How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Hoghead1]

That isn't at all realistic, OzSpen. The education on religion would cut into the time the science class should be spending on science. I once asked my biology professor, while pithing a frog, if she thought frogs had feelings. She is that this is a biology lab session. Questions like that belong in philosophy classes. You know, she was right. Also, creation science has proven itself to me, and with good reason, to be too much of a propaganda mill for me to want it brought into classrooms. Furthermore, if you are going to bring in religion, then what specific authorities or teachers are you going to bring in. I am a theologian and I hold with evolution. Are you saying I should also be brought into the picture in a science class, showing how religion offers more than creation science? I mean , the practical logistics alone on something like you are proposing are absolutely against the notion.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is true, OzSpen, that, beginning in the latter part of the 19th century, biblical scholars did begin questioning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and talking about how the Genesis account offers two contradictory accounts of creation. Not all criticisms of the Genesis account comes just from evolutionary science.

 

[Hoghead1]

It would considerable enrich the discussion, ScottA, if you would offer or make some effort to provide a supporting argument for your conclusions. You say there is a God. OK, why? Give us your proof.

 

[Hoghead1]

"Evolving" does have to do with creation issues, since it helps explain how creation takes place, Dad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

But it wasn't a false view. I said you were doing the equivalent of admitting that you were wrong. You keep screwing up on your logical fallacies. You may disagree with my claim, but it is not logically wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

There may be no gods. We know one thing, your version of god has been shown to be wrong.

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.

That is good because that is not evidence. I can help you with your lack of understanding. The lack of evidence is why creationists always lose court battles.

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.

Again, that is pure nonsense. Not evidence.

 

[dad]

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

You may not accept it was refuted, but that is tough.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Clue us in.

How do some ancient writings, provide objective evidence to support biblical creation?

Go ahead, make your case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may not accept it was refuted, but that is tough.

And dad loses again.

 

[bhsmte]

"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.

Atheism is simply, not believing a God exists.

Just as you don't believe in other Gods and or other religions.

If you want to present the evidence that your God exists, we are all ears.

 

[bhsmte]

And dad loses again.

Has he ever won?

 

[bhsmte]

It would considerable enrich the discussion, ScottA, if you would offer or make some effort to provide a supporting argument for your conclusions. You say there is a God. OK, why? Give us your proof.

His usual response is; you wouldn't understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has he ever won?

Nope, but I am not telling you anything that you don't already know.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nope, but I am not telling you anything that you don't already know.

Dadology is highly entertaining.

 

[OzSpen]

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".

You present not one piece of evidence to support your claim, so there is no way I can discern how you judge evidence.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

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.

Probably none. Schools don't like being sued.

You have committed the logical fallacy of biased sample. We cannot have a logical discussion when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

 

[OzSpen]

Clue us in.

How do some ancient writings, provide objective evidence to support biblical creation?

Go ahead, make your case.

I have provided my evidence, as have other creationists in this thread. But it appears I'm casting pearls.

At this point of your human journey, you don't want to accept the biblical writings and the evidence from Jesus. One minute after your last breath, that will change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have committed the logical fallacy of biased sample. We cannot have a logical discussion when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

How is his sample biased? Since you seem to have a rather poor handle on the concept of logical fallacies you probably messed up again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have provided my evidence, as have other creationists in this thread. But it appears I'm casting pearls.

At this point of your human journey, you don't want to accept the biblical writings and the evidence from Jesus. One minute after your last breath, that will change.

You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. Most creationists have no idea of what is and what is not evidence. I can help you with this simple concept.

 

[dad]

And dad loses again.

Don't you wish. Meanwhile, sorry about your constant losses.