I Know Someone Who Defended Creationism Honestly

[lessevdoolbretsim]

Did you get that microphone out of a Crackerjacks box?

[wyattnolte]

Step 3: Make untold numbers of ridiculous youTube videos stating said ignorant opinion. Step 4: Ignore all information contrary to your position. Step 5: Be a humungeous ingnoramus. Step 6: die and no-one cares

[wyattnolte]

lawlz, please dude, just accept evolution and continue your mindless drifting through life as a retard, unaware of the facts stacked against you by serious, dedicated and methodical scientists. Avoid truth at all costs and defend "creationism" against all professional objections. It works well for me as a flat earther as such. Step 1: Ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary. Step 2: Align yourself to scientific nobodys.

[Friendough]

1. You were deceived.

2. Since you now believe that what you believed at the time was wrong, there must have been an error.

3. The error was your ability to believe in something that was false.

4. Deliberately arguing for something that is wrong can not be described as honest.

5. To deny the above statement is to say that honesty is worthless.

6. Deception makes honest people make dishonest arguments.

[JustAnotherMutant]

Please notice that potholer54 has canceled nominations when people have admitted that they were ignorant of the subject, or that they were incorrect on the subject.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@JustAnotherMutant But most honest people won't, as they won't know they were wrong.

[JustAnotherMutant]

ThePuppyTurtle, you did, as did others. I think the intellectually honest and curious will eventually get to that point. Of course that could just be my optimism speaking.

[Xgya2000]

Those videos were hilarious, given your current position and the arguments used in them.

Glad you took a turn in the right direction

[JoesephKatana]

Ok, and you call what you did before a "defense"? Would anyone without the necessary indoctrination find what you said convincing?

[KarlHeinzofWpg]

"Warning: The Following Video may provide evidence supporting thuths..."

Funny, that is the word you stumbled on.

Also note the assume conclusion contained in the entire sentence. "MAY provide evidence support THUTHS[sic]". It's as if you admit subconsciously that your evidence is shaky, it may or may not be there, yet you still can claim it leads towards some truth? As long as you may or may not have evidence, you can't have a conclusion any honest person would label "true" (pst, or thuth).

[AronRa]

Cite wherever you heard me make this challenge and pay attention to the clarifying conditions. Being unable to defend creationism honestly doesn't mean that you have to lie. You can either present a defense that is legitimately true, or you you can lie about it. If you don't lie, then you'll have the burden of having to produce something in defense of your position which is actually true. Creationism has no points like that, so it is not possible to defend it honestly.

[DiscipleTube1]

@AronRa

Now you're acting as though you're not being honest if you defend creationism because there is no evidence to defend such position? That doesn't fit your previous definition of a lie. Biological organisms may not evolve but your definitions certainly do.

[AronRa]

@DiscipleTube1 As I said, check where I originally made my challenge. I clarified the conditions then, and I stand by them now. Finding out that you were wrong -and accepting that- does mean that you did not lie, but how does that count as defending creationism? That would be failing to defend creationism.

[pat5168]

@AronRa Speaking of such, has anyone responded your challenge of Creationists selecting a nominee among themselves to debate you? Also, stevebee92653 said, referring to you "I've seen all of his stuff. He got flustered "debating" me after about five comments and blocked me. I don't blame him. He looked just as silly as you do for referring me to him. Do you need AronRa to do your thinking? You are showing severe symptoms of indoctrination. Sorry."

[AronRa]

@pat5168 To the best of my memory, apart from the many incarnations of Andy the taxi driver, I have not blocked anyone in years. Neither have I ever debated this Steve Bee, or I would have a record of that debate in public archives. He is a forgettable troll trying to make himself seem significant enough to be memorable.

[pat5168]

@AronRa I do agree on his insignificance, when I heard that someone denied evolution on scientific terms, that sparked my interest, but I lost it once I saw the content of his videos, and when I read his website. The only thing that seems to make him believable to creationists is his rhetorical skills and uninformed YouTube commentators who don't know what they're talking about yet seem to be representing his perspective of all of the evidence for evolution.

[AronRa]

@pat5168 The challenge was for creationists to nominate someone representative of their beliefs and encourage that person to debate me. But thus far they have not found any champion which any group of them would agree upon or endorse. Even if it did, the debate still wouldn't happen because I won't permit anyone to profit financially from our confrontation.

