Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Skeptical tactic for shutting down debates

For some evolutionists, ‘ignorance is bliss’

by and

Published: 14 October 2014 (GMT+10)
iStockphoto not-listening

A main prerequisite for reasonable debate between two people who disagree with each other is to interact with one another’s ideas. But what happens when one person refuses to listen to another’s views or dismisses one whole side of the argument a priori sometimes purely based on ridicule? Ironically, much of the ridicule is based upon ignorance because they simply refuse to look at creationist materials to see what they say.

For example, many of CMI’s speakers will have experienced the following situation that occurred with one of the authors of this article (by ). And hopefully, this example will help others who experience similar situations.

During a ministry trip to South Africa some years ago a student group invited me to speak at a major (secular) university about the UFO phenomenon. This subject matter always draws a large crowd and it is a subject that even most evolutionists (like the rest of the general population) would not know much about. Thus it has an intrigue factor.

Ridicule based on ignorance is hardly an objective form of scientific debate or reasoning.

At the end of the talk I answered the usual Creation Answers Book type questions. And as we packed up and made our way towards our vehicle, two young men followed me and continued to ask questions, which I attempted to answer. As they were both physics students, the questions related to the alleged ‘big bang’ origin of the universe, and how could we see distant starlight from millions of light years away if we believed the universe was only thousands of years old. As often happens, each time I attempted to answer a question, they rarely let me finish and kept moving on to another question—it’s like getting a volley from a machine gun. In reality, this demonstrates that they are not actually interested in hearing the answers. So, I usually refuse to answer more questions and play their game (see Anyone for tennis?). I said (or words to this effect):

“If you are asking me questions and are really interested in the answers, then why don’t you listen to them? In fact, every question you have asked has been answered multiple times. We have answers! Creationists now have come up with some good cosmological models to answer your questions, and moreover, the big bang has its own light travel problem called the horizon problem. But, it appears that you are not interested in hearing my answers, so why don’t you go to creation.com, do a search and read this stuff for yourself.”

They responded with a rather condescending snigger:

“Why would we go to a creationist website for answers?”

Aha, now the real heart of the matter has been revealed, which I seized upon. I highlighted to them that they were in no position to criticize creationist views or beliefs if they chose to be entirely ignorant of them. They were rejecting and ridiculing one whole side of the argument—not based upon any poor scientific reasoning—but on a philosophical basis, or a faith position. Moreover, I stated that ridicule based on ignorance is hardly an objective form of scientific debate or reasoning.

They were taken aback a bit, as most aggressive evolutionists are used to ‘beating up’ on timid Christians who get flustered when trying to provide a single answer against a volley of arguments. As such, no information gets effectively transmitted.

Picking up on their excuse not to listen to creation arguments, like Paul at Athens in Acts 17, I said that they must be men of faith and that they were just as religious as I was. Also, that their underlying agenda was to shut down any arguments for the existence of God. I said:

“If you refuse to hear any contrary information that challenges your belief system, then it is clear that you don’t want there to be a God, and therefore I am wasting my time talking to you.”

Now, some might think this is a bit strong, but it was a tactical move to challenge them to read creation information, and we know from experience that many of us came to Christ from being exposed to this information. And so what if they did not take up the challenge anyway? Nothing would be lost because they had already admitted they wouldn’t seek out the information. But there is a faint hope that I had put a dent in their confident worldview.

In short:

  • I did not allow myself to be bullied.
  • I refused to play by their rules and refused to continue unless they agreed to listen to my answers.
  • I highlighted their own ignorance and challenged them to be more informed.

Sometimes it works!

But what followed next was a pleasant surprise. A few days later at an evening midweek meeting I saw one of the young men. He had just sat through a whole creation relevance talk, and this was not in some university lecture hall. He had sought out where I was speaking next, and this young self professed atheist had come to church!

At the end of the talk he had more robust questions for me, which was fine, because now he was going to listen (questions are actually an opportunity—providing the answers are listened to). So rather than having to deal with me again (thus allowing him to have some wiggle room if he needed to retract some of his allegations), I asked our South african Ph.D. speaker, Dr Johan Kruger, to spend time with him.

We don’t always get to see or hear the results of our challenges, but this was proof, at least in one case, that my challenges had caused one young man to rethink his own position.

