Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sammi79
Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?
|
^This. "We want to seriously and open-mindedly debate."
No, Mr. creationist, you want that NOT. You want to sneak in through the backdoor where at the front door you got rejected.
To debate something seriously and openmindedly demands a.) an object deserving that, and b.) open mindedness of the talking sides. In case of religious believers, the latter must be put into question, since they do not want to allow getting convinced by evidence, proof or argument. They want to get away with strawman arguments of their own, hilarious claims and playacts by themselves, and ridiculous construction of their think tanks that claim to be "evidence".
Steve may call it politeness to play by these rules and endlessly discuss this Serious and open-minded. I call it avoiding the necessary confrontation, and a distorted sense of tolerance and a perverted desire for harmony where harmony is not justifiable.
Creationists come with something, which indeed i not just another repetition of the same old claims once again, and it gets tested in the scientific process, and if it stands the test - THEN we politely, seriously, open-mindedly discuss that proof and what it means for the established theories of how life emerged and unfolded on earth. Doing so without that proof given first - is appeasement.