Creationist philosophy

[Speedwell]

They shouldn't have made their research public. Many reached different conclusions than they did.

Not many, most of them Fundamentalist Protestants.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not many, most of them Fundamentalist Protestants.

The modern descendants of Israel... interesting.

 

[Speedwell]

The modern descendants of Israel... interesting.

How do you figure?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you figure?

It's a British Israelism thing.

 

[HitchSlap]

I shoot a traditional recurve bow. There are no competing weapons.

and nothing rhymes with orange...

 

[HitchSlap]

I rarely argue from a religious position either. Observation alone reveals purposeful creation.

Argument from ignorance?

 

[Ophiolite]

I've offered the general study of human and animal anatomy as well as the interdependence of various disparate species, explainable only by special creation.

No. You have offered a grossly distorted, inaccurate, misunderstood, risible interpretation of certain biological information from which you have, with zero logic, arrived at a series of conclusions that are dependent only upon the beliefs that you think your faith requires you to accept. Each of your attempts, sans logic, sans structure, has been refuted by several members, yet you have stubbornly refused to recognise the inadequacy of your own material, or the strength of those arguing against you.

As I have said before, I have no problem whatsoever with your faith based beliefs. I thoroughly support your right to express that faith, explain it to others, evangelise. Go for it. I have a minor problem when you deceive yourself into thinking those beliefs are supported by science. And when you persist on making that claim publicly then I have a major problem: I disapprove of lying.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Argument from ignorance?

Perhaps I see things that others don't, unless all that can be known is known.

 

[HitchSlap]

Perhaps I see things that others don't...

This is not my impression of you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. You have offered a grossly distorted, inaccurate, misunderstood, risible interpretation of certain biological information from which you have, with zero logic, arrived at a series of conclusions that are dependent only upon the beliefs that you think your faith requires you to accept. Each of your attempts, sans logic, sans structure, has been refuted by several members, yet you have stubbornly refused to recognise the inadequacy of your own material, or the strength of those arguing against you.

As I have said before, I have no problem whatsoever with your faith based beliefs. I thoroughly support your right to express that faith, explain it to others, evangelise. Go for it. I have a minor problem when you deceive yourself into thinking those beliefs are supported by science. And when you persist on making that claim publicly then I have a major problem: I disapprove of lying.

The evidence I see supports my faith, as does yours.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is not my impression of you.

Few put their best foot forward in this venue.

 

[HitchSlap]

Few put their best foot forward in this venue.

Shame, really.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Shame, really.

True, nothing to see here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All that's needed to support ID or creation is a thoughtful look at things.

Indeed - that's why what's really important is critical thinking.

 

[VirOptimus]

The evidence I see supports my faith, as does yours.

Science do not require faith.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science do not require faith.

Confidence, in the case of science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Confidence, in the case of science.

No. You are, as usual, wrong.

 

[Larniavc]

The reason why creationism is all important, is because creationism validates the concepts of both opinion and fact in one conceptual scheme. So that means that ALL facts about the universe, and all opinions like about beauty, are based on creationism.

Creationist philosophy is about the structure and logic of creation theory. It is the same as the religious doctrine of creationism, but without the specifics of who created what when. Those specifics are reduced to variables. That leaves only the mechanism of creation, which mechanism is choosing. Things originate by choice. Making a choice is defined as making an alternative future the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present, or not.

The creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / existence of which is a matter of chosen opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence

To take human beings as an example, the human being is split in the 2 categories, body and soul. The body belongs in category 2. Meaning the body is a created chosen thing, and the existence of it is a matter of fact. The soul is in category 1. Meaning the soul chooses, it is creative, and it is a matter of chosen opinion what emotions are in the soul, or if the soul exists.

Definition of opinion:
An opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Definition of fact:
A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind.

Materialism does not validate subjective opinion at all, materialism solely validates facts. This is why materialism led to social darwinism. Materialism forced people to regard the worth of people as a factual issue, because materialism only validates fact.

Postmodernism asserts that opinions are inherent in statements of fact. That leaves fact and opinion in a mess, but it gets away from the coldhearted attitudes promoted by materialism.

Only with creationism can you have both purely emotional opinions, and perfectly hard scientific fact besides. Creationism provides a constitution for the mind. View attachment 254020

Which hard science support creationism and how?

 

[Speedwell]

Bri

It's a British Israelism thing.

British fascists? What does that have to do with Protestant fundamentalism in the US?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. You are, as usual, wrong.

Science isn't confident of what they believe?