[pat5168]

@AronRa Another creationist under the guise of an intellectually sounding review of you and Thunderf00t's videos has also reached me, one of them was a dedicated 10 minute video of a misleading graph for Atheist statistics, but I stopped looking into his videos when I looked up a link he used as a "Peer reviewed scientific article supporting a global flood" but what it was was a Panspermia article on marine organisms reaching the moon, it in fact went into detail of why god was no explanation.

[pat5168]

@AronRa In fact I sent Equestions a message demonstrating why his source was dishonest and how one could only come to his conclusion if he only read the one sentence he highlighted and chose to ignore the rest, I said that it was dishonest on his part and misleading to the viewers so he should take it down, I haven't gotten a response back.

[pat5168]

@AronRa If you want to see for yourself how ironic his accusations were here's the link of the Panspermia Article: journalofcosmology(DOT)comSear­chForLife(SLASH)125(DOT)html And the video is called "Why doesn't anyone question Thunderf00t? (Part 1). If you want a good laugh watch the video first and then see what the article actually says, and then maybe see his 3 part series on yourself.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@pat5168 I Responded to that video in Creatards say the darnedest things 11

[happyjesus123]

@AronRa In the videos he mentioned ThePuppyTurtle is citing things that he believes to be true that he thinks support creationism; Noah was 12 ft tall; the Brown clown's hydroplate "theory", there was a water canopy around the earth. Although these things are ridiculous they were facts in his perception at the time. He was presenting things that he thought were "legitimately true" in defense of his position.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@happyjesus123 I'm not saying what I said in those vids was true, just that I believed it was at the time.

[KarlHeinzofWpg]

@happyjesus123 - "they were facts in his perception"

Defending a position dishonestly doesn't mean you have to out and out lie. It can also mean being unwilling to investigate or even acknowledge a contrary opinion. One creationist I debated would never lie, as far as I could tell, but whenever I raised a point which directly falsified his presupposition - he simply ignored it. Literally, he would go silent and then start a brand new train of thought. This is dishonest behavior.

[happyjesus123]

@KarlHeinzofWpg Good point. If PuppyTurtle had looked at the facts he would have realized his "evidence" was ridiculous. However, this may be sloppy thinking rather than dishonesty. Many people don't know how to research and tend to assume anything posted on the internet is true. 

[lautz73]

It's called willful ignorance. The evidence is presented to them and they refuse to accept it.

You were presented with the evidence and refused to accept it or to even check it out to see if it were true. You were willfully ignorant at the time.

[NinetytoFirst]

@lautz73 And still is, to be honest.

[emancoy]

I was a small child when I was a creationist, and children are the most honest people in the world. At least I can call myself back then as innocent rather than ignorant. LOL!

[lautz73]

@emancoy Really? Children are the most honest people in the world? I was lying to either protect myself or to get what I wanted as young as 6. Children often tell lies more often than adults.

[emancoy]

@lautz73 really? My parents keep teaching me that lying is bad, and I listened.

Maybe we have totally different upbringings

[lautz73]

@emancoy Yeah I was told the same thing but how many do you know of that lied while they were young? Just about every 1 that I have ever known had lied when they were little. I'm sure that you know quite a few as well.

[emancoy]

@lautz73 what thepuppyturtle is trying to say is that people (usually children or dumb adults) will say what they think is right not because they are really correct, but because its what they actually believe based on what was told to them as truths.

BTW Children are poor liars & a keen parent can catch their child lying if they pay enough attention to them & correct them immediately. Most parents do nothing to what ever reason.

[emancoy]

@lautz73 you can remember when you were 6 years old, now do you even lie to others regarding the topic of what you really believe to be true?

I know we will lie to get out of trouble, when I was 6 and my friends of the same age at that time, we all believed that Santa Claus was real. And we are not lying about what we believe, and anyone who says otherwise is the liar to us. And we are defending Santa Claus's existence honestly because we think he was real.

[Epydemic2020]

I was a creationist and I wasn't dishonest. Some of my family members still find themselves in that category.

[DiscipleTube1]

Thank You. This is exactly what my videos address. Why is it so hard for AronRa to concede this error? It does nothing to discredit evolution. It only discredits him because he keeps refusing to admit it. Have you seen our LOR thread? I would only have respect for him if he just conceded this obvious point. I'm no VFX or Neph.