How many creationists practise what they preach?

[dad]

That's right because not even Jesus did anything did he? do you think he just sat around waiting for the doors to heaven to open like you think you can do, I am just glad I am free from all the nonsense that is allowed to pass for Christianity.

I know He came here and died to give us His free gift of eternal life. It is all by grace. Even any resultant works are because of that starting grace.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Perhaps that guy would have liked Hindus better?

I think the man nailed it don't you?

No I think many of his type are demon possessed. They can't yield to bad spirits fast enough to suit themselves. Yes peace is a great little tee shirt slogan. There is no peace saith my God to the wicked. The Prince of Peace is the ONLY way to peace.

 

[ScottA]

Please show me an instance where science tries to explain God. I'll wait....

The "greater realm of God"? What does that even mean? It's incomprehensible nonsense and special pleading. Could you provide some evidence instead of just rambling?

Incredibly wrong. Evolution has been repeatedly tested, is supported by an abundance of facts from several different scientific disciplines. It's one of the most tested theories in all of science. It's a fact. Facts don't care what you believe, Scott. You can call it a "guess" all you want, you'll still be wrong.

Is this your way of saying you cannot substantiate your claims? You cannot provide any evidence for what you believe? Then why should I believe you?

Inconsistent comparison Scott. Why would a sunset have any significance to a blind person? On the other hand, evidence for the existence of God would be great interest to people. However, you have failed to demonstrate any evidence. Why should I take you at your word? Give me 1 good reason why I should believe you without any evidence?

The way you phrased it was extremely arrogant, Scott. Knowledge is demonstrable and you refuse to bring any evidence to the table that support your claim. Your argument comes off as "I have this knowledge that you have no ability to obtain, so just take me at my word" Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Asking for evidence is not unreasonable. If I told you there was an invisible pink kitten that followed me around and told me right from wrong and gave me knowledge that is only available to a select few, it would not be unreasonable for you to ask for evidence. Unless you're just gullible and believe anything that you wish to be true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Incapable of interpreting what? Your entire argument is "just believe me". Do you have an actual argument?

Inconsistent comparison. You can't, nor would it be relevant to a blind person. However, the claim for the existence of God should come with evidence for that claim. If you are suggesting that it is not testable, nor observable and you are incapable of substantiating the claim, then by definition, it is imaginary. This claim is easily dismissed.

1. That is not what I said. Science assumes the position of supreme authority...of which they are not.

2. The evidence is all around you, but you do not perceive it. My would be rambling only seems such because of your own shortsightedness.

3. Your not being able to perceive the greater circumstances beyond your understanding is not the gauge of right and wrong, but simply what is perceived to be right from your limited position. Being blind to the greater reality, does not give you final say. The real question here, is how could [anyone] living in the world think they know enough to eliminate vast areas of information of historic proportion, and think that they are right?

As for me, I am not challenging your perception of science, but putting it in its place...just as a sighted person would do if a blind person claimed that a beautiful sunset was [only] warm to the skin. What is your problem, that you will not hear from the sighted?

I also do not "believe" the things I am saying...any more than a sighted person "believes" a sunset is beautiful. That is ridiculous - I "know" it is beautiful...and you, being blind to it, simply do not.

4. Indeed, I cannot substantiate my claims, not to the unsighted...nor do I care to. We currently share our position of being in the world, but we are not the same, and we can either share what we know, or not. I share in science everyday, unless it goes off in error. But you, you apparently have no desire to hear of beautiful sunsets...but hypocritically end up here on a Christian forum. I can explain myself...but you have no need to, for it is obvious: you love to hate the unseen sunsets.

5. The sighted vs. the blind comparison is perfect: many see, and many do not. But seeing is not the failure of the sighted, while mocking the sighted, is definitely a failure on the part of the blind.

And the reason you should "believe" me...is because...you cannot see. But with all the history of the world including a major portion of people seeing what I too see, you cannot even admit to your own lack of sight.

6. There is nothing arrogant about the sense of sight. On the contrary, it is a great arrogance to pout in the darkness.

7. Extraordinary claims require nothing, they are news. Whether it is received or not, is simply a matter of adventure or complacency: some step up, some retreat, some mock.

