# Question for fundamental creationists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2001, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000 "2001-01-14T16:17:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2001, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/61 "2001-01-18T23:55:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*Fenris- i never said YOU took things out of context. And read back- I said clearly: that starting this thread in an ATTEMPT to get someone to debate the other side was OK- except that the issue has been done so many times. But after nobody showed up for the “pro” side- having you folks list what you THOUGHT their aguements MIGHT be (and doing so rather badly, which is hardly fair), and then shooting the straw men full of holes was specious & rather childish. \*\* Let’s discuss that, shall we? I listed 3 points, all of which were discussed by Hank Haanagraff(sp) on his nationally syndicated radio show. It was not what I **thought** , it was what he said. I provided a link to his site. In the previous thread, I provided another link. Did you even bother to look? \*\* > [@](#): > > And, let us not compare folks who beleive in the Creation to Holocaust deniers. Altho I just castigated ben for this- my guess is that CM keller & his other Orthodox assoc would REALLY not appreciate this. > \*\* \ Regarding that unmitigated lie, I give it the full treatment it deserves [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56215). Fenris ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/62 "2001-01-19T00:44:53Z")
Okay, everyone, please lets take a break. I think Coosa has been enlightened by all of us by now. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/63 "2001-01-19T02:30:01Z")
Fenris- your cites & quotes talk about Dinosaurs, and the Bible- not the Creation, per se. And, if you had started this op, a debate could have been- “this radio talk show host said “this”- i think he is full of it- what do you think?”. Maybe not our greatest debate- but a different tack on a horse that has been very badly beaten. However- again, after a while of no “pro” side, the 'debate" ceases to be, and becomes pointless. It starts to resemble the “slapping the hysterical woman” scene from “Airplane!”. 😃 I am certainly not a Creationist, by any means. And, when we have had a good “pro” side to the debate- I have usually jumped in on the “evolution” side of the debate. But for crikeys sake- there ain’t no debate here. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/64 "2001-01-19T02:32:34Z")
**grienspace** said: > [@](#): > > I can’t help but feel however that Christians are invited in so that the lions can have a go. Hey, the lions have to eat, too, ya know. > [@](#): > > The attention that fundamentalists and creation get is way out of proportion to my every day reality. Well, maybe it’s out of proportion in _your_ reality, but that doens’t mean the same is true of everybody else. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that most threads don’t start with some evil-lutionist spouting off that creationism is wrong, but quite the other way around. If they’re going to play with lions, they shouldn’t complain when bitten. > [@](#): > > More often than not the refrain we hear over and over again is “How stupid can these fundies get”. Really? Can you please quote somebody around here saying that “more often than not”? > [@](#): > > To all those out there who believe in a creation of 6,000 years ago, I truly admire your courage and faith. What, exactly, do you find admirable about somebody who ignores the scientific evidence? ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/65 "2001-01-19T02:34:03Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] Fenris asked: > [@](#): > > Does a topic have to have people on both sides of an arguement posting for a topic to be appropriate to Great Debates? No. As you indicated, there is no real way to know. Generally, if there is nobody to argue with you, the thread will die quickly. It kind of takes care of itself. * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] ---
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/66 "2001-01-19T06:29:42Z")
Hi everyone - sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to the discussion, but I’m having problems with my ISP - it takes forever to load the board. It’s taken an hour and a half just to load and read this thread! **tbea925** said: > [@](#): > > What we’ve tried to do is to create a physical manifestation or a “merit badge”, a sign of perfection that we can hold up to others saying “See what I did?” Oh, thank you! That is exactly the attitude of many of the literal fundamentalists that I’ve met. They seem to feel that they are superior to us ‘doubters’ in some way because they have held firm to their beliefs and refused to even consider any evidence to the contrary, and it is a point of pride with them. I’m afraid it rubs me the wrong way and makes it difficult for me to be reasonable. LOTS of these people around here. ☹ However, I can see where there is a basis for believing in the ‘test of faith’ theory. When God created the Garden of Eden, he placed within it the Tree of Knowledge,forbade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, then allowed Satan to tempt them to do so. What was this, if not a test of faith? This would give one the idea that God is fond of ‘testing’, if he started out that way with the first two people! Maybe this the basis for this belief concerning fossils, etc.? **tracer** : Thanks for the link. One of these days I’ll manage to read everything in the talk.origins archive - I actually remember seeing this before but I didn’t read it (the stuff about the cats caught my eye, of course!) because