The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Anticreationist debate tactics

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Nobel prize

Why was that section removed? [ Talk] 06:07, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Here is what was removed:

Ready to win the Nobel Peace Prize? [Anticreationists] often like to use this comment in a mocking manner because they have no good debate with the subject at hand. They are also implying that if the creationist could prove what he just said, he would win the prize as well. A good response is to say that if they could prove evolution to be a fact, they too could win the same prize. But no one has.

This is used quite often. I had it used on me about a week or two ago. And I saw where another creationist had this used, and actually referred back to this article when this happened. Which made the evolutionist shut up because he knew his game was exposed.[ Talk] 06:34, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Gathering Nobel Peace Prize examples if anyone has some.[ Talk] 03:39, 17 December 2007 (EST)

The section was removed as part of a clean-up. While reinstating the section may be possible (following reasonable justification), you are not permitted to do so. Reversing administrative actions is considered vandalism.
While providing said justification, please explain how it pertains to "evolution" semantics (the section you placed it under).

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)

O, sorry. I will remove if it has not already been removed.[ Talk] 09:12, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Where I learned all this

Some of you may wonder where I learned all this. I started out debating on the largest Christian forum on the net. And watch it go from being a real nice ministry to one that is very hateful. I debated there for 3 years. Then I decided to set up my own site and forum. The site is still active, but I shut down the forum because it became to much of a hassle to run with me and one other person running it. I still have the forum, it is just shut down. I learned a lot running it and ran into all types of hate mongers.

Then I went on to help another creationist (Fred Williams) run his forum. And because he has several people helping, it was not stressing me out so. So that is where I am at now. I have been there for about 2 years. I also do research on the evolutionist hate sites and forums to get the inside view. So total I have about 7 years of debating. For 2 years I did it on a every day bases for several hours a day. I became so good at it I would be debating them 10-1. Problem was, winning the debate is not important. winning souls for Christ is. I was putting all this effort, and was basically not getting much in return. I kept two people from falling prey to evolution. And brought one person to Christ. I wanted to be more effective.

It was not the debate technique, it was who I was debating. You cannot win someone to Christ who was never interested in the first place. That is basically what most anticreationist are. They are not interested in Christ, only in destruction of Christ. So my goal was to weed out those who are not interested so my time is not wasted. And that page is what I have learned about weeding them out.[ Talk] 17:32, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

You should add some of this to your User page. --Tony Sommer 19:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

More examples

If anyone has an example of a tactic they would liked addressed, you can list it here and if I can, I will address it. And then add it to the article. Because there are so many different tactics used, it is hard to remember them all. So if there are any I missed, just let me know.[ Talk] 05:24, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Some Comments

This is a great page you have created Ikester. A lot of the points about the foundations of evolution (abiogenesis, etc) were as if you were reading my mind. I agree with you! This is a great page for the beginner at creation science debate because it goes over classic examples very prevelant even today that evolutionists use.

TRUST ME, from the forums I have visited almost every one of these arguments have been used against me. The trick is to continually force the point gently, sooner or later they will have to give you some room or abandon their position, or call you names which is mostly what I dealt with. Either way the Christian can come off looking confident and rational. --Tony Sommer 18:48, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

It was a bunch of hard knocks I went through to learn all this. But I offer what I learned to lessen someone else's grief in dealing with these issues.[ Talk] 02:38, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Added a new section

The section is to show the extreme hate of the anticreationist. The reason it needs to be shown is two fold.

  1. Evil does not like to be exposed to the light. And those who these antocreationist target need to know what is brewing on the internet concerning them.
  2. So the creationist debaters can determine whether they are debating someone who thinks like this. So they do not waste their time.

But because this is extreme. I would not blame you for deleting it. But, will we be bold and expose this type of hate? I help run a creation forum with Fred Williams. He believes in exposing stuff like this to his members so they don't go at debating hateful people in the dark (not knowing). I also put this on my site to expose this as well. And I also put this on another Christian forum named: Who agreed as well that people need to know this.

