How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Subduction Zone]

Oft refuted...now to be muted.

But it hasn't been, therefore not a PRATT. Now if you were to be muted that would be a true blessing.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

I find human psychology fascinating.

Observing the cognitive dissonance on this site, is highly entertaining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

What do you mean by "Biblical evidence"? If you mean the mere writings in the Bible that is extremely weak evidence.

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.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary creationism". Perhaps it would help if you use the proper terminology so people will know what you are talking about. At the end you switched topics to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution. It is a related but separate topic. And abiogenesis is the concept that there was no "who" involved. Why do you think that there is a need for a "who" in the first place? Once again, this seems to be your claim. That means the burden of proof would be upon you.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

How did The Nizkor Project describe the genetic fallacy?

Description of Genetic Fallacy


A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).

What did you do? This is how your example was a genetic logical fallacy:

1. SZ stated: Creationists should practice what they preach by refusing to see medical doctors because much of medicine is derived from evolutionary science.

2. This claim is true and supported.​

This is fallacious reasoning by SZ because 'Oz claims that the drug, warfarin, regulates his blood thickness for the benefit of his artificial heart valve. However, his parents taught him to believe that if he takes warfarin and is in a car accident he could bleed to death. So he shouldn't use warfarin' (this is an example created by Oz).

So, SZ's argument that creationists should not use medicine because of evolutionary science behind medicine, uses a genetic logical fallacy. By taking this approach SZ is not dealing with the evidence about creation from Scripture or elsewhere. He is using a diversionary tactic as a spin to his kind of topic.

We cannot engage in constructive, logical discussion when you use any logical fallacies, including a genetic logical fallacy.

Oz

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did The Nizkor Project describe the genetic fallacy?

Why did you bring up the actions of a particularly evil Christian? Now that is a Red Herring if anything eve was.

What did you do? This is how your example was a genetic logical fallacy:

1. SZ stated: Creationists should practice what they preach by refusing to see medical doctors because much of medicine is derived from evolutionary science.

2. This claim is true and supported.​

This is fallacious reasoning by SZ because 'Oz claims that the drug, warfarin, regulates his blood thickness for the benefit of his artificial heart valve. However, his parents taught him to believe that if he takes warfarin and is in a car accident he could bleed to death. So he shouldn't use warfarin' (this is an example created by Oz).

Now you are guilty of quote mining to say the least. I specifically mentioned vaccines and stated that I was unaware of how chemical medicine may or may not have been based upon the theory of evolution. I will grant that I do not know that, but then neither do you in all probability. It is dishonest to try to change the meaning of a post.

So, SZ's argument that creationists should not use medicine because of evolutionary science behind medicine, uses a genetic logical fallacy. By taking this approach SZ is not dealing with the evidence about creation from Scripture or elsewhere. He is using a diversionary tactic as a spin to his kind of topic.

But since you failed to accurately show that I did you clearly failed. Try again.

We cannot engage in constructive, logical discussion when you use any logical fallacies, including a genetic logical fallacy.

Oz

And you have yet to show that I used any logical fallacies. Meanwhile I have not seen you acknowledge that your use of terminology was incorrect. Please try to use your "logical fallacies" claims correctly in the future and watch the terminology.

ETA: I see that Oz got his "logical fallacies" from a site that wants to make sure that the holocaust does not occur again. Why he did not go to a regular site just based upon logic, I don't know. So when the strange term "Nizkor Project" arose I of course Google searched it and found this:

http://www.nizkor.org/

I was wondering what Holocaust denial had to do with his argument. It seems that he does not even realize that they are not a proper authority on logic, they merely use logic correctly in their fight against holocaust denial.

Second Edit: When showing someone their logical fallacy it is much better to use a site that focuses only on logical fallacies, such as this one:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

[OzSpen]

What biblical evidence are you referring to?

Please be specific.

Have you been around this thread this long and have not seen the biblical evidence for creation provided by other posters, especially that in Genesis 1 and 2 and throughout Scripture? Are you joking?

What did Jesus say about creation in Mark 10:6 (ESV): 'But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female"'? This is a reference to the first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1:27.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you been around this thread this long and have not seen the biblical evidence for creation provided by other posters, especially that in Genesis 1 and 2 and throughout Scripture? Are you joking?