I was looking for something else at the time. **redtail23** : Ah, I hadn’t heard that version before (Satan created the ‘misleading’ evidence). I can see where that could be considered in light of the story of Job. However, I was under the impression that Satan could not actually create anything? And then, there is the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge - while Satan tempted Eve to try the forbidden fruit, God is the one who both created the Tree and then forbade them to eat the fruit. (See my above reply to **tbea925**.) Maybe God and Satan are not really ‘adversaries’ after all, but work in collusion to weed out the unworthy? Let’s see - God is such an honest and above-board guy that he doesn’t easily come up ideas to mislead people. (He IS God, after all.) Satan, OTOH, is a trickster with a devious mind, so God asks Satan for ideas on ways to ‘test’ people, selects the ideas he likes, and creates the necessary evidence. Hmm, I can go places with this - Satan takes a lot of pride in his work, God is happy with him because he’s helpful, plus he gets to torment the failures (Satan: "Hey, bozo! Look at you sitting in that lake of fire! Doesn’t feel too good, does it? And just think, all you had to do was believe that darn Bible and you wouldn’t be here! Don’t you feel like an idiot now? [Lots of devilish cackling].) Sorry, sometimes my imagination runs away with me. Okay, **grienspace** , you’re next! First of all, thank you for taking me seriously and giving a thoughtful answer. I promise not to consider your response as representative of all creationists. Perhaps we can discuss some of your statements? > [@](#): > > I also want to add that many fundamentalists believe that one who has had the truth and abandons it will be much worse off than atheists. Okay, I have some questions about this, if you (or anyone else) would like to take a stab at them. For clarification: there is then a distinction between someone who was once a ‘true believer’ that has abandoned their beliefs, and a non-believer who is _aware_ of God, Christianity, etc., but still refuses to believe? So, a priest who has renounced his faith and become an atheist would be in a lot more trouble than I, who has never believed in God, even though raised in a Christian home? I remember something similar being discussed to death in church when I was a child - what happened to, say, people who lived in the deep jungles of Africa and had never heard of the Christian God? Some claimed that ‘innocents’ like these went to Heaven, while those who had been made aware of God by missionaries or whatever yet chose to deny his existence went straight to Hell. However, why should these ‘innocents’ get the same reward promised to me for being faithful and strong, refusing Satan’s temptations, sacrificing to help others, etc.? Would they appreciate how wonderful God was to allow them in Heaven when they hadn’t done a darn thing to earn it? Will my Heaven be nicer than theirs, since I worked so hard to get there? However, let me get back to your statement quoted above and put a sort of ‘atheist twist’ to it: (And please don’t take this personally - it is meant in just as general a manner as your statement.) “Some atheists believe that Christians who have been educated about the theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it, yet ignore these facts in favor of religious creationism, are far more stupid and close-minded than those who are aware that such a theory exists, but have never had it adequately explained to them.” Is it any wonder that the two camps constantly butt heads? Okay, this is getting kind of long, so I’m going to stop here and write another post while my server seems to be cooperating. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![super\_head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@super\_head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/super_head)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/67 "2001-01-19T07:19:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > Superhead does not respect a person who believes in creation. I respect the views of others however no matter how preposterous and presumptuous I may find those views to be. Incorrect, I do respect you. I do not, however, have to respect beliefs of others that I find “preposterous and presumptuous.” Additionally, I respect your right to hold such beliefs - but that does not entail a respect of the belief itself. The evidence I have been presented with implies an evolutionary history of life on Earth - not a special creation - as the evidence also indicates the moon is not made of green cheese. That was my point. But, who knows, maybe everytime we take a green cheese rock off of the moon, God turns it into what we now consider “moon rock” - thereby, denying us all knowledge of the actual composition of the moon (that being green cheese). