Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

Tone said:

What do you see?

Click to expand...

Things.

lasthero said:

Things.

Click to expand...

But not the Creator right?

*So then,He is not a thing.

**Do you even believe you are a thing?

Tone said:

But not the Creator right?

Click to expand...

I dunno. What’s he look like?

*So then,He is not a thing.

**Do you even believe you are a thing?

Click to expand...

Of course I am. Everything is a thing. What do you think that the word ‘thing’ means?

lasthero said:

I dunno. What’s he look like?

Click to expand...

Long hair...beard...semitic...the usual...

lasthero said:

Of course I am. Everything is a thing. What do you think that the word ‘thing’ means?

Click to expand...

So you make no distinction between you and your body? Is consciousness a thing...love...gravity...?

Tone said:

So you make no distinction between you and your body? Is consciousness a thing...love...gravity...?

Click to expand...

Those are all things, yes.

lasthero said:

Those are all things, yes.

Click to expand...

So why was I taught that nouns were people,places, and things...?

*I don't think people are things...

pitabread said:

Per the title.

And if the answer is yes, how do creationists critically examine their own ideas?

Click to expand...

Critically examine to what standard?

Tone said:

So why was I taught that nouns were people,places, and things...?

*I don't think people are things...

Click to expand...

Well, they are. At least by one definition of the word ‘thing’.

lasthero said:

Well, they are. At least by one definition of the word ‘thing’.

Click to expand...

The substance (matter) is thing, but are these black words (not the symbols or characters) on the screen, things?

lasthero said:

I dunno. What’s he look like?

Click to expand...

Here is what He looks like.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

pitabread said:

As a way of determining their validity. I mean, why wouldn't people want to critically test their ideas?



Keep in mind that I'm not explicitly referring to just the origin of the universe. Creationist lay claim to the origin of a variety of things: stars, planets, life, species.

In science, these areas are all under active investigation. For example, we have a scientific explanation for the origin of species (biological evolution) that is continually scrutinized, tested, and refined.

Click to expand...

What was the first life form or species that inhabited earth?

How many stars exist?

How many points exist between two numbers on a number line?

klutedavid said:

Here is what He looks like.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Click to expand...

Tone said:

Long hair...beard...semitic...the usual...

Click to expand...

I stand corrected...He is risen and glorified!

Tone said:

I stand corrected...He is risen and glorified!

Click to expand...

Yes sir.

pitabread said:

Uh, what? Why the random questions? Did you reply to the wrong post?

Click to expand...

You stated the following in a previous post.

For example, we have a scientific explanation for the origin of species

Click to expand...

So I asked you what was the first species; since you claimed that science has explained the origin of the species.

I am not aware that science has explained how life generated from non living matter.

I also asked how many stars there are in the sky because everyone asks that question. Is that a hard question for someone as drilled in scientific understanding as you are?

pitabread said:

As a way of determining their validity. I mean, why wouldn't people want to critically test their ideas?



Keep in mind that I'm not explicitly referring to just the origin of the universe. Creationist lay claim to the origin of a variety of things: stars, planets, life, species.

In science, these areas are all under active investigation. For example, we have a scientific explanation for the origin of species (biological evolution) that is continually scrutinized, tested, and refined.

Click to expand...

Creationist do not make those claims pitabread.

God is the one who is telling you that He created these entities and why He created them.

We are just repeating what He said.

myst33 said:

Scientific examination of the past is not related to the theological message in the Bible.

The problem arises only when somebody tries to put it together:
1) To read the Bible (ancient writings) in a modern, scientific, literal way (YEC, Flath earth proponents...)
2) To use science against theology (R. Dawkins and similar atheists)

Click to expand...

I commented on truth, not Dawkins or any one else.
I used a simple example to allow for examples.

klutedavid said:

Socrates stated that all men were liars and I agree with him on that point. So don't mention honesty and integrity because they are mere ideals.

Click to expand...

In the pragmatic Christian atmosphere in which I was raised, striving for an ideal was seen as a positive thing. I have retained that view and as such I don't find the adjective "mere" sits well with "ideal".

klutedavid said:

The reason for existence is beyond the reach of science, far beyond the limitations of the four fundamental forces.Please stay within the defined domain of science.

Click to expand...

The explanations I referred to were attempts to answer the "How", not the "Why". Here you recognise clearly that science has a distinct domain, yet earlier you seemed to be complaining that this was a weakness, when you said "Science makes no attempt to explain why the Big Bang occurred". So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

klutedavid said:

Science does not know how long a duration or even what the singularity was in the first place.

Let alone speculating about about some short inflation event where infinite energy became an unfathomable universe of two trillion galaxies.
If you accept that ridiculous extrapolation you will believe anything.

Click to expand...

We know that the singularity is a reflection of an inadequate understanding of the earliest moments of the universe. That lack of understanding is why we continue to investigate.

At present there is no superior scientific explanation available for the existing evidence and observations. Personally, I find Big Bang Theory philosophically unattractive. I don't "believe" in it, but I have to - logically - accept it as the best current explanation. Since the explanation is also consistent with Christianity I'm not sure what you have against it. (As a general rule, if an idea doesn't upset a Jesuit, it doesn't upset me.)

klutedavid said:

There are stars dated that are older than the universe and you are wrong on this point.

Click to expand...

I already addressed this and provided you with a link to a site that provided an explanation. If you wish a citation to the original research I can try to dig that out for you. Your unattributed quote is outdated.

klutedavid said:

You have no answers to the big questions,

Click to expand...

I thought that we were agreed that science has a specific domain and does not mess with philosophical issues.

klutedavid said:

in fact, you have enormous questions to answer now.

Click to expand...

Of course we do. That's why there are so many active scientists, many of them Christians.

klutedavid said:

iAnd I'm afraid that your going to need something more powerful than science or mathematics to start delving into the very ether itself.

Click to expand...

Well, the ether was discredited as a real thing over a century ago, so I don't know what you are referring to here, but it doesn't appear to be science.

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion.

I said in my heart, concerning the speech of the sons of man, God will judge them, and that to shew that they are beasts.

Also to them is the event of the sons of man, and the event of the brute; one event befalls them: as is the death of the one, so also the death of the other; and there is one breath to all: and what has the man more than the brute? nothing; for all is vanity.

All [go] to one place; all were formed of the dust, and all will return to dust.

And who has seen the spirit of the sons of man, whether it goes upward? and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward to the earth?

Ecc 3:18-22