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

[dad]

You have a really huge problem understanding contexts. You simply see similar words in various places in the Bible and just put them together, thinking you proved something. Bible is words, Jesus is "the Word", therefore Bible is Jesus, therefore Bible is God. Oh mine.

That His word is true and that Jesus fulfilled Scripture and was the living word of God is basic Christianity actually.

This is what you do. You ignore the heart of the Bible and concentrate on its human part, just for your own good feeling of a "conflict with the evil science". Do you really thing that the goal of Christianity is to push forward the existence of the firmanent or precise Jewish genealogies? No.

I guess the angel reminding folks in Revelation that He created all things and all the other holy men of God in the bible who affirm and refer to it are ignoring the heart of the bible eh? Good luck with that.

Yes. And again, Bible is neither God nor dictated by God. Its written by humans, from their viewpoint and in their own words (except of some parts like prophecies). Your view of inspiration is not orthodox and has been rejected by the majority of the church for millenia. Even Augustin said we should not bend reality to accomodate it to Scriptures, but we should try to understand Scriptures according to reality.

The majority of the church system does not overrule God and Scripture, sorry that is news to you.

A child is not an imbecile. Ancient people were not imbeciles just because they were not scientifically as developed as we are. You are just trying to use as many wrong things from their books as possible and ignore as many good things as possible.

God spoke through them so what they said was from above...not from below like so called science. I also suspect that the ancients were at least as smart as modern man.

A child: God made me.
A scientist: Your parents made you.

Both are right, in different meanings.

A child: God created the world and Adam and Eve.
A Scientist: You came from pond slime and the world from a cosmic series of flukes.
A Nominal bible believer: I agree with the scientist no matter what.

For example the narrative that we are from dust means we are mortal, fragile.

No more than a river really means a train, or a tree really means the milky way. We are mortal and fragile in this sinful state, that is true, but that in no way takes away from the reality of the first man and woman.

But you ignore this message and take it all wrong, trying to prove that we are scientifically made of a literal dust.

I try not to overrule and correct God and tell Him how He reeeaaallllly done it.

You think you are doing something useful, but you are actually throwing away the message.

Whatever message opposes Scripture, let it be thrown away, stomped on, burned to ashes, and scattered to the winds.

 

[dad]

It's a matter of what we are talking about.

You were insulting people about what they believe, I was pointing out that regardless of what is true or believed, you aren't presenting anything that I can independently verify.


I stand by the statement.

God does not present things demon science can or will independently verify. He tells us what happened..the truth. o that is not in our heads. Yes, the lying anti god fables of so called science are in their heads.

I can read the scripture too, but I can't see any reason to accept it.

It depends what we want to accept perhaps.

Given that I don't have any internal feeling that the scripture in general and your interpretation in particular is true what reason do I have aside from "Because Dad said so on an internet forum."?

Like to show some other interpretation of the bible on creation? You can't. People who do have inserted things that are not there and do not fit.

I have conjecture that is consistent with the evidence collected in the physical world.

So you have godless theories based on a small part of the big picture. OK.

You don't have to take it on faith, or accept that I'm an authority. You just have to accept that physical events leave evidence that can be examined and understood.

Not the way origin fable makers have 'understood' them.

No, I'm happy to discuss this with someone who disagrees with me about interpretation of evidence, because that can be discussed.

I disagree with your interpretation of all evidences regarding origins.

You have repeatedly claimed that evidence is irrelevant because a completely untraceable supernatural event occurred and just happened to resemble evidence against your beliefs.

Creation is supernatural if it happened, obviously. So is God. What, you thought He had to fit in your little box?

Different state pasts fish bowl star systems don't have any thing to analyse or discuss aside from, "This is how Dad feels his reading of one book makes the most sense."

The limits of where man has been and how long he observed on earth and what is actually known, are paramount to the discussion and absolutely relevant.

People might feel the presence of God, and that might give them the conviction to accept anything that might seem weird of illogical.

The bible is there regardless of feelings.Easy to check if we want to.

 

[HitchSlap]

No more than a river really means a train, or a tree really means the milky way. We are mortal and fragile in this sinful state, that is true, but that in no way takes away from the reality of the first man and woman.

Actually, we know quite a lot about human origins, and there never was a "first man and woman." That's not how primate evolution works.

(oh, and we're not actually made from dirt, either.)

I try not to overrule and correct God and tell Him how He reeeaaallllly done it.

Yet, from where I'm sitting, that's exactly what it appears you're doing. When you find yourself having to ignore the whole of reality to literally accept a creation myth as "truth," well, then you've got a problem with your epistemology.

