It would seem your opponent in the good old creationism/evolution debate has gotten a litt

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

> It would seem your opponent in the good old creationism/evolution > debate has gotten a little hot under the collar. How entertaining. However, > a veteran of many such arguments, I would like to suggest a tactic really > infuriate your theistic opponent. Shift the burden of proof to him. > An erroneous presumption on the part of most theists is that they are > exempt from being forced to prove their side of the argument. They simply > look for potential flaws or shortcomings in the evolution argument and > arbitrarily assume that their side is correct by default. > It usually comes as a surprise when one challenges them to prove > their side. In order to prove creationism, they must be able to prove the > existance of their deity through the same rational format that they demand > of their opponents. I have yet to find a Christian who can even offer a > rational definition of his god. > An excellent book for use in challenging the theistic arguments is: > ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD > 1979 by George H. Smith > Prometheus Books. > Library of Congress # 79-2726 > Hope You Enjoy, > Cliff Fleming I'm not sure this would be appropriate, since the creationist lobby is emphatic that their crusade has nothing to do with religion. Those of us who have actually looked at it long and hard know better, but this is the claim. Tee hee. A more effective approach, and one that has been conveniently ignored by EVERY single creationist to wander through here before being punted on, is to ask the creationists to ->define<- the "theory" of creation science. In all the years I've been in and out of this group, there has never been such a theory presented. If, God willing :-), any creationist were to present one, it would have to eventually be based on sudden creation of everything a few thousand years ago by the deity of one's choice. Once this is established, there is no point going further. The proper response is that this "theory" is a religious belief, and while it is perfectly acceptable as religion, it does not qualify as science and is disqualified from consideration as a scientific alternative. Period. While I find Smith's arguments useful for torturing various flavors of Bible believers, they don't belong here. Try alt.atheism. R. Day Member, Alberta Skeptics ... the pit bull of skepticism ...

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank