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

xianghua · May 28, 2019

Speedwell said:
Not likely, because you keep changing your demands as to what constitutes "another creature." Have you not already rejected observed instances of speciation because the new species was not "other " enough?

speciation is just another variation of the same creature (cats for instance). so its not realy a different creature.

xianghua · May 28, 2019

trophy33 · May 28, 2019

xianghua said:
speciation is just another variation of the same creature (cats for instance). so its not realy a different creature.

All cats are just one species, are they not? Various cats are just various breeds and can interbreed with each other.

Ophiolite · May 28, 2019

myst33 said:
All cats are just one species, are they not? Various cats are just various breeds and can interbreed with each other.

If you mean domestic cats, they are one species. However there are more than three dozen species of cats in the colloquial sense.

xianghua · May 29, 2019

myst33 said:
All cats are just one species, are they not? Various cats are just various breeds and can interbreed with each other.

yep. its true basically. depend on the definition i think. so or so there is no real evidence for evolution.

trophy33 · May 29, 2019

xianghua said:
yep. its true basically. depend on the definition i think. so or so there is no real evidence for evolution.

Except of our shared DNA, fossils order, transitional forms, successful predictions etc.

Kylie · May 29, 2019

@AV1611VET I think you missed my last post to you...

AV1611VET said:
I still feel compelled to ask:

What's to examine?

God said it, that settles it.

But how do you know God said it?

xianghua · May 30, 2019

myst33 said:
Except of our shared DNA, fossils order, transitional forms, successful predictions etc.

this is the argument from common similarity. but since common similalrity can poit to a common d esigner it can be used as evidence for a common descent. the same is true for fossils order. many fossils are actually in the wrong place.

trophy33 · May 30, 2019

xianghua said:
this is the argument from common similarity. but since common similalrity can poit to a common d esigner it can be used as evidence for a common descent. the same is true for fossils order. many fossils are actually in the wrong place.

The problem is, that you will read this only on ID/creationist websites. Nowhere else.

If you can find cow with a dinosaur, dog with a trilobite, show me.

xianghua · May 30, 2019

myst33 said:
The problem is, that you will read this only on ID/creationist websites. Nowhere else.

If you can find cow with a dinosaur, dog with a trilobite, show me.

first we need to define what is "out of place fossils". so if according to evolution we need to find that order: 12345, and instead we find 12354 that is an out of place fossil. agree?

trophy33 · May 30, 2019

xianghua said:
first we need to define what is "out of place fossils". so if according to evolution we need to find that order: 12345, and instead we find 12354 that is an out of place fossil. agree?

Why cant we find 51243? A dog with a trilobite, dinosaurs with people etc?

Also, how do you explain for yourself that we can make predictions like "in 3, there is this animal, we today have this animal, therefore in strata 4 or 5 we should find their transitional form" - and later, it is really discovered?
Creation "science" or "ID" cannot make any working predictions...

pitabread · May 31, 2019

myst33 said:
Creation "science" or "ID" cannot make any working predictions...

In order to make predictions, they would need to have constraints. That is something creationism/ID doesn't work with.

It also explains why there are so many contradictory flavors of creationism out there.

USincognito · May 31, 2019

Tone said:
Where do they magically appear from thick liquid?

Jimmy D said:
They don’t as far as I know.

Tone said:
Oh okay good,you don't believe in primordial soup.

That is quite the magnificent non sequitur. Bravo.

Tone · May 31, 2019

Kylie said:
@AV1611VET I think you missed my last post to you...

But how do you know God said it?

Because the Bible tells me so...

AV1611VET · May 31, 2019

Tone said:
Because the Bible tells me so...

Here it comes:

"Circular logic" in three ... two ... one ...

Tone · May 31, 2019

AV1611VET said:
Here it comes:

"Circular logic" in three ... two ... one ...

Genesis 3
"1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

What kind of logic is displayed above ^? Is this an account of the first science? Notice how the serpent analyzed the simplicity of the matter, which is that "God hath said". Shouldn't that have been enough?

AV1611VET · May 31, 2019

Tone said:
What kind of logic is displayed above ^?

Subtility.

Tone said:
Is this an account of the first science?

Affirmative.

Tone said:
Notice how the serpent analyzed the simplicity of the matter, which is that "God hath said".

Gail A. Riplinger and Peter S. Ruckman point that out all the time.

Tone said:
Shouldn't that have been enough?

Yes.

God said it, that settles it.

NO means NO.

But like a good scientist, Eve jumped the gun and subjected the Forbidden Fruit to her empirical senses, as did Adam.

Tone · May 31, 2019

AV1611VET said:
Here it comes:

"Circular logic" in three ... two ... one ...

I prefer cyclical reasoning and living:

Ezekiel 1
"15When I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16The workmanship of the wheels looked like the gleam of beryl, and all four had the same likeness. Their workmanship looked like a wheel within a wheel. 17As they moved, they went in any of the four directions, without pivoting as they moved"

Tone · May 31, 2019

AV1611VET said:
Subtility.

The first recorded argument...

AV1611VET said:
Affirmative

I was thinking today about how the word "science" basically means to divide...so analysis...which is why it can never encompass all of life, so it's linear view of biology should not be used in a critical examination of the Creator's ways.

Kylie · May 31, 2019

AV1611VET said:
Here it comes:

"Circular logic" in three ... two ... one ...

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer my question to you...

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Defeater of Illogic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency