Talk:Moving the goalposts

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed un-encyclopedic one-sided snark

I removed the un-encyclopedic "As evolutionists are incabable of explaining the wonders of Creation, they often resort to this phrase when pressed by creation scientists in debates, as in "now you're moving the goalposts" in response to a question." and cleaned up the Google statistics. PaulBurnett 12:20, 14 February 2010 (EST)

What you removed is informative and accurate. We don't censor ideas here, and such deletions are disfavored.--Andy Schlafly 14:06, 14 February 2010 (EST)


Having never heard of this term before, I went to this article thinking I would see a definition of the term. I think there should be a definition for those of us who don't know what the term means. --Dfrischknecht 13:20, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

The term doesn't mean anything. It's a tactic used to avoid answering a question.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 1 July 2010 (EDT)
It basically means the following:
Creationist asks question to evolutionist
Evolutionist answers correctly
Creationist says: actually I meant this and he adds another constraint to the question
Evolutionist answers the question correctly with the new constraint
Creationist replies that another limitation applies
Seeing that he can't win the debate as the creationist keeps changing his question he states:
You're moving the goalposts
It's basically a response to a tactic used by creationists that is set up for the evolutionist to lose the debate. Rationally the full meaning is clear to someone who reads the bible, but evolutionists need constant reminders to debate on par with the creationist. As such the question needs constant clarification for the closed-minded evolutionist.PeterZ 07:53, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
Your explanation lacks coherence. Evolutionists avoid debates with their critics, and instead try to censor criticism rather than respond to it. "Moving the goalposts" is just a fancy (and goofy) way for an evolutionist to respond, "I'm not going to answer your criticism."--Andy Schlafly 07:59, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
Didn't I just say the same thing, only with a bit more detail?PeterZ 11:58, 2 July 2010 (EDT)