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

[Ophiolite]

And I stand by my assertion that the "real world" revolves around personal testimony and convention (which is an agreed upon testimony).

*
Definition of testimony


1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
c: an outward sign
2a: an open acknowledgment
b: a public profession of religious experience
3a(1): the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law
(2): the ark containing the tablets
b: a divine decree attested in the Scriptures
Definition of TESTIMONY

You seem to think "testimony" and "personal testimony" are the same.
You thought ""personal testimony is worthless as evidence for how the real world works" was the same as "personal testimony is worthless".

A pattern is emerging. That's not testimony on my part. That's publicly available data: a pattern.

 

[Tone]

You seem to think "testimony" and "personal testimony" are the same.
You thought ""personal testimony is worthless as evidence for how the real world works" was the same as "personal testimony is worthless".

A pattern is emerging. That's not testimony on my part. That's publicly available data: a pattern.

Convention is alignment of personal testimonies. Testimony is simply multiple personal testimonies in agreement.

 

[Tone]

Convention is not the real world...

I take this back...Convention is the "real world", but the real world is not necessarily reality.

Because, I see that you evolutionists are using the term "real world" to mean that which you and your heroes have determined to be acceptable.

 

[Ophiolite]

I take this back...Convention is the "real world", but the real world is not necessarily reality.

Because, I see that you evolutionists are using the term "real world" to mean that which you and your heroes have determined to be acceptable.

We would all get along a lot better if you excluded provocative wording such as "heroes" and even went so far as to drop the use of "evolutionists". Main stream biologists would be an accurate alternative. That would encourage the belief that you were looking for a genuine discussion rather than a fight.

Put another way, for someone who has chosen the forum name Tone it would be nice if you could manage an improvement in yours. To encourage you I have awarded a Friendly to your previous post.

 

[W2L]

. To encourage you I have awarded a Friendly to your previous post.

lol

 

[Tone]

We would all get along a lot better if you excluded provocative wording such as "heroes" and even went so far as to drop the use of "evolutionists". Main stream biologists would be an accurate alternative.

So you agree though, with what you consider to be "real world"...whatever "mainstream biologists" decide?

 

[Kylie]

That's nice.

Of course, you could prove me wrong in a second by providing some real evidence to support your position.

 

[Kylie]

Well, I guess we have to do away with the legal system...and contract law...and...all relationships...

*Guess we'll all be robots...

Yes, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It's been known for ages. The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases

 

[SelfSim]

I take this back...Convention is the "real world", but the real world is not necessarily reality.

Do you not see that both terms 'real world' and 'reality' convey meanings which are agreed upon by (english speaking) humans?

If this were not so, then how could we possibly understand eachother?
How could I possibly understand what you write at all, if this were not so?

 

[Kylie]

Tell this to @Kylie .

Yeah, there's a big difference between, "I have read this document, I understand it and I agree to its terms, so I will sign to indicate that I have read, understood and agree to it," and "Yeah, I remember the guy who ran down the laneway after I heard the scream."

 

[Kylie]

I take this back...Convention is the "real world", but the real world is not necessarily reality.

Because, I see that you evolutionists are using the term "real world" to mean that which you and your heroes have determined to be acceptable.

I use "real world" to describe that which has evidence showing it is true.

 

[W2L]

Yes, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It's been known for ages. The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases

Yes but it can be reliable as well. Its not always unreliable. We use eyewitness testimony throughout life. If i say i saw a reply from a poster named Kylie, is that eyewitness testimony true?

 

[Kylie]

Yes but it can be reliable as well. Its not always unreliable. We use eyewitness testimony throughout life. If i say i saw a reply from a poster named Kylie, is that eyewitness testimony true?

You have to understand when it is reliable and when it is not. Saying you saw a post from a person named Kylie is pretty easy to accept as true, because you can read it so there's no ambiguity, the presence of a member here named Kylie is documented, the name Kylie isn't that unusual, and she has many posts to her name.

If it was a little different, say you met someone who introduced themselves and said their name was Kylie, then there's a small risk you could be mistaken. Maybe they actually said their name was Carly, not Kylie, so you thought this person was me when in fact they were someone else entirely. I've had that mix up happen quite a few times, particular when I give my name at Nandos (a local chicken take away shop).

And if you are dealing with an event that happens without notice, then there's a good chance that much of your memory of it is actually just your brain piecing together various little bits and filling in the gaps, inventing stuff out of nothing, and it's impossible to know what's real and what your brain invented. And when a person isn't able to properly understand what is going on and is biased to believe a mythological explanation for things, that's going to dramatically colour their views and render their own interpretation of what happened as very unreliable.

 

[W2L]

there's a good chance that much of your memory of it is actually just your brain piecing together various little bits and filling in the gaps, inventing stuff out of nothing, and it's impossible to know what's real and what your brain invented. And when a person isn't able to properly understand what is going on and is biased to believe a mythological explanation for things, that's going to dramatically colour their views and render their own interpretation of what happened as very unreliable.

Sounds like we have Schizophrenia

 

[Kylie]

Sounds like we have Schizophrenia

Just the way our brains are built. Memory error - Wikipedia

 

[SelfSim]

... And if you are dealing with an event that happens without notice, then there's a good chance that much of your memory of it is actually just your brain piecing together various little bits and filling in the gaps, inventing stuff out of nothing, and it's impossible to know what's real and what your brain invented.

This is accuracy of recollections ... All those 'invented' bits are how we generate our sense of reality. We do it using the pre-agreed meanings of words. That sense of reality can be created by an individual mind .. or collective minds.

 

[SelfSim]

Just the way our brains are built. Memory error - Wikipedia

If that's so, then why ignore our brain's role in coming up with the meaning we assign to the term 'reality' (or 'true')?

 

[Kylie]

This is accuracy of recollections ... All those 'invented' bits are how we generate our sense of reality. We do it using the pre-agreed meanings of words. That sense of reality can be created by an individual mind .. or collective minds.

If what we remember is in part invented by our brains, then those memories can not be taken as accurate.

If that's so, then why ignore our brain's role in coming up with the meaning we assign to the term 'reality' (or 'true')?

When it comes to the science that is used to describe how the world works, we have mechanisms in place to eliminate this kind of error. We test it repeatedly. We make recordings of what happens so we aren't just relying on our memory. We get others to replicate our work.

 

[Tone]

Yes, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It's been known for ages. The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases

Multiple eyewitnesses saying the same thing?

*Or one witness?

 

[Tone]

evidence

Via convention?