firedragon
Veteran Member
I observed every creationist I have ever conversed with and / or ever heard speak.
Maybe your scope is very very small.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I observed every creationist I have ever conversed with and / or ever heard speak.
He was not a creationist. You know this since your error was previously corrected.Excellent. You have given ppl like Kent Hovind who was a fake Phd granted by a fake university situated in a house with three rooms. He is no creationist, he is an anti evolution, pseudo scholar. Super going quoting famous evangelists like that off the TV. Quite shallow.
Ill give you a creationist. Ibn Khaldun. Do some research on him.
Nope. Likely projection on your part again.Maybe your scope is very very small.
As I said, you are most welcome to point me to a creationist that is both honest and not ignorant of the sciences involved.
But you won't, will you?
Nope, we never made that claim. Most people in the world do not appear to be creationist. Are you still having a hard time understanding that term? Don't conflate "theist" with "creationist", they do not mean the same thing. Creationism is a rejection of the science that shows Genesis to be mythical. That is all.See, it is you and some other atheists here who are proposing most of humanity in this world are either ignorant, dishonest, or mental. I dont know if you said mental, but maybe you said the other two. So when you say something like that, it is you who has to provide evidence to that claim. Its the burden of proof fallacy to say "I claim this, now prove me wrong". No no. It is only grown up to know that if you claim something, you have to provide evidence.
Thus, please do provide "EVIDENCE" to the fact as you claim most of humanity are either ignorant or dishonest and there are no other options. Please go ahead. Dont neglect this question and respond with some rhetoric.
this observation was wrong but the way you worded it made it a personal attack.No, it is an observation based upon your posts
You can't see it. You can only understand it.
A scientist claiming God is not science. A scientist claiming metaphysical naturalism is not science.
A person claiming God is the above. A person claiming metaphysical naturalism is the above.
Excellent. You have given ppl like Kent Hovind who was a fake Phd granted by a fake university situated in a house with three rooms.
He is no creationist, he is an anti evolution
, pseudo scholar
Super going quoting famous evangelists like that off the TV. Quite shallow.
Ill give you a creationist. Ibn Khaldun. Do some research on him.
Maybe your scope is very very small.
See, it is you and some other atheists here who are proposing most of humanity in this world are either ignorant, dishonest, or mental.
I dont know if you said mental, but maybe you said the other two. So when you say something like that, it is you who has to provide evidence to that claim. Its the burden of proof fallacy to say "I claim this, now prove me wrong".
No no. It is only grown up to know that if you claim something, you have to provide evidence.
Thus, please do provide "EVIDENCE" to the fact as you claim most of humanity are either ignorant or dishonest and there are no other options
Please go ahead. Dont neglect this question and respond with some rhetoric.
And you continue down the endless pit of random comments, pretending they have something to do with the point at hand.
The point at hand was about how creationistic ideas are laughed away in biology departments, just like how flat earth ideas are laughed away by geographers and stork theorists are laughed away by embryologists.
I have no idea what you are talking about, nore how it relates to the point at hand.
My best guess, is that you are once again trying to goad me down the rabbit hole of semantic nonsense.
Ok.
Not seeing the relevancy of this. But ok.
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I guess.
Already gave you the list. You handwaved it away. In dishonest ways even, claiming Kent Hovind isn't a creationist. I acknowledge the dude is a brutal example of exceptional dishonesty and stupidity. But that kind of drives my point home, now doesn't it?
I assure you that it isn't.
Yes. Which is one of many ways in which he is dishonest.
No, it wasn't. Please, no more personal attacks. You made claims. They were shown to be wrong. I offered to help you. You ran away even though you said that you would not.this observation was wrong but the way you worded it made it a personal attack.
You can say "you post in this thread in a supid manner," then I would just have responded "no, I don't". In contrast, "You don't know the basics of logic" is getting personal, though.
But this was way over the top, because it was getting personal.
Can we stop this now?
My assumptions weren't a personal attack, of course. They remained on the subject level.
I don't need any links from your side to understand what is and is not evidence. Please stop trying to educate me. Your offers of "help" are simply getting on my nerves.
What would you do if someone knocks your door saying
"I sell you this insurance, it is quite good"
"no, good bye"
"but I offer you my help!"
"No, get yourself off my door"
"but you need it soo much!"
You see, people can just get on other people's nerves. What would you do to get this person off?
And I stay with my opinion, you can't substanciate your claim that Genesis is a myth.
...
But you ran away from the evidence. You did not even understand the evidence. There is no point in giving you evidence if you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.
That works, sort of. But it does make Genesis mythical. I never tried to claim that science refutes God or even Christianity. It only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis.I know how evidence works even as a religious person. As long as I don't in effect confuse physical, chemical and biological with cultural, the mental and psychological and don't confuse those 2 categories with metaphysics, I can be religious and you can't catch me for my views being wrong.
So I have learned to use the God of the Gaps and metaphysics as where I place my belief in God. And I have learn to do this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
I place my religious belief where science doesn't work and keep them subjective and/or metaphysical.