As Christian creationists, we often get anxious to share the vast amounts of information we have. But we need to face the reality that some will not listen and are not interested in listening despite our best efforts. This is not our problem. After all, none of us can save someone. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. The Lord Jesus advised on how to deal with such situations. In Mark 6:11 He said:

“And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.”

Are creationists dishonest?

There are other excuses that some evolutionists use in refusing to engage with the information. For instance, some accuse creationists of doing dishonest research. But if they haven’t engaged with it, how can they say it is dishonest? In fact, biblical creationists have a worldview which condemns dishonesty, so we would not be acting consistently with our own belief system. That doesn’t mean it never happens, but mainstream creationists would not tolerate known hoaxes perpetrated for the cause of creation. In fact, the creationist community has been good at cleaning house somewhat. That’s why we publish articles like Arguments Creationists Should Not Use to help creationists avoid outdated or wrong arguments. We believe that there is so much good evidence for creation that it is not necessary to use weak or outdated arguments, and the wealth of good creation information is growing all the time. On the other hand, evolutionists are on record saying that it is fine to tell false evolutionary stories to students, because it reinforces the idea of evolution in their young minds. And over a century after Haeckel’s embryo drawings were exposed as forgeries, they are still appearing in textbooks as evidence for evolution.

Even if creationists were being dishonest, that would not be a reason to refuse to engage creation materials. Rather, intellectually honest evolutionists should want to refute them all the more, particularly if our arguments represented bad science. And really, if evolutionists thought they could easily debunk creationists, surely that approach would be more convincing for onlookers.

Willful ignorance

In reality, it is necessary to understand both sides of a debate to have an informed view on an issue. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” What we are taught growing up is what we will believe automatically, so with hours upon hours of evolutionary indoctrination in schools, movies, and other media, it is no wonder that evolution seems so self-evidently true. But by shutting out all other alternate explanations, one never has to have that belief challenged. But at CMI, all of our scientists gained their degrees in the same evolution-soaked establishments as their evolutionary counterparts. So, we’d like to think we are informed as to both sides of the arguments.

Laypeople who believe evolution more often than not only have a caricatured understanding of what evolution actually teaches.

The history of science is filled with accounts of the majority opinion being wrong. Geocentrism, taught not by the Bible but by Aristotelian philosophy, was preserved with layers upon layers of epicycles, much like modern evolutionary cosmology is preserved with ‘fudge factors’ like dark matter and energy. At the turn of the 20th century, eugenics was a favoured view which led to the involuntary sterilization of thousands of Americans, but it only grew to its terrible but logical conclusion in Nazi Germany.

Engaging in this sort of willful ignorance shows that one is not concerned about the truth, or about having a dialogue. The Bible actually calls this a form of sin. Peter says, “They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation’. For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and the destruction of the ungodly.”

Peter’s opponents have a form of uniformitarianism, although not the same as the geologists of today. They do not believe that Jesus will come back because the pattern, as far back as they can see, is that things proceed the same way. But Peter says they are willfully ignorant of the big discontinuities of history. Things haven’t always proceeded the same way—God created the earth, so all of these things had a beginning. And then God deluged the whole earth, providing a second great discontinuity. Peter says that this is so obvious that ignorance about it is willful and sinful. Furthermore, these great discontinuities are evidence for the future judgment and destruction of the current order of things—which these scoffers should beware.

Creation=religion, Evolution=science?

Another reason some refuse to engage creation is that they believe creation is based in religion, while evolution is based in science. But both creationists and evolutionists define their position about what they believe happened in the past—and the past is outside the realm of scientific experimentation. We can look at the physical evidence of what happened in the past, like rocks and fossils and light from stars, but all we can test is what we’re left with in the present. No one can go back to when those things were formed.

In fact, many creationists are Ph.D. scientists, who received their degrees in secular universities, and who have made real contributions to their field. To name just a few examples, geneticist Dr John Sanford is the inventor of the biolistic gene gun. Dr John Hartnett helped develop the technology that is used in super-precise clocks that would only gain or lose a second after tens of millions of years. Such clocks make work on the International Space Station possible. Dr Raymond Damadian made discoveries that made the MRI possible.

In reality, both creation and evolution are in the realm of historical science—that is, scientists on both sides are interpreting the same evidence—fossils, rock layers, light from distant stars and so on—to try to figure out what happened in the past. But there are foundational assumptions that go into that. Creation and evolution are two assumptions about past events that shape how we view the evidence. This distinction is also recognized by evolutionary scientists like Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson.

