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

[Tone]

If one could objectively prove the existence of the Christian God, they will succeed in something where no one has ever succeeded before

I am "objective" and I am proof...and there are many others.

*Countless have succeeded.

 

[Tone]

"objective proof"

For all your talk of "objective",you can give no reason for this concept, especially using the evolution mythos, which has no explanation for consciousness. We Bible believers have the explanation for the objective/subjective dichotomy...Creator/creature. This is the understanding that Darwin and all the other scientists of western thought took and ran with and added to with their own vain imaginations...and you were spoon fed it through books and you took it all on faith (no, not even faith...since faith is substantive).

*What did you call it, "cultural influence or specific emotional events in a person's life."...indeed.

 

[Shemjaza]

For all your talk of "objective",you can give no reason for this concept, especially using the evolution mythos, which has no explanation for consciousness. We Bible believers have the explanation for the objective/subjective dichotomy...Creator/creature. This is the understanding that Darwin and all the other scientists of western thought took and ran with and added to with their own vain imaginations...and you were spoon fed it through books and you took it all on faith (no, not even faith...since it is substantive).

*What did you call it, "cultural influence or specific emotional events in a person's life."...indeed.

The problem with personal experience or traditional beliefs isn't that they can't be true. They certainly could be.

But, the problem is that if you don't already believe in them, then there's no way to tell the difference between a true religious truth, a delusion and a deliberate lie.

That's the advantage of repeatable objective scientific evidence, it's constant and consistent.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is the understanding that Darwin and all the other scientists of western thought took and ran with and added to with their own vain imaginations...and you were spoon fed it through books and you took it all on faith (no, not even faith...since it is substantive).

That statement has at least two unfortunate characteristics. It is incorrect. It is offensive.

1. Many Christian scientists had and have no difficulty in accepting the conclusions Darwin reached based on the evidence. Do you think they are abandoning their faith?
2. To describe Darwin's imagination as vain demonstrates that either you have failed to read at least some of his works, explore one of his biographies, or consider part of his extensive correspondence, or you have completely misunderstood what you saw.
3. Spoon fed through books? Risible! I spent many hours in the laboratory studying fossils, conducted extensive literature searches in the library, searched for, collected and analysed many more fossils during weeks of field work. No spoons in sight.

Please put more thought into your contributions before you hit the Post Reply button. At present they are generally devoid of facts. This makes it boring for your readers and embarrassing for you. Thank you in advance.

 

[Kylie]

All claims in the creation and origins debate are based on beliefs, especially from so called science, so all that remains is looking to God, or the enemy and his minions. (Or leaning on your own understanding, which equals looking to the enemy)

Since you don't know that science is based on observable and verifiable evidence from the real world, I don't see how you are qualified to participate in a discussion about this topic.

 

[Kylie]

There would be no evolution mythology without Biblical "mythology".

And another unsupported claim.

 

[tas8831]

you have a contradiction here. you said that human with a dino will not be a problem for evolution and after that you said that it will be a problem to evolution. so what is your position? evolution can be falsify or not?

Yes, and you been claiming for years that a self-replicating robot penguin falsifies evolution without realizing how utterly stupid that claim is.

 

[pitabread]

For all your talk of "objective"

Just FYI, but there is no reason to write a half-dozen replies in a single thread to the same post. You can either quote different sections of my prior post in a single post of your own, or go back and edit your own post if you have more to add.

Writing a half-dozen separate replies just clutters the thread and makes it more difficult to follow the specific discussion.

 

[xianghua]

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.

if a cat stay as a cat (house cat vs a tiger)- then its not realy a new creature.

 

[Ophiolite]

if a cat stay as a cat (house cat vs a tiger)- then its not realy a new creature.

So, you concede that a house cat and a tiger are different kinds?

 

[xianghua]

So, you concede that a house cat and a tiger are different kinds?

no. the opposite.

 

[Ophiolite]

no. the opposite.

And yet this sentence contradicts you.

if a cat stay as a cat (house cat vs a tiger)- then its not realy a new creature

This sentence clearly means that if a cat were to change into a tiger then it would be a real creature.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you concede that a house cat and a tiger are different kinds?

A house cat is a Felis.

A tiger is a Panthera.

Yes -- different kinds.

 

[HitchSlap]

A house cat is a Felis.

A tiger is a Panthera.

Yes -- different kinds.

So, different lineages of the bush of evolution.

Got it!

 

[AV1611VET]

So, different lineages of the bush of evolution.

Different kinds.

 

[AV1611VET]

Got it!

An Arab phone: yes.

And academians can't pwn the Bible without one.

 

[HitchSlap]

Different kinds.

Right, evolution. You already said that.

 

[HitchSlap]

An Arab phone: yes.

And academians can't pwn the Bible without one.

The bible “pwns” itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, evolution. You already said that.

As much as you'd like to think I'm on evolution's side, evolution can go to Hell.

 

[HitchSlap]

As much as you'd like to think I'm on evolution's side, evolution can go to Hell.

Lol. Ok if I’m amused by the fact a grown man is scared of a scientific theory? AV, have you ever considered that if your god exists, that he might actually reward intellectual honesty? Instead, you’re left having to justify beliefs in a god that appears to be deliberately deceptive. Maybe the jokes on you and it’s us who’s really saved.