Your beloved science has failed you...all the mice are not blind.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

1. That is not what I said. Science assumes the position of supreme authority...of which they are not.

There is no authority in science. It is subject to criticism and peer review. Do you think the physicist who is proposing that the answer for the origin of life has to do with thermodynamics has a scientific consensus? No. He has people who think he is on the right track and many others who think he's dead wrong. If he were to publish experiments that show him to be correct, he'll have people lined up for miles trying to prove him wrong. You don't know how science works, Scott.

2. The evidence is all around you, but you do not perceive it. My would be rambling only seems such because of your own shortsightedness.

Yet, you refuse to demonstrate this evidence. Instead, you resort to arrogant claims that I do not have the capacity to understand and to just take you at your word. Sorry, i'm not gullible.

Being blind to the greater reality, does not give you final say.

Here you go again, claiming I am blind to reality. Not being able to substantiate your claims does not give you a final say. Your claims are easily rejected until you can present evidence to support those claims. So, instead of rambling on with incomprehensible nonsense, could you actually produce an argument?

As for me, I am not challenging your perception of science, but putting it in its place...

You don't know how science works so how could you possibly "put it in it's place". Could you demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method? I want you to put it in your own words so you can show that you understand it.

What is your problem, that you will not hear from the sighted?

Because I am not gullible. I don't believe things without evidence. Your only argument is "Just believe me". This may work on the gullible and wishful thinkers but not a skeptic.

I also do not "believe" the things I am saying...any more than a sighted person "believes" a sunset is beautiful. That is ridiculous - I "know" it is beautiful...and you, being blind to it, simply do not.

Correct me if I am wrong but are you using "sunsets" in place of "God"? Knowledge is demonstrable. If you claim to know then you should be able to demonstrate evidence for this knowledge. You admit you cannot do so and have to resort to "Just believe me". It doesn't work that way, Scott.

I share in science everyday, unless it goes off in error.

So science is in error if it contradicts your beliefs? This is intellectually dishonest. Do you care about what is true or only what you want to be true? If you reject evolution, then stop using modern medicine.

I can explain myself...but you have no need to, for it is obvious: you love to hate the unseen sunsets.

If you're using "sunsets" in place of God then how can I hate something that I do not believe exists? I've asked you to explain yourself and present evidence. How about a compromise? What is your BEST argument for your position?

And the reason you should "believe" me...is because...you cannot see.

I can see just fine, Scott. Where is your evidence? Put your insults aside and present an argument.

6. There is nothing arrogant about the sense of sight. On the contrary, it is a great arrogance to pout in the darkness.

Claiming you have knowledge that is incomprehensible to others is arrogant. It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that support your claim. If I told you your significant other was cheating on you and told you I couldn't substantiate my claims, would you just believe me? Would you end a relationship without asking for evidence? Imagine me saying this to you "Scott, you just can't see, you're blind. I know your significant other is cheating on you and you do not have the ability to see this so just believe me and file for divorce".

7. Extraordinary claims require nothing, they are news.

This tells me you would believe just about anything.

Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.

Your beloved science has failed you...all the mice are not blind.

Says the person on the internet, typing on a computer made possible by science. Do you also scoff at science as you type in the address to your doctor on a GPS, on your way to get a prescription for modern medication?

 

[Cimorene]

Teachers from where? Credible, peer-reviewed data are available on Google. You have to know where to find it. I found droves of it through my university library when I was pursuing my PhD in historical Jesus studies. Google Scholar is an excellent resource.

However, with all evidence, even with peer-reviewed articles, there can be worldview biases that do not include evidence to the contrary. Try reading some of the evangelical scholarship that does not engage with contrary evidence. Try reading, Dom Crossan, where he pursues those who are his 'intellectual debt', i.e. he likes the research of those who support his postmodern, liberal worldview.

All of us need to be wary of how our worldviews can have a tendency to avoid contrary data.

