought that I was making it up!Also, I hadn't heard of people such as Hovind, Gish, Baugh and Wyatt until I got involved with the Internet back in 1995. I really couldn't believe that these people are taken seriously by anyone and when I saw the money that answersingenesis draws in I was stunned!It is not as if these types of websites make any rational claims. I have studied a lot of archaeology over the last three years and the basic errors that Wyatt made on his site in regard to archaeology is embarrassing, and some clowns are keeping the nonsense going and making a lot of money out of it.I even find myself emailing these places LOL, I know it is pointless, but you never know maybe one day someone will listen.Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.Best wishes.Brian.PS, thank you for the compliment about my opening message on the 'Exodus: Dead Issue thread'------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!