No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[Cabal]

Your "this tells us nothing" is a huge mental block, in my opinion.

What it tells you -- very loudly -- is that we walk by faith and not by sight.

These Internet scientists here are getting a rich dose of how faith operates, and they don't even see it.

Something about us aggravates them, and they attribute it to our lack of knowledge; but it's not, it's our faith they are encountering, and according to Ephesians 6, it is a shield that even Satan cannot penetrate.

In short, you make it look like faith is frantic speculation.

I and many others would rather you didn't.

 

[Cabal]

You don't have to be an astronomer -- all I'm asking you to do is tell me why there are five different theories as to how we got our moon, if your bible is so accurate.

And we never claimed that science is accurate to the level of inerrancy the way you guys do about the Bible. So if your Bible is so accurate, why are there even more "theories"/denominations in Christianity? Why are there so many "theories"/differences of opinion about how God created and how the flood occurred?

If your standard for rejecting something is the level of disagreement among its adherents, then why in the world are you a Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationist method is inconsistently applied, non-rational and stagnatory and these are the reasons why I believe that the creationist method has more reason to take a hike than science.

Does the scientific method tell me Jesus couldn't have resurrected from the dead?

 

[AV1611VET]

And we never claimed that science is accurate to the level of inerrancy the way you guys do about the Bible.

Then your McGraw-Hill bible can take a hike as far as matters of faith are concerned.

 

[Cabal]

Then your McGraw-Hill bible can take a hike as far as matters of faith are concerned.

So why are you a Christian when your more accurate Bible has resulted in a great degree of disparity of opinion among Christians than nature has among scientists?

 

[Cabal]

Does the scientific method tell me Jesus couldn't have resurrected from the dead?

I'm sorry, aren't we addressing Genesis 1 here?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why are you a Christian when your more accurate Bible has resulted in a great degree of disparity of opinion among Christians than nature has among scientists?

Because my faith and salvation isn't based on how this earth came into existence, or how nature operates.

And as far as you equating the amount of disparity with nature's, I question that.

I would say for every law, for every theory, for every hypothesis, and for every idea, there is at least one scientist who disagrees.

 

[Cabal]

Because my faith and salvation isn't based on how this earth came into existence, or how nature operates.

Oh please. Your frantic attempts to make creationism correct belie that statement.

And as far as you equating the amount of disparity with nature's, I question that.

I would say for every law, for every theory, for every hypothesis, and for every idea, there is at least one scientist who disagrees.

And yet that only produces, e.g. 5 divisions with respect to the origin of the moon.

Conversely, one book has produced hundreds of denominations, and you ask each member of each congregation individually, they'll all have differing opinions on different aspects of the Bible given how vague it can be.

Don't pretend that you reject science due to disparity of opinion among scientists when you're a member of a group which is suffering from even greater disparity and makes even loftier claims about its documentation - your inconsistency is fooling no-one.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

Because my faith and salvation isn't based on how this earth came into existence, or how nature operates.

I do hope this doesn't mean you're another of the "god spoke to me" brigade.

 

[driewerf]

Oh please. Your frantic attempts to make creationism correct belie that statement.



And yet that only produces, e.g. 5 divisions with respect to the origin of the moon.

Conversely, one book has produced hundreds of denominations, and you ask each member of each congregation individually, they'll all have differing opinions on different aspects of the Bible given how vague it can be.

Don't pretend that you reject science due to disparity of opinion among scientists when you're a member of a group which is suffering from even greater disparity and makes even loftier claims about its documentation - your inconsistency is fooling no-one.

YouTube - A House Divided

 

[juvenissun]

You can say it all day, it's still wrong.

However, I note with some interest that, as formed, you have a conditional. Let's play with this a little.

Let P stand for "Evolution is false"
and Q stand for "creation is true"

We have the conditional P->Q
and we know that ~Q

SO

If we decide that P->Q represent reality as you seem to believe, we can derive ~P.

