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

Tone · May 26, 2019

myst33 said:
My point was to demonstrate that creationists are wrong because we are animals, according to the Bible.

How does that debunk creationism?

AV1611VET · May 27, 2019

Tone said:
Oh yeah, that reminds me...what is QV?

Quod vide.

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

Tone · May 27, 2019

AV1611VET said:
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 · May 27, 2019

myst33 said:
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 · May 27, 2019

Kylie said:
Do you think GM is bad?

Not at all.

xianghua · May 27, 2019

pitabread said:
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 · May 27, 2019

xianghua said:
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 · May 27, 2019

Jimmy D said:
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 · May 27, 2019

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

They don’t as far as I know.

Tone · May 27, 2019

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

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

Ophiolite · May 27, 2019

Tone said:
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 · May 27, 2019

Ophiolite said:
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 · May 27, 2019

xianghua said:
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 · May 27, 2019

Tone said:
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 · May 27, 2019

Ophiolite said:
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 · May 27, 2019

Tone said:
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 · May 28, 2019

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

I don’t believe in magic.

xianghua · May 28, 2019

pitabread said:
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 · May 28, 2019

xianghua said:
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 · May 28, 2019

xianghua said:
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.

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

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

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

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

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

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

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

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

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency