Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,476 Year: 3,733/9,624 Month: 604/974 Week: 217/276 Day: 57/34 Hour: 3/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 57 of 136 (632437)
09-08-2011 2:17 AM

One from Buzsaw:
​
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
It just doesn't come across as an attempt to communicate with anyone else.
Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2011 9:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display

(2)
Message 91 of 136 (633817)
09-16-2011 3:43 PM

Alfred Maddenstein
I'm not sure if Alfred Maddenstein is a creationist, because I have no idea what he thinks except that he's angry at science for no coherent reason. I'd like to nominate him for this:
​
That sub-atomic quantum chaos is miraculously assumed to be the point of lowest universal entropy. Another bit of ludicrous absolutism I was talking about in my previous post. For that assumes that purported Planck unit allegedly well alone in existence at the mythical time zero to be a point of highest possible disorder and the state of highest possible order all in an absolute once.
Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 93 of 136 (633912)
09-17-2011 4:32 AM 		Reply to: Message 92 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 3:38 AM

Re: Alfred Maddenstein
I reckon that people who are not creationist are not creationists.
​
I also reckon that it is possible for someone who is not a creationist to agree with someone who is a creationist on some point (even on some cosmological point such as, to take an example at random, the existence of the sun, moon, and stars) without hypocrisy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:38 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 105 of 136 (633986)
09-17-2011 7:51 PM 		Reply to: Message 103 by Larni
09-17-2011 7:14 PM

Re: Irony or bollocks?
Peek at this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 7:14 PM Larni has not replied
  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 120 of 136 (638158)
10-20-2011 10:09 AM

While citing IamJoseph here is about as sporting as shooting a large fish in a small barrel, I thought that this magnificent contribution should not go unrecognized.
​
Here's my new definition of science:
​
'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS'.
Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Panda, posted 10-20-2011 5:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 123 of 136 (638208)
10-20-2011 2:44 PM 		Reply to: Message 122 by 1.61803
10-20-2011 2:41 PM

For my money, the reason is that it's hard to understand science but it's easy to read the first two chapters of Genesis.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 2:41 PM 1.61803 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2011 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 10-20-2011 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 129 of 136 (638238)
10-20-2011 6:29 PM 		Reply to: Message 125 by subbie
10-20-2011 2:54 PM

And the funny thing is, it's not as though the scientific-minded person needs to study Genesis, because it's not as though the creationist will ever argue for it. You could talk to a hundred creationists for a week and never once hear the words "talking snake".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 10-20-2011 2:54 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024