Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, they are hamstrung. That's the problem with trying to argue against an evidence-based scientific theory using unsupported assertions that contradict our best empirical knowledge of the world. Who believes what is basically irrelevant in that situation, the evidence is clear.... evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge). Creationists are hamstrung right out of the gate… don’t you think?
Thank you for the link. I bookmarked it for future reading.
Do you consider this site to portray evolution accurately?
2. I don't believe in Christianity because I don't think Jesus Christ was an Olympic figure skater who is going to take us all to heaven on ice skates.
Yes, they are hamstrung. That's the problem with trying to argue against an evidence-based scientific theory using unsupported assertions that contradict our best empirical knowledge of the world. Who believes what is basically irrelevant in that situation, the evidence is clear.
If you can get to heaven on ice skates I might want to opt for the warmer alternative.I could get behind a religion involving traveling to heaven on ice skates.
If some creationists adopt a philosophical approach that is not consistent with what we observe, it's simply counterfactual metaphysics, i.e. discussing the implications of an imaginary alternate reality ("What if...?").This is where I think there is an interesting split between creationists that have traditionally tried to argue that creationism can be demonstrated scientifically (e.g. the "creation science" creationists) versus those that adopt a philosophical approach to reality irrespective of what reality shows.
In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions. Granted the evidence may be regarded differently from scientific evidence, but I would argue that following ‘over the hill and through the woods’ directions draws a great deal from this process, and requires just as much attention to the journey (if not more), as someone who is relying solely on cartography.The problem is that creationists do not tend to follow the scientific method. It is why the term "Creation scientist" is thought to be an oxymoron. Wood followed the scientific method and had to admit that evolution is strongly supported by evidence. The same cannot be said, as yet, of creationist beliefs.
In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions. Granted the evidence may be regarded differently from scientific evidence, but I would argue that following ‘over the hill and through the woods’ directions draws a great deal from this process, and requires just as much attention to the journey (if not more), as someone who is relying solely on cartography.
Can you give any documented examples where this has been done?In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions.
I have never seen anything of theirs placed in the form of a testable hypothesis. Oh wait, that is because those hypotheses always fail. Too bad that they never publish their failures.In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions. Granted the evidence may be regarded differently from scientific evidence, but I would argue that following ‘over the hill and through the woods’ directions draws a great deal from this process, and requires just as much attention to the journey (if not more), as someone who is relying solely on cartography.
By 'in a sense' I was referring to an everyday garden variety Christian, not published ones. I just meant they all (or most) question certain aspects of evolution proportionally to their knowledge in the subject, they even read or even monitor debates like this for knowledge (research), they use reasoning based on what they read or hear to form opinions (their hypotheses), they make observations, and draw conclusions. As I said, it's not a matter of rocket science for most creationists, myself included.Can you give any documented examples where this has been done?
With you anyway.Oh wait, that is because those hypotheses always fail.
Well, they have Genesis... you may, but I don't consider it a failure.Too bad that they never publish their failures.
With anyone that can reason rationally. You could show us to be wrong and post a case where they did not fail utterly. You made the claim that there have been successful works by them. We have stated that none has ever been posted here. Surprise us once with evidence that supports the claims of creationists instead of empty claims.With you anyway.
Sorry, Genesis is the claim. It is not the evidence.Well, they have Genesis... you may, but I don't consider it a failure.
Not sure where you got this, or what context it was in???You made the claim that there have been successful works by them.
Yes, evidence and interpretation of evidence are two different things.If I say that there is evidence for the evolution of a particular species I would need to supply that evidence if challenged. When creationists claim that there is support for their claims they need to provide evidence when challenged.
By 'in a sense' I was referring to an everyday garden variety Christian, not published ones. I just meant they all (or most) question certain aspects of evolution proportionally to their knowledge in the subject, they even read or even monitor debates like this for knowledge (research), they use reasoning based on what they read or hear to form opinions (their hypotheses), they make observations, and draw conclusions. As I said, it's not a matter of rocket science for most creationists, myself included.
Not sure where you got this, or what context it was in???
Yes, evidence and interpretation of evidence are two different things.
Evolutionists have trust in man and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence. Creationists primarily use faith in God's Word (some stop there), and also use the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence. You must mean they can't find any evidence that evolutionists will accept (why this forum is alive and well)... such interpretations of evidence are all over the internet and in published works.Correct, but to date it does not even appear that creationists have any scientific evidence. Why do you think that they cannot find any?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?