My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Discussions and related news items
Post Reply
Wened
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:52 pm

My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by Wened » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:32 pm

Hello comrades.

I want to share with You a story about hell i went through recently (on my own request)

Few weeks ago i started e-mailing with one guy i know and it turned out that he is religious and a creationist (wow religious creationist, how come). Anyway after few emails i abandoned any other topics of discussion and challenged him about his convictions about ID.

I did it mostly to amuse myself. Over last few years I watched all YT videos of people like Thunderfoot or Aron Ra so i know all stupid arguments used by ID proponents as well as refutals to these arguments. I can spot logical fallacy from miles away (with my eyes closed) and recently i had sen documentary about Dover trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).

I was convinced that without any effort i will show him that his "All Mighty Designer" is Darwins biatch. And will have loads of fun when doing this.

Fuck, I was clueless.


He had no idea about real theory of evolution!. Theory of evolution as explained in his books (he quoted Robert Naeye and Michael Behe) was so stupid that anyone should figure out that these authors are lying based just on that. According to Naeye old species give direct birth to new ones (Like chicken hatching from raptor's egg) and he uses that to ridicule Darwin's theory.

Furthermore he used loads of arguments already refuted. Like in Dower trial or Dawkin's books. I Explained to Him that his sources are old and no longer valid. Turns out that creationists printed many of these "invalid" books in Poland long time after their content was proven to be invalid!!! WTF!

No mater how old or stupid were his arguments i kept answering them. After few exchanges i even stopped pointing out all his logical fallacies.

Finally yesterday evening i gave up. Despite his young age he is set in his ways and refuses to listen to any reason. And this whole debate coasted me more stress than it was worth.

I told him that i can't debate anymore because I'm neither biologist nor chemist. He asked me if i want to talk about Bible now :)

I knew that Dawkins never debates Creationists to not give them any creditability. But no one warned me about mental damage they can give You.

I post it here to proclaim my moral victory of course. There was no way to win this one but I'm still pissed off that i failed.

Anyone had similar experiences?
"They can keep their heaven. When I die, I’d sooner go to middle Earth." - George RR Martin
mkaobrih
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by mkaobrih » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:12 pm

There is no point in arguing with people - they just won’t hear you – just nod and ignore.
The church complains of persecution when it's not allowed to persecute.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by Ygern » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:50 pm

It has something to do with what we were discussing over in this thread here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3615
There is a limit on what you can achieve in a Faith vs Evidence discussion.

Having to give up your opinion of what is right is hard enough to do if you do respect facts, none of use like to admit we are wrong.

But if you are arguing from a faith-based position, you are going to approach evidence very differently. Any faith-based position has reached its ultimate conclusion first, and it will simply backwards-engineer whatever evidence it wants to "prove" the conclusion. Any evidence that contradicts the conclusion MUST be excluded because it must be wrong.

So, yeah, it is kind of pointless arguing with a Creationist. They have no idea what they are talking about, and usually do not know very much about the science they think they are disproving. If someone is convinced at the start that they are 100% right with no possible mistake; then they really are too stupid to waste your time on.

But there is sometimes an unseen victory. Any public debate might be read or watched by someone who is genuinely looking for answers; and they are likely to be far more impressed and educated by the person who patiently gives detailed and researched answers.
The universe is huge and old, and rare things happen all the time ~ Lawrence Krauss
Cork Skeptics
chemicals
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by chemicals » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:18 am

This might cheer you up
the new atheist's nightmare -pine cones !!! :shock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYEVH2bjqwU&NR=1
والقس هو مجنون
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Like Ygern said above a lot of these debates can be pointless. You need to not only pick and choose who you go up against but WHY you want to go up against them too.

It sounds like you entered into this debate with the intention of just having a bit of of fun with being “right” while the other guy was “wrong”. More power to you if this is what you enjoy but I am not surprised you came away feeling it was pointless or wasted.

