tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post6191522458941670258..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Yet More Bad Creationist MathematicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-14060607817028163692016-01-31T11:38:20.579-05:002016-01-31T11:38:20.579-05:00Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus) wasn't satis...Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus) wasn't satisfied with one OP demonstrating his lack of knowledge, he decides that a second OP is required. <br /><br />http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/durston-and-craig-on-an-infinite-temporal-past/William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-16333222803168316562016-01-30T08:06:55.058-05:002016-01-30T08:06:55.058-05:00Notice the non-sequitur in the Greater Houston Cre...Notice the non-sequitur in the <i>Greater Houston Creation Association</i>'s faith-statement: "God's world most always agree with God's Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. "<br /><br />Simply but, this is just as likely to be the other way around. If god created the world and inspired men to write the Bible, there's no reason to think the inspired writings are somehow more authoritative on the nature of reality of god's creations. It might just as well be that if one percieves a conflict with the two, yet believe the world to be created, that the written words is mistaken. In fact, since the written word is (to these people) merely inspired but actually written by men, but the real world is supposed to be a direct product of god without any human intermediary, then it seems much more likely that the text should be taken with a grain of salt(after all, men make mistakes, but god is supposed to be perfect) and the real world itself as more true. <br /><br />These people are incapable of rational thought. Even within the confines of their worldview, they fail to correctly apply logic. Up is down, left is right, fallible men are more trustworthy in their writings than their infallible god's direct creations are about their own nature. <br /><br />Deeply held creationist conviction is a mental health disorder. In any other area of intellectual endeavour, being patently irrational and anti-logical would earn you a diagnosis. But somehow religious beliefs are hands-off for psychology. What utter bullshit. They should all be institutionalized. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4452415225114024772016-01-30T07:57:49.694-05:002016-01-30T07:57:49.694-05:00"Can't creationists even get the most bas...<i>"Can't creationists even get the most basic things correct?"</i><br /><br />Perhaps not too surprisingly, to uphold creationism one has to deny even the most basic facts. It is just the nature of the belief. In order to believe in something that is in direct conflict with reality, one has to believe reality itself is false. <br /><br />This is perfectly encapsulated in the creationist doctrine of truth: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/KtaLJeK.gif" rel="nofollow">When reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.</a> Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24924738077779207602016-01-29T17:05:44.061-05:002016-01-29T17:05:44.061-05:00It's a twofer! An apologetic AND an infomercia...It's a twofer! An apologetic AND an infomercial for his book! Plus an appendix on how to apply Intelligent Design to...[drumroll]...designing human-made artifacts!<br />Truly, a dizzying intellectual display by Jonathan Bartlett.<br />Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.com