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

[Kylie]

The only reason I read the rest of the post is because I was looking for an answer to my question.

If it wasn't for the Arab phone, I don't think anyone would answer my questions; but they use it to perfection.

Changing what the Bible actually says in order to try to make a point.

Let's get it straight - you read the rest of my post and (figuratively) ran screaming from the conversation.

And I didn't change what the Bible said. I pointed out how you were trying to claim the Bible was using a figure of speech, which your boolean standards do not allow.

Perhaps you should insert something into your boolean standards which allows you to claim a passage from the Bible is a figure of speech if it contradicts science? Maybe something like this:

1. Bible says X, science says Ø = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
3. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
4. Bible says X, science says Y and has a whole lot of evidence that is hard to deny = Go with Y and claim that X is a figure of speech and so we don't need to insist on taking it literally
5. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
6. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

 

[AV1611VET]

[ deleted ]

 

[Kylie]

Is your beef against my Boolean standards, or is it against Christian literalists claiming certain passages are figures of speech?

Either way, anytime you want to walk a mile in my shoes, I'll be glad to let you.

Assuming you can restrain yourself long enough to keep from ridiculing what others believe.

If certain types of Christians bother you so much, and you can't keep it to yourself, I submit you have a real problem.

I'd hate to live next door to you.

My beef is that you are claiming we should take a passage from the Bible as a figure of speech when your boolean standards do not allow for that.

What good are your standards if you abandon them whenever you feel like it?

 

[AV1611VET]

[ deleted ]

 

[KWCrazy]

The Bible says the moon is a light.?

The Bible describes it as a greater light and a lesser light.
It doesn't matter because you choose to reject it anyways. The Bible is a mystery to the unsaved. It is not intended for you to understand. It is there for you to reject until you stand in judgement for your rejection. Your argument impresses nobody.

 

[Kylie]

The Bible describes it as a greater light and a lesser light.
It doesn't matter because you choose to reject it anyways. The Bible is a mystery to the unsaved. It is not intended for you to understand. It is there for you to reject until you stand in judgement for your rejection. Your argument impresses nobody.

And my position is nothing more than that is not what reality indicates.

Reality shows us that the moon does not create light.

You seem to think that I am going to reject anything the Bible says just because it is the Bible, when this is not true.

I will reject ANYTHING that contradicts reality. If you can show me how the Biblical claim that the moon is a light source agrees with reality, I will accept the Biblical claim. Simple as that.

 

[KWCrazy]

Reality shows us that the moon does not create light.

The Bible doesn't say the moon creates light. You create a strawman and then attack it.

I will reject ANYTHING that contradicts reality.

You mean your interpretation of reality.
"It clearly says in the Genesis account that the two lights were created together, but not precisely saying they each produce light, only that they provide light. Genesis 1 is not attempting to call the moon something other than what it is." source

 

[Kylie]

The Bible doesn't say the moon creates light. You create a strawman and then attack it.

You mean your interpretation of reality.
"It clearly says in the Genesis account that the two lights were created together, but not precisely saying they each produce light, only that they provide light. Genesis 1 is not attempting to call the moon something other than what it is." source

So if we take the term "light" to mean something that reflects light from another source, then my bathroom mirror is a light.

Would you call a bathroom mirror a light?

The Bible also does not make any differentiation between the types of light, only their size. There is nothing to suggest that the writers of the Bible understood the fundamentally different types of bodies they are.

 

[xianghua]

Why not as many as the ones in the right place?

so if about 50% of fossils were in the wrong order you will admit that evolution is false?

 

[xianghua]

Yes it is true. We can't just push things back as far as we like. You don't seem to understand this point.

if you say so...

 

[xianghua]

I said you'd been told many times that humans with dinosaurs would be a problem. You told me I was incorrect i.e. I was lying.

i actually refer to the claim that its incorrect that such a case will falsify evolution. not that you didnt said it. my bad.

 

[trophy33]

so if about 50% of fossils were in the wrong order you will admit that evolution is false?

Evolution cannot be false, because we see it and it works in our daily life. Its like saying sun is false.

We can be wrong about past, though, if you have 50% fossils against evolution, it would be a great thing for us to move forward. Can you show us?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution cannot be false, because we see it and it works in our daily life. Its like saying sun is false.

no it doesnt. we dont see creatures that change into different creatures. we just see variations of the same creatures.

We can be wrong about past, though, if you have 50% fossils against evolution, it would be a great thing for us to move forward. Can you show us?

so 50% of fossils in the wrong place will falsify evolution? but you just said that we cant falsify it.

 

[trophy33]

no it doesnt. we dont see creatures that change into different creatures. we just see variations of the same creatures.

We see creatures changing. Thats evolution. When a creature changed so much that it does not breed with the original one, then we have a different creature.

so 50% of fossils in the wrong place will falsify evolution? but you just said that we cant falsify it.

With fossils, you can only falsify the theory about past, logically. But not evolution as such that is happening right now, its a real thing.

Show us fossil layers and propose an alternative theory about how it was made, instead of a slow evolution of one creature into another?

 

[dad]

Yeah, the claim doesn't count as its own support. Care to try again?

Since the bible is supported it's claims have support.

 

[dad]

We see creatures changing. Thats evolution. When a creature changed so much that it does not breed with the original one, then we have a different creature.



With fossils, you can only falsify the theory about past, logically. But not evolution as such that is happening right now, its a real thing.

Show us fossil layers and propose an alternative theory about how it was made, instead of a slow evolution of one creature into another?

We should not look at the fossil record as a record of how things were made so much as a record of how things that were made died.

 

[Yttrium]

so 50% of fossils in the wrong place will falsify evolution? but you just said that we cant falsify it.

It would help if you said "theory of evolution" and not just "evolution". Evolution (change in frequency of alleles in a population over time) is an observable fact. The theory of evolution (common descent) is the unprovable and falsifiable stuff.

It's very common for people to just say "evolution" instead of "theory of evolution", but people are easily confused by that.

 

[dad]

I am saying that if a Christian decides that they want to follow an interpretation of the Bible that disagrees with an easily shown aspect of reality, then they are not apparently interested in reality..

If a person interprets what is reality without God they are not interested in truth.

 

[Ophiolite]

If a person interprets what is reality without God they are not interested in truth.

Prove it.

 

[trophy33]

We should not look at the fossil record as a record of how things were made so much as a record of how things that were made died.

I meant how the fossil records were made - from simple ancient organisms to todays ones.