If you think this type of thing needs a page to itself. I can do that as well. I have enough sites and links to fill a whole page to expose the hate that is currently brewing on the internet. I hope this is considered before making a decision on whether to leave it or delete it.[ Talk] 05:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I know what the antocreationist are wondering as they read that page

How did he get all that information about us? Has he been spying on us? Yes, and no. You all basically think the same because you all have the same goal. So it's not hard putting things together and coming up with all this. Plus some a brazen enough to post how they do things right on their forums. I laugh when I see that. Their so wanting to boast about what they just did to a creationist on another forum, they just blurt it out. Pride before the fall.[ Talk] 23:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

What I was actually thinking about, was I've never done that, with occasional instances of No, that's wrong. One specific instance of the latter is in your table of differences between creationism and evolution, where you claim that evolution theory includes both Marine life first and Land animals before marine animals. Roy 10:26, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I think this contributor (Ikester) has left CW, and any site is the better for his departure. Concur with Roy. I was also wondering why someone who's trying to sound intellectually superior would misspell "anti."-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 13:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

If the misspell of anti is the best you can do, it just makes me laugh. In fact that is one of the tactics always used. If you can't defeat then with evolution logic, then attack their spelling. What a weak theory.[ Talk] 08:15, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Brilliant page , just one (very) small issue

This is a great page and it contains much truth, but I think the page would even be better if you added examples of this happening in forums. Like when you talk about anti-creationists working under a false world view. I think examples would reinforce the message. --Nlawrence 12:22, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I can easily find examples. It happens all the time. Do you want me to take screen shots and upload the images here?

-- RichardTTalk 12:30, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. Screenshots are good to preserve the message just incase the site moves, but we should always remember source it as well so we can prove that it is real. --Tom Major 13:25, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I could find some examples too. I regularly debate of MySpace forums. Let's get to work.--Nlawrence 15:52, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I actually have pics of examples. But I think it should be approved by Ashcraft first because of copyright issues.[ Talk] 00:22, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't have any problems with you guys adding those examples. Just make sure that no copyrights are being broken.[ Talk] 01:19, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I think for the example to be really effective, it needs to be a well known forum, and also it needs to be an established user in that forum. Otherwise they could say that someone crept in unnoticed ;-), if you know what I mean. --Tom Major 01:38, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
I'd particularly like to see an example of this:
Side note: The lurkers and the posting anticreationist work as a team. This is why they often come up with good quick answers. Between the lurkers communicating with the anticreationist poster, you are probably debating 10 or more people at one time, but one is responding for all of them. About the only time some of the lurkers will join is when the anticreationist poster is not doing so well in debating the creationist. They join because in their minds a creationist can never out do an evolutionist. They will even lie to make sure of that.
as in some 20+ years of being involved in refuting creationism I've never seen it happen. I've never been part of a background group assisting someone else, and I've never had 10+ people assisting me in any exchange. It simply isn't necessary. I'd particularly like an example of an evolution supporter who will lie to make sure that a creationist loses a debate. Also, an example of this:
6) I did not say that! When a current live debate (both parties are online) is going on, the anticreationist likes to say things to make the creationist mad (things bad enough to get banned over). As long as the mods are not around to see it, the anticreationist can change his words after the creationist responds to them and then go on to claim he never said that. This is why it is important to quote the anticreationist comments in the creationist post. He can edit and change his own posts, but he cannot change or edit yours. Quoting is like taking a snap shot of what was said, so if he claims he did not say it, you will have evidence that he did.
would be useful, since I've never seen this happen either. Maybe I only frequent the fora with responsible evolution advocates. Roy 09:34, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
I have debated 10 or more at a time. And in fact I have been called every name in the book by like 6 people on a forum at the same time just because I debate from a position that takes the Bible as a presupposition. What they do when they call me every name in the book is lie about my character to smear me and make me discredited in their mind. It happens all the time, they lie to make sure the creationist loses the debate.
As far as the evolutionist changing words that he wrote to say he didn't say something, it happens ALL THE TIME and has happened to me many times on numerous atheist network boards, etc. Not only that but they EDIT MY OWN POSTS as well many time at these places. It happens all the time. --Tony Sommer 13:24, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
No examples? Roy 05:55, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Just my word, since I don't archive all my convos over the past 3 years dealing with message boards. I dealt with it, the content should stay is my feeling. --Tony Sommer 13:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Can't believe this

