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

[Kylie]

Yeah, I realize that the link would be favorable to you,as scientists like to think they abide by that list of commands, however, that is the ideal...and all humans fall horribly short of these.

Can you point out a specific instance of where science has failed to do this?

 

[Tone]

Makes no difference .. If I ask you to describe your reality, you'll be using language .. which then (re)creates your reality for me, via the meanings of your words.
You just demonstrated that!

So...what's the problem?

 

[SelfSim]

And yet when you talk about Christians,who are myriad in number...over thousands of years...you don't seem to have the same rationalization. How long has the theory of evolution been around and how many witnesses in favor...not many at all...relatively speaking.

The difference is objective testing. I'm yet to see this process in action in establishing 'religious realities'. The terminologies used are not operational, and the processes are not aimed at producing usefulness for those who don't necessarily adopt the same fundamental beliefs.

 

[Tone]

And how have these Christians worked to eliminate their personal biases from their conclusions?

Relationships.

 

[SelfSim]

So...what's the problem?

Go back and look at what started this sub-conversation.
What I said is entirely consistent with this current point:

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?

 

[Tone]

Can you point out a specific instance of where science has failed to do this?

Any group of people who get together and have a list of guidelines knows that they are not followed to a T...it is impossible for us social beings to be 100% objective.

 

[SelfSim]

Relationships.

Relationships require communication via language ..

 

[Tone]

Okay. How do I repeat the tests that a Christian has done to verify their religious faith?

Keep doing what you've been doing.

 

[SelfSim]

Any group of people who get together and have a list of guidelines knows that they are not followed to a T...it is impossible for us social beings to be 100% objective.

So? How does that support what you have to say?

 

[Tone]

The difference is objective testing. I'm yet to see this process in action in establishing 'religious realities'. The terminologies used are not operational, and the processes are not aimed at producing usefulness for those who don't necessarily adopt the same fundamental beliefs.

Christianity has been in the crucible of objective testing for centuries...you act like this is new...have you studied the history of Christianity?

 

[Tone]

Go back and look at what started this sub-conversation.
What I said is entirely consistent with this current point:

I still don't get what you are trying to convey.

 

[Tone]

Relationships require communication via language ..

Yes...yes they do.

 

[Tone]

So? How does that support what you have to say?

All I'm saying is that science is by no means the objective endeavor that many of its fans display it to be.

 

[SelfSim]

All I'm saying is that science is by no means the objective endeavor that many of its fans display it to be.

Ok .. your opinion then.

 

[Kylie]

Keep doing what you've been doing.

I don't see how this answers my question.

 

[SelfSim]

Christianity has been in the crucible of objective testing for centuries...

Relgion is based on beliefs. Beliefs are not objectively testable .. your response is diversionary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Possibly. But if that is the case, I would need to see an explanation for why so many tests have shown it to be true, particular when scientific testing often is done to find holes and weaknesses in the ideas being tested.

Are ideas ever voted on, instead of tested?

 

[Kylie]

Are ideas ever voted on, instead of tested?

I'm not aware of any instance where something presented as fact by science was ever decided on by voting on it.

Can you give an example of such an instance?

 

[Tone]

I don't see how this answers my question.

Well, a couple of ways...one,you are still breathing and asking questions (I hope)...so you have life experience, which is crucial to testing faith. Second, you are presenting counter arguments to my faith (somewhat), which serves to verify my worldview. Thank you, by the way.

 

[Tone]

Relgion is based on beliefs. Beliefs are not objectively testable .. your response is diversionary.

"Beliefs are not objectively testable"...so...then...you don't believe in the "Scientific method"...I thought you did.