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/68 "2001-01-19T08:11:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by coosa \* > > Oh, thank you! That is exactly the attitude of many of the literal fundamentalists that I’ve met. They seem to feel that they are superior to us ‘doubters’ in some way because they have held firm to their beliefs and refused to even consider any evidence to the contrary, and it is a point of pride with them. I’m afraid it rubs me the wrong way and makes it difficult for me to be reasonable. LOTS of these people around here. ☹ Something about you warms my heart Coosa, but then I have always had a soft spot for intelligent articulate women, their opinions not withstanding.Confining my comments to those Christians who have responded in this thread, I can find no basis for your impression that they take any pride in anything. Pride after all is sinful if you will remember. I actually see a lot of humility which truthfully I wish I had more of. > [@](#): > > _coosa continues_ > However, I can see where there is a basis for believing in the ‘test of faith’ theory. When God created the Garden of Eden, he placed within it the Tree of Knowledge,forbade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, then allowed Satan to tempt them to do so. What was this, if not a test of faith? This would give one the idea that God is fond of ‘testing’, if he started out that way with the first two people! Maybe this the basis for this belief concerning fossils, etc.? A bit of a stretch.There are certainly tests of faith, but few believe in deliberate hoaxes by God . > [@](#): > > - coosa says\* > Maybe God and Satan are not really ‘adversaries’ after all, but work in collusion to weed out the unworthy? Interesting conclusion.Maybe the Wiccans and the Catholics can unite into the WC > [@](#): > > _coosa further asks_ > For clarification: there is then a distinction between someone who was once a ‘true believer’ that has abandoned their beliefs, and a non-believer who is _aware_ of God, Christianity, etc., but still refuses to believe? So, a priest who has renounced his faith and become an atheist would be in a lot more trouble than I, who has never believed in God, even though raised in a Christian home? There are hundreds of interpretations to this, but a common one is that once you are baptised or accepted Jesus in your heart, and then reject him you’ve had the biscuit. In some places you need to be shunned. But that view just doesn’t add up to the Shepherd going out after that one last sheep.It doesn’t add up to a prodigal son returning without anything being said of his sinful ways. Remember that in both cases they were already on the inside. If there is any one out there who is slightly concerned about their rejection of their faith, I suggest you have a look at a site called Tentmaker. I was there several months ago. This person is way more up on the scriptures than I am, and I share his views on the ultimate salvation of us all. > [@](#): > > _Coosa concludes_ > “Some atheists believe that Christians who have been educated about the theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it, yet ignore these facts in favor of religious creationism, are far more stupid and close-minded than those who are aware that such a theory exists, but have never had it adequately explained to them.” > > Is it any wonder that the two camps constantly butt heads? > \*\* Certainly, but I might add that there are very few Christians who feel the need to challenge the scientific evidence in order to justify their faith. Now I understand that in some parts of America, the possibility exists that literal Genesis creation is being pushed as part of the science curiculum. That is just absurd in my view and should be opposed by Christians. I can’t fathom that this would be an objective that Jesus had in mind, or has in mind now. Nice talkin to ya. ---
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/69 "2001-01-19T08:43:27Z")
Preview, Preview, Preview, dammit! Why can’t I remember that damn button is there? ☹ **Ben** : Hey, I remember reading CMKeller’s post, quite a long time ago, and thinking that it was a reasonable proposition. Definitely falls in the ‘unknowable’ category - how would we ever determine whether or not the universe is as old as it seems, or ‘created old’? And of course, it doesn’t really make any difference, does it? (Except for curiousity’s sake.) We still need to learn as much as we can about the universe and its natural laws in order to properly do whatever it is God intends us to do, and no theory designed by scientists that is consistent with the so-far known facts is ‘against God’ in any way, because he _intended_ for us learn these things. We have to deal with what God has given us. _shrug_ But, of course, it still leaves open the possibility, since God is ‘fooling us’ with this age thing, that he is also ‘fooling us’ with the 6000 year bit too, and everything was created _Last Thursday_. 🙂 **Ducky** , I thought the LBMB was defunct? Are they back in business? Okay, **grienspace** again: Once again I’d like to do a little ‘role reversal’ trick with something you said. Please do not take this as a personal attack of some kind - I am not directing this specifically at you, I am only using some of your statements to illustrate a point. > [@](#): > > I think anyone who believes that the universe and life as we know it occured without a divine hand is preposterous and presumptuous of their mass of neurons occupying 1400 cc’s or thereabouts. My version: “I think religion is an obsolete, silly superstition that any intelligent, objective, secure person would dismiss after only a cursory examination. Believing in magical, invisible spirits that supposedly created the entire universe and guides our daily lives is preposterous, and anyone who expects every one else to believe this and live their lives according to this imaginary ‘God’s’ rules is presumptuous of their alleged mental abilities.” I may not be doing a good job of this, but do you see how arrogant both versions are? Do you see why ‘fundies’ are so often attacked and denigrated by their opponents? Many of them have no problem with attempting to force the rest of the world to comply with their beliefs, but consider themselves ‘attacked’ when the contrary view is taken with the same fervency. It seems perfectly obvious to you that God exists and created the universe; it seems perfectly obvious to me that this is silly superstition left over from ‘caveman’ days, when humans had not yet learned about the physical nature of the universe. How will we ever come to a ‘meeting of the minds’? Or is one required? I do not mean to denigrate your beliefs, or those of anyone else here - you may be right and I may be wrong, and neither of us will know the truth until we die - at which point, from my perspective, it won’t matter anyway. 