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

[Tone]

My point was to demonstrate that creationists are wrong because we are animals, according to the Bible.

How does that debunk creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh yeah, that reminds me...what is QV?

Quod vide.

I use it to mean: "Check this out."

 

[Tone]

Quod vide.

I use it to mean: "Check this out."

Oh...maybe related to:

Meaning of qvo is used in Slang, Spanish,,i.e., "What's up?"

*It was a joke...

 

[Ophiolite]

My point was to demonstrate that creationists are wrong because we are animals, according to the Bible.

Right. Thank you for that clarification. I'm glad I asked, as I read it quite differently.

 

[JackRT]

Do you think GM is bad?

Not at all.

 

[xianghua]

Per the title.

And if the answer is yes, how do creationists critically examine their own ideas?

simple: show me how a creature evolve into another one and creation will be in problem.

 

[Jimmy D]

simple: show me how a creature evolve into another one and creation will be in problem.

That’s not how it works.

Show me how animals magically appear from thin air.

 

[Tone]

That’s not how it works.

Show me how animals magically appear from thin air.

Where do they magically appear from thick liquid?

 

[Jimmy D]

Where do they magically appear from thick liquid?

They don’t as far as I know.

 

[Tone]

They don’t as far as I know.

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

 

[Ophiolite]

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

1. There is no suggestion that the primordial soup was thick.
2. There is no suggestion that if that is where life evolved that it did so magically.

Cute responses from you tend to confirm that you have no reasoned argument on your side, so go right ahead.

 

[Tone]

1. There is no suggestion that the primordial soup was thick.
2. There is no suggestion that if that is where life evolved that it did so magically.

Cute responses from you tend to confirm that you have no reasoned argument on your side, so go right ahead.

I think that it is more reasonable to hypothesize that living matter arose from resonating frequencies in the air, rather than from any waves of a thin/thick liquid.

 

[pitabread]

simple: show me how a creature evolve into another one and creation will be in problem.

I think you misunderstand the OP: I'm asking if and how creationists critically examine their ideas. Unless a creationist specifically accepts evolution, then this has nothing to do with evolution.

For example, if you believe that organisms were spontaneously created out of thin air, how would you critically examine that idea?

 

[Ophiolite]

I think that it is more reasonable to hypothesize that living matter arose from resonating frequencies in the air, rather than from any waves of a thin/thick liquid.

I think you are confusing the origin of life with the source of your own ideas. Do you have anything of substance to say?

 

[Tone]

I think you are confusing the origin of life with the source of your own ideas. Do you have anything of substance to say?

Hmmm...Ophiolite!

 

[trophy33]

How does that debunk creationism?

If we are animals, then there is no problem with evolution.

It also debunks literal "Ken Ham style" reading of Genesis.

 

[Jimmy D]

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

I don’t believe in magic.

 

[xianghua]

For example, if you believe that organisms were spontaneously created out of thin air, how would you critically examine that idea?

as i said: prove me that a creature can evolve into another creature by a natural process and my argument will falsify.

 

[Speedwell]

as i said: prove me that a creature can evolve into another creature by a natural process and my argument will falsify.

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?

 

[pitabread]

as i said: prove me that a creature can evolve into another creature by a natural process and my argument will falsify.

I'll take this to mean that you don't critically examine your ideas.