How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Subduction Zone]

Show that in a math equation...it can't be done. You can't leave out what you don't know and still arrive at the correct answer. Your naked eye perspective, is simply not all there is, and not seeing it...proves nothing but your limited vision.

Math is not a cure all. And of course one can leave out what you don't know and still come to a correct answer, now mathematics disagrees with you. There are many unanswered problems in mathematics, yet there are definite mathematical proofs. Science works with a different process.

You speak of what you do not know. I am an eyewitness, and I can speak to the matter...you, cannot. As someone who "knows" the difference, I can confirm the witness of the words written in the Bible, and I do. You know nothing of it, yet speak from your lack, as if you did.

Yes, you are a eyewitness, but your personal witnessing is of almost no value in a debate. If you could actually confirm the Bible then you could post that evidence. All that you really did was to convince yourself, and that is not saying much. On the other hand scientists can demonstrate that evolution is correct and has happened. Creationists have nothing when it comes to supporting their claims. At best they have only failed attacks on the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see the problem here: I said, "I was told" and you carry on as if it were not clear...because you didn't see it. An obvious pattern.

Yes, it is merely another unsupported claim on your part. Once again, positive claims need evidence in a debate. When you make a positive claim the burden of proof is upon you, just as when I make a positive claim the burden of proof is upon me.

 

[ScottA]

What are you talking about? I am not here to topple anything. And of course I am more for the "truth" than most here. And why do you think that you are extending anyone a consideration. One of the reasons that this website works is because it is more open than most so called Christian websites. Many of them if you disagree with the beliefs of those in charge will quickly ban you. After a while patting each other on the back gets rather boring.

This is what I am talking about:

So you would not hang out a Christian forum. That is fine with me. I am merely here to try to educate some Christians, not all believe the creation myth, about how certain aspects of their beliefs are demonstrably wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, positive claims need evidence in a debate. When you make a positive claim the burden of proof is upon you, just as when I make a positive claim the burden of proof is upon me.

I like your signature, SZ:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

... especially the first sentence:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Does that mean that anyone who asks for evidence of a miracle is saying that they believe said miracle is (or should be) either a scientific theory, or a scientific hypothesis?

 

[freezerman2000]

I forget. Some staff person that came to me to impose the reverse-apologetics rules, saying something to the affect that because Christianity did not need defending, I wasn't allowed.

These are the rules I got from Apologetics..

Guidelines for Posting in Christian Apologetics

• Always remember that you are first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of your theological differences and viewpoints.
  
• Do not identify a group of members or a theological viewpoint with a derogatory or inflammatory label.
• NT writers' teachings do not contradict each other or the teachings of Christ. (2 Peter 3:15,16)
• Promotion of unorthodox doctrine is not permitted.
• It is considered off topic to challenge Paul's place as an Apostle.
• It is permissible to discuss biblical/historical topics that may include inflammatory words or phrases as long as the usage of these words does not specifically flame any CF recognized Nicene group or denomination or insinuate that they are not Christians. Please use these words and phrases with caution.
• Examples of inflammatory words/phrases (including but not limited to): idolaters, false/different/other gospel, false prophet, false doctrine, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing,different God, antichrists, Antichrist, cannibalism/cannibal (concerning Eucharist), Judaizer.

If you went against any of those,you would have been asked to leave..

I steer clear of that section.

 

[freezerman2000]

What say we get back to the OP..OK?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists ask that the schools should 'Teach both sides' meaning teach creationism along with evolution in the science class.

Wheat and tares.

Creationists wanting schools to teach both sides is like farmers wanting to plant weeds with their crops.

And wanting creationism taught in science class is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

 

[ScottA]

Math is not a cure all. And of course one can leave out what you don't know and still come to a correct answer, now mathematics disagrees with you. There are many unanswered problems in mathematics, yet there are definite mathematical proofs. Science works with a different process.

As I suspected.

Yes, you are a eyewitness, but your personal witnessing is of almost no value in a debate. If you could actually confirm the Bible then you could post that evidence. All that you really did was to convince yourself, and that is not saying much. On the other hand scientists can demonstrate that evolution is correct and has happened. Creationists have nothing when it comes to supporting their claims. At best they have only failed attacks on the theory of evolution.

You're not paying attention. The subject here cannot be treated as you "believe" everything should be treated. This entire subject is beyond the scope of everything you know. Do you not understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like your signature, SZ:

... especially the first sentenceoes that mean that anyone who asks for evidence of a miracle is saying that they believe said miracle is (or should be) either a scientific theory, or a scientific hypothesis?