Evolutionists have the scientific consensus on their side, but remember—it took a long time for scientific consensus to agree that it was a good idea for a doctor to wash hands between patients. Also, evolution as a process has a consensus, but when you get into the details about what the process actually looks like, there is a surprising amount of disagreement.

Even more than that, laypeople who believe evolution more often than not only have a caricatured understanding of what evolution actually teaches. More than once we have had high school students display shocking ignorance of evolution, but presume to be able to insult Ph.D. scientists who disagree with the current dogma about evolution. This reinforces the point made earlier about ridicule based upon ignorance.

Leave the Bible out of it?

Others claim to be willing to debate the science behind creation, but demand that creationists leave the Bible out of it. But the Bible is foundational to biblical creation (as the name would suggest). And evolutionists would presumably be unwilling to debate the evidence without recourse to their own unifying narrative. However, one could use the evolutionist’s own uniformitarian belief system to falsify their own beliefs. For example, see 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe or the RATE team’s research that revealed carbon 14 in artefacts that were supposed to be millions or billions of years in age.

We regularly receive correspondence from Christians distraught over their failed attempts to show people evidence for creation. This can be particularly difficult if the person is a loved one or close friend. However, if someone shows repeated resistance to hearing about the truth, it may be better to challenge them upfront as to their own religious biases, which, as shown in the anecdote above, can shock people into actually listening.

The main thing a person should do before engaging in any form of debate anyway, is to be sure that you are confident and informed of your own position. It is a shame that we get email from Christians trolling atheistic website who come to us expressing a shaky faith because of what they’ve read. The answers to the usual evolutionary arguments are on creation.com. Please consider that CMI exists to equip you in this way and as a faith funded ministry we can only do so with support.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

D. C.
Interesting debate: For some evolutionists, ‘ignorance is bliss’ and for some creationists, ‘ignorance is bliss’.

I am a devout sceptic and I love entering the creationist debate with my Christian friends.

On average within 30 secs both parties involved in these debates become intentionally critical of the other and no longer want to listen to opinions that are not similar to their own. Then the debate enters phase two: a loop of supposed facts, that sound as though they have been copied and pasted from questionable sources, are then verbally transmitted. This high testosterone scenario can last between 15 to 30mins. Then it cools down, especially if a partner, usually a wife steps in. This a man’s playground, because men love these debates. (I have to admit I am frequently chomping at the bit for one to commence). The outcome is that both parties feel rest assured that they were right + it is a great ego boost.

