Creationism Is Testable

Blayz · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
How many of them were named, Jesus?

Notedstrangeperson · Mar 7, 2011

Creationism - particularly Intelligent Design - relies on an assumption: something so incredibly complicated and / or unlikely must be the result of a creator. It's an assumtpion for two reasons:

1. It's so difficult for our minds to figure out an even greater mind must have created it.
2. Anything which appeared happen suddenly, rather than gradually, must be proof of design.

What's so say that a process or an occurence which we now find inexplicable will not be easily explained in the future? And if an event did happen suddenly, this does not mean evolution was not behind it (Stephen Gould called this "punctuated equilibrium" or "evolution by jerks").

The design hypothesis seems to use God as an excuse as to what we can't explain - as though (as certain atheists and Christians both insist) somehow understanding how nature works disproves his existance. To me this is like trying to prove Alexander Graham Bell did not exist by dismantling a phone.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2011

Notedstrangeperson said:
Creationism - particularly Intelligent Design - relies on an assumption:...

The Bible said it, that settles it -- assumptions can take a hike.

CaliforniaSun · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
The Bible said it, that settles it -- assumptions can take a hike.

Assuming the Bible is correct.

rjc34 · Mar 7, 2011

CaliforniaSun said:
Assuming the Bible is correct.

Let me try on some AV logic...

"The bible says it's correct, therefore everything in it is correct.
Logical fallacies can take a hike."

Phred · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
How many of them were named, Jesus?

Several of the Puerto Rican ones.

Split Rock · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
How many of them were named, Jesus?

More than the number of bible authors who were named Jesus. (hint... the answer to the latter is ZERO).

Split Rock · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
The Bible said it, that settles it -- assumptions can take a hike.

Translation: "My interpretation of the bible says it, that settles it for me and other Fundies like me -- reality can take a hike."

Agonaces of Susa · Mar 8, 2011

Notedstrangeperson said:
Creationism - particularly Intelligent Design - relies on an assumption

All sciences rely on assumptions.

"... the basic premisses of demonstrations are definitions, and it has already been shown that these will be found indemonstrable; either the basic premisses will be demonstrable and will depend on prior premisses, and the regress will be endless; or the primary truths will be indemonstrable definitions. " -- Aristotle, philosopher, Posterior Analytics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"... there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premisses...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Posterior Analytics, Book II, 350 B.C.

mzungu · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
The Bible said it, that settles it -- assumptions can take a hike.

Hehe! The way you are going you will run out of words because they all took a hike

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

Split Rock said:
Translation: "My interpretation of the bible says it, that settles it for me and other Fundies like me -- reality can take a hike."

Whose interpretation, specifically, should I follow?

mzungu · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Whose interpretation, specifically, should I follow?

Why must you follow at all? I believe that you have reason and reason alone will guide you! Of what consequence does following have when we lack reason?

It really does not matter what one believes in but how one conducts himself. I am sure that many a decent and good people do not agree between themselves but they still conduct themselves in a manner that is beneficial to society and to their well being in general.

I am an atheist yet I respect your right to worship your God and will be the first to support you should your right be infringed upon!

After all, we live in societies and not as hermits!

mzungu · Mar 8, 2011

..........
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-we-still-evolving/

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

mzungu said:
Why must you follow at all? I believe that you have reason and reason alone will guide you! Of what consequence does following have when we lack reason?

It really does not matter what one believes in but how one conducts himself. I am sure that many a decent and good people do not agree between themselves but they still conduct themselves in a manner that is beneficial to society and to their well being in general.

I am an atheist yet I respect your right to worship your God and will be the first to support you should your right be infringed upon!

After all, we live in societies and not as hermits!

Thank you.

This is one of the reasons I'm an independent Baptist.

I also consider myself somewhat of a freethinker, but only as a third option; behind what the Bible says, then what basic doctrine.

(Of course, you can see what freethinking gets you here.)

Split Rock · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Whose interpretation, specifically, should I follow?

My personal recommendation is to follow an interpretation that makes sense and takes into account the context of who wrote the books of the bible, when, where, and for whom. That's my recommendation (which I am giving because you asked for it), but you can do whatever you like. This has nothing to do with being clear about the statements you and others here make about what "the Bible tells us."

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

Split Rock said:
My personal recommendation is to follow an interpretation that makes sense and takes into account the context of who wrote the books of the bible, when, where, and for whom.

I'm asking for a specific name -- otherwise, your rants against 'my interpretation' can take a long hike.

Any day you think you can improve on 'my interpretations' without 1) speaking in tongues, and 2) appealing to metaphor if it's literal, or literal if it's metaphor, I'll be glad to listen.

(And do feel free to give me a specific name of someone who 'makes sense and takes into account the context of who wrote the books of the bible'.)

Tomatoman · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
I also consider myself somewhat of a freethinker, but only as a third option; behind what the Bible says, then what basic doctrine.

That's the damnedest definition of free thinking I've ever seen.

(Of course, you can see what freethinking gets you here.)

I think you are confusing freethinking with spouting tripe.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

Tomatoman said:
I think you are confusing freethinking with spouting tripe.

I leave that up to you guys.

Tomatoman · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
I leave that up to you guys.

If only you hadn't said this: "I also consider myself somewhat of a freethinker, but only as a third option; behind what the Bible says, then what basic doctrine." It rather makes a nonsense of anything else you have to say.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

Tomatoman said:
If only you hadn't said this: "I also consider myself somewhat of a freethinker, but only as a third option; behind what the Bible says, then what basic doctrine." It rather makes a nonsense of anything else you have to say.

That's 'saying nonsense' to you?

Here's the order: Bible ... basic doctrine ... freethinking (suppositions).

If that's 'nonsense' to you, please feel free to place them in the correct order.

If you can't, I'll take your assessment with a grain of salt.

Creationism Is Testable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

INVICTUS

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

INVICTUS

INVICTUS

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency