Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 64597

Yes, I believe that the modern scientific community is heavily biased against creation and the only reason they refuse to debate creationists is because they're afraid of what they might learn - what they already know - that their theory is bankrupt. Every time I've seen a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist, the evolutionist always loses. At the beginning of the debate, the evolutionist has almost 100% support of the audience, but by the end of the debate, the creationist has a standing ovation, and there are about 2 people clapping for the evolutionist. THAT'S why evolutionists are afraid to debate us.

Queen Kira, Y! answers 66 Comments [8/3/2009 12:36:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 66
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
#1000037
Zoo

"the only reason they refuse to debate creationists is":

creationists never bring new evidence to the table, they never accept evidence they are offered, and when the scientist gives up in disgust or with the realization of wasted effort the creationists claim they win.

8/3/2009 12:44:11 PM
#1000041
Mister Spak

Then you haven't seen me debate creationists. They soon learn to keep their mouth shut when I'm in the room.
Bring it on, christianist!

8/3/2009 12:45:58 PM
#1000045
EllwyenDarwin

Oh yes,I'm terrified of the big bad creationist.

8/3/2009 12:48:04 PM
#1000053
BobsOldSocks

"Yes, I believe that the modern scientific community is heavily biased against creation..."

Because there is no evidence for creation. Science can only address natural processes, not religious beliefs.

"...the only reason they refuse to debate creationists is because they're afraid of what they might learn - what they already know - that their theory is bankrupt"

That's a lie.

"Every time I've seen a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist, the evolutionist always loses."

Then you haven't seen many debates or approached them fair-mindedly. Oh, and just so you know, scientific fact isn't decided by who gets the biggest round of applause.

"At the beginning of the debate, the evolutionist has almost 100% support of the audience, but by the end of the debate, the creationist has a standing ovation, and there are about 2 people clapping for the evolutionist. THAT'S why evolutionists are afraid to debate us."

What's that saying about playing chess with a pigeon?

8/3/2009 12:49:56 PM
#1000056
xplicit_UK

Argh!! Do you not understand that there is nothing to debate? Please, please, PLEASE, educate us. Please present your theory. Please tell us how it all works. Unfortunately creationism doesn't have any curriculum, any theory, any wisdom. We, I, would love to debate you, but we don't have anything to respond TO. Please tell us in more than three words (i.e. "God did it") how the Galapagos finches speciated. Please tell us how viruses adapt and mutate. Please tell us how Flavobacterium Sp. K172 developed to feed off Nylon. We're gagging for the creationist answers. You. Don't. Have. Any!

8/3/2009 12:51:08 PM
#1000057
shykid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

8/3/2009 12:51:19 PM
#1000064
EDreams

I saw this in a high school debate over here in the Bible Belt.

Even though the Christian had literally no arguments (only vague hypothetical statements) and the atheist bought all kinds of obscure philosophies and intelligent reasoning to the table, it ended with all but 3 students agreeing with the Christian.

When I asked why, one of the students could only say that the Christian debater made things "understandable". What does that tell you about debates?

8/3/2009 12:56:50 PM
#1000070
Eden

They might appear biased against creationism because they only take models serious for which there are evidence...
and for the ToE there is lots of evidence, whereas for young earth creationism we have lots of evidence that disproves it

;)

8/3/2009 1:00:43 PM
#1000072
atheist crusader

this should be fun, ive just openly offered queen kira a debate, cretionist wackjob v evolutionary scientist, no submision, 1 knock out to decide the winner.

i bet she chickens out like all the others ive offered debates too?????

8/3/2009 1:02:15 PM
#1000074
Swedish Pagan

My, my, we are delusional, aren't we. Most scientists have probably read about "the creation of the world" in religius studies in school, but it didn't "catch on" with them. They all said "bored now, give me my biology book back".

If the creationist just keeps saying "goddidit, goddidit", the sane person will eventually get tired of trying to explain reality, and go away. That does not mean that the creationist won, it just means he's too boring to stand for more than a few minutes.

'Popular' doesn't necessarily mean 'right'. Was Hitler right? No, certainly not (he was VERY poplular in Germany in the 1930's).
Is the "freedom to have sex with whatever consenting adult you want"-lobby right. Yes, of course they are, and they are rather popular among sane people.

8/3/2009 1:02:57 PM
#1000079
Blue J

So many things wrong here I don't know where to begin...so I'll just rant.

It is much easier to spout off subtly erroneous information than it is to analyze, research, and rebut said errors. All a creationist has to do is spout off nonsense, then his opponent either:

1. Does not have enough time to thoroughly correct all of the creationist's errors.
2. Has to give insubstantial rebuttals to each point.
3. Does not have background information to rebut obscure, fake bits of information.
or
4. The creationist's opponent is forced to ignore most of what the creationist says in order to present his own arguments.

At the end, all the creationist has to do is claim that his opponent hasn't addressed all of his claims, then claim that this means he won, and the audience (who is usually sympathetic to the creationist anyway) will usually agree.

8/3/2009 1:04:30 PM
#1000082
Clown

Fact: Average human can ask more than 60 questions in 3 minutes.

Fact: If question is easy and there are no false assumptions(read: lies) and logical fallacies in it, average expert can give decent reply in 3 minutes. Complex questions require more time.

Fact: Average debate (in front of live audience) lasts from 30 to 180 minutes.

Fact: Scientists usually aren't very good at speaking in front of crowds- their peers not included. (it's not the job requirement). Creationists usually are, because they take money for selling materials.

