Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just a friendly reminder. Comments on the statistic seemed to be gaining a somewhat exuberant tone.
Maybe, but not necessarily. And posting a question that is merely rhetorical doesn't invite a lot of confidence that a serious answer will be received seriously.
Thanks. I appreciate your answer. And none of it is necessarily unreasonable, but I still think there are some underlying issues to address. So, do you want to address those issues or do you just want me to cut to the chase and summarizes my thoughts on alternatives to evolution knowing such thoughts are DOA?
Not true. False claims about the opposition is not a wise debating technique. There are a handful of scientists that reject evolution. Very very few of them are biologists. And those that do the work professionally tend to work for places where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method. Which ironically makes the work that they do there not science.I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statistic. After all, whenever a creationist points to a scientist who doesn't accept evolution, it's typically rejected as an appeal to authority or ad populum fallacy.
Or is that the standard now? Things are true based on how many people accept it?
You could have stopped with your first paragraph since that is an admission that you are not going to approach this problem rationally. The OP informed you that without a rational argument you are not going to convince very many people.
I've had these discussions before.
The intent of this thread is more about reminding creationists why evolution hasn't be toppled as a scientific theory. If creationists want to do that, they have their work cut out for them.
Indeed. Especially when you state up front the door is closed - that you're not going to listen. Again, if your only purpose here is mockery, I'm not interested.
Being honest is one part of rational thought. One can be honest and still be irrational.Really? Honesty is a sign of irrational thought? I would have thought you liked honesty.
Here is my first paragraph:
If I proposed anything, it wouldn't be to suggest testing God or any claims of what God has done. That is why I've been asking: what do you really want?
What about that indicates I'm not being rational? Telling you any alternative to evolution I propose would not involve an attempt to test God, but would rather focus on the biological phenomena we can observe is an unreasonable thing to do? Please explain to me why that is. Once educated by you, I imagine I'll be living a much more enlightened life.
no one is saying that the door is closed. The point is that one will find it hard to convince anyone if one does not put one's money where one's mouth is.Not with me, as best I can recall.
Indeed. Especially when you state up front the door is closed - that you're not going to listen. Again, if your only purpose here is mockery, I'm not interested.
And your error is in thinking that you are "testing God". Testing the Bible is not testing God.
no one is saying that the door is closed.
I'm pretty sure @pitabread said it is. Regardless, yeah, I already knew how tough a hill this would be to climb. I don't need you to tell me that.
For clarification, this is what I said:
"In order to formulate [a scientific framework / model for creationism], said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.I'm just not sure how one can test competing ideas that rely on supernaturalism. I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years on how to devise a method to objectively test such ideas, and nobody has come forth with anything.
To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists."
As a problem that creationists need to solve, if it were solvable they would have probably already have come up with a solution.
Where did I ever invoke the supernatural? In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that I have no intention of doing so. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't consider "supernatural" a proper description of God's characteristics. Regardless, I was saying I have no intention of bringing God into the discussion.
Please, you are guilty of your own sin. You said that you would not be testing the Bible. You keep making the typical creationist error of assuming that your beliefs of what the Bible says are the only possible beliefs. What you need to be willing to do is to test your personal beliefs. That is not testing the Bible, it is not testing God. It is rather arrogant to think that one's beliefs are the correct ones no matter what.Where did I say I was going to test the Bible? I said test observable biological phenomena. Are you actually reading what I write?
Please, you are guilty of your own sin. You said that you would not be testing the Bible. You keep making the typical creationist error of assuming that your beliefs of what the Bible says are the only possible beliefs. What you need to be willing to do is to test your personal beliefs. That is not testing the Bible, it is not testing God. It is rather arrogant to think that one's beliefs are the correct ones no matter what.
Let me repeat that testing whether the various stories of the Bible when interpreted literally are correct is not testing God or the Bible. It is testing the literal interpretation. You do realize that Flat Earthers are extreme literalists when it comes to the Bible, don't you? Are they correct in their interpretation?
I wasn't specifically referring to you. I was referring to creationists in general.
If you want to post something different, go ahead.
Ah strawman.I have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you say bears any relation to what I said. From my perspective, the conversation is going like this:
Me - A typical equation of mechanics used by engineers is Newton's F = ma.
You - You arrogant creationist. Stop promoting your narrow-minded interpretations of the Bible.
I did. If you want to start over, we can go back to post 519.
You didn't understand anything I said...Yes, we do.
Are you defining Christianity as including only those believers who reject evolution?
And for Christian scientists who don't take an oath to reject anything which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis regardless of the evidence.
Ah strawman.
Of course.None of them use creationism to do productive work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?