-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
I saw a Creationist face-to-face! OMG OMFG
- Thread starter mandangalo18
- Start date
I've debated with them a few times... Even drunk a few times, which is a real blast! Not many things beats seeing someone get beaten in a debate against a drunk man, hehe.
Which books do you usually get thrown at you? "The case for christ" is the most common in my case.
Which books do you usually get thrown at you? "The case for christ" is the most common in my case.
australopithecus
Active Member
I don't think I've ever met a YEC. My brother claims to believe in creationism, but I think he just does it to piss me off because he knows I'm and atheist and a science geek.
RestrictedAccess said:
I live in Georgia and the circumstances are pretty much the same. Luckily, many of my Christian friends accept evolution and the big bang (to some degree) saying "why can't god be behind them"? I'm so relieved they do not think the world is merely 6000 years old and we were not god's dust balloons that I don't push the matter.
DontHurtTheIntersect
New Member
I find it best to only engage in YEC's online. From my experience, exposure to their levels of stupidity can be hazardous to your intellect, even in short doses.
borrofburi
New Member
I top everyone because: I've met a Hovindist. Not just a normal run of the mill hovindist either, I met an evangelical "tried to convert me" hovindist who used comfort's "banana argument". I couldn't do anything though because the lady was giving me a haircut, and I honestly did not trust her integrity enough to cut my hair properly if I made my position clear and destroyed her arguments.
Not that I could have anyway, most of them were based on the flood, and I honestly am quite awful at geology. This is part of the reason I try to avoid debates in person (unless they focus on a narrow topic): they become nothing more than claims of knowledge, you can't really point to sources, so the YEC says "grand canyon is proof of the flood", and even if you happen to know all the reasons that's wrong, you just say "no it's not because of these" and the YEC says "you're wrong because these aren't really problems [or aren't there in reality at all]"... Both parties just claim they are right over and over again, you can't point to sources.
As for the actual story of how it happened: I go in, sit down for a haircut, she asks me what I was reading, I responded with "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, she asks "what's that about", I tell her it's sort of a history of science textbook with layman's science thrown in and that it's really light reading and really quite interesting, she shies up and says something about "not trusting those things" (I figured it was a creationist at this point, but it could have been an intelligent person not trusting lay-person's science), I ask "what do you mean?", she then talks about mainstream science, I say something like "science is the best system we have for understanding our world", she says she endorses "proper science", I then shut up because the lady is cutting my hair and I don't want a bad haircut, and she rambles on about "did you know that the grand canyon could have been formed in 3 minutes in a global flood" and "bananas", and other ridiculous stuff, the haircut ends and she says "you should really check out Dr. Kent Hovind, I think it'll be a real eye opener for you" I said "I'm familiar with his work, thank you" this pleases her, I pay and don't tip, and I leave.
In retrospect, I wish I had a better snappier response to "you should check out Hovind's work, it'll be a real eye opener" line.
Not that I could have anyway, most of them were based on the flood, and I honestly am quite awful at geology. This is part of the reason I try to avoid debates in person (unless they focus on a narrow topic): they become nothing more than claims of knowledge, you can't really point to sources, so the YEC says "grand canyon is proof of the flood", and even if you happen to know all the reasons that's wrong, you just say "no it's not because of these" and the YEC says "you're wrong because these aren't really problems [or aren't there in reality at all]"... Both parties just claim they are right over and over again, you can't point to sources.
As for the actual story of how it happened: I go in, sit down for a haircut, she asks me what I was reading, I responded with "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, she asks "what's that about", I tell her it's sort of a history of science textbook with layman's science thrown in and that it's really light reading and really quite interesting, she shies up and says something about "not trusting those things" (I figured it was a creationist at this point, but it could have been an intelligent person not trusting lay-person's science), I ask "what do you mean?", she then talks about mainstream science, I say something like "science is the best system we have for understanding our world", she says she endorses "proper science", I then shut up because the lady is cutting my hair and I don't want a bad haircut, and she rambles on about "did you know that the grand canyon could have been formed in 3 minutes in a global flood" and "bananas", and other ridiculous stuff, the haircut ends and she says "you should really check out Dr. Kent Hovind, I think it'll be a real eye opener for you" I said "I'm familiar with his work, thank you" this pleases her, I pay and don't tip, and I leave.
In retrospect, I wish I had a better snappier response to "you should check out Hovind's work, it'll be a real eye opener" line.
Err, my best friends for years (they're drifting away from me now) were YECs, both of them, and one (of 6) of good friends, three of them are still an unknown, I imagine they're likely creationists as well (so probably all total: 5 of 8 probable YEC). My good friends now are YECs (two of them), and 2 of them are unknown. I find that when I bring up the subject they get quiet and draw into themselves. I'm sure it's a mix of avoiding conflict and knowing that I'm simply going to win the "debate" that causes this (I'm good at debates and they know it). I think they also simply don't care enough: they hold on to YEC because their church tells them to, and if that's challenged then they have to go through all this effort to do research and actually hold a legitimate opinion. So ultimately, I think they know they can't defend their opinion, so they don't say anything, which I think is sort of an implicit demonstration that they know their opinion is nigh worthless (of course, that doesn't change them from voting on their nigh worthless opinions).theatheistguy said:
borrofburi
New Member
Huh. I have a problem: my "type" tends to only be found among girls who raised protestant, usually raised YEC. Unfortunately, if they're still protestant they don't think we can find any common ground, and most importantly, think that if there were any romantic relations between them and a not-christian they would be "in direct disobedience to God".Brunks said:
That book was rather instrumental in my deconversion: I went through as an honest not-a-liar-for-christ capable-of-critical-thinking really-good-at-debating person who wanted a logical way to demonstrate christ to people, so I read the book critically, seeing what arguments were acceptable in a debate and what weren't. I was sorely disappointed (for one, EVERY chapter ends with an emotional appeal).Sando said:
Icefire9atla
New Member
One of my teachers was a Creationist (don't know about YEC though). I tried to debate him but never really got the chance. His argument was basically "Life is just to complex to not have a creator". It was wierd since he taught at my Governor's School.
The funny thing is, when he asked the class how many of us beleived in evolution, most of us raised our hands. :lol:
The funny thing is, when he asked the class how many of us beleived in evolution, most of us raised our hands. :lol:
Icefire9atla said:
I once responded God is too amazing, complex, and wondrous to exist by chance. There must surely be yet a greater mind to create such a thing.' I ultimately argued that God exists in the 5th dimension and is a lesser god, that the higher gods exist within the 6th-10th dimensions, and that (FS)M is the true god of all gods, existing beyond the dimensions Man can even imagine, and that his 'noodley' appendages of 'his' divine form vibrate harmoniously as he sings, being the 'superstrings' that science has 'proven' bring everything into existence and form the not ionly the universe, but all the imaginable multiverse....
The idiots were left dumbfounded. Several Pastafarians, however,accused me of heresy...
Icefire9atla
New Member
I'm offended too! How can you doubt the ultimate supremacy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn! :x
JacobEvans
New Member
I love how we are nice enough to debate whether or not that man deserved to have a nice day! Especially when he more than likely thinks we're all evil people.
But if you think meeting that guy was bad, I am friends with someone who honest to science believes man RODE DINOSAURS. His favorite movie is Jurassic Park, and it is absolutely hilarious to hear his wacky explanation for his beliefs.
But if you think meeting that guy was bad, I am friends with someone who honest to science believes man RODE DINOSAURS. His favorite movie is Jurassic Park, and it is absolutely hilarious to hear his wacky explanation for his beliefs.