How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Extraneous]

No. You will not be able to provide even a shred of evidentiary support for your implication that scientific thinking led to the rise of Nazi Germany. Yes, Germany was advanced in scientific developments, but what scientific development, idea, or principle, undergirds the belief that Jews need to be eliminated? Or that Germany has the right to rule Europe and perhaps the whole world?

I never said science lead up to Nazism, i merely showed how your assertion didn't fit.

 

[Papias]

.....and WHERE to obtain fissable Plutonium.

Of course - because "in 1955, plutonium is a little bit hard to come by!"

 

[Extraneous]

Only you can't articulate any real problems with evolution, and yet you oppose it anyway. So something else is driving your opposition to evolution, and we all know exactly what that something else actually is.

I have showed what i disagree with, but im just shouted down by the infallible consensus. It matters little to me however. GOd will allow the blind to lead the blind.

 

[Extraneous]

Yes, sure you are.

I could have used another example instead, but that one tends to be among the most recent in history, so i used it.

 

[VirOptimus]

I could have used another example instead, but that one tends to be among the most recent in history, so i used it.

Yeah, sure.

 

[expos4ever]

Im not a creationist. I'm just some guy who looks at ToE evidence and sees problems, and potential problems. I think its wise to remain skeptical and not follow the consensus.

On what basis do you question the evidence? Do you really think you are qualified to make judgments in this domain? I am certainly not. But, and this is really important, I trust the scientific enterprise - it is surpassingly unlikely that thousands, nay tens of thousands (I suspect) of world experts have reached a consensus that is fundamentally mistaken. Just like with climate change.

And I suggest we have very good reasons to indeed trust the findings of science -the scientific method is full of check mechanisms to reduce the likelihood that bias will infect findings.

 

[expos4ever]

I could have used another example instead, but that one tends to be among the most recent in history, so i used it.

But surely you must now realize that you have no evidence at all to suggest that the scientific method is in any reasonable sense "responsible" for the Nazis? Yet you have strongly implied this (in post 129).

 

[CarlaB]

You should take an entry level epistemology course. A local community college near you might offer one.

I live in the UK so I doubt it very much and why would I want my thinking to be twisted anyway?
Do you honestly think your god is exactly the same as everyone else's? how can you possibly imagine what they imagine?

 

[Extraneous]

Only you can't articulate any real problems with evolution, and yet you oppose it anyway. So something else is driving your opposition to evolution, and we all know exactly what that something else actually is.

I remain skeptical. Its only wise to do so. It would do no good for me to argue about it, because i have seen that people are bias and cannot agree on something as simple as the value of healthy skepticism.

 

[Extraneous]

But surely you must now realize that you have no evidence at all to suggest that the scientific method is in any reasonable sense "responsible" for the Nazis? Yet you have strongly implied this (in post 129).

Thats not what i sad at all. Please don't argue further, im growing ill. You can be right, ok. You win, i lose. Have a good day.

 

[expos4ever]

I never said science lead up to Nazism, i merely showed how your assertion didn't fit.

Come on now, please be fair. You stated:

They loved science, and created many problems for the world

This is a very strong implication that the scientific method "lead up to Nazism". But let's suppose that I am wrong. What, and please be precise, was your point in bringing up the matter of the Nazis in relation to a discussion of science?

 

[CarlaB]

I have showed what i disagree with, but im just shouted down by the infallible consensus. It matters little to me however. GOd will allow the blind to lead the blind.

Just saying you disagree is not enough, unless you can show why you disagree you are just making a noise.

 

[expos4ever]

Thats not what i sad at all. Please don't argue further, im growing ill. You can be right, ok. You win, i lose. Have a good day.

Look, I realize that these discussions often become about "who wins and who loses". That is a shame, really. It would be much better if we were all seeking the truth, and if that means admitting we are wrong, so be it. Einstein was wrong about a lot of things, and he is still greatly respected.

When I was in my 20s, I subscribed to creationism. But then I came to realize, thanks in part of being the beneficiary of a good education, that creationists routinely misrepresent the facts, take advantage of the public's ignorance of science, and engage in other sorts of unsavory strategies. So I changed. And in so doing, I think I am honoring the real intent of whoever wrote Genesis. When the account contains a talking snake, that should be a big red flag to the effect that the author does not intend to be taken literally.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course we all share DNA. We were created by the same God, from the same earth.

Why would God need to create any two species with the same genome, or even similar genomes? Moreover, why would God be forced to create species so that their genomes fall into consistent phylogenies?

This however doesnt necessarily mean we evolved from some prehistoric ape, or that we are evolving now. Its a complicated theory, and has many problems. Its best to remain skeptical and to just say that its theory not yet fully observable or understood.

If the genetic evidence matches what evolution would produce, how could the theory have problems?

 

[Loudmouth]

I dont agree. If science was truly open minded on this theory, as they claim to be, then they would admit that ToE, in whole, is just a theory which has problems, and cannot actually be fully observed or understood. However they do the opposite, they cram it down your throat and force feed it to you, as if it were as true and as observable as the the air we breath.

If you can't show us what the problems are, then you can't accuse scientists of ignoring them.

Also, you don't observe a theory. That's not how science works.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats not what i sad at all. Please don't argue further, im growing ill. You can be right, ok. You win, i lose. Have a good day.

Its up to you to be clear when you communicate and that is indeed what you implied.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed they are, but the scientific method is designed to strongly offset these biases. I am quite confident that an "atheist" who understands science would agree that s/he is indeed fallible with respect to matters of "interpretation" - hence I think your critique above is not correct - but they would point out that the specific disciplines of the scientific method greatly reduce the risk that biases and errors of "interpretation" become entrenched.

Christians will need to accept that the weight of evidence in favour of evolution is, at present at least, quite overwhelming.

I think it is also worth mentioning that atheist and Christian scientists work side by side, and come to the same scientific conclusions. More than 99.9% of biologists accept the theory of evolution, and Christians make up 30% of those biologists.

 

[Extraneous]

Its up to you to be clear when you communicate and that is indeed what you implied.

As i said to another poster, we speak different languages, therefore even though we understand each other, we dont understand at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have showed what i disagree with, but im just shouted down by the infallible consensus. It matters little to me however. GOd will allow the blind to lead the blind.

People disagreeing with theories for no reason is not a problem for any theory.

We keep asking you to give voice to these supposed problems and the evidence that backs your claims. We are not shouting you down. The only one stopping you is you.

 

[VirOptimus]

As i said to another poster, we speak different languages, therefore even though we understand each other, we dont understand at all.

No, we really dont speak different languages. But when you are ignorant of science (and also theology from what I can discern) I can understand that you feel that way.​