What did Jesus say about creation in Mark 10:6 (ESV): 'But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female"'? This is a reference to the first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1:27.

That is your evidence? First off Jesus quite often used various teaching methods so his statement really does not support your claim. Second much of Genesis was shown to be wrong, at least from a literal point of view, long before Darwin came along. How much of a book has to be wrong before you no longer use it as a source of "evidence"?

 

[OzSpen]

That is your evidence? First off Jesus quite often used various teaching methods so his statement really does not support your claim. Second much of Genesis was shown to be wrong, at least from a literal point of view, long before Darwin came along. How much of a book has to be wrong before you no longer use it as a source of "evidence"?

This is a demonstration that no matter what evidence I provide, you won't accept it. Then you engage in the fallacy of hasty generalization. That's what you have done here with 'your evidence', Jesus' 'various teaching methods', 'much of Genesis was shown to be wrong' in a literal sense before Darwin's time, etc.

I will not engage you further because of the fallacious reasoning you use. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

Bye, bye

 

[OzSpen]

What do you mean by "Biblical evidence"? If you mean the mere writings in the Bible that is extremely weak evidence.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary creationism". Perhaps it would help if you use the proper terminology so people will know what you are talking about. At the end you switched topics to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution. It is a related but separate topic. And abiogenesis is the concept that there was no "who" involved. Why do you think that there is a need for a "who" in the first place? Once again, this seems to be your claim. That means the burden of proof would be upon you.

Of course you would want to go to abiogenesis - life was created from non-life forms about 3.5 billion years ago - to get out of the need for a Creator. Abiogenesis is a speculative theory that cannot be tested by empirical science. It is ideal for atheists who don't want to acknowledge the need for the Almighty God of creation who created ex nihilo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a demonstration that no matter what evidence I provide, you won't accept it. Then you engage in the fallacy of hasty generalization. That's what you have done here with 'your evidence', Jesus' 'various teaching methods', 'much of Genesis was shown to be wrong' in a literal sense before Darwin's time, etc.

You really need to work on your uses of logical fallacies. I am sure that others have used them on you many times, that is how creationists usually "learn". The problem is that they do not learn too well. That was far from a hasty generalization. And no, if you provide valid evidence I will seriously check it out. Sadly the book of Genesis were merely the myths of a rather ignorant tribe of people. That is not saying that they were stupid, everyone at that time would be ignorant in the sciences compared to today. I can support all of my claims with scientific evidence. It seems that at best you only have mythical evidence.

I will not engage you further because of the fallacious reasoning you use. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

Bye, bye

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Running away and hiding when your errors are brought to light is the same as admitting that you are wrong. Pretty soon you will have everyone that opposes you on ignore. What will you do then?

 

[OzSpen]

You really need to work on your uses of logical fallacies. I am sure that others have used them on you many times, that is how creationists usually "learn". The problem is that they do not learn too well. That was far from a hasty generalization. And no, if you provide valid evidence I will seriously check it out. Sadly the book of Genesis were merely the myths of a rather ignorant tribe of people. That is not saying that they were stupid, everyone at that time would be ignorant in the sciences compared to today. I can support all of my claims with scientific evidence. It seems that at best you only have mythical evidence.


Thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Running away and hiding when your errors are brought to light is the same as admitting that you are wrong. Pretty soon you will have everyone that opposes you on ignore. What will you do then?

A straw man fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you would want to go to abiogenesis - life was created from non-life forms about 3.5 billion years ago - to get out of the need for a Creator. Abiogenesis is a speculative theory that cannot be tested by empirical science. It is ideal for atheists who don't want to acknowledge the need for the Almighty God of creation who created ex nihilo.

Wrong, I go to abiogenesis since that is where the evidence leads. Show me some evidence for your creator and I will change my mind. And you are wrong about abiogenesis, technically it is not even a theory yet. It is still in the hypothetical state. Scientists are still working on this problem. I will be the first to say that it has not been solved yet, but many of the steps have been. And of course it can be tested by empirical science, where did you get the nonsensical idea that it could not be tested from?

