Creationists, where do you get your facts?

[AV1611VET]

You've made that obvious over the years.



Without any facts getting in the way, that leaves nothing but yourself, doesn't it?

I changed my answer.

"Fact" was the wrong word, and I changed it to "evidence".

 

[thaumaturgy]

In all the studies I had to perform (as an undergrad; I claim no expertise, just some basic experience), my report on the results always had to include any weaknesses or flaws in my methods as well as areas that could be improved or areas that would need further study.

I really wanted to bold this and blow it up so everyone could see it. I want every creationist to know that science thrives precisely because the only science that is worth anything has, within it, the seeds of its own criticism!

Every statistical analysis carries with it a little figure telling how probable there is that an ERROR has occured. Every first year chemistry student is commanded to write a "DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ERRORS" in their lab reports.

If someone presents data without an appreciation for possible errors then their work is automatically questioned.

Science works only because it allows and accepts that errors are possible and the best we can do is try to MINIMIZE those errors.

How many sermons are delivered with the same level of humility and assessment that the preacher may have made a mistake?

 

[AV1611VET]

Instead of telling scientists how their science is wrong you might wish to attempt to convince the scientists. That will require science.

Yup --- as I have stated before --- science runs on circular logic as well.

Only science can confirm (or deny) science.

...and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Bible.

Since I have declared myself "evidence-free", I decry evolution by declaring its antithesis: the Creation.

So lemme see here.

You get your facts from the Bible, yet you decree yourself "evidence free", so you don't think the Bible is a form of "evidence"?

Interesting.

So are you saying you believe the bible precisely because it shouldn't be believed as evidence of anything? I would like to better understand this.

Actually I think you do use evidence. Just that your evidence is the Bible. But you have to decree it to be "non-evidence" so people will not question it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really wanted to bold this and blow it up so everyone could see it. I want every creationist to know that science thrives precisely because the only science that is worth anything has, within it, the seeds of its own criticism!

PREACH IT, THAUMATURGY!!! ---

Heaven help us, though, if we should claim that the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible Itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

So lemme see here.

You get your facts from the Bible, yet you decree yourself "evidence free", so you don't think the Bible is a form of "evidence"?

Interesting.

So are you saying you believe the bible precisely because it shouldn't be believed as evidence of anything? I would like to better understand this.

Actually I think you do use evidence. Just that your evidence is the Bible. But you have to decree it to be "non-evidence" so people will not question it.

Okay, I'll acquiesce.

I do claim the Bible as evidence ---

But other than That...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yup --- as I have stated before --- science runs on circular logic as well.

Only science can confirm (or deny) science.

Let's put it this way, AV: Ignorance of science is not a valid critique of science.

Imagine if I were to critique "Dispensation Theology" by reliance only on Grimm's Fairy Tales and War and Peace.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Okay, I'll acquiesce.

I do claim the Bible as evidence ---

But other than That...

Ergo you are not "evidence free". And we can assess the value of your evidence.

Thanks.

 

[Split Rock]

Heaven help us, though, if we should claim that the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible Itself.

Just another claim of yours that makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you. Just like proclaiming yourself "fact free," opps... "evidence free"... oh wait.... Non-Bible Evidence Free!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's put it this way, AV: Ignorance of science is not a valid critique of science.

I'm in total agreement here --- that's why I use science's Antithesis to critique it.

Imagine if I were to critique "Dispensation Theology" by reliance only on Grimm's Fairy Tales and War and Peace.

Good analogy --- but more appropriate is imagining someone critiquing Dispensation Theology by using science to say it doesn't exist.

You need to read the article on Scientism in Wikipedia --- it's very good.

It says that science is the final arbitrator in all matters, including spiritual matters.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ergo you are not "evidence free". And we can assess the value of your evidence.

Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.

 

[Freodin]

Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.

As long as your prophets cannot forge that, I am not interested in your fancyful claims:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

 

[Sanguis]

Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.

Chariots of fire... chariots of fire... where have we heared that before?

Oh yes, that's right!

Apollo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skaloop]

Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.

A machine that can do what, precisely? Make a man see horses and chariots? They're called televisions. Or movie projectors. Or computers. Open a man's eyes? There is that contraption in A Clockwork Orange which, although not in regular use, is a machine that can do that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.

Yet we're supposed to be interested in your myopic assessment of science?

Luke 6:31

Selective reading of one's own scripture can "take a hike".

 

[rjw]

Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.
Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.

I went back and checked.

The thread starter was asking where you (creationists) get your ideas/knowledge/information from.


Regards, Roland

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[Split Rock]

lol another Creationism VS. Evolution thread... just another pony and dog show to polarize the masses...


grow up..

I wonder what you were expecting in the "Creation & Evolution" subforum??

 

[Skaloop]

lol another Creationism VS. Evolution thread... just another pony and dog show to polarize the masses...


grow up..

Well, this is the Creation & Evolution forum. I'm not allowed to post in the other forums dedicated to this subject (Creationism and Origins Theology) so here it is. And I was not attempting to polarize anything; I really am curious as to where and how people get their talking points. This thread isn't even about Creationism VS Evolution. I mentioned nothing about the validity of either option, I merely asked where people get their information and, indirectly, how much effort they put into verifying it.

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.