If you want scientific evidence of a miracle then you must find a way to use the miracle in a hypothesis. But that should not be a problem if an event ever happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I suspected.

ScottA, you made a silly request, you were politely corrected. There is no excuse for your attitude.

You're not paying attention. The subject here cannot be treated as you "believe" everything should be treated. This entire subject is beyond the scope of everything you know. Do you not understand that?

If you want to claim that then the burden of proof is once again upon you. I have yet to see you offer even the flimsiest of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I am talking about:

That is not "toppling" anything. What you accuse me of toppling was done over one hundred years ago. I am not here to say "there is no God". The theory of evolution does not refute God. It does not even refute the Christian God. It may refute some personal versions of God that various members may have, but that means they only need to look at their interpretation of the Bible again.

ETA: Here is an extreme example. Let's say that there is a Christian out there that believes in a Flat Earth, and trust me they still exist. They base this belief upon their interpretation of the Bible and they accuse you of wanting to "topple their belief in God" when you try to correct them. Let's say that a miracle happens and you convince them that the Earth is a sphere (roughly). Will that suddenly turn that person into an atheist or will he more likely simply reinterpret the Bible so that his interpretation agrees with reality? Personally I think that he would do the latter.

 

[ScottA]

ScottA, you made a silly request, you were politely corrected. There is no excuse for your attitude.



If you want to claim that then the burden of proof is once again upon you. I have yet to see you offer even the flimsiest of evidence.

Until you are willing to admit that you do not know everything, we apparently cannot discuss what you do not know. Never mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until you are willing to admit that you do not know everything, we apparently cannot discuss what you do not know. Never mind.

I never implied that I know everything. But when you make errors it is obvious to all. I am not the only one pointing out your errors here.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Theistic evolutionists use the same evidence as atheistic evolutionists.

That's because science is not a religion. The same evidence is there for all to see and contemplate. For example, you could contemplate the littlest toes on your feet and consider how they were once, in an ancestral species, able to actually grasp things. Now they have no reason for being there except as mute witnesses of your evolutionary past.

 

[bhsmte]

No, that's the problem...you are not "all ears" at all, but "can't" hear what we can only tell you...and then you "won't" hear.

When and if you can defend your many claims, let us know.

 

[ScottA]

I never implied that I know everything. But when you make errors it is obvious to all. I am not the only one pointing out your errors here.

What errors?

And, yes, you more than "imply" that you know everything...because you dismiss everything you do not know as non-existent, after insisting on your own limits as being the measure of all things. Nor will you listen to anything that does not fit your own definition of reality and evidence. Your erection of intellectual blinders is simple self-isolationism, showing that you really don't want to know what is beyond your understanding. If you were truly willing, you would not make such demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What errors?

And, yes, you more than "imply" that you know everything...because you dismiss everything you do not know as non-existent, after insisting on your own limits as being the measure of all things, nor will you listen to anything that does not fit your definition of reality and evidence. Your erection of intellectual blinders is simple self-isolationism, showing that you really don't want to know what is beyond your understanding.

What are you doing here if you can't pay attention?

Your worst error is that you never support any of the claims that you make. That makes your claims worthless. Do you need me to cite some of them for you? And no, I only know far more than you do when it comes to science. Yes, I suppose since it is rather clear that you know far less that that seems like I "know everything", but that is simply an overestimate on your part.

Scott, if you do not understand something the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely.

 

[ScottA]

When and if you can defend your many claims, let us know.

No. It doesn't work that way. You are the measure of your own advancement: If you insist upon not stepping out, you will remain where you are. The choice of evolving, is yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It doesn't work that way. You are the measure of your own advancement: If you insist upon not stepping out, you will remain where you are. The choice of evolving, is yours.

Wow! I see now that you were projecting with the "know everything" attack that you did.

Let's try to get back to the OP. Of course any statement made must be supported by the person that made it when asked.

 

[ScottA]

What are you doing here if you can't pay attention?

Your worst error is that you never support any of the claims that you make. That makes your claims worthless. Do you need me to cite some of them for you? And no, I only know far more than you do when it comes to science. Yes, I suppose since it is rather clear that you know far less that that seems like I "know everything", but that is simply an overestimate on your part.

Scott, if you do not understand something the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely.

You have it all wrong.

I am, in effect, standing on a ridge saying, "Hey, there is something over the next hill you have not seen." My supporting my claims is not even a factor. You cannot hold your position and gain the information...and nothing I say or do will change that. You are simply refusing the information. So don't think you can keep putting it all back on me. You either hear the information and come see, or not. That is your choice to make. But I do not have the choice of bringing the mountain to you, nor have you given me any reason to want to. For all I care, you can go without.