How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but that doesnt mean they interpret data correctly, or that a consensus must be infallible.

Then show how their interpretation is incorrect. For example, how would the pattern of shared DNA between species be different if evolution were true, since you claim that evolution is false?

 

[expos4ever]

Atheists are bias, just as all humans are, and it clouds their judgment. They think they alone interpret things infallibly, and that their consensus is always right. This however is not true.

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.

 

[Extraneous]

Then show how their interpretation is incorrect. For example, how would the pattern of shared DNA between species be different if evolution were true, since you claim that evolution is false?

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

 

[Tree of Life]

Then perhaps you didn't notice that I actually responded to your post?

You didn't. You simply re-asserted the same statement that I responded to. You failed to demonstrate any understanding of what I said and you didn't respond to my post at all. Your response was almost a total non-sequitur.

 

[Extraneous]

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 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.

 

[expos4ever]

Science also turns man into nothing but an animal.

Here is a quote that I think is appropriate here. It was written by an author who was visiting Auschwitz and is reflecting on different ways that people can use to get knowledge about the world:

It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats the problem with science, it only sees natural things, but cannot see into mans soul. Even then it cant see properly. TO science, love is just a chemical reaction, or electrical response in the brain. If effect science turns man into a robot. Science also turns man into nothing but an animal.

Science is a tool to help us understand physical reality, nothing more, nothing less. Its you who misapply it when you try to use it for things it is not designed for and then complain about the results. Its like complaing that a hammer is not a saw.

 

[Extraneous]

Science is a tool to help us understand physical reality, nothing more, nothing less. Its you who misapply it when you try to use it for things it is not designed for and then complain about the results. Its like complaing that a hammer is not a saw.

A hammer is not a saw, but it can be used in a like manner if one has proper skills.

 

[Extraneous]

Here is a quote that I think is appropriate here. It was written by an author who was visiting Auschwitz and is reflecting on different ways that people can use to get knowledge about the world:

It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

The Nazis were way ahead of others in scientific achievement. They loved science, and created many problems for the world. Your comparison actually supports my assertion, not yours.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

Creationists often do this, claiming that ToE is "just a theory". This strongly misrepresents the actual facts. And these are that the weight of evidence supporting the central hypotheses that make up what is called the "theory of evolution" is impressive indeed. To say evolution is "just a theory" is like saying that "general relativity" is just a theory even though, as is the case for evolution, there is tons of evidence to support the "theory" of general relativity. Or that the claim that smoking causes cancer is "just a theory".

Here is the big problem: In our "sound bite" culture, the word "theory" has somehow taken on the meaning of a set of hypotheses that have yet to be subjected to testing and verification. Well, there can be theories like that but the ToE is definitely not one of them. It has tremendous evidential support.

 

[VirOptimus]

A hammer is not a saw, but it can be used in a like manner if one has proper skills.

So you want to use the scientific method to answer metaphysical questions? Which by definition is beyond physical reality? And you complain that atheists rely on science to much.

 

[VirOptimus]

The Nazis were way ahead of others in scientific achievement. They loved science, and created many problems for the world. Your comparison actually supports my assertion, not yours.

Yeah, a nazi comparison will surely give weight to your argument.

 

[expos4ever]

The Nazis were way ahead of others in scientific achievement. They loved science, and created many problems for the world. Your comparison actually supports my assertion, not yours.

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?

 

[Extraneous]

Creationists often do this, claiming that ToE is "just a theory". This strongly misrepresents the actual facts. And these are that the weight of evidence supporting the central hypotheses that make up what is called the "theory of evolution" is impressive indeed. To say evolution is "just a theory" is like saying that "general relativity" is just a theory even though, as is the case for evolution, there is tons of evidence to support the "theory" of general relativity. Or that the claim that smoking causes cancer is "just a theory".

Here is the big problem: In our "sound bite" culture, the word "theory" has somehow taken on the meaning of a set of hypotheses that have yet to be subjected to testing and verification. Well, there can be theories like that but the ToE is definitely not one of them. It has tremendous evidential support.

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

So, you say it is not in any way your religion that sets you agains the ToE?

 

[Extraneous]

So you want to use the scientific method to answer metaphysical questions? Which by definition is beyond physical reality? And you complain that atheists rely on science to much.

I think the physical reality that you are citing, is not actually reality but instead fallacy.

 

[Extraneous]

Yeah, a nazi comparison will surely give weight to your argument.

Any group can follow the folly of the Nazi's. Im not trying to sling mud, just make a positive comparison. An observation.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think the physical reality that you are citing, is not actually reality but instead fallacy.

Please explain, and also, please support your argument.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

Any group can follow the folly of the Nazi's. Im not trying to sling mud, just make a positive comparison. An observation.

Yes, sure you are.