I left this link Christian forums. It goes to a thread where someone renounces YEC, and eventually renounces God as well by becoming an x-christian. I'm very familiar with this thread because it makes me sad to read it. But what I cannot believe is that someone edited out all the Christians who tried to warn this person about making that change. They also edited out all the Christian bashing that went on in that thread when anyone did try to warn this person. Who ever edited the thread more or less now makes it look like that this person did the right thing. And that all YECs are stupid. It always amazes how far the anticreationists will go to promote what they believe, and cover up their tracks along the way. All this does to those of us who know what they do, is solidify our belief because they keep using deceptions and lies to make their points.

I'd like to see a anticreationist explain to me how this is scientific in promoting their cause. because the more unscientific actions I see like this, that is done. Convinces me more everyday that evolution is a cult bread from Satan himself. If evolution is true, why do they hide so much stuff?[ Talk] 05:05, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Be careful what you wish for. You might just be getting it, and sooner than you think.--TemlakosTalk 09:48, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

What is that supposed to mean, what did I wish for?[ Talk] 05:33, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

You wished for an anticreationist to explain how some aspect of his position was scientific. And until recently, you got it--right here on CreationWiki. I say "until recently" because that person, who shall remain nameless and link-less here, got himself blocked.--TemlakosTalk 12:05, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Most have missed that, it would have been an interesting read if it was not the usual evo-bable.[ Talk] 10:44, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Incorrect characterization...

...among a bunch of spelling/grammar errors, some of the characterizations here are erroneous. Expelled isn't anti-anti-creation (what the deuce does that even mean?), it's pro-intelligent design, which the Discovery Institute still claims is not creationism. Do you concede, now, that intelligent design is creationism?-AmesG 11:27, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't so concede, because they at the Discovery Institute still make the distinction, and I'm not qualified to speak for them. When I speak of the "Intelligent Design" movement, I speak of a group of scientists who say only that the universe, and life, give evidence of intelligent design--and totally avoid any consideration of Who did the designing.
Regarding Ben Stein's Expelled: have you viewed that film? Do you speak from actual experience, or from someone else's review of it? My impression of that film is that it refers to the "expulsion" from academic circles of any criticism of the theory of evolution. If you have a different impression, I'd like to know where it came from.
What other characterizations do you quarrel with?--TemlakosTalk 11:37, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

They're referring specifically to Intelligent Design. Look to their site. It's not creationism, as you contend, but your site's article seems to suggest that it is creationism.-AmesG 12:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

You must not be watching the same trailers I watched. Ben Stein clearly shows that the issue goes far beyond Intelligent Design--because the evolutionists are very much afraid of its implications. Stein's interview subjects, brazen (or naive) as they are, make very clear that the evolutionists will allow no questioning of their cherished theory--whether such questioning calls itself Intelligent Design or creationism. Of course, those subjects, like you, see no distinction between the two. Perhaps your bias has led you to make a distinction without a difference.--TemlakosTalk 13:05, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Please remember that this article is largely the result of ones persons work and need not reflect the views of CreationWiki as a whole.