🙂 I feel that you are entitled to believe anything you want to, _as long as you don’t try to force me to agree with you, or live my life according to what YOU believe_. That seems to be the cause of the entire conflict between fundamentalists/creationists and ‘science’ - science is not a belief system, it is our most logical explanation of the observations we have made of our universe. Scientists are not attempting to force everyone else to accept unprovable beliefs and conform their lives to rules based on those beliefs. Scientists are simply saying “Hey, everybody, we noticed that every time you drop something, it falls to the ground. Try it yourself! It appears that there is some kind of attraction between the earth and anything above its surface. Now that we’ve noticed this, we need to give this ‘attractive force’ a name so we will all know what we are talking about - how about if we call it ‘gravity’?” So, my problem with fundamentalists/creationists is not what they believe - heck, you have the right to privacy of your own mind, and the right to associate with others who feel the same way, and so on. My problem is with their insistence that everyone else must think the same way, or at least act like they do. (Heh, remembered that Preview this time!) ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/70 "2001-01-19T17:18:29Z")
Well, now that you mention it, I dunno. I found this [http://www.leftbehind.com/messageboard.html](http://www.leftbehind.com/messageboard.html) by doing a Google search for “Left Behind Message Board”, so I suppose it’s possible it isn’t the same people. You have to register before you can look at the threads. I dunno, and I’m not interested enough to register and find out. It brought up this Google hit: > [@](#): > > …Phase Two of the Messageboard upgrade will take place soon…stay tuned! Your > friends at [leftbehind.com](http://leftbehind.com). … Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.45c. … > [http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true](http://www.leftbehind.com/cgi-ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true) Which leads to a “Page Not Found” with the [leftbehind.com](http://leftbehind.com) URL as “click on this and look for what you need”. Huh. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/71 "2001-01-19T17:33:19Z")
> [@](#): > > You have to register before you can look at the [LBMB] threads. And they require an email address, rejecting Hotmail and Yahoo! and presumably other free accounts. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/72 "2001-01-19T17:34:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > During that time, which I remember all too well, do you think that the aforementioned posters were bashed merely for their beliefs? It seems to me that, aside from the inevitable few who take pot shots regardless of the topic, these posters were taken to task more for their arrogance and debating tactics than for the beliefs they held. Jenkinsfan I remember less clearly, but FriendofGod I do remember _very_ well. He consistently returned to already refuted arguments, promised to get back to an issue which he would drop, and ignored other posters. In short, he debated very dishonestly. A recent example of this type of behavior comes from Wildest Bill. In a lengthy thread devoted to sex education, he was told many times and in detail just what the aims of sex education was, how it was carried out, and the results it got. Then, a couple weeks later he started his “What if the Liberals/Conservatives totally got their way” thread. In the OP he said that if liberals took over they would be “teaching free love and anal sex in school.” > > There are certainly some “evangelical evolutionists” on the board, and “evangelical atheists” as well. However, there are plenty of Christians of that stripe as well. The ones that present their viewpoints intelligently and argue honestly are never pilloried so far as I recall. The only posters I remember that were really jumped on were the ones that were issuing sweeping condemnations, or using dishonest debate tactics. Oh, yeah, no question about it, they were loud and irritating and that got them lots of attention in their GD threads. But my point is, there were a lot of us lurking and listening, and every time DavidB the Resident Rottweiler bit a big chunk out of Jenkinsfan’s leg, the rest of us all flinched and silently vowed never, ever to enter a religious debate thread, no matter who or what the OP was. At the time, there were maybe 7,000 registered posters, of whom maybe only 50 or so were regular participants in the GD religious threads. That means there were a lot of posters like me who, for whatever reason, were keeping a real low profile. And the same way that it’s only the Icky Factoid that sticks in your brain, it’s only the Horror Threads that we remember. I’m sure that there may have been some perfectly reasonable religious debates sponsored by Polycarp or somebody, but I sure can’t think of any, offhand. