if your saying creationists are that 100% false.
That would be distorting my conclusions, which I would strongly encourage you not to do.
There are many steps to mounting an argument. But all coherent arguments begin with a set of premises, which are the set of things that you assume to be true, from which you base the rest of your argument. Depending on the person, most Creationists, except those who allow for the co-existence of Creationism and Evolutionism, tend to make the following errors:
1) What you've quoted above, which means that I disagree with their
premises. Not quite the same as saying 100% false because you can make good arguments and also correct conclusions from false premises, but if these premises are held then scope for debate is limited.
2) Question-begging premises, i.e. "it's true because it's true, and therefore this argument proves it's true." Quite an easy trap to fall into if you're a religious person in a rational discussion because the first thing that people of faith must assume is the existence and properties of God. Proper evolutionists base their premises on fundamental mechanisms of life and ecology, which is widely backed by observation.
3) Contradictory arguments, often poorly avoided by equivocation. That God must be omniscient and omnipotent makes for a myriad of semantic issues over what God
can do and what god
did and why God
did what God did if God were wholly
benevolent. Then of course, this would bring me to...
4) Catch-alls and cop-outs, which are like the question begging premises except at the end, not the beginning. Once frustrated with arguments, one can always go back to reasserting that we can't possibly understand God but God did it anyway. And if you can accept this, that's actually fine.
Unlike many so-called evolutionists, I don't wish to impinge on religious peoples' right to practice their belief, but like many people I would also like to have my rights to my own beliefs respected. In this case I favor theories of evolution and do not favor Creationist myth (I mean this to describe the nature of the story, not to say that it is a 'lie'
, because as far as I can tell, theories of evolution give me a much more powerful explanation on that which I observe, and it's useful to me in my profession and the way I deal with people. People from different backgrounds can't possibly expect me to throw these away and adopt something on the grounds of an experience that I have no clue about, when they have no clue about my own.
And that, on a tangential note, is why arguing on the internet is often useless.
In fact the world is headed for a point of deception and tribulation, great deception and tribulation (not to be a doomsayer :S)
This would be sophistry, specifically using fear tactics to attempt to gain a rhetorical foothold. I
especially strongly discourage anybody from doing this on the forums for two reasons.
1) It brands you politically, and once this happens you're generally locked into a useless, acrimonious battle of egos or mud-flinging between the Religious and Atheists, Liberals and Conservatives, Reds and Blues, Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, or what have you.
2) It completely undermines any rationality you may have been credited with, which means nobody with serious intent to discussion is going to want to listen to you anymore.
And never
ever say "but it's true!" as the opening to your counter-rebuttal, because that is instant death.