My theory is that this one sidedness is actually quite a necessity. The mind bubbles away creating lots of hot air but eventually like a well worn radiator it needs bleeding.
Gerrit D.
The Oxford dictionary defines a debate as "A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote." My point is simply that since the arguments of the debate are for the benefit of the audience, and the proponents of opposing arguments are seldom convinced or turned by each others arguments, expecting a result that is not the purpose of the exercise is futile. Despite the inflated affront that members of the audience might have that their arguments are not considered, their fault lies in their claim of being a part of a "debate". Furthermore, their manner exposes their intent of humiliating the speaker with their egotistical intellectual prowness. Shielding themselves with the expected good manners of the speaker as the guest, they display a complete lack of civility on their part as the hosts as it were. I encourage you to continue, as you do, in treating these individuals with civility as our Lord has taught us yet not allowing them to treat you with contempt, also as our Lord taught us. We will always have the poor with us.
Harry B.
Personally I find a lot of arguments evolutionists use are the same type used by atheists in that they're not based on logical information or scientific reasoning, but fear, and it is this fear that leads them to their ignorance of what we're actually saying. Had that question of " Why would we look at a creation website?" been asked of me I admit I would have put it back on them by asking, "Why wouldn't you? What are you afraid of?" Kind of like an acquaintance of mine who admits to having her doubts about God because there's nothing tangible, so in response I said "Neither is electricity, but you can still see the results." Hey, maybe why this is just one reason God tells us in the Word to question everything.
Felix H.
This was a excellent article. Unfortunately many creationists utilize the same tactics when discussing things with fellow believers. I remeber being frustrated when talking about Genesis 1:7. The speakers almost denied the veracity of the Bible when it claimed that there was water encircling the earth at the time of God's creation. I just shut up and questioned in myself why they were defending and attacking the Bible at the same time. Then there was another time when I stated my belief that Adam's missing rib was chromosonal rather than skeletal. You would have thought I had committed heresy. So I just shut up.I still believe that the differneces between man and woman are genetic and it was the same way at the time of their creation. I alsobelieve the extra chromosonal rib that women possess contain man's soul. But creationists will not discuss it because it is not physical. They willhowever discuss socialism which is alsonot physical. These things have ramifications. I have heard people say that life begins at conception. I that is so then does that mean that the human eggs a female has in her body from birth are not alive,but simply tissue mass. Can an individual or the state control them as a horseman controls the offspring of the next Secretariat. This is where universal health care may be leading us. Don't think genetics, think human husbandry. If a man and his goods belong to the state than so does his body and the products it produces. This can be easily accomplished through what we knowas the FDA, school lunch program, WIC and Food Stamp Program.
Gary Bates
Felix, your comments are actually off topic and not related to the article, in the sense that you are introducing new subjects. Also, as we would disagree with much of it, this is not the place to discuss them so we won't be publishing your comment. As a reminder, these were in the feedback rules you agreed to before submitting a comment. And perhaps you should consider that one of the reasons you might be getting strong reactions from fellow Christians is because your ideas are not biblical. I.e. while they might be novel you could not have derived those ideas from the Scriptures alone without you adding some ideas of your own. This is no different to people who like to add millions of years to Scripture. The Bible clearly doesn't teach that and it is an outside being added to the Bible. So, with respect I urge caution with you in promoting such ideas. See What is your authority?
Chris O.
Thank you Gary! Sue is right! A sincere love of the truth is critical here! I echo Josh McDowell ‘s words, “my heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects”. Just as you and Dean suggest, providing lengthy answers to insincere questions is useless. When such insincerity is suspected, a good response is to ask: “If I could prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt that ___ is true, would you believe?” If no, “then no use discussing this any further. Your belief depends upon choice, not reailty. Your faith is blind and baseless! Truth is irrelevant!” If someone could prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that I am wrong about something, then I will accept it and grateful for being set straight! It wouldn’t be the first time either! Otherwise I would still be a molecules-to-man agnostic evolutionist who thought the Bible to be irrelevant today, rather than being the Bible believing, young earth creationist, disciple of Christ that I now am! Jesus is all about truth….He indeed it the Truth! As His disciple, so am I. Thus, I am determined to daily humble myself to remain teachable.

It’s helpful to get insincere people to acknowledge that truth doesn’t affect their thinking. Few can rest easy with this realization. Such beliefs are idols that can never deliver! Love for truth is key to modern science…one of several values the fathers of science borrowed from Scripture. Naturalistic philosophy provides no logical basis for loyalty to truth! Reality is Christ’s alone!
Ferdinandt P.
Excellent article. In almost all of my debates with evolutionists though, one thing has stood out pretty clearly to me... they consider evolution as the best theory presently available in explanation for the diversity of plant and animal life simply because can't accept that a Creator exists beyond our world who designed and created all of this. For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Sarfati [did you mean Mr Bates??] that it's rather futile to debate with them, but I'll definitely make use of this tactic though.
E. D.
There is a Tamil (language in South East India) proverb that says, "You can wake a person that is sleeping but, you cannot wake a person pretending to sleep". Similarly you can beat yourself blue to convince a person but all you are doing is "throwing pearls before swine". Jesus did many mighty miracles, gave answers to his challengers but many did not want to believe.
Chris O.
Gary, may I offer one correction. According to every credible source that I have seen on the matter, here in the United States, there have been about 65,000 forced sterilizations as a result of the Buck v. Bell Supreme Court Decision of 1927, not millions. At the age of 17, Carrie Buck was tried by the US Supreme Court, and found guilty of "feeblemindedness" and "sexual promiscuity". For these "crimes" she was forcefully sterilized and reinstitutionalized. She was the first of thousands of young girls to be forcefully sterilized in this country (to prevent the spread of "bad genes"). The reason she appeared to the court to be sexually promiscuous was her out of wedlock pregnancy. However, as it turned out, the reason for this pregnancy turned out to be rape from a relative of her foster family (who supported her sentencing in an apparent effort to hide their family’s shame). Her apparent "feeblemindedness" was likely an impression resulting from being traumatized by her rape experience and being institutionalized among "other feebleminded" individuals. As for spreading "feeblemindedness" into future generations, in spite of being raised in a less than ideal foster home, Carrie's daughter was a "B" student! Such forced sterilizations continued until around 1970! Now all we have in this country in the way of eugenics is over a million abortions per year! The Nazis followed our example, taking eugenics to new levels. At the Nuremberg war trials, Nazi defendants appealed to our eugenic practices as justification for what they did during WW II and to our Supreme Court’s Carrie Buck decision, in particular. The Nazi’s just took what we were already doing to the next level!