Oz

Teachers from my school. They all have their PhDs in science & they're all published. Yes, I know credible, peer-reviewed data is available from Google, if you do a specific search for it & you go to the reliable sites that have it. The thing is, a lot of people don't do a specific search. They do a general one, get millions of hits & read a lot of junk. They go to blogs & sites that sell stuff & are totally biased. Are there are any creationists who've given evidence to back up YEC in peer reviewed scientific journals? Please share. How open are you to data that contradicts your worldview?

 

[ScottA]

There is no authority in science. It is subject to criticism and peer review. You don't know how science works, Scott.

Good, then you won't mind not using it in your case against the existence of God. Let us therefore hear no more of science in this matter.

Yet, you refuse to demonstrate this evidence. Instead, you resort to arrogant claims that I do not have the capacity to understand and to just take you at your word. Sorry, i'm not gullible.

You again prove yourself blind...as I said, the evidence is all around you - the universe is the demonstration you deny. But (for you) the world is not enough. No, you are not gullible...you are out of the loop.

Here you go again, claiming I am blind to reality. Not being able to substantiate your claims does not give you a final say. Your claims are easily rejected until you can present evidence to support those claims. So, instead of rambling on with incomprehensible nonsense, could you actually produce an argument?

Superseding knowledge, is what gives me the greater say. The evidence has been presented since the beginning of time. I'm not here to argue.

You don't know how science works so how could you possibly "put it in it's place". Could you demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method? I want you to put it in your own words so you can show that you understand it.

I'm sure I don't fully understand science. You got me there. But then again, I don't fully understand horses either.

Because I am not gullible. I don't believe things without evidence. Your only argument is "Just believe me". This may work on the gullible and wishful thinkers but not a skeptic.

I don't recommend believing in things without evidence. But I also don't recommend putting blinders on to uncountable number of eyewitness testimonies that have made up half the world's population since the beginning of time.

Correct me if I am wrong but are you using "sunsets" in place of "God"? Knowledge is demonstrable. If you claim to know then you should be able to demonstrate evidence for this knowledge. You admit you cannot do so and have to resort to "Just believe me". It doesn't work that way, Scott.

Blindness is just an analogy, an example. But you are incorrect. Knowledge is only demonstrable in context. You cannot demonstrate fire with ice (I think), and I cannot demonstrate spiritual reality with inferior physical evidence. So what?

If you're using "sunsets" in place of God then how can I hate something that I do not believe exists? I've asked you to explain yourself and present evidence. How about a compromise? What is your BEST argument for your position?

I have no argument, but rather...an elephant.

I can see just fine, Scott. Where is your evidence? Put your insults aside and present an argument.

The evidence has limited access. Meanwhile, there is the elephant in the room. And then you die.

Claiming you have knowledge that is incomprehensible to others is arrogant. It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that support your claim. If I told you your significant other was cheating on you and told you I couldn't substantiate my claims, would you just believe me? Would you end a relationship without asking for evidence? Imagine me saying this to you "Scott, you just can't see, you're blind. I know your significant other is cheating on you and you do not have the ability to see this so just believe me and file for divorce".

So, I have used the analogy that it is not arrogant to the blind for a sighted person to have sight. So, what shall I add to your list of inabilities? Comprehension? Why do you persist in setting yourself up for such? I'm just a guy whom you struck up a conversation with who has seen something you have not. Get over it. And don't act like you have not made me out to be [all those things you said].

This tells me you would believe just about anything.

Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.

[All those things you said, and then some.]

Says the person on the internet, typing on a computer made possible by science. Do you also scoff at science as you type in the address to your doctor on a GPS, on your way to get a prescription for modern medication?

I love science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good, then you won't mind not using it in your case against the existence of God. Let us therefore hear no more of science in this matter.

No one is trying to disprove the existence of God. Now your personal version of God is probably wrong. If you believe the creation myths are necessary for your God then your God has been refuted, but not all versions of God.

You again prove yourself blind...as I said, the evidence is all around you - the universe is the demonstration you deny. But (for you) the world is not enough. No, you are not gullible...you are out of the loop.