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/73 "2001-01-19T20:13:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > He consistently returned to already refuted arguments, promised to get back to an issue which he would drop, and ignored other posters. In short, he debated very dishonestly. The ones that present their viewpoints intelligently and argue honestly are never pilloried so far as I recall. The only posters I remember that were really jumped on were the ones that were issuing sweeping condemnations, or using dishonest debate tactics. > > **DITWD:** > You said that, “[Atheists] use unfair tactics, gang up on them, and demand they answer slews of questions designed to entrap, not educate.” To think that there is some sort of widespread anti-Cristian agenda is pure paranoia. > > Secondly, asking someone pointed questions that poke holes in their arguments is not a “trap.” If your arguments stand up to the questions then they may be valid. If they do not, you have a problem. If you post an assertion, you should be able to back it up. you seem to feel you are often put upon. Just because someone denies your point of view or capsizes your argument, that does not mean they are either anti-Christian or anti-DITWD. > ] See- you say that FoG and others were using 'dishonest debate tactics"- and i say that some of the attackers of FoG (& etc)were using dishonest debate tactics. If there is ony one “pro” debaters- and if you guys all ask him questions- how can one person respond to evryone to their satisfaction? And there is one type of poster, that asks some DOZENS of questions, many of them apparently rhetorical or off thread, and then complain loudly & constantly if every single one of these are not answered- immediately. It is NOT a dishonest debate tactic to ignore some questions- if that person is being deluged with queries, or if the questions appear rhetorical or off-topic. The dishonest debate tactic come sfrom those who are asking those questions- and demanding an answer or launching personal attacks. And I did not use the word 'atheists" that you inserted in front of my quote- I was using you folks here as an example, not refering to atheists in general. This board is certainly wieghed in favor of the atheists- but there is no “anti-christian agenda”. There is just far more of the “con” side than there is of the “pro” side, which lends to that “ganging up” thing i mentioned. Of course when someone posts an assertion they should be willing to back it up. Until & unles that “backing up” is also questioned, and so is that back up to the back up, and ad nauseum until we are so far off topic that no-one even remembers why we are there in the 1st place. Which, to some extent has happened here. And to you all. Since I have clarifed my position several times- i think that repeating the comment that I said: “if there is no other side to the debate, you can’t start a thread on it” is an “unfair debating technique”. I repeat myself- there was nothing wrong with starting this OP (except that it has been done SOOOO many times, and recently)- as the OP had no idea there would be no-one showing up for the “pro” side. But after a while- it became clear to everyone but you guys on the “con” side- that you were argueing with no-one. That is when the “debate” ended (actually, it never really started). AGAIN- starting a debate, without anyone for the other side- is OK. But making up what you THINK MIGHT be the arguement for the other side, when no-one shows up to debate it, and then shooting those “straw-men” full of holes- is specious. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2001, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/74 "2001-01-19T21:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*And there is one type of poster, that asks some DOZENS of questions, many of them apparently rhetorical or off thread, and then complain loudly & constantly if every single one of these are not answered- immediately. > > … > > Of course when someone posts an assertion they should be willing to back it up. \*\* Would you care to back up your assertion? When have people here deluged someone with dozens of irrelevant questions and then attacked them for not answering every single one of them? Can you provide even one example? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2001, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/75 "2001-01-20T13:26:57Z")
**Duck Duck Goose** said: > [@](#): > > Oh, yeah, no question about it, they were loud and irritating and that got them lots of attention in their GD threads. But my point is, there were a lot of us lurking and listening, and every time DavidB the Resident Rottweiler bit a big chunk out of Jenkinsfan’s leg, the rest of us all flinched and silently vowed never, ever to enter a religious debate thread, no matter who or what the OP was. And you didn’t post in the thread, why, exactly? What did I say that was wrong? I’d like to see some specific examples, please. It’s all well and good for you to criticize, but without examples, we really have nothing to go on. > [@](#): > > At the time, there were maybe 7,000 registered posters, of whom maybe only 50 or so were regular participants in the GD religious threads. That means there were a lot of posters like me who, for whatever reason, were keeping a real low profile. Yes, “for whatever reason.” We always have a lot more registered posters than actual regular participants. To imply, as you’ve done here, that they are in hiding because they’re afraid of us is simply ludicrous. **Danielinthewolvesden** said: > [@](#): > > See- you say that FoG and others were using 'dishonest debate tactics"- and i say that some of the attackers of FoG (& etc)were using dishonest debate tactics. And those tactics were what, specifically? > [@](#): > > If there is ony one “pro” debaters- and if you guys all ask him questions- how can one person respond to evryone to their satisfaction? I don’t think anybody can reasonably expect that in most cases. But it’s also not our fault if somebody comes in and makes 10 ridiculous statements, and then complains he doesn’t have time to answer the questions about all 10 of them. He made the statements, he should be prepared to back them up. > [@](#): > > And there is one type of poster, that asks some DOZENS of questions, many of them apparently rhetorical or off thread, and then complain loudly & constantly if every single one of these are not answered- immediately. Do you have an actual example of this? > [@](#): > > The dishonest debate tactic come sfrom those who are asking those questions- and demanding an answer or launching personal attacks. Again, do you have specific examples of this? