For RichardT: why creationism is harmful

[AV1611VET]

And like any other science, it at least allows for people to try to prove it wrong. They did, and in so doing, discovered the right answer.

What's that called? Trial and error?

[bible]Isaiah 41:21[/bible]

 

[Nathan Poe]

What's that called? Trial and error?

[bible]Isaiah 41:21[/bible]

A far more reliable method than communing with mythological figures.

 

[Vene]

What's that called? Trial and error?

[bible]Isaiah 41:21[/bible]

Actually, good science is the opposite of what was said in that quote. You start with the evidence (strong reasons) and try to find an appropriate conclusion (your cause).

 

[AV1611VET]

A far more reliable method than communing with mythological figures.

That's right --- I take communion with what you call a mythological figure.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's right --- I take communion with what you call a mythological figure.

It shows.

 

[Aggie]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but may I suggest you hurry up. You sound like an intelligent man.

What’s this supposed to mean? Are you saying that I’d better get started on evaluating all of the world’s religious texts, in order to have time to determine which of them is true during my lifespan?

If I remember correctly, I’m less than half your age. You’re in your fifties, and as of today I’m 24 years old. I’ve also already spent several years trying to determine which of the world’s religious texts are divinely inspired, and this was after living as a Christian and believing the Bible for around 18 years. However, the conclusion I eventually reached is that God hasn’t directly revealed himself directly to humans in any of these books, which is why I’m a Deist.

I can explain why I concluded that if you like, but that’s a topic for another thread, and it should probably go in General Apologetics rather than here.

How would you equate what happened in the physical world in 1948 with what Amos wrote from the spiritual world in 9:15?

You’ve told me before that fulfilled prophecies are your reason for trusting the Bible, and I’m not going to argue with that. But you’re still missing my point. In order to see that these prophecies have actually been fulfilled, you still have to observe what’s going on in the physical world, and determine logically that this is what the prophecies were referring to. In the case of Amos 9:15, for example, this reason for trusting the Bible requires you to understand enough about world history to know that Isreal was created as a country in 1948.

In the example you described, your reason for trusting the Bible is because based on your observations of the physical world, the Bible seems to be accurately describing it. What I’m saying is that if this is your reason for trusting the Bible, then when you see an example of the Bible appearing to condtradict the physical world, then that is—by definition—something that makes your reason for trusting the Bible weaker. If your reason for trusting the Bible is based on its consistency with the physical world, how is it that when you find out that there are some examples where they appear to not be consistent, this causes you to mistrust the physical world rather than the Bible?

 

[theFijian]

How's this for bearing false witness?

You constantly retreat to this kind of tactic, are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you continually have to point out the flaws in other people?

 

[Aggie]

Richard, I would appreciate it if you could reply to this thread at some point, even if it’s just to say that you need some time to discuss what I’ve posted with other creationists. You’ve been posting in your own thread here, but so far you haven’t acknowledged this one that I posted for you.

 

[LittleNipper]

What’s this supposed to mean? Are you saying that I’d better get started on evaluating all of the world’s religious texts, in order to have time to determine which of them is true during my lifespan?

If I remember correctly, I’m less than half your age. You’re in your fifties, and as of today I’m 24 years old. I’ve also already spent several years trying to determine which of the world’s religious texts are divinely inspired, and this was after living as a Christian and believing the Bible for around 18 years. However, the conclusion I eventually reached is that God hasn’t directly revealed himself directly to humans in any of these books, which is why I’m a Deist.

I can explain why I concluded that if you like, but that’s a topic for another thread, and it should probably go in General Apologetics rather than here.



You’ve told me before that fulfilled prophecies are your reason for trusting the Bible, and I’m not going to argue with that. But you’re still missing my point. In order to see that these prophecies have actually been fulfilled, you still have to observe what’s going on in the physical world, and determine logically that this is what the prophecies were referring to. In the case of Amos 9:15, for example, this reason for trusting the Bible requires you to understand enough about world history to know that Isreal was created as a country in 1948.

In the example you described, your reason for trusting the Bible is because based on your observations of the physical world, the Bible seems to be accurately describing it. What I’m saying is that if this is your reason for trusting the Bible, then when you see an example of the Bible appearing to condtradict the physical world, then that is—by definition—something that makes your reason for trusting the Bible weaker. If your reason for trusting the Bible is based on its consistency with the physical world, how is it that when you find out that there are some examples where they appear to not be consistent, this causes you to mistrust the physical world rather than the Bible?

No, I believe it should make one question what one sees and hears and imagines as possibly flawed. GOD is not flawed.

 

[Vene]

No, I believe it should make one question what one sees and hears and imagines as possibly flawed. GOD is not flawed.

But your holy book is.

 

[TheOutsider]

But your holy book is.

And our understanding of God is very flawed. There is no way that any one person could actually understand God.

 

[LittleNipper]

But your holy book is.

GOD edited it. It exists ONLY to suit HIS will and not mine.

 

[LittleNipper]

And our understanding of God is very flawed. There is no way that any one person could actually understand God.

That is exactly why GOD designed HIStory. To inform and point, but not decieve.

 

[TheOutsider]

That is exactly why GOD designed HIStory. To inform and point, but not decieve.

He seems to have designed quite a few Histories. I have no particular reason to feel that yours is any more correct than any of the others.

 

[Chalnoth]

GOD edited it. It exists ONLY to suit HIS will and not mine.

It sounds like you're trying to place more value on the words of men than their words actually deserve. It sounds like you're trying to get a free pass for those words, let them pass through the normal critical analysis by claiming that we can't question them because they're actually God's words. It sounds very, very dishonest.

Me, I fail to see how any being greater than man could be, let alone would want to be, associated with the creation of a text so full of internal contradictions and incorrect statements.

 

[Vene]

GOD edited it. It exists ONLY to suit HIS will and not mine.

Which is why there is only one version of the Bible and no competing religions. Wait...that's not right.

 

[TheOutsider]

It sounds like you're trying to place more value on the words of men than their words actually deserve. It sounds like you're trying to get a free pass for those words, let them pass through the normal critical analysis by claiming that we can't question them because they're actually God's words. It sounds very, very dishonest.

Special pleading is the Creationists most favoritest logical fallacy.

 

[LittleNipper]

It sounds like you're trying to place more value on the words of men than their words actually deserve. It sounds like you're trying to get a free pass for those words, let them pass through the normal critical analysis by claiming that we can't question them because they're actually God's words. It sounds very, very dishonest.

Me, I fail to see how any being greater than man could be, let alone would want to be, associated with the creation of a text so full of internal contradictions and incorrect statements.

Tell me what is wrong with the Bible, and let's see if it needs fixing....

 

[LittleNipper]

Special pleading is the Creationists most favoritest logical fallacy.

There is no such word as "favoritest." Something is either one's favorite or it is not. It is like "more better." It is either good, better or best.

 

[TheOutsider]

There is no such word as "favoritest." Something is either one's favorite or it is not. It is like "more better." It is either good, better or best.

Lighten up a little, kiddo. It's called a joke.