1. Show ~P
2 . P->Q
3. ~Q
4. therefore, ~P (2,3 mt)

By your own reckoning, since we have established the relationship P->Q, and we know demonstrably that creationism isn't the case, then evolution must be not false.

Ba boom.

tl;dr Don't appeal to logic unless you're cool with the consequences.

No. The initial condition should be: P or Q.

 

[juvenissun]

Already have challenged it. Waiting for your reply. You seem to think insisting that it's not a false dichotomy is showing it's not.

Although given that you contradicted yourself in the first line, I'm not getting my hopes up.

There are all the other creation myths, which are equally scientifically meritorious, and if evolution is found to be incorrect another scientific theory would likely spring up to explain all data including the anomalous. There are far from two options involved in this.

You are running. Stop and face me.

So far, this is not a MC question, but is a T/F question. The third option is requested.
Other creation account is still creationism.
Give me a clue on what "another theory" could look like.

 

[Split Rock]

You are running. Stop and face me.

So far, this is not a MC question, but is a T/F question. The third option is requested.
Other creation account is still creationism.
Give me a clue on what "another theory" could look like.

I like how you lump all creation accounts under one umbrella. Does that mean they can all be true? As far as other scientific theories, two that come to mind are panspermia and saltation.

 

[juvenissun]

YouTube - A House Divided

This stupid video seriously under estimated the complexity of Christianity. In fact, every Christian has his or her own version of Christianity. It is more than just a few hundred versions. It is in millions or billions.

And, that is another unique beauty of Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

I like how you lump all creation accounts under one umbrella. Does that mean they can all be true? As far as other scientific theories, two that come to mind are panspermia and saltation.

Panspermia is not included in evolution. It is not an alternative to evolution.

The detail process of saltation is still in the domain of evolution. It is simply a faster version.

 

[Tomatoman]

This stupid video seriously under estimated the complexity of Christianity. In fact, every Christian has his or her own version of Christianity. It is more than just a few hundred versions. It is in millions or billions.

And, that is another unique beauty of Christianity.

Complexity? Do me a favour. The reason you lot can't agree on which version is true is because you are trying to make sense of ancient stories, fables and legends that are a mash-mash of the fantastic, the unbelievable and the plain stupid. Complexity indeed! The only thing complex about creationism is the psychiatry necessary to treat it.

 

[sandwiches]

This stupid video seriously under estimated the complexity of Christianity. In fact, every Christian has his or her own version of Christianity. It is more than just a few hundred versions. It is in millions or billions.

And, that is another unique beauty of Christianity.

And yet, each Christian believes they're the one who's right, the True Christians (tm).

 

[Cabal]

You are running. Stop and face me.

As I said, waiting on you. And no offence juve, but you're nothing to be afraid of - never were, either.

So far, this is not a MC question, but is a T/F question. The third option is requested.
Other creation account is still creationism.

As SR said, they cannot all be correct - and from the point of view of science, they are equally void of explanatory ability.

Give me a clue on what "another theory" could look like.

How can I? You are asking me to predict the future. No-one can. This is like saying what creationists latest God of the gaps argument will be.

Evolution has not been falsified yet. It would be naturalistic, but could explain both what evolution could explain and could not explain and was falsified by.

I'm not sure why you're thinking that science wouldn't eventually formulate a new theory if evolution was falsified - evolution has already gone through one major overhaul already from Darwinism to the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It's what always happens - asinine to assume otherwise.

 

[Split Rock]

Panspermia is not included in evolution. It is not an alternative to evolution.

Of course panspermia is not included in evolution, I was offering it as an alternative to evolution! Panspermia (including Directed Panspermia) is an alternative to evolution, because it would also explain the distribution and diversity of life on earth.

The detail process of saltation is still in the domain of evolution. It is simply a faster version.

OK, how about Spontaneous Generation, then?

So, would you like to answer my question, now? Can all creation stories be correct?

 

[Bushido216]

No. The initial condition should be: P or Q.

Then you should've said that.

Regardless, P V Q is neat and all, but you still have yet to give any good reason why we should care.