• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Site Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,126
6,875
California
✟61,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Can you describe what you mean?

Look up the etymology of the word "science"...it is reductionist...how do you take a step back and look at the whole if all you are doing with ^ is dividing? It is very subjective in that it doesn't consider the other aspects of our beings; will, emotions, imagination, etc.... The funny thing is, it actually does, but those who want to dichotomize belief and reason, swear that it is a purely intellectual pursuit...but, everything about it...it's methods and measures...is subjective.
 
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Site Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,126
6,875
California
✟61,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Once again you seem befuddled by the concept of "burden of proof."

You made the claim that science is based on nothing but beliefs. You must show the support for that claim, or your claim is meaningless.
You have no proof to offer and cannot bear the burden of your preachy little godless religion.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah...a new heavens and a new earth...wherein corruption will be done away with...no more entropy and unnatural science...just like in the beginning!
Right, science will be a memorial and laughing stock of how low man can sink, and how utterly stupid he can become when rejecting Jesus.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As I stated, you just don't have any system for differentiating your particular beliefs for any other sincere interpretations or intuitions for anyone outside your own head.
Neither God nor His word are in my head, and your creation fables are nowhere else but in your noggan.

Things like DNA of extant species and the isotope percentages of dead terrestrial species seem to be objective points of fact that don't change with the spirituality and intuitions of viewers.
None of which support evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟262,240.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I've already got BB on READ ONLY status for now for the same antics.

I'd hate to do the same for you.

You're one of the more honest academians here.
I'm flattered that you find my posts so difficult to respond to.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,466
4,001
47
✟1,120,935.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Look up the etymology of the word "science"...it is reductionist...how do you take a step back and look at the whole if all you are doing with ^ is dividing? It is very subjective in that it doesn't consider the other aspects of our beings; will, emotions, imagination, etc.... The funny thing is, it actually does, but those who want to dichotomize belief and reason, swear that it is a purely intellectual pursuit...but, everything about it...it's methods and measures...is subjective.
Can you give me some specific examples of how scientific research is subjective?

The point of the method in its modern usage is that it is repeatable.
Neither God nor His word are in my head, and your creation fables are nowhere else but in your noggan
.
Please try to be civil.

I was not saying that God is all in your head, I was saying you don't have any ability to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you entirely.

You have your reading of the Bible and your internal intuition that you have miraculous discernment from the holy spirit... but you can't give me an external reason to accept that.

None of which support evolution.
They do, but I have no interest in discussing them with someone who doesn't agree with me on how the concept of evidence works. Why don't we just leave of discussing how the past works on this thread?
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Can you give me some specific examples of how scientific research is subjective?

Hey hey :)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1_9Jrv0QYwIl8VG5UhxqmI&cf=1

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures

What u think?

Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,646
7,195
✟342,662.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

What do I think about a manufactroversey from 2011 written by a non expert political hack funded by the fossil fuel industry and far right corporate interests who has been shown to be so wrong, about so much, so many times that actual scientific researchers asked he stop making stuff up and 180 degrees misinterpreting their papers and positions?

I dont think I could actually post an honest comment on the article in question without getting a lifelong site ban for the levels of profanity and character assassination I would rend upon it.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This "Science" (dividing of corruption) has led to more species being eradicated off the face of the earth, than anything else.
Huh? There is an ongoing human caused extinction event, but it pales in comparison to previous natural extinctions.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
What do I think about a manufactroversey from 2011 written by a non expert political hack funded by the fossil fuel industry and far right corporate interests who has been shown to be so wrong, about so much, so many times that actual scientific researchers asked he stop making stuff up and 180 degrees misinterpreting their papers and positions?

I dont think I could actually post an honest comment on the article in question without getting a lifelong site ban for the levels of profanity and character assassination I would rend upon it.

That was a strange reaction. :help:
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,466
4,001
47
✟1,120,935.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Hey hey :)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1_9Jrv0QYwIl8VG5UhxqmI&cf=1

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures

What u think?

Cheers
There are issues with this example.

This is not a specific example of how scientific evidence is subjective. It is presented as evidence of scientific fraud, which can in reality be an issue, but in no way renders the concept subjective.

The other main issue is that the "climate gate" controversy involved significant bad faith and dishonestly presented information to smear climate researchers and their work.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,608
European Union
✟236,199.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
if a cat stay as a cat (house cat vs a tiger)- then its not realy a new creature.
It depends on your definition of "really". Because a house cat and a tiger are different creatures.

But not as different as a fish and a giraffe, of course, because both cat and tiger have a more recent common ancestor, while fish and giraffe separated in a much longer past.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
if a cat stay as a cat (house cat vs a tiger)- then its not realy a new creature.

So, a house cat and a tiger are the same kind of creature. Makes sense, since the genetic similarity between a cat and a tiger is about 95.6%.
House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals

So when Humans and chimps share 99% genetic similarity, I guess that means that humans and chimps are the same kind of creature too, huh?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,608
European Union
✟236,199.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, a house cat and a tiger are the same kind of creature. Makes sense, since the genetic similarity between a cat and a tiger is about 95.6%.
House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals

So when Humans and chimps share 99% genetic similarity, I guess that means that humans and chimps are the same kind of creature too, huh?
House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals
Thats why I cannot take YEC seriously. They are so inconsistent. Their agenda is just a try to say this or that against evolution, but they have no coherent system that makes sense.

Its similar to Flat Earth. They have this or that explanation for this or that detail, but when their explanations are put together, they contradict themeselves.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Thats why I cannot take YEC seriously. They are so inconsistent.

I would expand that to include creationism in general. Creationists routinely contradict each other on orders of magnitude greater than anything in science.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,878
52,579
Guam
✟5,140,387.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Creationists routinely contradict each other on orders of magnitude greater than anything in science.
And yet every creationist who ever lived believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,608
European Union
✟236,199.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would expand that to include creationism in general. Creationists routinely contradict each other on orders of magnitude greater than anything in science.

How do you define creationists, generally? I, for example, believe that God is the Creator of everything, but I do not read Genesis as a scientific description of how and when He did it.

If He used processes, long time and natural laws, I see no problem with it, theologically.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.