Why do creationists largely use only straw-man arguments?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Generally because Creationists do not grasp Evolution. If they did they would become Evolutionists.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Once again, this displays simply clinging to the idea of god and not be able to let go. Have you ever thought why would god use such a process when he could just poof it into existence? Accept your fate, there's no fairytale life for the goody goodies, and no endless torment for the baddies.

I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but there is a Heaven and Hell.

     Do you have an eyewitness account to offer of either or both (preferably both) places?

[Associate Justice PiT]

You cannot not say that because you can't prove the supernatural is isn't real, that it is equally valid to believing it is real. Because there is no evidence for it, rational thinkers will choose not to believe it.

That's like arresting me now and accusing me of murdering somebody who I didn't even know, and have no way to prove didn't happen.

Does that make it just as likely that I'm guilty as innocent?

Both sides can't prove of disprove Heaven or Hell. So why are we even talking about it?

     The burden of proof is on the one who seeks to show a positive. That is, until you prove that heaven & hell exist, the fair assumption is that they do not.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.

The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.

     What I'm getting out of your argument is that people like Dawkins attack all Christians as being idiots because of the foolishness of the Creationists among the Christians' number. Am I correct in saying that that is your point?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's fine as long as you realize that & act accordingly. I reacted the way I did because he posited the existence of heaven & hell as a statement of fact. There's a thin line between stating the factual truth of dogmatic elements to those who reject religion as a sort of rebuttal & religious fundamentalism.