Whatever message opposes Scripture, let it be thrown away, stomped on, burned to ashes, and scattered to the winds.

No need to be such a drama king.

 

[Tone]

In what way is this evidence for your assertion that "all of us have actively attempted to disprove the existence of God ".

We are inconsistent in our love and pursuit of life, which His Law propagates. He is life...what hath mankind wrought?

 

[dad]

Actually, we know quite a lot about human origins, and there never was a "first man and woman."

Actually you know no such thing.

That's not how primate evolution works.

That is how man was created.

(oh, and we're not actually made from dirt, either.)

You have a time machine?

Yet, from where I'm sitting, that's exactly what it appears you're doing. When you find yourself having to ignore the whole of reality to literally accept a creation myth as "truth," well, then you've got a problem with your epistemology.

The same is true of the evo fable group.

 

[Kylie]

actually not. there is a difference between neutral mutations and non neutral. some of the differences among chimp and human arent neutral when almost all differences between house cat and a tiger are neutral.

If nearly all of the differences between house cats and tigers are neutral, why is it that they look so different?

And have you got a source for this claim?

 

[Kylie]

We are talking of how believers in the bible (creation (ists) ) examine ideas. When I examine demon science origin claims, I look for proof, support, basis, logic. When I examine God's word I look for a track record of how the prophesies did, and how it works in people's lives that try it, and the miracles and etc etc.

So you have a double standard.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

actually not. there is a difference between neutral mutations and non neutral. some of the differences among chimp and human arent neutral when almost all differences between house cat and a tiger are neutral.

What you've actually written here in weasel words is:

"There is a difference between neutral mutations and non neutral. Some of the differences among chimp and human aren't neutral when some of the differences between house cat and tiger also aren't neutral."

Alternatively it could be:

"There is a difference between neutral mutations and non neutral. Almost all of the differences among chimp and human are neutral when almost all of the differences between house cat and tiger are also neutral."

So your argument appears to be that these are different cases because they are the same

 

[Tone]

when that beginning was

I'm no genius, but I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that the beginning was...in the...beginning...

 

[dad]

So you have a double standard.

Not at all. We believe the bible for real reasons. people believe origin science stories by faith alone.

 

[Tone]

Not at all. We believe the bible for real reasons. people believe origin science stories by faith alone.

I have to slightly disagree with you here...faith involves real reasons...it is substantive and evidential. The theory of evolution is taken as fanciful.

 

[Kylie]

Not at all. We believe the bible for real reasons. people believe origin science stories by faith alone.

You still haven't been able to show that...

 

[dad]

I have to slightly disagree with you here...faith involves real reasons...it is substantive and evidential. The theory of evolution is taken as fanciful.

OK. That is the way we see it. I was thinking of how they may see it. To them, the delusions loom very very large and seem real.

 

[dad]

You still haven't been able to show that...

I showed it to me. You need to show what you believe to you. You sure haven't shown it to the rest of us here.

 

[SelfSim]

Not at all. We believe the bible for real reasons. people believe origin science stories by faith alone.

(i) You still haven't been able to convince anyone that you have the slightest clue about how to distinguish what is real from what isn't real .. (so much for your 'reasons');

(ii) 'Origin science stories' is your term. I don't have a clue as to what you mean by that term .. Do you?

(iii) I don't believe (or have 'faith' in) anything about what science has to say because I don't have to. Even if I did, it would make zero difference to what science has to say.

 

[Kylie]

I showed it to me. You need to show what you believe to you. You sure haven't shown it to the rest of us here.

And you haven't shown your evidence to anyone here. I have, you are just incapable of recognising it.

 

[W2L]

Actually, we know quite a lot about human origins, and there never was a "first man and woman." That's not how primate evolution works.

How did man's ancestors reproduce?

 

[Kylie]

How did man's ancestors reproduce?

Pretty much the way placental mammals today do it.

And if you need help with that, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[Shemjaza]

How did man's ancestors reproduce?

Male and female developed long before humans. There were XX and XY mammals around while the dinosaurs walked the Earth.

The population of hominids that developed into humans had many males and females.

 

[Shemjaza]

Right, it's not the science its us...it's the humans behind it...who have imagined it and thought it up and have used the construct in accordance with their (our) wills. Don't you see how it is subjective? How is that any different than the Christian religion, that you say is a personal subjective experience (though we contend that it is founded not on human imagination)? This is why the Bible speaks of the harvest and fruit...very soon, we will see which is the good tree and which is that other one.

Defining subjective in this way renders the terms subjective and objective completely meaningless.

Obviously no human is 100% reliable, but that is why repeatability and consistency are useful and important.