Is creationism science or not?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Greg Jennings
New member
:think:
Hmmm....ok...I'm going to ask you a very easy, straightforward question. There are no wrong answers here, I just want to know:
What is your definition of evolution?
I've got a feeling it's a bit different from the actual one
alwight
New member
You might get more respect if you didn't treat Genesis as though it were an immutable historical narrative, which is something you've said before iirc, or do you want to tell me otherwise now?
An immutable historical narrative which must always trump science, right?
I am not looking for respect.
You need to think carefully through the words I use; I don't use them lightly.
Respect for what people believe is not a concept that demands acceptance; it means that if you want to disagree with it, you have to enter into rational dialogue with its adherents. You and many other Darwinists — by your own admission — refuse to take anything seriously. You are solely here to mock and ridicule. You're a troll.
I claim Genesis is historical narrative, so we will chalk this up as another example of you simply making things up that might suit your agenda.
And notice that the claim of historicity is a scientific claim; testable and falsifiable. You need to engage on that belief and quit demanding that a belief is equivalent to non-science, which is correctly called bigotry.
alwight
New member
As you so ably demonstrate Stripe you just don't get straight answers from those like you at least, there is perhaps nothing but ridicule and mockery left for those who have indeed sought honest answers in the past, but now really don't expect to get them.
What on earth are you talking about?
How does me being correct about what you said previously become something I made up? :idunno:
You do believe that Genesis is an immutable historical narrative, right?
A yes or no answer is all that is required btw.
Come on, the belief that the universe is only a few thousand years old has already been falsified in so many different ways by all the natural sciences, but creationists, for their own obscure reasons, will not even consider that Genesis may not be the literal truth that they believe it to be, regardless of the science that they are shown over and over again.
lain:
Words. Learn to read. :up:
Easy. You were not correct.
Evolutionists hate reading.
Come on, the belief that the universe is billions of years old has already been falsified in so many different ways by all the natural sciences, but Darwinists, desperate to protect their religion, will not even consider that Genesis might be something to consider, regardless of the science that they are shown over and over again.
lain:
gcthomas
New member
It is a pointless task - he has nothing to offer even the other YECs on ToL in discussions. He has become self parodying.
gcthomas
New member
Like this one from MIT that just has a spring, two dampers and a clutch? No sensors at all, as it happens.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/cheaper-high-performance-prosthetic-knee-0731
alwight
New member
gcthomas
New member
I'll try.
(after this)
That's a good plan.
Good night. Time to batten down the hatches.
If you were you would not lie as you do.
musterion
Well-known member
Hold on a second.
Why are you and others so hell bent on convincing us we're all just hypercranial thumbed primates who accidentally arose from sunlight, water and minerals?
TELL US RIGHT NOW, PLEASE, WHAT WOULD YOU GET OUT OF YOU CONVINCING ANY OF US THAT YOU'RE RIGHT?
If Genesis is false, then it doesn't matter that we believe it. When we die, we'll never know we were wrong.
If materialism is true, then it still doesn't matter. When you die, you'll never know you were right.
Either way, if you're correct then it doesn't matter. NOTHING matters, ultimately. When we die it's the big Lights Out for us all.
So why are you debating this?
I'm going to guess that it's not because you're convinced that materialism is true. That's not what's driving you and the others like you. If you really believed it, you wouldn't waste your time. I know I wouldn't.
What's bugging you is the chance -- and you have admitted that there is a chance, even an outside one -- that Genesis is true.
That's what you can't abide. That is the only thing to explain you arguing for years against (if you're correct) our equivalent to having faith in the Lucky Charms leprechaun.
In other words, you're not fooling anyone. You're clearly unconvinced of what you claim is the truth. That is what drives you to the chronic irrationality of arguing against (if you're correct) the meaningless phantoms of our minds which do not affect you in the slightest.
It shows you are possessed by a form of insanity.
Greg Jennings
New member
I agree, but think you're leaving at least one out. 6days has been reduced to mantras and illogic as well. I wouldn't say he's particularly fruitful to engage with either
So, Stripe has no place here, eh? He can believe in Creation, but not Creationism. It is a word that means the acts of Creation as a whole, written of in Genesis. We're not trying to create a new science whatsoever. I'm not surprised that Stripe would say 'Feel free to never talk to me again.' Just like Evolutionism means the acts of Evolution as a whole. You see. The computer here won't even let me type that word Evolutionism without acknowledging it as a proper word, but it lets me type the word Creationism. You just started this thread to keep others' busy responding and replying here rather than some other thread. And you made 6days be the main reason for starting this thread. Hopefully everyone will be notified of your actions and deceit. How dare you target 6days and post to Stripe the way you do?!! God sees it all and exposes it all.
Michael
Michael
Greg Jennings
New member
No doubt their time would be better spent by engaging rational folk. On that we can agree
Nope, not a chance, not an outside one, nor an inside one. Not a chance that the earth is 6000+/- years old, nor that the universe was created in a week by your god, nor that there was a world wide flood, nor that evolution is not true and an accurate explanation of the real world.
I'll try.
(after this)
Evolutionists hate defending their ideas.
How do you study what you cannot observe?