Creationism Is Testable

[Delphiki]

Whose interpretation, specifically, should I follow?

If it was actually infallible, there'd be only one interpretation for everybody.

 

[Hespera]

Creationism is testable?

A few simple questions will test for it:

Do you live in a trailer?
Did you quit school?
Do you say evolution is the devils lie?
Do you think the 'flood' made the grand canyon?

yes to any two and you just might be a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it was actually infallible, there'd be only one interpretation for everybody.

Sorry, I missed the proper noun in that sentence.

I hear 'your interpretation' almost daily.

Now, for some reason, I'm having trouble prying a specific person's name out of you guys.

But I don't mind, it 'artificially inflates' my post count at you guys' expense.

 

[Delphiki]

You're not getting a name because most of us (of those you're asking) don't think it deserves interpretation, let alone consideration, at all. I've never met anyone who interprets the bible in a manner that made it cohesive, consistent, accurate, or a useful moral guide book. That's because it succeeds at none of these things, unless you play the pick-and-choose game with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is testable?

A few simple questions will test for it:

Do you live in a trailer?
Did you attend school?
Do you say evolution is the devils lie?
Do you think the 'flood' made the grand canyon?

1. Do you live in a trailer? no
2. Did you attend school? yes
3. Do you say evolution is the devils lie? no
4. Do you think the 'flood' made the grand canyon? no

yes to any two and you just might be a creationist.

According to your standards, I guess I just might not be a creationist?

(Or I'm half of one?)

 

[Tomatoman]

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.

Yes, that is total 100% undiluted industrial-strength nonsense. I can't think of anyone whose thinking is more rigid than yours. I discount mental cases like dad and greg from that judgement on the grounds that they're not well. I do at least pay you the courtesy of considering you sane, AV, if not strictly speaking living in the real world.

The correct order would be to (a) discount the bible as an unreliable text, (b) dismiss basic doctrine as untrustworthy, (c) try and work out for yourself from first principles what can be known to be true. That is free thinking. It is quite different from making stuff up, which is what you seem to be confusing it with.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not getting a name because most of us (of those you're asking) don't think it deserves interpretation, let alone consideration, at all.

Good -- then I'll take your accusations with a grain of salt.

I've never met anyone who interprets the bible in a manner that made it cohesive, consistent, accurate, or a useful moral guide book.

That's because you guys prefer laughing to learning and ridicule to reason -- in my [right to have an] opinion.

That's because it succeeds at none of these things, unless you play the pick-and-choose game with it.

No, It 'succeeds at none of these things', because It succeeds at not forcing someone who doesn't want to learn, to learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that is total 100% undiluted industrial-strength nonsense. I can't think of anyone whose thinking is more rigid than yours. I discount mental cases like dad and greg from that judgement on the grounds that they're not well. I do at least pay you the courtesy of considering you sane, AV, if not strictly speaking living in the real world.

The correct order would be to (a) discount the bible as an unreliable text, (b) dismiss basic doctrine as untrustworthy, (c) try and work out for yourself from first principles what can be known to be true. That is free thinking. It is quite different from making stuff up, which is what you seem to be confusing it with.

Fair enough -- I'll consider your posts about my 'nonsense' as nonsense.

 

[Tomatoman]

Fair enough -- I'll consider your posts about my 'nonsense' as nonsense.

How would you know? You have no way of knowing what is nonsense and what isn't because your standards of reference are untrustworthy. This is why you have to engage so often in making stuff up while pretending it shows what an inventive and original mind you have. The truth is that it shows what a poor and faulty belief system you've swallowed whole. Every time you have to start gibbering about flood waters going to Neptune or evolution being satan's work or embedded age or any of the other quite idiotic stuff that you post, apparently without embarrassment, you are revealing that your beliefs are built on flawed foundations. That it never occurs to you to question the basic problem responsible for these inane babblings is evidence enough that freethinking will always elude you.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no way of knowing what is nonsense and what isn't because you your standards of reference are untrustworthy.

Speaking of 'standards of reference that are untrustworthy', why don't you go ahead and tell me what nonsense is.

This is why you have to engage so often in making stuff up while pretending it shows what an inventive and original mind you have.

No -- I 'have to engage so often in making stuff up', because I get questions that are deliberately not covered in the Scriptures.

Like, "where did the Flood waters" go?

To simply say 'God did it' over and over -- something I call pulling rank -- would eventually discourage you guys; and so, I make educated guesses.

I think that's what you call "nonsense".

 

[Split Rock]

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'.)

1. No one has ever "spoken in tongues" here to you.

2, You are the one interpreting allegorical as literal, and you do so to make the bible say what you want it to say.