As for actually commenting on the article, I think the guy is right. ID isn't creationism. We should change it.--Nlawrence 13:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, let's roll.--TemlakosTalk 14:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Lawrence!-AmesG 15:23, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

We need to check external links on this article every so often

Evolutionist like to change what the external links go to that come from any creation website or forum. This is because they can never own up to what they do. So they hide it. So as we find links that they change, we need to use this as another example in the article of how evolutionists do what they do. But when exposed they run and hide. They already changed the one that goes to a atheist site about an article on the BBC. They redirect it to their home page. But they will also change things back just so they can try to make liars out of us. So we have to watch for that as well.[ Talk] 04:44, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Terminology Change: Creation Deniers

Just some thoughts: The term global warming deniers" has come into vouge and evokes comparison to holocaust deniers. While I am not nearly as concerned about global warming (except the global warming warned about in 2 PE 3:10:

2 PE 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.)

We might take a play from the secular huminst's playbook. Let's call a spade a spade: They are Creation Deniers. Creation is a fact, and creation deniers are beneath demons.

JAS 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

That is my $0.02. Hope you consider it. Stephen Talk 11:13, 16 December 2007 (EST)


How would you respond to some who claims, for instance, "Faraday, Newton and Maxwell were all Christians because they had not come across Darwin's theory of evolution. If they had, none of them would have believed in Jesus." CelticCreationist 13:45, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Faraday and Maxwell DID come across evolution. Darwin, Faraday, and Maxwell all lived at the same time.--Nlawrence 13:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I think the Isaac Newton quotes sum things up pretty well. His arguments still stand against Darwinism. --Zephyr Axiom 14:23, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Move /Split etc.

Maybe this article should be split into sub-articles with a main page, WP-style for ease of navigation /editing. I would also like to start an article/section concerning the "Information warriors handbook" on a website called RationalWiki, and add it to the section on atheists infiltrating Christian forums.Torus 08:57, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

Some much needed revisions

I'd like to make some major changes to this article over the next few weeks. As the cleanup note at the top of article points out, this page does not meet the creation wiki quality standards. I'm thinking specifically about the conversational language and the poor summaries of anticreationist arguments. I'd also like to remove all the sections/references dealing with online message board debates. This article should focus on debate tactics employed by the well known evolution apologists (Dawkins, Shermer, etc.) Online message board discussions are of little importance. Cameron E. 03:53 am, 04 December 2008 (PDT)

I see what you're doing. You seek to write an article that examines critically, and weakens, the arguments that those evolution apologists commonly make. I have to admit—this article is far more informative than what we had in this space before. If anyone is going to spar with the evolutionists on OriginsTalk or wherever, we need an article that offers such critical analysis, so that we can offer good counterarguments for the benefit of anyone who "watches from the sidelines."
For everyone's information, if you want to know about "tactics" (i.e. techniques) in a general sense, I cover that already in my article on propaganda.--TemlakosTalk 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Per your comments, I think I may change the title of the article to "Popular Evolution Apologist Arguments." Let me know what you think.

--Cameron E. 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good title. Tell you what, though: check with Mr. Ashcraft before you make the move. Tell him I referred you.--TemlakosTalk 14:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Content viewed as secondary to the main purpose of an article should be moved to a new page rather than just deleted.
The current title seems to better reflect the page content. Evolution arguments would be both those fore evolution and against the creation POV. This page is more about attacks of creation or creationists rather than defending (apologetics) evolution. However, "methods" is more diplomatic than "tactics".
How about Anticreation methodology ?

--Ashcraft - (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll move secondary content instead of deleting it, thanks for the heads up. I originally thought "tactics" in the title was a little too broad, as Temlakos said earlier. But, your point that the arguments are geared towards refuting creation and not defending evolution makes sense. I'll leave the title alone and continue editing the article. That is, unless you think Anticreation methodology would be more appropriate.

--Cameron E. 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to remove the cleanup tag?

This article has been nearly rewritten. The language is no longer conversational, every section has proper citations, and much information has been added. Can we remove the cleanup tag at the top of the article? --Cameron E. 11:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll vouch for that. And it looks great. Let's see what Mr. Ashcraft has to say.--TemlakosTalk 12:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)