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2001, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/76 "2001-01-20T16:29:26Z")
David, I cheerfully admit to having not a single shred of evidence to prove that you’re the resident Rottweiler, and that I spent last spring and summer watching you and some of the others take chunks out of various Fundie legs. Totally subjective and ignorant–I know, I know. I should be ashamed to be walking around in Great Debates with such an ugly briefcase. Chalk it up to a malfunction in my tinfoil hat. You gotta go with Reynolds Wrap–that cheap Kroger stuff don’t cut it. BTW, I did do a Search and discovered that JenkinsFan is still around, although he hasn’t started any more threads since 12/2, the “Does everyone have faith in something?” thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49136](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49136) His last post was 12/21 in the “Star of Bethlehem” thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51902](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51902). Maybe he’s just having ISP problems. Personally, I thought he sounded kinda burned out. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2001, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/77 "2001-01-20T17:01:57Z")
DDG: Nice of you to avoid the questions I actually asked, and act as if I asked different ones. Let’s review. I asked you: “And you didn’t post in the thread, why, exactly? What did I say that was wrong? I’d like to see some specific examples, please. It’s all well and good for you to criticize, but without examples, we really have nothing to go on.” You addressed none of this, but instead acted like I had asked you to prove that I was the resident rottweiler: > [@](#): > > David, I cheerfully admit to having not a single shred of evidence to prove that you’re the resident Rottweiler, and that I spent last spring and summer watching you and some of the others take chunks out of various Fundie legs. I never denied that I debated various Fundies, etc. I asked you to back up your claims that I did something wrong in how I handled those debates. Instead, you just reiterate your original claim in a rather sarcastic manner. Then you continue: > [@](#): > > Totally subjective and ignorant–I know, I know. You’ll get no disagreement there. Then I pointed out that “We always have a lot more registered posters than actual regular participants. To imply, as you’ve done here, that they are in hiding because they’re afraid of us is simply ludicrous.” This was in response to your general assertion that some Christians may be hiding somewhere because they’re afraid of us. Do you respond to that and admit how ridiculous your implication was? No. Instead you, for some reason, focus on Jenkinsfan and note: > [@](#): > > BTW, I did do a Search and discovered that JenkinsFan is still around, although he hasn’t started any more threads since 12/2, the “Does everyone have faith in something?” thread. > … > His last post was 12/21 in the “Star of Bethlehem” thread. > … > Maybe he’s just having ISP problems. Personally, I thought he sounded kinda burned out. So what, exactly, is your point? First, if it’s been a month since he’s posted, I don’t know that it’s correc to say he’s “still around,” but that aside, so what? Am I supposed to be upset because he said he’s “burned out”? Am I supposed to take it easy on people who promote ignorance at a site dedicated to fighting it just because one of them might “burn out”? How about answering the questions this time instead of another sarcastic non-response, 'kay? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2001, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/78 "2001-01-20T19:27:16Z")
Maybe you guys should take this over to the pit. ---
**Author:** ![dude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f19dbf/32.png) [@dude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/79 "2001-01-20T19:51:53Z")
Newton believed that God did exist BUT only intervened now and then, this fits in with both evolution theory and cosmic theory. More interesting questions are things like, if there is one god then why does he allow different religions ? I think a lot of the bible doesn’t make sense BUT other parts do, GOD is well, er, to be honest, VERY SMART, he isn’t going to give us a scientific layout of everything, he wants us to strive. The Bible and other religous works are supposed to be guides, not direct text books. If you take the idea of ‘do onto others as you would have done upon you’ and think about it then you will realise that its a HUGE concept and very hard to implement. Once we can do that then perhaps we can tackle other things. p.s. Newton eh, really smart and religous, born christmas day, god eh, he has a sense of humour, you gotta admit that. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2001, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000/80 "2001-01-21T15:01:33Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] grienspace said: > [@](#): > > Maybe you guys should take this over to the pit. Leave the moderating to the Moderators. * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fundamental-creationists/50000.md?page=5)