Fact: Average Jo never liked science in school.

Fact: Hollywood's view of science is twisted beyond repair (aka "Mad Scientist" clichee).
Fact: Percentage of Average Joe's(older than 18) watching tv= 99.9%

% of A. Joe's (older than 18) reading science books = 5% (generous assesment)

Not so compelling argument for your position, when you know these facts, right?

8/3/2009 1:05:40 PM
#1000091
John

Creationists don't offer evidence for creation. They can't, since they can neither prove the existence of a creator, explain how the creation was done, nor offer any method by which creation could be tested. They just offer arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps arguments against evolution.

There have been plenty of debates between creationists and scientists in courtrooms, where educated judges and lawyers can separate the BS from the legitimate arguments. The creationists have always lost.

8/3/2009 1:10:39 PM
#1000094
peabody

I would love to see a link to one of these debates where almost the entire audience is swayed towards creationism.

I would also like to see a creationism debate where the creationist doesn't simply spout off such an extreme amount of nonsense (I'm looking at you, Hovind) that the scientist simply doesn't have enough time to refute all of the ridiculous claims.

And how could someone be afraid to learn something that they already know? That doesn't make any sense.

8/3/2009 1:11:24 PM
#1000099
Horsefeathers

"Yes, I believe that the modern scientific community is heavily biased against creation and the only reason they refuse to debate creationists is because they're afraid of what they might learn - what they already know - that their theory is bankrupt."

Then why is the theory not only widely supported in the scientific community but so successfully employed in fields such as the pharmaceutical industry or agriculture?

For such a "bankrupt" theory it sure seems to have a lot going for it.

"Every time I've seen a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist, the evolutionist always loses."

I'm sure it appears that way to some. The main reason is that it takes a hell of a lot longer to explain something in a scientifically accurate manner than it does for the creationist to say, "Godidit!" and take his bow and get his round of applause.

Anyone not familiar with the topic, not well educated in the topic or simply not intellectually curious enough is going to be bored out of their skull as soon as the scientist begins using too many words that aren't monosyllable so they'll tune out. Sadly, for many people "Goddidit!" is an acceptable answer simply because they don't want to have to think about the question at hand nor listen to a detailed explanation for an answer.

"At the beginning of the debate, the evolutionist has almost 100% support of the audience, but by the end of the debate, the creationist has a standing ovation, and there are about 2 people clapping for the evolutionist."

See above.

"THAT'S why evolutionists are afraid to debate us."

They wont debate you, aside from the reasons above, because it's utterly pointless to do so. You keep repeating the same bullshit over and over anyway, no matter how often you're corrected, and the sheeple in the audience simply aren't interested in actual facts anyway.

8/3/2009 1:14:40 PM
#1000117


Well, given that such debates are often style over substance, I'm not surprised. Scientists are more concerned with truth and substance, so the creationist tends to "win" based on their style. However, when in court, where the substance is more often what matters, evolution wins out.

8/3/2009 1:30:14 PM
#1000119
BobsOldSocks

@Blue J:

And apparently it's a rare creationist who will engage in a written debate with an evolutionary scientist. I wonder why...

8/3/2009 1:33:36 PM
#1000126
Doctor Whom

Advocates of all sorts of New-Age woo have been known to "win" such "debates," too, and for the same reason: One side emotionally manipulates an ignorant and gullible audience, while the other side sticks to those silly old facts.

8/3/2009 1:38:54 PM
#1000134
Dr. Gus

Bankrupt? As far as I know there are plenty of research institutes and well funded universities (real ones), so no, science is not bankrupt.
Of course right wing nutters and fundies want to destroy everything resembling science and education, but we'll never allow it.

8/3/2009 1:42:32 PM
#1000135
atrasicarius


8/3/2009 1:43:24 PM
#1000142
Caustic Gnostic

Not "afraid", merely realist.

Gish, for example, fills the auditorium with mouth-breathers and spouts 20 lies per minute.

Why even play when the deck is stacked like that?

8/3/2009 1:47:24 PM
#1000150
Papabear

"Yes, I believe that the modern scientific community is heavily biased against creation"

Well DUH! We are also "heavily biased" against green trolls, flying pigs and Bob the builder's presidential campaign.

"the only reason they refuse to debate creationists is because they're afraid of what they might learn - what they already know - that their theory is bankrupt."

Some scientists DO debate creationatards.

Yeah, all we have logic and evidence while you creationists have big book of anicient fairy tales. What were we thinking?

"Every time I've seen a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist, the evolutionist always loses."

You just got through saying that no such debates happen, dipsh*t.

"At the beginning of the debate, the evolutionist has almost 100% support of the audience, but by the end of the debate, the creationist has a standing ovation, and there are about 2 people clapping for the evolutionist. THAT'S why evolutionists are afraid to debate us."

Uh, no, not unless we're in bizarro world.

8/3/2009 1:55:25 PM
#1000162
solomongrundy

Scientists don't debate creationists any more than nutritionists debate anorexics.

In each case one side is obviously correct, the other is clearly delusional.

8/3/2009 2:04:50 PM
#1000180
EvoPagan

B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T

Thou are full of it.

8/3/2009 2:21:09 PM
#1000186
awitch

"nd the only reason they refuse to debate creationists is because they're afraid of what they might learn"

No, we its because we STILL haven't stopped laughing at you.

8/3/2009 2:23:46 PM
1 2 3