Thanks for your invaluable ministry! I only wish that I could be of more help.
Gary Bates
Thanks Chris, you are absolutely right. It looks like a bit of hyperbole on our part. We will make the correction. BTW if you'd like to help, how about talking to your church about having CMI do a presentation there? We don't even have a set speaking fee.
bruce S.
My comment is, are you not guility of doing the same? You have your own minds made up on a certain subject and you will not allow any discussion by other Christians even if Bible verses are quoted. Please take a look at what you are doing also.Same spirit but on a different subject, so I suppose you feel justified doing this to others. Luke 9:54-55
Gary Bates
Respectfully I don't think you are making valid comparisons. Practically all our scientists are former evolutionists. Therefore they have heard the 'other point of view'. The point of the article is that because evolution is taught 24/7 and the teaching of creation is philosophically excluded, then most people never get to hear the information for creation. So, even refusing to discuss same is what the Bible might describe as willing ignorance (2 Peter 3:5). And also, I don't know how you can say we don't allow discussion by other Christians on the subject when there are a plethora of articles on this site responding to their views. As a biblical creationist site we feel it is our duty to point out the fallacious nature of some of their arguments. And lastly, it is well known that if one goes to print then you should be prepared for challenges. If you don't like it, then don't print. So, despite the Scriptural reference you cited in an attempt to admonish us I have so say that, with the Bible being our guide, our conscience is clear.
Sue C.
Unfortunately, an unwillingness to receive the love of the truth is to be found among many 'professors' of faith in Christ also. This is tragic, as 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that this reception of the love of the truth is essential to one's very salvation. Absolutely foundational. I've heard it said that the unwillingness to give up anything at all (that God, in His Word, states must be surrendered) is idolatry. And idolaters won't be received into Heaven. The stubborn clinging to pet doctrines, false interpretations of Scripture, dicey versions of the Bible, and loose lifestyles by 'professors' of faith in Christ, make me wonder just how many 'Christians' will make it through into the presence of the Lord when all is said and done. If only the unwillingness to search out the truth was a characteristic only of hard-hearted unbelievers.
Duane C.
"this demonstrates that they are not actually interested in hearing the answers." You nailed it on the head with that. I find once you demonstrate the objection from an atheist or evolutionist is wrong, even when they acknowledge their objection is invalid, they don't want to further consider what the truth is - they want to go on to another topic - about which they are also mistaken. As you suggest, it's really just a means for them to remain willfully ignorant. This shows many are not looking for answers - they're just looking for opportunities to mock and have fun at the expense of what they consider ignorant creationists. I think your solution is the only practical approach to such situations - refuse to answer further questions - until they at least deal honestly with the answers they've already been given.
Steven G.
Dear Gary and Lita,
Thank you for this article. It is informative and has many helpful suggestions! It seems to me that 'the fall' is the second great discontinuity. It is challenging to even consider what our universe would look like and how it would operate, if there was no death, no decay, no deformity, no carnivory etc.
Phil M.
I don’t know whether you allow the right of counter-response, but I’ll chance it. I believe you missed the whole rhetorical point altogether. Re-worded, by what criteria EXTERNAL to science can it be determined that the origin of life and the universe must be the domain of science. The darwinist’s external criteria is that God does not exist. We know objectively that origins must be the domain of history, because history is about the past and origins is an element of the past. The same cannot be said for science, including, when it comes to origins, forensics. Can you tell us how the origin of life (e.g. the biological cell) “falls well within the domain of scientific understanding”, even with limitations? Going by Genesis, the origin of life has nothing to do with scientific processes and everything to do with historical events.
Gary Bates
We normally don't publish follow ups as we usually try to avoid the comments sections becoming a blog or debate forum. But I think this is worth clarification. Respectfully though, I think you are being a bit nitpicky here. We actually do agree--I think! Anything in the past is a historical event but it is a bit of a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater statement' to say that trying to determine such things falls outside of the area of science. Both creation and evolution are presuppositions that we use to interpret facts. And we can use science (as commonly understood) to interpret those facts. If I analyse rock layers with fossils in them, I can use the scientific method to uncover them and analyse them. And as creationists sometimes we can use the scientific method to falsify an evolutionary concept. For example, I can actually use the forensic method to discover soft tissue and DNA in dinosaur bones. I can use real science to demonstrate that chemicals do not spontaneously sequence to form living cells and so on. So, while we agree on the big picture I would caveat a little caution in being too dismissive with terms. some articles worth reading would be Loaded terms and It's not science.