You don't seem to understand the nature of evidence. Since this is a scientific discussion let's limit evidence to scientific evidence. To date I have not seen any scientific evidence for creationism. Perhaps you have some.

Superseding knowledge, is what gives me the greater say. The evidence has been presented since the beginning of time. I'm not here to argue.

Nonsense, try again.

I'm sure I don't fully understand science. You got me there. But then again, I don't fully understand horses either.[/qoute]

Then you really should not be trying to argue against science, should you?

[quote

I don't recommend believing in things without evidence. But I also don't recommend putting blinders on to uncountable number of eyewitness testimonies that have made up half the world's population since the beginning of time.

What "eyewitness testimonies". You do realize that very very little of the Bible is eyewitness testimony. For example none of the Gospels appear to be that. They are actually all written at least 40 years after the event and by anonymous authors.

I have no argument, but rather...an elephant.

And yet you can't even point to the elephant.

The evidence has limited access. Meanwhile, there is the elephant in the room. And then you die.

Again, what elephant, but yes you die eventually.

I love science.

Your posts say that you don't.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Good, then you won't mind not using it in your case against the existence of God. Let us therefore hear no more of science in this matter.

Please point out where I am trying to disprove God. The claim that species have been individually created is demonstrably false but it doesn't disprove God.

You again prove yourself blind...as I said, the evidence is all around you - the universe is the demonstration you deny.

I can say the garden is beautiful without having to believe fairies are at the bottom of it. If you want to make a claim that the universe is created by a God, you'll have to present evidence to demonstrate this claim to be true. Even if you were able to do this, you've only gotten as far as deism. All you have is a circular argument which I am sure you are aware is a logical fallacy.

I'm sure I don't fully understand science. You got me there. But then again, I don't fully understand horses either.

There is an infinite amount of information at your fingertips to help you better understand something. Perhaps you should take advantage of that. Unless of course you're afraid what you might find.

I don't recommend believing in things without evidence. But I also don't recommend putting blinders on to uncountable number of eyewitness testimonies that have made up half the world's population since the beginning of time.

Eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence you can use. Much of the bible is not eyewitness testimony. The gospels certainly are not eyewitness accounts. They are written decades after the alleged events. Do you have any contemporary and independent accounts of what is claimed in the gospels? Yes or no?

I love science.

Your posts say otherwise. If a deadly virus broke out would you refuse a vaccination because the theory of evolution was used to understand and protect us from the virus? Next time you get a flu shot ask your doctor why there is always a new vaccination. You won't like the answer.

 

[OzSpen]

Teachers from my school. They all have their PhDs in science & they're all published. Yes, I know credible, peer-reviewed data is available from Google, if you do a specific search for it & you go to the reliable sites that have it. The thing is, a lot of people don't do a specific search. They do a general one, get millions of hits & read a lot of junk. They go to blogs & sites that sell stuff & are totally biased. Are there are any creationists who've given evidence to back up YEC in peer reviewed scientific journals? Please share. How open are you to data that contradicts your worldview?

At this point in my journey I'm not a supporter of a YEC 6,000 year old universe. I have not searched scientific journals for such articles and I'm not planning to do so. I've found too much doctrinaire information pushing the YEC agenda, Archbishop Ussher's chronology, only one view of the days of creation, and views that do not seem to want to examine any other agenda.

Now we need to get back to the topic: How many creationists practice what they preach?

How can creationists practice what they preach? Does this mean that creationists need to promote what they believe about creation? Isn't that what we are doing throughout this thread?

Oz

 

[bhsmte]

At this point in my journey I'm not a supporter of a YEC 6,000 year old universe. I have not searched scientific journals for such articles and I'm not planning to do so. I've found too much doctrinaire information pushing the YEC agenda, Archbishop Ussher's chronology, only one view of the days of creation, and views that do not seem to want to examine any other agenda.

Now we need to get back to the topic: How many creationists practice what they preach?

How can creationists practice what they preach? Does this mean that creationists need to promote what they believe about creation? Isn't that what we are doing throughout this thread?

Oz

Well, if a biblical creatonist practiced what they preached, they would refuse to see medical doctors, because much of medicine, is derived from evolutionary science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please point out where I am trying to disprove God. The claim that species have been individually created is demonstrably false but it doesn't disprove God.