And atheists do not believe in your God because there is no valid evidence for his existence. Don't worry they do not believe in the Muslim God, or Allah, for the same reason or for the Hindu gods, ditto.

 

[Cimorene]

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

Ok, well that's good then! I think what creationists do is they teach fake education about evolution. Then they say they've taught "both sides." Kids grow up to think they know all about evolution but that's not true. They just know the propaganda taught to them by creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A straw man fallacy.

Again, you need to work on your fallacies. Where was the strawman?

Just because you memorized some terms will not impress anyone here. You need to know how to use those fallacies correctly.
Try again.

 

[OzSpen]

Ok, well that's good then! I think what creationists do is they teach fake education about evolution. Then they say they've taught "both sides." Kids grow up to think they know all about evolution but that's not true. They just know the propaganda taught to them by creationists.

I think that is an unfair caricature of creations teaching fake education about evolution.

It is very difficult to teach both sides of the equation without showing some bias. In my view, a sound creationist education will include evidence taught from both sides in the classroom (or online) and the teacher giving reasons why he or she goes one way or the other. In fact, if I were a Christian teacher in a Christian school, I'd arrange for a teacher of evolution to come into the classroom and give an outline of evolution. On another day, the Christian teacher provides a critique of what the evolutionist taught.

I wonder how many secular schools would invite a Christian teacher into the classroom to give an outline of biblical creation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Again, you need to work on your fallacies. Where was the strawman?

Just because you memorized some terms will not impress anyone here. You need to know how to use those fallacies correctly.
Try again.

When you state a false view of my perspective, you use a straw man fallacy. That's what you did. Please don't try to squirm out of it.

 

[Jay Follett]

I think that is an unfair caricature of creations teaching fake education about evolution.
It is very difficult to teach both sides of the equation without showing some bias. In my view, a sound creationist education will include evidence taught from both sides in the classroom (or online) and the teacher giving reasons why he or she goes one way or the other.

Would the evidence for Christian creationism be OK to explain every religions creationism? I ask that because there is as much evidence for Islam's version of creation as there is for Christian creationism that's why they are both called "faiths".

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

In my view, a sound creationist education will include evidence taught from both sides in the classroom (or online) and the teacher giving reasons why he or she goes one way or the other.

Should we allow alchemy to be taught alongside chemistry and astrology taught alongside astronomy? I'd hope your answer would be no. Science should be teaching what can be demonstrated to be accurate. It should not teach nonsense and that is what creationism is.

In fact, if I were a Christian teacher in a Christian school, I'd arrange for a teacher of evolution to come into the classroom and give an outline of evolution. On another day, the Christian teacher provides a critique of what the evolutionist taught.

So you're going to invite an expert in evolutionary biology into your classroom and then turn around and tell your students that the expert is wrong? Ummmmm.....okay lol. This once again demonstrates that creationism is complete nonsense. Notice how you said you would have the teacher critique what the evolutionary biologist taught instead of outlining any evidence for creationism. You can't support your position with verifiable evidence so you have to resort to attacking evolution, likely with strawman versions of it.

I wonder how many secular schools would invite a Christian teacher into the classroom to give an outline of biblical creation.

Probably none. Schools don't like being sued.

 

[ScottA]

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 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.

Nonsense, try again.

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.

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

Again, what elephant, but yes you die eventually.

Your posts say that you don't.

"Atheist" is a "case against God." There is only One God.

I am not going to keep repeating myself about the evidence being the universe, only to have you say I haven't presented anything. You are just refusing it. That is entirely different than me not presenting it.

But I do know evidence enough to know you can't take it out of context. Which means you cannot [scientifically] view evidence of a spiritual realm, while remaining within a physical context. Your problem, not mine.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Atheist" is a "case against God." There is only One God.

I am not going to keep repeating myself about the evidence being the universe, only to have you say I haven't presented anything. You are just refusing it. That is entirely different than me not presenting it.

But I do know evidence enough to know you can't take it out of context. Which means you cannot [scientifically] view evidence of a spiritual realm, while remaining within a physical context. Your problem, not mine.

What if the universe has always existed?