3. I will repeat this part of my post, since you decided to ignore it:

This has nothing to do with being clear about the statements you and others here make about what "the Bible tells us."

 

[AV1611VET]

I will repeat this part of my post, since you decided to ignore it:

This has nothing to do with being clear about the statements you and others here make about what "the Bible tells us."

I'm going to ask you nicely, Split Rock, to please stop with the rantings about 'my interpretation'.

Frankly, it's rude and uncalled for; but not necessarily a violation.

If you won't though, it's your prerogative; but it's my prerogative to ignore you too.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm going to ask you nicely, Split Rock, to please stop with the rantings about 'my interpretation'.

Why do you put "my interpretation" in quotes? It is... isn't it?

Frankly, it's rude and uncalled for; but not necessarily a violation.

Why is it rude and uncalled for? I could say the same about you claiming that your interpretation of scripture is "what the bible tells us." Especially when you make such a claim about things the bible says nothing directly about... like evolution. It would be one thing if you didn't claim divine inerrancy for your interpretation of scripture (then it would be reasonable to assume it is your interpretation or opinion, without me pointing it out), but since you do, I am justified in reminding you that your "inerrant Word of God" is just your opinion of scripture.

If you won't though, it's your prerogative; but it's my prerogative to ignore you too.

If you stop claiming your opinion of scripture is "what the bible tells us," then I will stop bringing up "my interpretation." Deal?

 

[Targ]

Targ even though I disagree with you, I appreciate a good debate and respect ur opinion. But Blayz, personally attacking me is not going to help your cause at all dear.

Could you give some reasons why, in your opinion, my example was not a good test?

I guess well just have to agree to disagree. You know that there are holes in evolution so large you could drive a truck through. You know that since no scientist has ever taken the theory and put it through the scientific method, it cannot categorically be declared a scientific truth. I could go on and cite some websites for you to look at but I think I'd just be wasting my time. I think you know the holes in the theory as well as anybody and I just ask you to take a second look at them.

You'll have to be more specific about what holes you are referring to. Just saying there are holes without specifying them is not particularly helpful.

 

[Matthijs]

You mean code and keep their jobs?

I would say creationists who refuse to separate their beliefs from their work, don't work long.

That way, people can ask what contributions creationism make to society.

Ah yes, this is where the poor Christian majority is subjected to a conspiracy of scientist oppressors that suppress all those valuable Creationist studies that would be there if only scientists were not such anti-christian meanies.

Come now. If there is an independent case for ID then lets have it. If there is not, then stop with the claims of persecution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Come now. If there is an independent case for ID then lets have it.

Intelligent Design can take a hike -- how's that for an independent [fundamental Baptist] case?

 

[Matthijs]

I guess well just have to agree to disagree. You know that there are holes in evolution so large you could drive a truck through. You know that since no scientist has ever taken the theory and put it through the scientific method, it cannot categorically be declared a scientific truth. I could go on and cite some websites for you to look at but I think I'd just be wasting my time. I think you know the holes in the theory as well as anybody and I just ask you to take a second look at them.

I am aware of gaps in our knowledge, but not of any evidence so far that falsifies the theory. What holes do you refer to, and how do you feel they prove the theory cannot be true?

I am noticing though that a lot of creationists seem to spend a lot of time making a case against evolution in stead of for creationism. I think this is not the way to go about things, as even if we falsify the TOE, we do not then automatically prove that creationism is true. We could be designed by aliens, or by a supernatural being that no longer exists, for instance. Then there is the problem that even if we prove creationism, the question then arises WHICH god was responsible - Norse Mythology makes the same kind of claim as the Bible.

So would it not be better to prove creationism by the god of the Bible, in stead of simply saying "I am not convinced by evolution, therefor my particular god must have done it" - as this is not a very rational argument.

 

[Matthijs]

Intelligent Design can take a hike -- how's that for an independent [fundamental Baptist] case?

It isn't. It is the equivalent of saying "No, you!" in a playground kind of voice.

Have you got anything rational, or do you just want a shouting match? I can do a pretty good rant on occasion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you got anything rational, or do you just want a shouting match? I can do a pretty good rant on occasion.

Let me get this straight:

1. You don't believe in Intelligent Design.
2. I just said 'Intelligent Design' can take a hike.

-- And that's not good enough for you?

 

[Matthijs]

Let me get this straight:

1. You don't believe in Intelligent Design.
2. I just said 'Intelligent Design' can take a hike.

-- And that's not good enough for you?

Glad we have that cleared up then. It is one of the lamest ways to prove creationism and were better off without it.

There is also no independent case for creationism.