Better reasons to debate include as Ygern said, putting a voice out there that others can read. It is not about convincing the “opponent” of anything, but about just being calm, clear and convincing in general. Before making your posts you should read them not as the writer, or the antagonist, but re-read them in the position of a 3rd party and ask “What would someone else get from reading what I am about to post”.

Another good reason to debate, and the one that drives the fights I decide to pick over the ones I pass, is not to highlight where the OTHER person is wrong, but to find out where YOU might be wrong. More than 80% of the time you find me on the internet somewhere arguing with someone it is not because I think I am right and I want to strut my stuff…. It is because I think they might be right about something somewhere that I do not yet know about and there is a chance they might be able to show it to me.

Remember, none of us is perfect. At any time every single one of us is wrong about SOMETHING. The fun of debate is not showing where the other guy is wrong, but finding and weeding out the ever increasingly hard to find places where YOU are wrong.

It does not matter how right you are... if you go into an online debate and come out of it unchanged then it was, as you said in the title, a "fail". You need to ensure you come out having learned something new, improved your debating style, enhanced your linguistic prowess, or SOMETHING that means you have some out of the experience a better person for it.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:27 pm

chemicals wrote:This might cheer you up
the new atheist's nightmare -pine cones !!! :shock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYEVH2bjqwU&NR=1
That is a classic example of creationist debating!

When taken to task for the pinecone example, he didn't even skip a breath before trying to move on to 'why are homosapiens getting shorter' and finally 'why are homosapien lifespans getting shorter'. Had his opponents and moderator allowed it, we would have heard nothing but a barrage of creationist arguments read from a web site somewhere.

In all three cases, his factual assertions were incorrect; his reasoning was fallacious; and when taken to task, he didn't stop for a second to consider the counter arguments.

This isn't the most annoying creationist debate I've come across though. The biggest bastards to debate, are those who know a bit about existentialism. In those cases the arguments consistently come back to a claim that, because we can't know anything for sure, religion has the same credibility as science. It would be a fun debate to have in an aircraft at 30,000 feet!

Having said that, I'd take either over a post modernist who thinks E=MCC is sexist. Post Modernists are the most talented bullshit artists imaginable. And If I have to hear about the godam blind men and the elephant again... ALL THE BLIND MEN WERE WRONG! NOT RIGHT, WRONG! *takes meds*
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
funkyderek
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by funkyderek » Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:22 pm

Wened:

There are people who cannot be reasoned with because they do not understand logic. They see other people using it and try to copy them but they don't understand the principles behind it. Please read the latest posts from Sheffield in the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3542 for a sublimely ridiculous example of this cargo cult approach to rational argument (It's along the lines of: "Santa Claus is really your parents, Cliff Richard uses a stage name, therefore God exists and he's called Jesus").
The only point in debating someone like that is for the audience. You have to trust that reasonable people will be able to tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Image

Image Image Image Image
HylandPaddy
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Co. Donegal

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by HylandPaddy » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:55 am

bipedalhumanoid wrote:Having said that, I'd take either over a post modernist who thinks E=MCC is sexist. Post Modernists are the most talented bullshit artists imaginable.
Oh god yes, every time I hear/read one I just fall into a hate spasm on the floor.

I read one argument about the "masculine" field of rigid mechanics was more developed than the "feminine" fluid mechanics because of the innate sexism of science. And something about the square root of -1 being a phallic symbol.

Also Adorno & Horkheimer on how enlightenment in society causes a regression to barbarism...??? I feel another seizure coming on.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan
Dev
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by Dev » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:30 am

HylandPaddy wrote:square root of -1 being a phallic symbol
Tell them it's all in their heads. Such a notion is imaginary and not real mathematics.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: My debate with a creationist (Fail)

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:08 am

Dev wrote:
HylandPaddy wrote:square root of -1 being a phallic symbol
Tell them it's all in their heads. Such a notion is imaginary and not real mathematics.
It's not true for us Dev, but it's true for them...
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
Post Reply