James T.
If i may reply to Cameron M. I'ts not just twitter,sadly back when I was trying to look for answers. I stumbled across many Christians trying to upload videos on YouTube and debate atheists in the comment section. The Atheists on there seem to not care about how logical your argument is. Not only do they thumb up their own comments.They thumb down and even mark any comment that disagrees with what they believe in as spam.
Andrei T.
I have experienced this in a way, not from student but a philosophy of science PhD professor. I was arguing that science started to flourish under Monotheistic Christians because it allows the worldview the laws of the universe are unchanging as opposed to polytheists. At this he simply said that Christians are also polytheists because of the Trinity and Muslims are the only Monotheists. I was loath to start such an ultimately fruitless side debate, and it would be irrelevant as the flourishing of science depends to whether Christians see themselves as monotheists, not how others view them (this argument unfortunately escaped me at that moment). So don't expect to get a fair treatment even from the ones who spend their whole lives debating. Honest discussion is beside the point when their worldview is threatened.
If you want to know how the conversation went on, the professor maintained that the Greeks themselves had scientists and that Christians destroyed the college at Athens (that had numerous scientific documents) in the 600s AD, to him an example of faith colliding with facts. Those copies were saved by the Nestorians (Christian heretics) in Assyria and preserved by the Muslims where they were ultimately re-introduced in Europe. There was also something there about Monotheism and science having originated in Persia where it spread to the Greek philosophers during the Hellenization of the middle east. So there are deeper layers to the debate. Still it would have been more academic of him to not try and start an argument about the Trinity in order to faze me.
Phil M.
You pose the rhetorical question: Evolution = Science? For what it is worth, I would like to pose a rhetorical question regarding the origin of life and the universe, namely: Standing back and viewing science objectively, that is, as standing outside of science altogether, can it be proven that origins is the domain of science?
Gary Bates
I think it falls well within the domain of scientific understanding but with limitations. That is, understanding the limitations of what we currently can use the 'scientific method' for when observing facts in the present and trying to reconstruct their history. See It's not science and also this quote by evolutionist and Harvard Professor Dr E. O. Wilson.
Sara G.
I gather the horizon problem is a publicly unknown problem in the big bang theory, so if any researcher with a antitheistic agenda found that Dr Lisle was right concerning the one-way speed of light (which I favour, as sound even for a layman as I seems to have a different speed-of-return) they would not publish it for fear of confirming what is already weighty evidence for a "young" earth. Christians seems more eager to present this "distance = time" argument in disagreements nowadays - but I haven't yet taken the opportunity to tell them about the horizon problem.
Gary Bates
There is not uniform creation agreement currently over the ASC cosmology. See Anisotropy Synchrony Convention where we answered a reader's inquiry about same.
Cameron M.
I sent this out unto my Twitter followers just on the opening paragraph alone! Whenever I engage in this debate I get the same responses. As well as "evidence from a non-Creation website" or "peer-reviewed resource'. It really is like that the majority of the Atheists out there are more wanting to bully than actually care to debate. I have actually stopped referring to CMI's work as reasons and examples because of these responses. How silly of me! I have cited Dr Hartnett to little response (wonder why that might be) however, when I cite other CMI writers I will get "how does a relate to " as if they should not be talking about such topics. Recently I have seen a Twitter follower (whom I follow) give up Christ based on the Atheists 'evidences' against God. I reached out to them as a friend, hopefully with help can guide this one back to Faith. The sad thing, on Twitter at least, is that there appears to be a larger contingent of Atheists that gang up against a handful of Christians (or even fence sitters).

I agree with what Gary and Lita say "I did not allow myself to be bullied." I always try to get the debaters to understand that the evidence is subject to the interpretation of the evidence based on ones world view. Oddly that one is generally not very well accepted and the debater goes off on a tangent. #creationistlies is a common response to my comments.

Thank you Gary and Lita for this reminder to fight the fight based on science and not on presumptions.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.