I am just going to respond to this one part of your post. Creationists quite often mistake their version of "God" as the one and only true version of "God". Therefore if you show that there creationist beliefs are wrong, which we all know is dead easy, then by their "logic" you have "disproved God" with science. You can point to the countless groups that accept science and believe in god and it goes right over their heads.

I have pointed out to creationists that there are thousands of versions of "God" in the Christian faith, that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. They can never seem to understand this one simple point. Hmm, perhaps it would work if one pointed out that there are different versions of "Allah" in the Muslim faith first. They can always see what other religions are doing and what is wrong with them. They have a terrible blind spot when it comes to their own religious beliefs.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

They have a terrible blind spot when it comes to their own religious beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance can be pretty crazy. I should know. I used to smoke cigarettes. It didn't matter what scientific evidence was shown to me that it was harmful to my health, the "it helps me relax, its a stress reliever, I enjoy it" arguments were good enough for me.

 

[dad]

Well, if a biblical creatonist practiced what they preached, they would refuse to see medical doctors, because much of medicine, is derived from evolutionary science.

Pratt. Name one such example and I guarantee it will have nothing to do with life coming from evolution. Evolving is a created trait, so mere evolving has zero to do with creation issues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cognitive dissonance can be pretty crazy. I should know. I used to smoke cigarettes. It didn't matter what scientific evidence was shown to me that it was harmful to my health, the "it helps me relax, its a stress reliever, I enjoy it" arguments were good enough for me.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt Unfortunately I have a bit of asthma tool. I could feel that even though I was not a heavy smoker that it was slowly hurting me. I cut down to a third of a pack a day and quit for a Father's Day present for my dad and for me, he hated my smoking. Strangely enough my asthma kicked in even worse at that point. The smoking had caused me to hack out the worst of the byproducts of smoking. I was in the hospital for 3 days and everyone kept offering me the patch. None of them could believe that I had truly learned my lesson.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pratt. Name one such example and I guarantee it will have nothing to do with life coming from evolution. Evolving is a created trait, so mere evolving has zero to do with creation issues.

You do not seem to know what a PRATT is.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, if a biblical creatonist practiced what they preached, they would refuse to see medical doctors, because much of medicine, is derived from evolutionary science.

Here you go again with using a genetic logical fallacy to discredit creationists. When will you quit this fallacious reasoning?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you go again with using a genetic logical fallacy to discredit creationists. When will you quit this fallacious reasoning?

How is that statement a genetic logical fallacy? The fact is that much of modern medicine is based upon the theory of evolution. Any new vaccine is heavily dependent upon it. If one truly did not accept evolution then one could not use modern vaccines. I do not personally know if the chemicals that treat certain diseases are found using the theory of evolution, perhaps others could fill in examples of that.

 

[bhsmte]

Here you go again with using a genetic logical fallacy to discredit creationists. When will you quit this fallacious reasoning?

What fallacy?

Be specific.

 

[dad]

You do not seem to know what a PRATT is.

Oft refuted...now to be muted.

 

[OzSpen]

Cognitive dissonance can be pretty crazy. I should know. I used to smoke cigarettes. It didn't matter what scientific evidence was shown to me that it was harmful to my health, the "it helps me relax, its a stress reliever, I enjoy it" arguments were good enough for me.

Are you trying to tell me that atheists do not have cognitive dissonance with their refusal to examine the biblical evidence in association with the supernatural Lord God who created ex nihilo (out of nothing).

No matter how much atheists want to defend evolutionary creation, I'm still waiting for a substantive evolutionary explanation of who created the first microbesl or whatever to evolve.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you trying to tell me that atheists do not have cognitive dissonance with their refusal to examine the biblical evidence in association with the supernatural Lord God who created ex nihilo (out of nothing).

No matter how much atheists want to defend evolutionary creation, I'm still waiting for a substantive evolutionary explanation of who created the first microbesl or whatever to evolve.

What biblical evidence are you referring to?

Please be specific.